# Frustrated



## Shadow (Jun 28, 2010)

Hello, I'm looking for some advice. I'm finally able to ride all I want. March, April, May, I rode her darn near every day, since then about 3-4 times a week. I started her at 3 and been the only one of her back. She turned 8 in Feb. I started rein training her earlier this year also. I would say she's trained fairly well western style. I'm to the point of trying to speed things up and when I ask her, because I know for a fact she knows what I am asking, I expect her to do it NOW, not when she gets around to it but when I ask. (There is my frustration!) I have to take it to a place I don't like when I have to keep nagging at her to respond when I ask. She will sure do it when I take it there but I hate doing that.
Is this just another step in her training process? Will she eventually give it up and respond when I ask her without me taking it to that other place?
Just this year, I finally seen a lot more maturity in her. I really think in a couple years I could take her straight up in the bridle if I can get this worked out. 
I also know that earlier this year I was pushing too hard for results and have since backed off a bit but I do still expect her to respond quicker.

Thank you, Shadow


----------



## gssw5 (Jul 30, 2013)

There is an exercise that will help with your problem, it is called cruising and works best in an arena or large area with no trees, or things to get run into, I prefer an arena. The goal is to make the horse responsible for their own feet and maintain the requested gait until told to stop. This is great for horses with sticky feet. Start off at a walk, loose rein and just be a passenger. Do not steer, lean or guide the horse in any way. While your going along just let the horse go where he wants to go, rub on his butt, neck move around in the saddle but no steering. If the horse gets stuck in a corner squeeze, cluck, spank let the horse figure out he is to keep walking. When you get good at a walk ask for a trot, same thing just be a passenger, and then canter. Do not nag the horse to keep going, if he breaks gait let him commit to the mistake for two strides so he knows what he did to get pressured back up then squeeze, cluck, spank, spank, spank until he gets the gait them leave him alone. If your horse gets to close to a fence and rubs you foot or leg that is the only time to touch him, pick up the inside rein and pull his face into the fence and let him bump his nose on the fence.

In my experience broke horses have a more difficult with this exercise because they are used to following the fence. When your horse realizes he can go anywhere he will start circling, diving left or right, cutting across the arena and really have fun. Hope this helps.


----------



## Elana (Jan 28, 2011)

I assume she is not immediately responding to leg pressure to pick up the speed or move up to the next gait? After 5 years of riding this horse should be spot on when asked. 

I use spurs and a dressage whip. Squeeze with your calves and then bump with the spurs and at the same time use the dressage whip immediately behind your leg. The trick in this is using that whip at the same time you squeeze. 

Nagging is what makes a horse dead sided. They just do not respond.. and you have to kick harder and harder and over and over. Phooey on THAT. Nagging an animal is not fair to the animal. Make your request CLEAR and DEFINITIVE and NON NEGOTIABLE. 

Ask and use the whip. Do NOT use it across the butt.. that can create bucking. 

In very short order (a couple of weeks) most horses will very quickly "develop" sensitive sides and move up in speed when you squeeze your calf on them. 

Don't forget to release with your hands when the horse responds. I have seen a lot of people make a horse non responsive to their leg by whacking them in the mouth when the horse moves out and they lose balance.. and then regain balance with the reins. That is unfair too.. ask the horse to move out and then punish him by hitting his mouth.


----------



## Shadow (Jun 28, 2010)

Thank you both and I will give it all a try. 

Shadow


----------



## katbalu (Sep 8, 2011)

Subbing, because I want to read this later. I'll need it 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow (Jun 28, 2010)

Something else I should mention is that I am currently using split reins and after I've squeezed with my legs and she doesn't immediately do what I am asking I lift the rein like I am going to wack her and she will pick up for a few seconds then go right back down. So kinda what I am hearing from you all is that if she doesn't listen to my leg immediately, then I should be wacking her?

She pretty much is slow to respond to most things I ask and I'm sure it is my fault. Side passing, haunches in or out. spinning, pretty much all of it and she definitely knows how to do it because when I have finally had enough and am beyond frustrated I wake her up and man she will do it like I want but then she's kinda wired and not as smooth as I would like.

Shadow


----------



## BreakableRider (Aug 14, 2013)

Yup, you need to be more consistent. 

I personally cluck, squeeze then whack. You don't want that first whack to be real hard, build up in intensity to make sure she can deal with the pressure without acting out. 

Unfortunately, you've taught her to be lazy by never being consistent. It's the same with any cue, if she doesn't respond, build pressure. Sometimes carrying a dressage whip is more convenient, for the side passing and other lateral work. 

She gets wired about it because she is confused, sometimes you're a leader and sometimes you're not. Once you get consistent she will calm down.


----------



## gssw5 (Jul 30, 2013)

Shadow said:


> Something else I should mention is that I am currently using split reins and after I've squeezed with my legs and she doesn't immediately do what I am asking I lift the rein like I am going to wack her and she will pick up for a few seconds then go right back down. So kinda what I am hearing from you all is that if she doesn't listen to my leg immediately, then I should be wacking her?
> 
> She pretty much is slow to respond to most things I ask and I'm sure it is my fault. Side passing, haunches in or out. spinning, pretty much all of it and she definitely knows how to do it because when I have finally had enough and am beyond frustrated I wake her up and man she will do it like I want but then she's kinda wired and not as smooth as I would like.
> 
> Shadow


It is very difficult to do any exercise without impulsion, get the impulsion and the rest will be easy. Since she knows what you want I would squeeze give her one second then spank, she is beyond the teaching stage, and has just learned to ignore you until you go to whack her. I prefer to carry a crop, or use mecate reins any time you mess with the reins they feel it in their mouth so she anticipates when she feels you lifting the reins to whack her moves like you said and then stops, with a slapper, or crop she will not know its coming until she is whacked. Don't let her ignore you, stay consistent once you know she is able to do an exercise well never let her do less then she is able. 

I suggested the cruising exercise in the first post it will work. I do it with all my horses. Lazy horses it un-sticks their feet, hot horses it teaches them to relax but instead of keeping them moving its a lot of shutting down until they figure out what you want. Which ever the case it teaches them to be responsible for their own impulsion so you can work on other things.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

What I am going to try to describe is how I used to get horses so light that all I needed to do was 'tighten' the upper calf of my leg and not move my lower leg even 1 inch. If a horse is irritated by a fly landing on his lower rib-cage, I know darn well he can lope of collected and smooth on the exactly where I want him to lope off. 

Before I start, I want everyone to know that these methods are for very well started horse -- horses that most people would call 'finished horses'. I am talking horses that know walk, trot, lope off on a correct lead. I am talking about horses that are soft and responsive in the bridle, lope a straight line without a fence and lope a round circle in the correct lead. If a horse is not very well broke -- don't use these methods. They are for 'fine-tuning' a broke horses -- not developing green ones.

First, I find that carrying a crop and raising it is completely unacceptable to me. Threatening a horse with rein ends or crop tells me that the rider has never had a horse that responded to the lightest of aids. Never, never, NEVER threaten a horse. 

Nagging at a horse always makes a horse more resistant and less and less obedient. If you are satisfied with begging and nagging a horse 3 or 4 times to get a lope-off in the correct lead, then that is what your horse is always going to require. It also means that the horse will keep requiring more and more pressure get a response. 

Getting a horse to respond to the lightest of aids is about ALL mental for the rider. Horses get no more responsive than the worst response that you accept.

Most people just keep upping the pressure until they 'finally' get the correct result. This only teaches a horse to wait for that final amount of heavy pressure and they never learn to respond to the light 'first request'. I have heard many times that "A rider should keep upping the pressure until they reach the point where the horse responds. A rider should use the least amount of pressure that get the wanted result."

You do not have to analyze this very long and you figure out that you are leaving the question of "How much pressure should be applied?" up to the horse to answer. Not going to happen. He is not going to talk himself into becoming 'light'. He is going to get less and less responsive.

I think that making truly 'finished' horses is what high level trainers do and few amateurs (even those that would be considered expert riders and World Class competitors) ever attain. This is why most (not all) World Champion riders have a trainer that keeps them and their horses 'tuned' and ready.

Amateurs and 'trainer wannabes' just keep applying more and more pressure until they finally get the result. THEN, they take off the pressure. If they are going by the rule of taking off pressure for the correct result, then they are teaching the that responding to a very heavy aid is what is wanted. The horse complies -- requiring 5 or 10 times as much pressure as the rider would like the horse to respond to.

[I am sorry this is dragging out so long. I have never tried to put this concept into words before. It is more difficult than I thought it would be.]

Now, the whole things depends on the rider getting the respect from the horse that the horse WANTS to respond to the lightest 'squeeze' or touch. 

Say we want the horse to go into a jog with just a light squeeze of both legs. This is accomplished in this way: The rider applies a tiny squeeze. Of course the horse ignores it. Then, the trainer/rider applies about 10 times more pressure than he/she has to but does NOT LET THE HORSE GO FORWARD. The rider can spur the hard 4 or 5 times or 'over and under the horse several times -- hard, without letting the horse go forward at all. Then, gather the horse back up (he is probably a little wound about this time) and ASK AGAIN WITH THE VERY LIGHTEST SQUEEZE. 9 out of 10 horses will now listen to that squeeze. The 10th one may take 'two' overhauls. 

Do you see the difference? The first method the rider pushed on the horse harder and harder and the pressure was taken off when the horse finally, begrudgingly responded. That slow, begrudging response is what was rewarded (and trainer for). The second time he was not allowed to respond to the serious overhaul he got and he was ticked to respond to the light aid immediately after that.

The same is true for a lope departure. Ask the horse very lightly with a 'kiss' and a light squeeze with the outside leg behind the girth. If he does not go instantly into a lope, hold him back, spur or thrash his butt and then, quietly reposition him and ask lightly again. I prefer to lope from a walk and not a standstill, but that is just me. I like really smooth, 'head down' departures where the horse pushes off hind end first rather than 'hopping' into a lope with their front ends. It is easier to teach this from a walk than any other way.

Everything you do, should work the same way. You 'over-correct' the horse, bring him back to 'start' and ask again with the lightest possible aid. Then and only then can to get the opportunity to reward the right thing. Do this consistently and you will have a horse that the most seasoned observer will not be able to see you cue. 

Again, this is NOT for green horses but only for horses that know what you want and do it consistently but not quickly enough. 

A high level trainer that hauls high level youth and amateurs spends much of their time 'tuning up' their youth and amateur horses to keep them light and honest and performing at a high level. Most trainers will tell you that every reining horse, cutting horse or Equitation horse only has so many tune-ups in them. Then, they figure out the difference between the trainer and the horse's regular exhibitor. Most exhibitors then sell that horse to a lower level rider and get a new one that has only been 'trainer ridden'. 

This is all because the amateur rider usually accepts less of a response. It is back to old saying*:
**The worst performance you accept is the very best performance you have any right to expect!!*

So, OP -- If you have been accepting a pitiful response, your horse has figured out just how to give you just that.​


----------



## Shadow (Jun 28, 2010)

Everything you all have said makes total sense. Definitely my fault. She's the first and only one I've started and She's been waiting on me to catch up and learn myself how to teach her. I've been behind her for quite a while now.

Looking forward to trying this, she is broke enough to take it but man is she gonna come alive. I guarantee she will respond when I ask when she is "overhauled" so to speak. She will now after I've nagged on her til I've had enough.

Thank you all again,

Shadow


----------



## katbalu (Sep 8, 2011)

I'd like to hear about your progress, if you're willing to update
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## trailhorserider (Oct 13, 2009)

Superb post Cherie! 

I don't have a horse that needs this now (two are pretty responsive and one is a greenie) but I could definitely have used this on a horse or two in the past. 

I'm saving your post for future reference.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

subbing


----------



## Shadow (Jun 28, 2010)

Will let all know how things go. Shadow


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

this is the first I have ever heard of going to "10" but not allowing the hrose to go forward when it reacts to the spanking. If you are not working with a "finished horse", but say one that has some training, and certainly knows what leg on means, do you go to "10" but allow the hrose to leap forward?


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

No! A horse in training does not need that much of a tune-up. But, you can sure get one to start responding much better and get one much lighter if you 'over-cue' him and then bring the horse back to 'start', trap his head with more contact and ask again but much more lightly. This is what most serious trainers do all along after that first 90 days or so.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

I don't disagree with Cherie on how you might fix the problem, though I wonder why "most serious trainers" have to do this? Ray Hunt would say don't ruin that horse's desire to help you, you take away his interest in doing what you want him to do by drilling him, training on him. He said you kill that horse's try by not accepting and rewarding the smallest change, and the slightest try. Now you need to beat some effort back into that horse, and if you don't change your approach that caused this in the first place, pretty soon that horse will be totally soured and it'll be tossing it's head, pinning it's ears, and swishing it's tail every time you ask it to do something.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Cherie said:


> No! A horse in training does not need that much of a tune-up. But, you can sure get one to start responding much better and get one much lighter if you 'over-cue' him and then bring the horse back to 'start', trap his head with more contact and ask again but much more lightly. This is what most serious trainers do all along after that first 90 days or so.



it seems like a punishment. maybe that is what it is , a punishment, and the idea is to create a big impression in his mind. I mean, spanking him but disallowing him to move forward, then asking very quietly the next time. seems like a spanking, a punishment. not that that isn't called for.
I just never heard of that before. I have always been told to get big, yes, and be ready for a horse that may leap forward, but if the hrose jumps forward, not to punish their mouth for doing that.

under what circumstances WOULD you do as I thought was correct?


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> I don't disagree with Cherie on how you might fix the problem, though I wonder why "most serious trainers" have to do this? Ray Hunt would say don't ruin that horse's desire to help you, you take away his interest in doing what you want him to do by drilling him, training on him. He said you kill that horse's try by not accepting and rewarding the smallest change, and the slightest try. Now you need to beat some effort back into that horse, and if you don't change your approach that caused this in the first place, pretty soon that horse will be totally soured and it'll be tossing it's head, pinning it's ears, and swishing it's tail every time you ask it to do something.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Mike, I find this very interesting. What would YOU advice, specifically, for this young rider and this horse?
I am ingrigued by Cherie's comment, and now your's.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

I don't think what Cherie described kills the try, and to emphasize, it's about getting try out of a more broke horse that has realized that you aren't going to ask a whole lot out of him and has become stagnant. It doesn't mean that you have hammer on them hard constantly to the point of fying his brain.
If done right it should liven up the try and if rewarded right it should keep the horse trying.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

But the big point, is she is saying that you get really big, to "10", really quick, and DO NOT ALLOW HIM TO MOVE FORWARD IN RESPONSE. That is crutial and is the point that I find unusual.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> But the big point, is she is saying that you get really big, to "10", really quick, and DO NOT ALLOW HIM TO MOVE FORWARD IN RESPONSE. That is crutial and is the point that I find unusual.


 
I see what you are saying,_ on a horse that knows better_, he should be stepping off into the lope not quick trotting into it. And allowing him to do so only teaches that he can be lazy rather than getting the lope off correct. 
He needs to step up under himself get up into the bridle and step off correctly, the right response is the lope not a lazy strung out trot for three strides then strike off. 
You can ask a lot of a horse and he will keep trying if reward him equally.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

COWCHICK77 said:


> I don't think what Cherie described kills the try, and to emphasize, it's about getting try out of a more broke horse that has realized that you aren't going to ask a whole lot out of him and has become stagnant. It doesn't mean that you have hammer on them hard constantly to the point of fying his brain.
> If done right it should liven up the try and if rewarded right it should keep the horse trying.


Not Cherie, the OP killed the try, now all you can do is get really firm like Cherie said. My point was after you firm up and get the try back you better reward the smallest change and slightest try, and not do the same thing you did that got into the mess you're trying to fix now.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> Not Cherie, the OP killed the try, now all you can do is get really firm like Cherie said. My point was after you firm up and get the try back you better reward the smallest change and slightest try, and not do the same thing you did that got into the mess you're trying to fix now.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh okay, I guess I misread your post. Apologies


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

> I wonder why "most serious trainers' have to do this?


The serious trainer is trying to keep a horse tuned up for an amateur or youth who does not not get the respect or response that is needed to keep winning (or at least riding at a higher level). So, the horses usually goes downhill -- some very fast and some gradually. Obviously the owner/rider is not riding at that high a level but they want to win or at least make a good showing. Most are not going to do it on their own. That is why they need a trainer and/or a coach to start with. They want to ride above the level they are capable of training a horse for. They want to buy a winning 'finished' and then they want him to stay that good and not go south.



> Ray Hunt would say don't ruin that horse's desire to help you, you take away his interest in doing what you want him to do by drilling him, training on him.


Actually just the opposite is true. You 'hammer' the mediocrity out of him and he gladly responds to the light aids you use to replace the hated nagging. If you do it right, and follow up with consistent use of light aids, only reminding him occasionally that you won't accept less, he will stay happy and responsive. The only reward a horse needs is a lack of punishment. The worst punishment you can do to him is pecking and nagging at him.

If you want a sour, sullen unwilling horse, just demand very little and constantly nag and peck at him. You will kill ALL try and get nothing better than what you have been accepting.

When you get after a horse that really knows better and get after him hard and immediately set him back up to ask again, with a very light touch, you have told him in a way he understands that you want the best that he can give. A 'good' horse that is not being asked to do something that is beyond his capabilities will cheer right up and try to give you the right response. You will see a better attitude, a light response and a MUCH happier horse. Nothing destroys an attitude worse than constant nagging and pecking.

This is a very advanced training concept. It is why I have not explained it earlier because most people who have not trained or at least ridden high level performance horses do not understand how it works and probably get in trouble trying it because it is way over the average rider's capability.

When I work with riders aspiring to get to big shows or ride competitively at a high level I try to stress that riding at a high level and training at a high level is about 60% mental ability and mind-set and about 40% riding ability. You ride and train at a high level with your head. Your hands and legs just follow through with your mental mind-set.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

Don't sacrifice the method for the goal. It's not about nagging at them, it's about letting them know they did the right thing, and encouraging them. It's not about accepting mediocrity, you can be very particular, but never be critical. If a horse gets mediocre and you have to hammer on him, that's your fault and he shouldn't have to be punished for your failings.*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shadow (Jun 28, 2010)

Up until I posted this thread I dreaded going out and riding her. It was almost miserable. I rode yesterday and this morning doing exactly like Cherie had said. It was the first two rides I've enjoyed on her in a very long time. Instead of nagging all day long like I was doing before, when she ignored my asking, I did like Cherie had said immediately and tried again. She responded way better, not perfect but hopefully that will come. Her roll backs were quicker, her stops very crisp. Backing was smoother than it has been for a very long time. Now that I know what I was doing wrong and won't let her "train" me. We have had the "release for the slightest try" beat into our heads so much and I do believe I have very good hands, Once I had her trained she knew I would give to the slightest of her tries and her tries just kept getting slighter and slighter and I didn't even realize she was training me and I was still releasing.
I actually think she was in a better mood after the rides also, I know I sure was. I won't be able to ride her for a week but I'll keep with it and update all in a few weeks. I'm going to go slow and only do a few maneuvers each ride so as not to be after her constantly.
After the last cpl days, I really believe this is going to work.
By the way, I have very bad aim so my "overhauls" are usually me whacking the heck out of myself and not her!!!! But she knows the action and it's enough to wake her up and start listening.

The only thing I didn't like is that she was trying to run through the bit while waking her up but don't think there is any way to avoid that.

Shadow


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Excellent posts Cherie!

My horse is a finished horse, light light light and very sensitive. I have on occasion asked for a lope departure and had the old 'meh, give me a minute, meh ok' attitude, then a hop into it......I promptly pulled that horse down, sat deep, gathered my reins, spanked his butt, then scored him in the walk and asked again with the slightest shift of my seat and leg moving to squeeze and had the 'yes, ma'am' response HE WAS TRAINED TO DO. A properly finished horse needs to be met at a level of expectancy that they were trained for.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Absolutely the way it is. When you let one give you less than what he is trained to do, he will quickly slide down to that level and then just keep going down. Don't ever expectt anything better from any horse than the worst response you accept.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Yeah well I've let him spin not to hot, he gets sticky in the spin now (my fault - I've thrown him off balance by stepping too deep into my inside stirrup) so now I'm riding lots of tough circles right now and riding hard out of a lot of spins, he comes into the spin rounded, soft and one spin in he flattens out and gets sticky and sometimes coke-bottles on me, I've unbalanced him.......ugh! Exactly a good example of a horse meeting you at your level. I'm thankful he's not a sassy horse, because if he wasn't so forgiving I think I'd have created a monster by now!


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Shadow -- I think you are well on your way. Like I try to stress, an obedient horse that is a happy horse. I would expect a complete turnaround in her attitude since you quit letting her talk you into nagging and pecking. And yes, riding this way is a lot more fun -- for both of you.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

> Say we want the horse to go into a jog with just a light squeeze of both legs. This is accomplished in this way: The rider applies a tiny squeeze. Of course the horse ignores it. Then, the trainer/rider applies about 10 times more pressure than he/she has to but does NOT LET THE HORSE GO FORWARD. The rider can spur the hard 4 or 5 times or 'over and under the horse several times -- hard, without letting the horse go forward at all. Then, gather the horse back up (he is probably a little wound about this time) and ASK AGAIN WITH THE VERY LIGHTEST SQUEEZE.


using this same reasoning for a different problem: a horse that wont stop as abruptly as it should, would you pull 10 times harder than necessary while spurring it forward hard enough to negate that pull?


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

A horse not stopping as well as it should is a lot different than a horse tuning out leg aids and 'teaching' a rider to nag and peck and threaten them with a crop or reins.

First are you talking about a reining type sliding stop where the horse rounds his back, throws his butt up underneath himself and 'walks' along with his front feet?

Or are you talking about a low level saddle horse 'pull on the reins' stop?

'Good' stops are not accomplished by pulling on the reins. So yanking on them harder would not be the answer, would it.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

christopher said:


> using this same reasoning for a different problem: a horse that wont stop as abruptly as it should, would you pull 10 times harder than necessary while spurring it forward hard enough to negate that pull?


You don't pull on the face. Everyone has seen the pictures of horses of horses with their heads up bracing in the stop, that is what causes that.

If my _fully trained horse(_I think some are getting hung up on the difference between training a horse and a fully trained one_)_ is being lazy and didn't give an effort in the stop, I will get after him with my feet, not the face. I will soften the face if he is rude there but not to correct the laziness.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

ok forget i said pull, it was said as an easily identifiable example, and i fully agree that you shouldn't just pull to stop.

but regardless of what your cue to stop is, if a horse is "tuning out to it", why would you abruptly increase that cue, only to then go to any lengths to negate the horses response? and if you wouldn't, why would you do it for a horse that was tuning out to any other cue?

not saying that in OPs case you shouldn't abruptly increase the cue to get a response, i fully agree with really getting after this horse, but why would you then stop the horse from responding? as it is i'd be more inclined to let the horse jump forward.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

christopher said:


> ok forget i said pull, it was said as an easily identifiable example, and i fully agree that you shouldn't just pull to stop.
> 
> but regardless of what your cue to stop is, if a horse is "tuning out to it", why would you abruptly increase that cue, only to then go to any lengths to negate the horses response? and if you wouldn't, why would you do it for a horse that was tuning out to any other cue?
> 
> not saying that in OPs case you shouldn't abruptly increase the cue to get a response, i fully agree with really getting after this horse, but why would you then stop the horse from responding? as it is i'd be more inclined to let the horse jump forward.


Christopher, it's a psychological trick, a lot of GOOD reining trainers can get a horse working on the head of a pin just by tricking him into thinking its easier to do a task than it is to refuse. See, if my horse doesn't lope off as soon as I ask, I pull his butt into the ground, spank his butt all the while containing him then I walk a few steps scoring him (rounded, soft on the bit) and ask again LIGHTLY.....he WILL decide that 'hey last time I didn't lope off sucked, this time I WANT to lope off straight away. It's the difference between intimidating a horse with harder and harder pressure and tricking his mind into WANTING to do something.

ETA: my horse is finished and KNOWS his job - therefore will be ridden with more expectancy than a green horse.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

The stopping thing is an entirely different problem. It must be addressed much differently -- after sore hocks or stifles, sore back or shoulders, and other possible problems have been explored.

On the getting after a horse for not listening to leg aids --- the reason you hold the horse back or abruptly bring him back to the place where you are again asking for the response is so that you can immediately ask with a light aid and 9 times out of ten, he will respond correctly. The 'over-haul' is to get his attention and make him WANT to listen for the light aid -- which he will do. He will respond with the best transition that he has been trained to do where nagging just gets increasingly poor transitions.


----------



## Oldhorselady (Feb 7, 2012)

I'm wondering if spanking with split reins across shoulder to shoulder is wrong as compared to swinging back to spank the butt?


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Hmmm I always spank the butt as I fear I may smack the his head by accident , but I have used the split rein to enforce moving the shoulders as my horse had very tall riders who would bump his shoulders in the back up, where my stumps just don't reach that far, I only had to do it twice to enforce my different leg position.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> See, if my horse doesn't lope off as soon as I ask, I pull his butt into the ground, spank his butt all the while containing him then I walk a few steps scoring him (rounded, soft on the bit) and ask again LIGHTLY.....he WILL decide that 'hey last time I didn't lope off sucked, this time I WANT to lope off straight away.


your horse (according to behavioural science) is more likely to decide "hey last time i was asked to lope off i ended up being stopped and spanked, while my natural response to spanking, which would've probably been to lope off, was withheld. loping off must the wrong response to the original cue"

also if your horse was finished and knew his job he would do his job without needing to be spanked into it. nothing against spanking, and nothing against your horse, thats just how it is. horses do what they know to do to relieve pressure. and if they are asked to lope, yet get that relief of pressure after having not loped (not loping includes having their "butt pulled into the ground"), they're simply going to be less likely to lope again in future.

cherie, here is a parallel that i suspect you'll understand: a horse that, when asked to canter from a trot, will keep trotting faster. what would you do in that case? probably the same as what i've seen you advise to countless others, which is to "over/under" their butt into gear and really get them going into a fast canter or even gallop, instead of just "begging" them to canter. you probably wouldn't "not let them go forward at all" in that case, so why do you advise it in this case? especially seeing as though both OPs problem and a horse that will trot faster instead of cantering are essentially different symptoms of the same problem - not enough forward impulsion.

so what i dont get is why holding them back while you "spur the hard 4 or 5 times or 'over and under the horse several times -- hard" will work any better than spurring or over & undering them, but letting them find that promptly going forward will relieve them of that, thus solving the problem.

also i just read this while i was typing:


> On the getting after a horse for not listening to leg aids --- the reason you hold the horse back or abruptly bring him back to the place where you are again asking for the response is so that you can immediately ask with a light aid and 9 times out of ten, he will respond correctly. The 'over-haul' is to get his attention and make him WANT to listen for the light aid -- which he will do. He will respond with the best transition that he has been trained to do where nagging just gets increasingly poor transitions.


i understand why you might take the horse back to where the original problem happened & get a better transition there, and i understand why the "over-haul" works, but to somewhat negate the effectiveness of the 'over-haul' for the sake of keeping the horse in the same spot it originally gave a dull transition seems counter-productive.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Quoted from Christopher:

your horse (according to behavioural science) is more likely to decide "hey last time I was asked to lope off I ended up being stopped and spanked, while my natural response to spanking, which would've probably been to lope off, was withheld. Loping off must the wrong response to the original cue"

Also if your horse was finished and knew his job he would do his job without needing to be spanked into it. Nothing against spanking, and nothing against your horse, that's just how it is. Horses do what they know to do to relieve pressure. And if they are asked to lope, yet get that relief of pressure after having not loped (not loping includes having their "butt pulled into the ground"), they're simply going to be less likely to lope again in future.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not understanding what I am saying, I DON'T WANT HIM TO LOPE OFF AT A SPANK, when I pull him down for not loping off I am saying 'NO, that was the wrong response to my LIGHT leg cue, now lets try again'. He knows IMMEDIATELY that he responded the wrong way to my cue. If he doesn't lope off nicely he doesn't get the relief off pressure, he gets stopped and reminded that moving off my leg is easier than having his butt pulled into the ground. 

A finished horse is not forever finished, they do require reminders. My horse does know his job, but if you think that once a horse is 'finished' that it stays that way then I'm Afraid you might be disappointed when you realize that horses are not robots and donor stay the same from day to day.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> If he doesn't lope off nicely he doesn't get the relief off pressure, he gets stopped


going from asking to lope, to asking to stop, you have to give him relief somewhere along the line because they are opposite movements, with different cues for each.

because the "stop cue" and the "lope cue" are different, and you can't reasonably be asking a horse to lope while you're asking it to stop, at some point you have to relieve the horse of the "lope cue" without it having actually loped.

someone's quote: "the worst behaviour you accept is the best behaviour you can expect" comes to mind. you're expecting the horse to lope, yet accepting A: not loping and B: stopping. neither of which are loping.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

christopher said:


> going from asking to lope, to asking to stop, you have to give him relief somewhere along the line because they are opposite movements, with different cues for each.
> 
> because the "stop cue" and the "lope cue" are different, and you can't reasonably be asking a horse to lope while you're asking it to stop, at some point you have to relieve the horse of the "lope cue" without it having actually loped.
> 
> someone's quote: "the worst behaviour you accept is the best behaviour you can expect" comes to mind. you're expecting the horse to lope, yet accepting A: not loping and B: stopping. neither of which are loping.


I must ask, have you ridden a horse that is so finished that you just have to 'think' about doing something and it will do it? Have you ridden a horse where your cues are imperceptible to someone looking on? 

Here's how it goes with me, I score my horse, so he's rounded and soft in the face, I slide my outside leg back and my seat shifts slightly, if he ho hums or hops not the lope with his head popping up (a matter of two strides) then I shut him down and ask him again, if I let him dawdle along or hop into the lope then I am allowing that. So in essence I am expecting the horse to lope off 'correctly' not just lope, I like to allow my horse to make mistakes because that's how they learn, if I babysit him all the time he learns nothing. 

So yes, the worse behavior I accept is the worst behavior I can expect. Therefore by allowing a poor departure I can expect poor departures. 

Yes, stop cue and lope cue are very different, however he gets no relief if he doesn't not depart properly, as soon as he lopes of correctly everything gets easy for him. He has a great work ethic and he was trained by a Canadian Reining team member, who I worked for and who I still consult with and take lessons with their co-trainer. So I don't think they've taught me wrong in wanting a nice easy lope departure.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Lots of good posts on here, and partly subbing so I can read again later, too much to take in on one sitting.

All I want to add, having had the pleasure of riding a trained reiner a couple of times this year, I get the difference between a fully trained horse, and, err my horses. I reward effort, and trying in my projects and greenies, but I would not on the reiner, she knows her job, and I expect her to do it, if not we stop and start again.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> I must ask, have you ridden a horse that is so finished that you just have to 'think' about doing something and it will do it? Have you ridden a horse where your cues are imperceptible to someone looking on?


yes 



> Here's how it goes with me, I score my horse, so he's rounded and soft in the face, I slide my outside leg back and my seat shifts slightly


fair enough



> if he ho hums or hops not the lope with his head popping up (a matter of two strides) then I shut him down and ask him again


ok, because that will eventually form an infinite loop of you unsuccessfully asking, then re-asking, then re-asking etc (interestingly, exactly like a horse that will trot faster instead of cantering, when a rider either stops asking for the canter, or keeps asking at the same rate, and/or slows them back to the trot they were initially at, then "re-asks"), how many times would you be willing to repeat that process before changing method? and which method would you change to? and why weren't you using that method from day 1?



> if I let him dawdle along or hop into the lope then I am allowing that. So in essence I am expecting the horse to lope off 'correctly' not just lope, I like to allow my horse to make mistakes because that's how they learn, if I babysit him all the time he learns nothing. So yes, the worse behavior I accept is the worst behavior I can expect. Therefore by allowing a poor departure I can expect poor departure.


i'm not suggesting you let him dawdle along or do it wrong so that's irrelevant. but there does come a time when (with the method you've detailed above) the horse simply won't lope at all because your lope cue no longer means lope and comes to mean "i'm about to pull your butt into the ground"



> Yes, stop cue and lope cue are very different, however he gets no relief if he doesn't not depart properly, as soon as he lopes of correctly everything gets easy for him


as it should be



> He has a great work ethic and he was trained by a Canadian Reining team member, who I worked for and who I still consult with and take lessons with their co-trainer. So I don't think they've taught me wrong in wanting a nice easy lope departure.


this has less to do with your horse and his prior training, and more to do with the effectiveness of your method for training a horse to transition into a canter without being sluggish.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

No, no, no ,no.....I guess this is why the thread is called 'frustrated'. If I use a spank for a lope departure on a FINISHED horse, then all is lost, all that will do is make him jump into a lope and panic and rush into it, if i ask a FINISHED horse to depart on the lope and he ho hums then hops into it, then i have to stop him right then and correct and let him try again by repositioning him for success. If I pull him down and spank his butt, I am saying 'no, wake up, let's try again'. If I just let him lope off willy-nilly then I have essentially taught him the wrong thing. He doesn't correlate getting his butt stopped with loping, he correlates it with being ho hum and not departing correctly......when he does depart correctly then his release is the easy loose lope.....

I don't think you see the correlation of how loping is broken down into parts for a horse to learn. It's not just a gait or speed. It has parts. The departure comes before the body of the lope, and then there is speeding up and slowing down and then stopping. That's how I think, I don't see the lope as a whole. A departure is just that, a departure. 

As Cherie explained earlier is what I do and she has been on more horses than either you or I have taken breaths. Sorry I really think you just don't understand. May I ask, have you ridden a finished Reiner?......and I mean the finished kind......


I give up.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

I see you say you're a reining rider/trainer in another thread:? Then you should understand the importance of a good lead departure and how the lope is parts not just a whole. Anyway, each to their own. I'm a reining rider and I will never reach the conclusion of being a trainer, too much to learn and not enough breaths left in me to do it. I'd rather be a rider who thinks.


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

Lots of awesome info here! I'm subbing as well. Also, I will say that I currently ride a horse who is solid at third level dressage. I am a novice dressage rider and he definetly knows it. I used to nag him into the canter, but my trainer taught me to correct the problem using Cherie's method. If I lightly ask for the canter and don't get it, we stop, I ask again with a big old wallop that he won't forget, then I allow him to go forward. I only had to "get after him once" and haven't had a problem since. I now ride him with exact cues, no nagging, and he knows he better go forward immediately when I ask him to. The idea is that ou make a single, big impression that the horse won't forget. Plus, he is much happier not being nagged IMO.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Muppet, I agree with you. Training a younger horse that may not know exactly what you are asking for, that would be the wrong way to go about correcting an improper departure, but on a _broke_ horse who occasionally gets "blah" about stuff, it's best and quickest to correct immediately.

It doesn't matter if they lope really nice or if their lope is a nightmare, the departure needs to be corrected as a _departure_, not as a lope. If you sort of ignore the departure because the horse lopes nice, then you can never expect the horse to have a nice departure. You let a _broke_ horse bumble his way around when he knows exactly what you're asking for but is just being lazy and refusing to do it, then you're spoiling him and undoing his training.

Christopher, I wonder if maybe you've just never implemented the method they are talking about. It's a method mostly used for _finished_ horses who sometimes get "ho-hum" to the aids. Whether they are being ridden by a lower level rider or they just aren't feeling it that day, it happens sometimes. I don't know about anyone else, but whenever I'm on a finished horse and they bumble their way into a partial lope departure, they never get passed the first stride or 2 of a trot. They aren't actually _in_ a lope when I shut them down. SO, by your reasoning, they aren't learning that


> "hey last time I was asked to lope off I ended up being stopped and spanked, while my natural response to spanking, which would've probably been to lope off, was withheld. Loping off must the wrong response to the original cue


They are learning that _trotting_ off was the wrong response to the original cue and that it's completely unacceptable.

On a finished horse that does this, to slam him down, get after him a bit, walk him out, and then ask again, you'll get the correct response the second time almost without question...providing that you are asking correctly.


However, on even young horses, a modified version of this method works well. My young horse who is still <30 rides sometimes gets sticky with the left lead on a straightaway. Whenever I cue for the left lead and he gets sticky, I simply bring him down to a stop (I don't slam him because he's still young and isn't perfectly balanced), I might sidepass to remind him to move those hindquarters off that right leg, then I ask again. At first, it took maybe 4-5 times of bringing him back down before he picked it up. Now, on the rare occasion that he does get sticky, one little "refocus" and he'll get it right.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> If I use a spank for a lope departure on a FINISHED horse, then all is lost, all that will do is make him jump into a lope and panic and rush into it, if i ask a FINISHED horse to depart on the lope and he ho hums then hops into it, then i have to stop him right then and correct and let him try again by repositioning him for success. If I pull him down and spank his butt, I am saying 'no, wake up, let's try again'. If I just let him lope off willy-nilly then I have essentially taught him the wrong thing. He doesn't correlate getting his butt stopped with loping, he correlates it with being ho hum and not departing correctly......when he does depart correctly then his release is the easy loose lope.....
> 
> I don't think you see the correlation of how loping is broken down into parts for a horse to learn. It's not just a gait or speed. It has parts. The departure comes before the body of the lope, and then there is speeding up and slowing down and then stopping. That's how I think, I don't see the lope as a whole. A departure is just that, a departure.
> 
> ...


i think we are confusing 2 different topics. you are talking about the quality of lope departures from a reining perspective, on which i actually agree with what you're saying.

i was questioning why holding them back while spurring or over/undering would increase their sensitivity/response time moreso than spurring or over/undering without holding them back - purely relating to getting the horse to move more forward. regardless of the quality from a reining perspective.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

christopher said:


> i think we are confusing 2 different topics. you are talking about the quality of lope departures from a reining perspective, on which i actually agree with what you're saying.
> 
> i was questioning why holding them back while spurring or over/undering would increase their sensitivity/response time moreso than spurring or over/undering without holding them back - purely relating to getting the horse to move more forward. regardless of the quality from a reining perspective.


I use spurs to lift my horse and for lateral movement, I don't use spurs for speed. If I roll both my spurs on my horse while loping I essentially slow him down because I lift his rib cage and shorten his stride. I bump with my LEG, shift my seat and offer him the reins to speed up. But spurs come after a shift in seat. Always seat, legs, hands, spurs. Some very very good horses will change direction just with the turn of your head.

If I am entering a run down AT A LOPE and my horse doesn't speed up when I cue him, THEN I will over and under and increase my speed to the end of the arena, pick up and slow the lope around the short end and reenter the run down down the long side again or diagonally across the arena, WHEN the horse is picking up speed fluidly and in a CONTROLLED way and is travelling straight, round and soft (solely from my cluck and seat cues) then I ask for a stop (slide) I ALLOW THE HORSE TO STOP, therefore creating a desire in him to travel correctly and pick up speed into the run down without creating anticipation. He doesn't stop until he is travelling correctly. Again nothing to do with a lope departure. 

The desire to run down correctly also has nothing to do with the horse wanting to slide either. The quality of your run down however does predict how correctly your horse is going to slide though, again just ONE part of the lope, speed control - and has nothing to do with the lope cue. Once I ask my horse to lope everything is released, I don't need to keep a leg on him, I only put a leg on him to change speed. He will keep loping until I say do something different.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

I don't have reiners but I understand & use Muppergirls method with the exception using an "ack" or some other verbal cue instead of a physical spank (probably because I have Arabians :wink. 
I agree, it is about the departure.
I bought a mare who was allowed to Roadster pony into a canter. She knew no other way. I taught her first on a lunge line & yes, I shut her right down & asked again quickly. It didn't take her long to figure that a canter cue meant now & it easily transferred to under saddle. 
It's not mean or confusing to them if your timing is right.


----------



## lchad (Oct 26, 2010)

Great thread! Can someone explain to me what "over and under" is?


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

lchad said:


> Great thread! Can someone explain to me what "over and under" is?


Using the long split reins to spank the horse, essentially a western crop. I will ride with one hand and then pick up both reins in the other hand and use them to spank the horses butt.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Ichad, over and under can either be used to describe a piece of tack similar to a whip or it can be used as a verb to describe the action of taking a long piece of leather/cloth or a bridle rein and using it to spank the horse on alternating sides.

You can see her using the over and under in the first few seconds of this video


----------



## lchad (Oct 26, 2010)

Got it! Thanks! Have done it but never knew it was called that! Thanks again!


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> If I am entering a run down AT A LOPE and my horse doesn't speed up when I cue him, THEN I will over and under and increase my speed to the end of the arena


ok but if WHILE you were already loping (forget about the departure) the horse wasnt speeding up as much as you'd like or being sluggish in your run down, you wouldn't you pull his butt into the ground and spank him, and you would over/under and let him respond to it, like you've said above?

everything else you've said is fair enough & i mostly agree with you, but the question of how would holding them back while getting after them to go forward work better than getting after them go to forward but allowing them to respond to it, as far as PURELY going forward or responding faster is concerned, remains unanswered.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Using your romel to get some speed is one thing but clutching one is another. You might need to do both in order to get a good run down for a correct stop.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

christopher said:


> ok but if WHILE you were already loping (forget about the departure) the horse wasnt speeding up as much as you'd like or being sluggish in your run down, you wouldn't you pull his butt into the ground and spank him, and you would over/under and let him respond to it, like you've said above?
> 
> everything else you've said is fair enough & i mostly agree with you, but the question of how would holding them back while getting after them to go forward work better than getting after them go to forward but allowing them to respond to it, as far as PURELY going forward or responding faster is concerned, remains unanswered.


It is not unanswered, I DONOT WANT TO TEACH MY HORSE TO DEPART INTO THE LOPE FROM A SPANK BECAUSE IT WILL MAKE HIM JUMP,HOP AND GET NERVOUS IN HIS DEPARTS HENCE WHY I SHUT HIM DOWN AND WAKE HIM UP, THEN REPOSITION HIM TO DO THE RIGHT THING. I AM NOT GETTING AFTER HIM TO GO FORWARD, I AM GETTING AFTER HIM TO DEPART PROPERLY. 

I over and under DURING the lope FOR SPEED, CONTROLLED SPEED. 

Really, you don't give horses enough credit to understand these things. 

Here is a good example if a show jumping horse (since reining has been the subject you might see it from another angle here) being spanked for refusing, notice the rider holds the horse, spanks, pauses then asks the horse to jump again at which point the horse does so quite willingly and energetically.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

I think this training issue is about YOUR energy. You have to learn when to increase your energy to get the horse to do something quicker, then relax so he knows he did it right, but not so much as to quit riding.....

My little neighbor who rides at my house is having this problem. She is a calm energy person, so horses do not run away with her, but they do not want to go. It is impossible for me to teach, so I keep telling her about it, hoping she can figure it out.

Sorry I cannot explain myself better....guess that is why I don't give lessons, huh??

Nancy


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

christopher said:


> ok but if WHILE you were already loping (forget about the departure) the horse wasnt speeding up as much as you'd like or being sluggish in your run down, you wouldn't you pull his butt into the ground and spank him, and you would over/under and let him respond to it, like you've said above?
> 
> everything else you've said is fair enough & i mostly agree with you, but the question of how would holding them back while getting after them to go forward work better than getting after them go to forward but allowing them to respond to it, as far as PURELY going forward or responding faster is concerned, remains unanswered.


Christopher-I am not sure why you are not understanding that this concept is to get nice clean transitions. Not a step out of place. Horses like Muppets KNOW what is expected and are just being lazy. I will assure you that horse, as well as both of mine know only too well what I am asking. If they choose, in a manner of speaking, to give me the finger, they get stopped, corrected and we start again. I used this same method to teach my old draft cross, who rode English, transitions for a command class. Same thing.  If the judge asks for a lope-they want and expect it in no more than a stride. Any transition. So you better be able to do it. My reining horse happens to be one who tests. He knows full well what I am asking, but chooses (as Muppet says-let them make the mistake-they learn from that) to be a brat-so he gets stopped and we start again. It is not counterproductive to what we are teaching, since we are not just looking to lope. We are looking for a crisp, clean transition. Anyone can kick a horse into a lope. A trained horse steps right up into it the second they are asked. That is the difference. If you are, as Muppet said-training reiners?-you will not get far unless you have NOW transitions. THe other thing you will notice is that reiners ask for ONE manuever at a time and there is waiting time-I like to think of it as time for the horse to think....in between. You will always see a pause between stops, spins, lopes, etc. My trainer is ALWAYS telling me to wait for my horse before asking for the next maneuver. But watch them. They might stand for several seconds before asking for the next thing.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

It is not so odd that Christopher should not see the logic in this. I would be willing to try this based only on my respect for Cherie and her experience gained very the years. She must know that it works. I trust her.
But, it does go counter to what I have been taught to apply to training, and that is to reward them when they do what you ask. 
And yes, they did not respond to "go" when asked at a whisper. They made a wrong choice, which was to ignore that, and that gets them NO release. They get asked again, and I would go to "10" pretty fast, and offered the chance to respond correctly, and when they do, they are rewarded by being allowed to go forward without any more pain. This is what I have always been taught. That they will see that release comes in going forward, and will not want to be spanked again but will go forward sooner, fearing that the spanking will come if they do not. (simplistic explanation).

I see that Cherie's explanation puts a whole 'nother way of thinking on it, and I am intrigued by this. But, in Christopher's defense, it is not so unfathomable that someone would not agree with this or think it correct training method.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> But, it does go counter to what I have been taught to apply to training, and that is to reward them when they do what you ask.
> 
> But, see, that's the thing. Muppet is talking about a horse that *didn't* do what was asked. That's why he's not getting a release. In those instances, we are *not* simply asking for more speed, we are asking for a correct lope departure.
> 
> ...


IMHO, that's due to the lack of having ever ridden a horse of that caliber. I'm not talking a 6+ figure winning reining horse either, just a very well broke, and well _trained_ horse. That's where the gulf between the known and the unknown is really seen. Folks who have never ridden or schooled a high caliber horse don't know the methods to _keep_ such horses high caliber. And, because they have no experience on which to compare or base knowledge, they normally go with what their common sense tells them.

There's nothing _wrong_ with that, but once you get to a certain point in the quality of training between your legs, some things that seem counter-intuitive to the layman are actually quite sensible to the knowledgeable horseman.

Compare the canter departure of this horse




 
To the canter departure of this horse




 

Granted, these 2 horses are on completely opposite ends of the training spectrum, but it greatly illustrates the difference in the quality of action a person is asking for. The rider in the second video is only concerned with getting the horse into the lope. They don't care if the horse is collected or if the horse is balanced or if the horse responds quickly. 90% of riders are just exactly like that, regardless of how old or how broke their horse is. So long as the horse ends up in the lope, they don't care how he _got_ there.

On the other hand, the first video shows a rider with certain expectations for the horse and the horse has been trained to meet those expectations. The rider has to keep every part of that departure sharp, from the very first step. 


"Forward" is easy. "Proper" forward can be very hard.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Oh I want Wimpy!!! I wish my lead change was as nice!! And I say MY lead change, not Henrys!:lol:


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I would like to 'LIKE' smrobs post several times over please.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

muppetgirl: your points, *while i do agree with* *them*, are still relating to the quality of the transitions from a specific disciplines perspective, and not answering how holding one back while telling it to go forward (and simply forward - that is to disregard any of the "finer points" about specific transitions for specific disciplines - and focus ONLY on getting a horse to go forward more than it was before) would make it want to go forward moreso than just telling it to go forward.
forget about reining and forget about lope departures (cheries original example actually specified jog rather than lope), if you were simply practicing going from A to B at ANY gait, and you wanted the horse to respond sooner and with less pressure (which is what i gather OPs question is, as OP didn't enquire about how you would go about achieving a quality transition, rather, about how to get a prompt response to an unspecified cue) to whatever cue(s) you use to go from A to B, _why would multiplying that cue by 10, WHILE preventing the horse from responding to that cue, make it any more sensitive to that cue_? _regardless of the quality, and regardless of what discipline you're practicing for, why would it work?_

franknbeans and smrobs: i fully understand that on a horse with a consistent and prompt transition into a gait, if you were to be working on (or maintaining, in the case of muppetgirls finished horse) the transition, *for the transitions sake*, you would get good results using the method that muppetgirl and yourselves have specified, which is agreeably much the same as what i do when working on the quality of a transition. but this isn't about achieving that, it's about about achieving the exact same transition that the horse would've done either way, but more promptly and with less pressure.

this confusion of topics is why i originally reversed the example and applied the principle that cherie had presented to the act stopping. so i am going to (hopefully) clarify by applying the same principle to various other movements aswell.

the principle (applied to transitioning into a jog in this case) being: "Say we want the horse to go into a jog with just a light squeeze of both legs. This is accomplished in this way: The rider applies a tiny squeeze. Of course the horse ignores it. Then, the trainer/rider applies about 10 times more pressure than he/she has to but does NOT LET THE HORSE GO FORWARD. The rider can spur the hard 4 or 5 times or 'over and under the horse several times -- hard"

if you were cueing a horse to spin to the right, and you were unhappy with his response "promptness", or felt he was ignoring you, would you then multiply your "spin to the right" cue by 10, while doing whatever it took to stop your horse from spinning to the right? and if you wouldn't, why would you do it when asking a jorse to jog?

if you were cueing a horse to do a stop, and you were unhappy with his response "promptness", or felt he was ignoring you, would you then multiply your "do a stop" cue by 10, while doing whatever it took to stop your horse from stopping?

and if you were asking any horse to turn left with no more than a direct rein to the left, and you felt like he was ignoring you, would you use your left direct rein 10 times harder than before, while using enough right direct rein to entirely nullify the effect of your left direct rein? and if not, why would you do the same thing when asking a horse to jog?


if there is 1 thing that is true about ANY good training method that i've ever seen ever anywhere for any animal, including humans, it is that when it's "boiled down" to a "fundamental principle", when that principle is applied to other "movements" or other animals or anything, it is always effective and reliable and reproducible. an example of a fundamental principle would be operant conditioning.
all i'm after is to be told what fundamental principle explains why giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response withheld, would be more effective than giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response allowed.

eta: sorry for wall 'o text.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Quoted from Christopher: (and yes it was a wall of text similar to something from animal behaviour blocks I did at university)

All i'm after is to be told what fundamental principle explains why giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response withheld, would be more effective than giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response allowed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Christopher, and I have to say this with all due respect, but you sound to me so black and white in your thinking here. Absolutely in no way does 'applying and unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by ten, with the animals correct response withheld' explain or even define in anyway what any of us were saying. Again, THE RESPONSE WAS NOT CORRECT SO THE HORSE WAS STOPPED, TUNED UP WITH THE END OF A SPLIT REIN AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND CORRECTLY. Just like the jumper in the video I posted for you to watch.

Regardless of what I'm asking, if the horse does not respond appropriately I am going to do something g to convince him that it's easier to do what I'm asking.

You mentioned spinning. Never do you beat up on a horse in a spin, if he enters the spin all sticky or bent or starts throwing his back end around you fix it OUTSIDE of the spin because you want him to WANT to be in the spin. The fact that you even phrased your example as 'spurring a horse' and 'cueing ten times stronger' in the spin tells me that you don't train reiners like the reiners I've ridden, and I've been fortunate enough to have ridden some top horses. 

I don't get after a horse ten times stronger, I stop him from doing something the wrong way and show him the right way, and I show him where the best place to be is. If my horse starts kicking his rear end out in the spin, I drive him out of the spin and circle him tight at a lope in the direction I was spinning and make him hustle then bring him back down into the spin and RELEASE my aids and let him spin, he learns that being in the spin and spinning correctly is better than being out and having to hustle. So answer me this now, was the way I deal with a coke bottle spin 'cueing ten times stronger' or was it not? I think not.

Example number two, if my horse is over bent in the spin, do I start jerking on his face and thumping him with my spur to straighten him up? NO, I side pass him out of the spin in the direction he was spinning and have him re-enter the spin in a perfect position, then I RELEASE him into the spin. Was that cueing ten times stronger? I think not. It was stopping the wrong response and showing him the correct response.


I'm not getting into this with you anymore. I have politely given wordy time consuming responses to you, as have others and you are still stuck on a simple training correction that is fundamental amongst many trainers worldwide and has been explained over and over again to you.

Hey if you just have a problem with a horse being spanked, just say so, instead of trying to get people to 'explain' themselves to you. I've taken the liberty of explaining the things I do, as have others, now I'm just starting to think you have a chip on your shoulder.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> Absolutely in no way does 'applying and unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by ten, with the animals correct response withheld' explain or even define in anyway what any of us were saying.


really? because responding too "I know for a fact she knows what I am asking, I expect her to do it NOW, not when she gets around to it but when I ask" with (now keep in mind this is about getting a horse to jog, i assume from either a standstill or a walk) "The rider applies a tiny squeeze. Of course the horse ignores it. Then, the trainer/rider applies about 10 times more pressure than he/she has to but does NOT LET THE HORSE GO.", and therefore withholding the jog, sounds awfully like that to me. and i've had no reason (keeping in mind that talking about how you would correct a poorly performed transition doesnt count as a reason, because the "promptness" - regarding when and with how much pressure it happens - and the performance - regarding a horse "ho humming" into it or panicking and rushing into it, thus performing it wrong - of a transition are very different issues. i'm sure we've all seen or ridden horses that would only give low quality responses to very slight cues, and horses that would give good quality responses only to huge cues) to suspect otherwise.



> Again, THE RESPONSE WAS NOT CORRECT SO THE HORSE WAS STOPPED, TUNED UP WITH THE END OF A SPLIT REIN AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND CORRECTLY. Just like the jumper in the video I posted for you to watch.


in the original example you gave with your horse you are indeed correct. as i've been willing to admit prior to, and including, now. but we are still talking about totally different things. you are talking about the actual response and the quality of the response from a reining (or jumping) perspective. which is fair enough and i agree on those points. but i am talking about the response time and the amount of pressure it takes to induce that desired response, regardless of what the desired response is. you could be a beginner rider wanting to stop a horse for the first time ever, or a top reining or dressage rider asking your horse to do a top level movement, my question is the same: why would withholding the desirable response to the appropriate cue (albeit multiplied by 10) ever be beneficial?



> Regardless of what I'm asking, if the horse does not respond appropriately I am going to do something g to convince him that it's easier to do what I'm asking.


as it should be.



> You mentioned spinning. Never do you beat up on a horse in a spin, if he enters the spin all sticky or bent or starts throwing his back end around you fix it OUTSIDE of the spin because you want him to WANT to be in the spin. The fact that you even phrased your example as 'spurring a horse' and 'cueing ten times stronger' in the spin tells me that you don't train reiners like the reiners I've ridden, and I've been fortunate enough to have ridden some top horses.


i fully agree that you'd fix those issues similarly to how you suggest fixing a poor lope departure (i.e. stop and promtply reposition for the particular movement, or work on some aspect of the movement independently of the movement). i phrased that example the way i did because, as i pointed out, if a training "method" is based on not only personal experience but explainable behavioural science, you will consistently be able to "boil it down" to whatever fundamental principle is at work and successfully apply that same mechanism to other maneouvers, disciplines or even other animals. which is something that cant be said about what was suggested on page 1, about asking a horse to jog.



> I don't get after a horse ten times stronger, I stop him from doing something the wrong way and show him the right way, and I show him where the best place to be is. If my horse starts kicking his rear end out in the spin, I drive him out of the spin and circle him tight at a lope in the direction I was spinning and make him hustle then bring him back down into the spin and RELEASE my aids and let him spin, he learns that being in the spin and spinning correctly is better than being out and having to hustle. So answer me this now, was the way I deal with a coke bottle spin 'cueing ten times stronger' or was it not? I think not.


no it wasnt ten times stronger. but the method you've detailed for fixing a horses spin works on sound "fundamental principles" and can be explained, repeated and applied to anything.



> Example number two, if my horse is over bent in the spin, do I start jerking on his face and thumping him with my spur to straighten him up? NO, I side pass him out of the spin in the direction he was spinning and have him re-enter the spin in a perfect position, then I RELEASE him into the spin. Was that cueing ten times stronger? I think not. It was stopping the wrong response and showing him the correct response.


and again i agree. so long as you also end the whole sequence (that is, including the time you come out of the spin to fix one broken "part" of it, followed by trying again - just like what you said about lope departs) after a "quality" 90 or 180 or more degrees of turn. just like you wouldnt stop "re-trying" to get a good lope departure, you would consistently reposition and retry untill they gave you a quality lope depart, at which point "his release is the easy loose lope", as you said.




> I'm not getting into this with you anymore. I have politely given wordy time consuming responses to you, as have others and you are still stuck on a simple training correction that is fundamental amongst many trainers worldwide and has been explained over and over again to you.


i understand completely what you've said in regards to getting _proper_ lope departures, and spins, and i agree. but it just doesn't explain why driving a horse forward with X cue, only to hold it back with a contrary cue, will work to get a horse responding sooner and with less pressure than just driving a horse forward with X cue. which is what was said on page 1



> Hey if you just have a problem with a horse being spanked, just say so, instead of trying to get people to 'explain' themselves to you. I've taken the liberty of explaining the things I do, as have others, now I'm just starting to think you have a chip on your shoulder.


no problem with spanking a horse, i'd do it however hard i need too, if i need too. but i certainly wouldn't go about negating the effort, and i would certainly let them go forward if thats what i originally wanted.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Christopher-you keep saying you agree, you understand-so why do you keep arguing? I am just curious. Every single correction Muppet has given an example of breaks down to the overused phrase...."make the right thing easy....." If it is the very basic concept you wanted-there you have it. The difference is that on a BROKE horse you have different expectations (higher) and therefore use different corrections. They are a more advanced form than you would use on a greenie, as they should be. The first time a horse trots, all you want is the trot. Period. You reward that they got there. Every ride after that you are trying to get better at it. Same with spins, sidepass, etc....you start with a step. Once they know that-the expectation increases with their knowledge.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> Christopher-you keep saying you agree, you understand-so why do you keep arguing?


because a logical conclusion hasn't been reached i guess. my question isn't being answered. i am indeed getting a lot of good answers, & thats why i keep saying i agree, but none of them answer the question that i'm asking.



> Every single correction Muppet has given an example of breaks down to the overused phrase...."make the right thing easy....." If it is the very basic concept you wanted-there you have it. The difference is that on a BROKE horse you have different expectations (higher) and therefore use different corrections. They are a more advanced form than you would use on a greenie, as they should be. The first time a horse trots, all you want is the trot. Period. You reward that they got there. Every ride after that you are trying to get better at it. Same with spins, sidepass, etc....you start with a step. Once they know that-the expectation increases with their knowledge.


yes you're right. & yet again i agree.
but how is excessively cueing a horse to trot, while preventing it from trotting (as seen on page 1), anything other than making the right thing (trotting) difficult (or even impossible)? even on a broke horse it doesnt make any sense.


i will now also point out that, despite how it might seem, i dont mean to come across as disrespectful to anyone. i'm only here to point out what i perceive to be flaws in reasoning & either learn from that or help other people learn from that. not simply to be argumentative.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

I will try one more time.....Perhaps this will help. I see it as a "quality" issue. In a broke horse we are refining quality, of whatever it is we are working on at the time. When a broke horse gives me the finger and is subpar in performance by not performing up to the level they are capable of, they are brought back to a stop, disciplined, and asked to pay attention and start again. Perhaps you can look at it from the perspective that we are getting their full attention back on us, the rider and the task at hand.

I find it a bit funny that our (mine, muppets and some of the others here) horses seem to understand.......;-)


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

You hold the horse back or bring him as quickly as possible back to the gait and frame he was in where you originally asked for the transition. You DO NOT let him charge forward in an even worse transition. The response you get from the over-haul is sure not what you want him to think is the accepted response. If you let him continue on, you would be 'rewarding' that terrible over-reaction. You could not expect the over-haul to improve him response a bit and probably would see even worse responses in the future. If you do not hold him back and immediately set him back up for a quality transition, you would have wasted the effort and made things worse.

So, instead accepting the poor original response or the worse response of over-reacting, you 'set him up' and start over. You very lightly ask with the very lightest cue that the horse should have responded to. You give him another chance to do it right (which they almost always do) by responding correctly, with very good form, to that tiny imperceptible cue. The last thing you want is the horse learning to charge willy-nilly wildly into the asked for gait. You MUST hold him back and then let him do it all over and get it right. 

Most well trained or 'finished' horses KNOW exactly what they did wrong. They get so good at knowing exactly what they are doing that they just automatically ride better for the trainer than the amateur/owner that lets things slide and does not require a higher level of response. This becomes VERY frustrating to both trainers and owner/riders. It is the main reason that many trainers prefer training 'dumb' horses over very smart ones if they are going to be great amateur horses. The very smart ones just get 'wise' too quickly to be good amateur and beginner level show horses.

I hope this finally gets the reasoning and psychology across to those people that just do not understand the underlying principals of training truly 'honest' finished horses. I KNOW it does not follow the published concepts of animal behaviorists. But then, the 'experts' are writing how they THINK it should work in an animal's mind. The experts have never ridden, much less trained, a high level show horse and the horses have not read their books and articles. I take 'experts' with a large portion of suspicion. I would rather listen to a successful trainer than a 'so called' expert.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

not funny at all that your horses seem to understand. because you are referring to the quality or performance of a particular maneouver. in which case, by all means stop and reposition or isolate & correct a specific aspect of the maneouver, 'outside of' the maneouver.

as right as that is and as right as you are to say that, it still is irrelavent to the question. how well a horse does a movement and how much pressure or how long it takes to get them to do that movement are different things. i am asking about one and getting answers to the other. the question OP had seemed (to me) to be about response time and the amount of pressure it takes to induce a response, and i was simply asking how preventing the horse from complying will make him more likely to comply sooner or with less pressure in future. which is the notion that was presented on page 1.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

OK, say I nicely ask my husband to take out the garbage, he doesn't move or even glance my way. I then grab him by his shirt, hold on tight & kick him in the butt. When I let him go & ask again he sprints to the garbage while saying, "Yes, my Darling. Sorry I didn't leap up at your first request. What else can I do for you my Queen?" 
See how that works?

(For the record I don't really have a husband. I sometimes wonder why? :think


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Shaking head! Giving up!


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

my prior post was directed at franknbeans' post and didnt address any of the following points from cherie



Cherie said:


> You hold the horse back or bring him as quickly as possible back to the gait and frame he was in where you originally asked for the transition. You DO NOT let him charge forward in an even worse transition. The response you get from the over-haul is sure not what you want him to think is the accepted response. If you let him continue on, you would be 'rewarding' that terrible over-reaction. You could not expect the over-haul to improve him response a bit and probably would see even worse responses in the future. If you do not hold him back and immediately set him back up for a quality transition, you would have wasted the effort and made things worse. So, instead accepting the poor original response or the worse response of over-reacting, you 'set him up' and start over. You very lightly ask with the very lightest cue that the horse should have responded to. You give him another chance to do it right (which they almost always do) by responding correctly, with very good form, to that tiny imperceptible cue. The last thing you want is the horse learning to charge willy-nilly wildly into the asked for gait. You MUST hold him back and then let him do it all over and get it right.


ok then. now we are getting closer to an answer. my follow up question is: why are you trying to induce a response (or over-reaction like you said) if that isn't what you wanted? why not just induce the response you wanted in the 1st place then reward it?



> Most well trained or 'finished' horses KNOW exactly what they did wrong. They get so good at knowing exactly what they are doing that they just automatically ride better for the trainer than the amateur/owner that lets things slide and does not require a higher level of response. This becomes VERY frustrating to both trainers and owner/riders. It is the main reason that many trainers prefer training 'dumb' horses over very smart ones if they are going to be great amateur horses. The very smart ones just get 'wise' too quickly to be good amateur and beginner level show horses.


that's right, but that's also a different problem - as OP is the only person who's ever ridden this horse.



> I hope this finally gets the reasoning and psychology across to those people that just do not understand the underlying principals of training truly 'honest' finished horses. I KNOW it does not follow the published concepts of animal behaviorists. But then, the 'experts' are writing how they THINK it should work in an animal's mind. The experts have never ridden, much less trained, a high level show horse and the horses have not read their books and articles. I take 'experts' with a large portion of suspicion. I would rather listen to a successful trainer than a 'so called' expert.


it isnt that thats how they think it should work, it's that thats how it has been observed & explained using science to work. but if thats your philosophy then thats fair enough. i too would rather listen to a successful trainer, but most of the time, when i analyse what successful trainers have said, it's provides proof of what the "experts" have said. & thats why i'm skeptical in this case.

& natisha it would be nothing like that. it would be like you asking your husband to take the garbage out then when he doesnt respond, locking him in the house, thus preventing him from taking the garbage out, while shouting "take the garbage out" at him, when he's simply unable to comply because you've prevented him doing so.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

christopher said:


> not funny at all that your horses seem to understand. because you are referring to the *quality* or performance of a particular maneouver. in which case, by all means stop and reposition or isolate & correct a specific aspect of the maneouver, 'outside of' the maneouver.
> 
> as right as that is and as right as you are to say that, it still is irrelavent to the question. *how well a horse does a movement and how much pressure or how long it takes to get them to do that movement are different things.* i am asking about one and getting answers to the other. the question OP had seemed (to me) to be about response time and the amount of pressure it takes to induce a response, and i was simply asking how preventing the horse from complying will make him more likely to comply sooner or with less pressure in future. which is the notion that was presented on page 1.


Do you not see that "*how well a horse does a movement and how much pressure or how long it takes to get them to do the maneuver...*" are very relevant. They are all part of the *quality*. 

I think Cherie explained it really well, and if you don't understand WHY, I certainly cannot help you.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

christopher said:


> my prior post was directed at franknbeans' post and didnt address any of the following points from cherie
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, actually, I think Natisha was perhaps trying to not be too graphic. If she asks, DH does not respond, she kicks him in front of his butt (you know where).....thus preventing him from reacting right then....I would bet the next time she asked he would hop to it!:lol:


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Actually, I have found many profound teachings of experts that are not proven out in actual horse training.

I am waiting for some 'academic expert' to tell me why restraints work so well on horses (and even on much smarter mules) when they are prey animals and restraints should dive them nuts instead of calming them down.

No one that has not used or watched 'laying a horse down' or restraining one with '4-way hobbles' has any idea what-so-ever how effective this is and how much it can change a bad-*** or fearful attitude or even a viscous horse that likes to attack or has tried to kill someone. 4-way hobbles will quiet and completely change a horse that panics or even tries to self-destruct over some non-life threatening thing it has gotten in its head.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

christopher said:


> not funny at all that your horses seem to understand. because you are referring to the quality or performance of a particular maneouver. in which case, by all means stop and reposition or isolate & correct a specific aspect of the maneouver, 'outside of' the maneouver.
> 
> as right as that is and as right as you are to say that, it still is irrelavent to the question. how well a horse does a movement and how much pressure or how long it takes to get them to do that movement are different things. i am asking about one and getting answers to the other. the question OP had seemed (to me) to be about response time and the amount of pressure it takes to induce a response, and i was simply asking how preventing the horse from complying will make him more likely to comply sooner or with less pressure in future. which is the notion that was presented on page 1.


OK, I think I see where you're coming from. The holding back & spank is not asking the horse to canter or whatever but not letting it. It's more of a punishment (for lack of a better word) for not complying correctly in the first place, for example trotting fast instead of cantering. That's why it is reserved for horses that do know what the cues mean but just chose to ignore it. You're saying "no, not a fast trot", then set them up & ask again. 
The horse then does as asked quickly to avoid another spank.
If you simply kept asking over & over you would likely get the same sluggish response over & over. Again, the wake up call is only for a trained horse. A baby would be confused.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> No, actually, I think Natisha was perhaps trying to not be too graphic. If she asks, DH does not respond, she kicks him in front of his butt (you know where).....thus preventing him from reacting right then....I would bet the next time she asked he would hop to it!:lol:


I would be very careful where I kicked DH because I might have another job for him to do later:wink:


----------



## Boo Walker (Jul 25, 2012)

Great job Shadow! It seems like you've found an effective way to "explain" your expectations to your horse and now you're seeing results. It's always easier to succeed when you know the rules up front!


----------



## katbalu (Sep 8, 2011)

Cherie, I wish you would write a book so that I could buy it. There's some people that I wish I could just stick a Zip drive in their brain. You are one of them 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

christopher said:


> as right as that is and as right as you are to say that, it still is irrelavent to the question. how well a horse does a movement and how much pressure or how long it takes to get them to do that movement are different things
> 
> No, they *aren't* different things. A horse is *not* doing a maneuver well if they have to be stuck with a spur or poundpoundpound on their sides or whipwhipwhip with the rein to get them to do the maneuver. The maneuver is not done well unless it is done immediately on light aids.
> 
> ...


I don't understand how you're missing the point here. We aren't talking about preventing a horse from complying with anything because they weren't _trying_ to comply. The horse is being insolent and begrudging in their response. THAT is what is being corrected.

When you have a horse at the level we're talking here (which is where I understood the OP's horse to be since she is training it _as a reiner_), you can't separate the quality of response from the actual movement. At that point, they are one in the same. Either the quality is good and the response is immediate to light cues or the movement is _not_ correct. 

You either expect and receive the correct, high quality movement every single time or you might as well just not bother at all. If you don't expect and demand high quality every single time, then you will never receive high quality.

As Cherie has said repeatedly. The worst response you accept is the best you can expect.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

Christopher, I agree with your point, that a correction should be a direct consequence of noncompliance, versus a punishment that's unrelated to what the horse did.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sahara (Jul 23, 2010)

What is your advice then as to how the OP can correct her horse's non-compliance?


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

Lets go back to the husband taking out the trash analogy. You tell him to take out the trash, and he doesn't. So a moment later you kick him in the butt without saying a word. A moment after that you ask him again to take out the trash, but this time your going to expect him to do it because he's automatically going to know that butt kicking you gave him a moment ago was to let him know you were serious about taking out the trash. That's the problem with Cheries method, and why she said it will only work on a finished horse, the expectation is that the horse will automatically make that connection. What Christopher is saying is you tell husband take out the trash, and if he doesn't you kick his butt at the same time telling him, "I said take out the trash!" You see there is no doubt what you wanted him to do, same as the horse, if his turns are sloppy get after him while asking for the turn. That way you know he knows what your asking. Cheries way will work only if the horse makes that connection hopefully.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> Lets go back to the husband taking out the trash analogy. You tell him to take out the trash, and he doesn't. So a moment later you kick him in the butt without saying a word. A moment after that you ask him again to take out the trash, but this time your going to expect him to do it because he's automatically going to know that butt kicking you gave him a moment ago was to let him know you were serious about taking out the trash. That's the problem with Cheries method, and why she said it will only work on a finished horse, the expectation is that the horse will automatically make that connection. What Christopher is saying is you tell husband take out the trash, and if he doesn't you kick his butt at the same time telling him, "I said take out the trash!" You see there is no doubt what you wanted him to do, same as the horse, if his turns are sloppy get after him while asking for the turn. That way you know he knows what your asking. Cheries way will work only if the horse makes that connection hopefully.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Pray do tell how you make the connection with a FINISHED reining horse then? 

Lets forget the humanized taking out the trash analogy and let's APPLY YOUR method to a finished horse like the OPs.........


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)




----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> ... if his turns are sloppy get after him while asking for the turn. That way you know he knows what your asking. Cheries way will work only if the horse makes that connection hopefully.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Funny you should mention that, because actually if I had a horse that was sloppy and not trying in the turn around, I take him out of it work him hard on some small circles(not letting him turn around) once I get effort I ask nicely for the turn around again. 
It's about making the right answer easy.

Same with the example for the lope off. If he doesn't do it right and is lazy, strung out. I am going to clutch him- drive him over the bit and get after him with my spurs to get the hind end going up where it should and get his back up. Then I ask nicely, he lopes off correctly I leave him alone.
Again making the right answer the easiest answer.
Lazy shouldn't be an option.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> Pray do tell how you make the connection with a FINISHED reining horse then?
> 
> Lets forget the humanized taking out the trash analogy and let's APPLY YOUR method to a finished horse like the OPs.........


I like Cowchick's get the life up idea because if they're dragging through the turns, most likely there isn't much quality in the rest of it. For the turn specifically, I'd ask for the turn then enforce it with the romal, or if you ride with split reins, get a quirt. The old timers knew what they were doing, they used a quirt or romal instead of spurs or a whip. They knew a spank will lighten a horse up, where as a poke or a hit will cause them to tighten and contract to protect themselves.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Could you quote which post by Cowchick you are referring to? I want to be sure I am understanding. Thanks.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

COWCHICK77 said:


> Funny you should mention that, because actually if I had a horse that was sloppy and not trying in the turn around, I take him out of it work him hard on some small circles(not letting him turn around) once I get effort I ask nicely for the turn around again.
> It's about making the right answer easy.
> 
> Same with the example for the lope off. If he doesn't do it right and is lazy, strung out. I am going to clutch him- drive him over the bit and get after him with my spurs to get the hind end going up where it should and get his back up. Then I ask nicely, he lopes off correctly I leave him alone.
> ...


_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

The way I am reading that, she is doing the same thing with the lope that Cherie, muppet and I have talked about. Exactly. With stops-pretty much what I would do for sure. Small circles at a fast trot or lope so that they are LOOKING to spin as it is easier. Yup-just what we have been saying.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> I like Cowchick's get the life up idea because if they're dragging through the turns, most likely there isn't much quality in the rest of it. For the turn specifically, I'd ask for the turn then enforce it with the romal, or if you ride with split reins, get a quirt. The old timers knew what they were doing, they used a quirt or romal instead of spurs or a whip. They knew a spank will lighten a horse up, where as a poke or a hit will cause them to tighten and contract to protect themselves.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



How is a spank with a quirt different from a swat with a dressage whip? Is it just the ferocity that you are talking about? 
The few times I have "gotten after" a horse with a dressage whip as a punishment, I smack three times in rapid succession back on his flank area. Obviously, it's quick and I can't pinpoint aim. It's a whap! whap! Whap! with the last one being a bit harder.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> How is a spank with a quirt different from a swat with a dressage whip? Is it just the ferocity that you are talking about?
> The few times I have "gotten after" a horse with a dressage whip as a punishment, I smack three times in rapid succession back on his flank area. Obviously, it's quick and I can't pinpoint aim. It's a whap! whap! Whap! with the last one being a bit harder.


It's a matter of psi, the quirt is flexible with a wide leather popper at the end. The popper is more of a noise maker and won't sting the horse. It'll liven up a horse but won't really hurt them. Because of the softness you couldn't spank them in as fast a succession as a whip either.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

I've seen welts from spilt reins, quirts, dressage whips, jockey bats........they sting IF YOU MEAN IT:wink:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> It's a matter of psi, the quirt is flexible with a wide leather popper at the end. The popper is more of a noise maker and won't sting the horse. It'll liven up a horse but won't really hurt them. Because of the softness you couldn't spank them in as fast a succession as a whip either.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


so, the quirt will hurt less while making a bigger impression?


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

smrobs said:


> I don't understand how you're missing the point here. We aren't talking about preventing a horse from complying with anything because they weren't trying to comply. The horse is being insolent and begrudging in their response. THAT is what is being corrected.


yeah you are because the horse was more than willing to comply with the trot cue multiplied by 10 - so much so that you're now in fact seeing it as an over-reaction (rather than insolent and begrudging), and because of that sudden swing from 1 extreme to the other, "performance" as far as reining is concerned has gone out the window. but all that means is you've put too much pressure on the horse & that he has responded proportionally too that pressure - which is fine. i would be fine with that and not feel compelled to question it, if it wasn't also advised that you entirely negate that pressure (and the horses response to that pressure) by holding the horse back and then releasing that pressure (negatively reinforcing) on the act of "not complying with the original cue"

ultimately the whole sequence starts with a cue for a certain response, and finishes without that response being achieved. so according to any kind of scientific explanation of animal behaviour that i'm aware of: it doesn't work. maybe there is some somewhere that explains why this works? but untill that's put in this thread (& i implore you to do so because that would answer my question), it's not so unreasonable that i ask for an explanation that actually explains the notion, rather than explains why you might correct a very specific aspect of a very specific maneouver independendently of that maneouver. which is (sigh, again) an entirely different notion and one on which i agree with what has been said. but this isn't about any specific maneouver or any specific cue. it's about why *preventing a horse from responding to a cue would make him more likely to give that same (or better) response to that same (or subtler) cue ever again in future.*



> When you have a horse at the level we're talking here (which is where I understood the OP's horse to be since she is training it as a reiner), you can't separate the quality of response from the actual movement. At that point, they are one in the same. Either the quality is good and the response is immediate to light cues or the movement is not correct.


yes OP is training the horse as a reiner and yes in reining you will ultimately expect both good performance and good sensitivity, but i didn't read OPs first post as "how do i get my horse to perform a specified maneouver better", i read it as "how do i get my horse to perform any (unspecified) maneouver sooner rather than later", and so i've been looking at the notion put forward on page 1 with that (and nothing else) in mind.



> You either expect and receive the correct, high quality movement every single time or you might as well just not bother at all. If you don't expect and demand high quality every single time, then you will never receive high quality.
> 
> As Cherie has said repeatedly. The worst response you accept is the best you can expect.


this is true. but the idea of attempting to induce an over reaction while trying to prevent any response at all contradicts that statement.

you'd be accepting the horse trying to over-react when you told it too, and accepting the horse not responding at all when you hold it back from that, but because neither of those things include doing what you originally wanted, going by that logic, you can't expect it to respond correctly in future. *you've (maybe inadvertantly?) accepted a response that is not the one you wanted, so now in future you can expect that response which is not the one you wanted.*



> The horse is no longer in the stage of training where they might need increased pressure to *understand* what is being asked. It *knows* what is being asked but simply can't be bothered to respond quicker. Increasing the aids to the level or above the level the horse is accustomed to responding to won't get them to respect your cue any more. They'll simply continue to ignore the light cues because they know they can.


we fundamentally differ on this. as i (just me personally) beleive that *understanding* and *knowing* what is being asked includes understanding and knowing that it has to actually comply. after all what good is a "finished" or "trained" horse if, no matter how well it knows how to spin or stop or lope depart or however many competitions it's won, it still "puts the finger up" when it's asked to do something? even if it was a rare occurance or even the 1st time ever, to me that's not a finished horse. that's a horse still in training. even if it was "finished" the day before or even 10 minutes before. that horse, there & then, has relapsed into being a "not finished" horse, & therfore shouldn't be treated like a finished, or trained, horse.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Here is my take. 
First, I think you are trying to base every thing you do on science. Living beings don't always work like that. Sure there are basic principles, but you cannot fit everything into a mold. JMHO. 
Secondly, yes, the OP is trying to train a reiner. To accomplish that, there are many maneuvers. *There is no ONE correction that will correct issues in all the manuevers.* I think you are trying get ONE thing that will accomplish a faster spin, better stop, better transition....and that is not how it works. Since the mechanics of each maneuver are different the principle used to refine that movement is different. Surely you, with all of your science can understand that principle.
Thirdly-I have never seen a horse that will "stay finished". Even a horse ridden by a trainer every day will try and get away with slacking off.
It sounds to me like you try and make every horse and every fix fit into a nice little box that can be scientifically explained by what you have read in books, or even observed. Every horse, just as every person, is different. This is why a good trainer by the very definition, has many many "tools" they will use to correct a horse. No one fix will work for every issue on every horse. Period.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> First, I think you are trying to base every thing you do on science. Living beings don't always work like that. Sure there are basic principles, but you cannot fit everything into a mold. JMHO.


i'm not trying to base what i do on science, i'm trying to use a scientific method to explain why and how things work.



> Secondly, yes, the OP is trying to train a reiner. To accomplish that, there are many maneuvers. *There is no ONE correction that will correct issues in all the manuevers.* I think you are trying get ONE thing that will accomplish a faster spin, better stop, better transition....and that is not how it works. Since the mechanics of each maneuver are different the principle used to refine that movement is different. Surely you, with all of your science can understand that principle.


indeed, there is no ONE correction that will correct issues in all manuevers. but (and herein lies the question) as far as i've ever seen ever anywhere they have all, despite how different they may be, been explainable using some combination of positive punishment and negative reinforcement. this method (on page 1) seems to use neither, as you are positively punishing the action you wanted by using an aversive stimulus to prevent them from doing it, and negatively reinforcing something other than the action you wanted by releasing the original cue on something other than the action you wanted.



> Thirdly-I have never seen a horse that will "stay finished". Even a horse ridden by a trainer every day will try and get away with slacking off.


_truly finished_ is an un-achievable ideal anyway. similar to a perfect human. there's no such thing as an objectively _perfect_ human, just like there is no objectively _finished_ horse. now we're getting semantic though. i've used finished in the same context as others in this thread have. not the literal definition of finished, because if a horse's training process was literally finished none of the problems discussed in this thread would occur.



> It sounds to me like you try and make every horse and every fix fit into a nice little box that can be scientifically explained by what you have read in books, or even observed. Every horse, just as every person, is different. This is why a good trainer by the very definition, has many many "tools" they will use to correct a horse. No one fix will work for every issue on every horse. Period.


that "nice little box" contains everything explainable about the natural universe (which is a lot btw). and while yes we and our horses and the things we do to correct our horses are all very different, those differences and similarities can be explained using concepts from within that nice little box. why should this be exempt from that?


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Well-there lies the issue. I do not believe everything has an explanation, and I accept that. For example, I cannot explain why, when something happens that emotionally affects our family, lights turn on in bookshelves that have to all be independently worked, or why my DH goes into his office and finds chess pieces moved? He actually has an ongoing "game" with whatever. Or, why when noone is home but me, EVERY light in the house turns on? OR, try this one-an outside lamp that was not plugged in turned on? Honestly-sounds crazy-I look to the heavens and smile at the SEAL in my signature.
I realize this is a bit off subject, but very single thing cannot be explained. That is where you and I differ. 
What Cherie suggested and some of us have used with success WORKS. That is undeniable. I cannot explain why, and I am done trying, since I am not a bahaviorist, nor am I a scientist, nor, honestly do I care WHY it works, I just know it does.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

franknbeans said:


> What Cherie suggested and some of us have used with success WORKS. That is undeniable. I cannot explain why, and I am done trying, since I am not a bahaviorist, nor am I a scientist, nor, honestly do I care WHY it works, I just know it does.


Knowing the WHY is the most important part, in everything we do with horses. So when the horse questions you can give him a clear answer. The horse didn't ask to be put into these situations so it's our job to make things clear as we can for him, not leave it up to them to figure it out. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, but if you don't even care why the cure works, you'll never understand how to not have to use it in the first place.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> Knowing the WHY is the most important part, in everything we do with horses. So when the horse questions you can give him a clear answer. The horse didn't ask to be put into these situations so it's our job to make things clear as we can for him, not leave it up to them to figure it out. An ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure, but if you don't even care why the cure works, you'll never understand how to not have to use it in the first place.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Again-I don't always HAVE to know why. It works, has been proven anecdotally and that is all that matters, at least to me.


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

Subbing, this is an interesting discussion.


----------



## Cherie (Dec 16, 2010)

Let me go back to what I originally wrote. I gave examples of how to correct poor responsive behavior by 'over-correcting' it. It is not rocket science to understand that over-correcting one problem is going to differ for over-correcting a completely different one. But, the concept is the same -- OVER-CORRECT --- NOT JUST 'CUE HARDER'. Here is the first example I gave. The concept and not the problem is for the OP, since reining horses do not have to 'jog' anywhere in any pattern.


> Say we want the horse to go into a jog with just a light squeeze of both legs.


This is the second example I gave.


> The same is true for a lope departure.


Then I went on to further explain the concept of 'over-correction'.


> Everything you do, should be approached the same way. You 'over-correct' the horse, bring him back to 'start' and ask again with the lightest possible aid. Then and only then can to get the opportunity to reward the right thing. Do this consistently and you will have a horse that the most seasoned observer will not be able to see you cue.


I am sorry that your books on behavior are very incomplete and do not explain this concept. 

I am sorry that behaviorists have no 'real' practical experience in the field and in practical application. 

So, my next question. How many 'high' level winning competition horses have YOU actually trained? How much of YOUR knowledge is from actual experience and how much is speculation on 'how you think it should work' from writings from behaviorists that also have ZERO experience?

If high level trainers find this a very effective and necessary training method to get and to keep horses at that high level, I would be trying to observe them (what I did) or listen to them rather than listen to 'experts' in behavior that have never even watched or handled high level competitive horses in training?

This method is also carried to an 'excess' by some trainers. They 'over-correct' too much and use the technique on horses that are not finished or solid enough and 'blow up' horses and 'push' horses beyond their ability. Not every horse has the ability or the mind to make a high level competitive horse. Even fewer stay there for very long. [Remember, I said 'Every horse only has so many tune-ups in them."] They are not all 'winners'. They do not all stay winners for years. Some trainers push way too hard to 'make' a horse. Every trainer has to learn when it is time to find a different, less demanding 'occupation' for some horses. They need to learn when some 'high level open horses' need to be downgraded to youth and novice amateur horses. 

The concept of 'over-correction' is one that every high level 'effective' trainer I have ever met, uses. In fact, most lower level horsemen that do a very good job at their level as well, also use 'over-correction' to get a more responsive horse. The fact that I knew non-trainers would not understand this concept or could use it wrongly is why I have not written about it before. I feel like I 'know' enough of the riders on this forum and believe there are a good number of them and their horses that are ready for this concept. That is why I chose to finally talk about it. I also knew that some people would not 'get it'. 

The riders that learn to use this technique will not only have more responsive horses; they will have a LOT happier horses. Horses that are nagged and asked over and over and with more and stronger aids are the most miserable horses you will see. Their attitude goes further and further downhill. I'm sorry (but not surprised) that behaviorists 'don't get it'. I have read a LOT of so-called 'scientific findings' about horse behavior that is just plain WRONG. I can't help it that I know what works from experience and it does not agree with what some guy in a university thinks 'should' work. 

You just have to believe what you want. I really don't care what or who anyone wants to believe. I just hope I have helped the people that 'get it'.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Quoted from Christopher:

Not the literal definition of finished, because if a horse's training process was literally finished none of the problems discussed in this thread would occur.



This statement is so wrong. Horses are not robots. You are going around in circles and contradicting yourself right, left and centre.

This thread is very aptly named.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

:clap::clap:

Thanks Cherie! Perfectly said.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Thank you Cherie! Excellent post! (again!)


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

:clap::thumbsup: Cherie, thank you for bringing the benefit of your experience and wisdom and common sense to this thread, excellent posts being made.

Count me in those who think the title of this thread is apt, and so well shows frustration.

Those of science trying to rationalize and make rules for, those of experience and action saying this is what works.:lol: I can't help but think as I read threads like this that some of the 'rationalizers' haven't had that much experience in actually working with horses, especially in high levels of training.

I've ridden lots, and as I said earlier a lot of this discussion would have been lost on me if I hadn't recently ridden a good reiner, and spent some time hanging with a reining trainer watching her and her family ride, and watching videos of high class reiners. There is a HUGE difference in what I know and understand and the way those guys work and the level of reaction that they ask from their horses.

At any level though, horses are not machines, they are living breathing thinking, well reacting anyway, beings, and there is no way that you can apply pure logic and scientific reasoning to every single thing. There are times in life that you just have to accept that this method works well for this horse in this situation.

I lack the eloquence and experience of many, so can't get the right words to explain what I'm saying...frustrating.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Cherie said:


> Let me go back to what I originally wrote. I gave examples of how to correct poor responsive behavior by 'over-correcting' it. It is not rocket science to understand that over-correcting one problem is going to differ for over-correcting a completely different one. But, the concept is the same -- OVER-CORRECT --- NOT JUST 'CUE HARDER'. Here is the first example I gave. The concept and not the problem is for the OP, since reining horses do not have to 'jog' anywhere in any pattern.


i understand how and why over-correcting works and why you would have to do it differently for different problems. but i can't figure out (or get an answer too) why simultaneously nullifying that over-correction would work.



> Then I went on to further explain the concept of 'over-correction'. "Everything you do, should be approached the same way. You 'over-correct' the horse, bring him back to 'start' and ask again with the lightest possible aid. Then and only then can to get the opportunity to reward the right thing. Do this consistently and you will have a horse that the most seasoned observer will not be able to see you cue."


yes; but you're not rewarding the right thing. the right thing in the example was to jog, and yet you're holding the horse back from that?



> So, my next question. How many 'high' level winning competition horses have YOU actually trained? How much of YOUR knowledge is from actual experience and how much is speculation on 'how you think it should work' from writings from behaviorists that also have ZERO experience?


this is nothing to do with my experience. i could've never seen a horse before in my life for all it really matters in this thread, this isn't about me or my horses or my "methods". it's about your method & the now aparent fact that it's exempt from explanation.



> If high level trainers find this a very effective and necessary training method to get and to keep horses at that high level, I would be trying to observe them (what I did) or listen to them rather than listen to 'experts' in behavior that have never even watched or handled high level competitive horses in training?


an "expert" in behaviour and the modification of behaviour is by definition a "trainer". perhaps the "experts" in question don't need the ends to justify the means because they can actually explain the means, and perhaps the trainers in question can't explain the means, so use the ends to justify that? both are totally respectable.
i just assumed that "how does it work?" could be answered better than "it's very effective and necessary and high level trainers use it."



> The concept of 'over-correction' is one that every high level 'effective' trainer I have ever met, uses. In fact, most lower level horsemen that do a very good job at their level as well, also use 'over-correction' to get a more responsive horse. The fact that I knew non-trainers would not understand this concept or could use it wrongly is why I have not written about it before. I feel like I 'know' enough of the riders on this forum and believe there are a good number of them and their horses that are ready for this concept. That is why I chose to finally talk about it. I also knew that some people would not 'get it'.


i do understand the concept of over-correction, and i use the concept of over correction, and like you said most of the better trainers i've seen and know use the concept of over-correction. 
but i still would like to know how preventing a horse from responding at all constitutes as over-correction?



> The riders that learn to use this technique will not only have more responsive horses; they will have a LOT happier horses. Horses that are nagged and asked over and over and with more and stronger aids are the most miserable horses you will see. Their attitude goes further and further downhill. I'm sorry (but not surprised) that behaviorists 'don't get it'. I have read a LOT of so-called 'scientific findings' about horse behavior that is just plain WRONG. I can't help it that I know what works from experience and it does not agree with what some guy in a university thinks 'should' work.


i agree with what you've said about nagging. sad horses with sad responses. i do understand that and i'm not suggesting that to OP.
also, point me out some current science that is just plain wrong - and more importantly - explain why.



> You just have to believe what you want. I really don't care what or who anyone wants to believe. I just hope I have helped the people that 'get it'.


indeed i'm sure we all will believe what we want regardless. but for me anecdotal evidence based purely on personal experience that is unexplainable by any other means won't make me believe something. it might be enough to make me wonder and ask further questions, which is what i did.

and yes muppetgirl, horses are not robots. and that is why a "perfect" or "finished" horse is not really an achievable ideal (again, a good ideal to strive for, but not truly achievable). 
yes we are going around in circles, but thats because you're not answering my question with an answer that actually answers the question i asked. plenty of good (unrelated) answers, but no on topic answers. tell me where i contradicted myself?


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Christopher, this is a contradiction, quoted from you:

i understand how and why over-correcting works and why you would have to do it differently for different problems. But I can't figure out (or get an answer too) why simultaneously nullifying that over-correction would work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are saying 'yes I understand how and why over correcting works', and in the same breath you say 'but I can't figure out why simultaneously nullifying that over-correction would work?'


It's because nullifying is part of the over-correction, yet you say you understand:?

Over correcting is not thumping harder to get what you want and letting the horse work of a harder thump......over correcting is getting the horse to 'think' about things. 

The release is letting him move forward PROPERLY OFF THE CORRECT CUE, not by teaching him to dumb himself down into a block head by letting him ignore the first light cue. Stop, correct, pause, ask, release, stop, correct, pause, ask, release. See the sequence? Horses understand it, that's why it works.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

I can only speak for myself, and I am going to try not to sound rude. I use these techniques. They work. As I have said numerous times-I DO NOT CARE WHY THEY WORK, nor do I care if you to not have some intellectual understanding of WHY it works. Use them or not-your choice. I really do not care. It would be your (and the horses you supposedly train) loss. 
I have not said you have contradicted yourself, Altho you do keep saying you understand....:? 

I feel we have done everything possible to explain in every WAY possible...but, since there is no "science" behind it you will not believe it. So be it.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Actually Frank I did say he contradicted himself, and he has. I will own that.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Muppetgirl said:


> Actually Frank I did say he contradicted himself, and he has. I will own that.


Got it-I edited. We were posting at the same time.....:wink:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Muppetgirl said:


> *Christopher, this is a contradiction, quoted from you:*
> 
> i understand how and why over-correcting works and why you would have to do it differently for different problems. But I can't figure out (or get an answer too) why simultaneously nullifying that over-correction would work.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...



Because you can over correct a horse, (the spanking big time), AND let him go. _* or, *_you over correct the horse , the spanking, and , as in Christopher's words, you "nullify" the response. (Do not let the horse go forward)
. Both are overcorrections, and both can work. you can overcorrect without nullifying the correction. 

I am not arguing that Cherie's method isn't effective. I just do not see that Christopher is contradicting himself, as you say he is.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

It's not nullifying the response at all, it's CONTROLLING the response. I don't want to spank my horse into the lope and have him jump into it with his head popping up and him scrambling. It's controlling the horses body, every part of it and saying, 'NO, you don't move until I tell you, how, when and where'. A spank isn't a cue, it's a correction, don't want my horse moving out on a correction, I want him moving out on a cue.

How difficult is this to process?


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> You are saying 'yes I understand how and why over correcting works', and in the same breath you say 'but I can't figure out why simultaneously nullifying that over-correction would work?'
> 
> 
> It's because nullifying is part of the over-correction, yet you say you understand:?


yes but the "nullifying" part is where the explainable aspect goes out the window entirely. and i'm sorry to anyone who doesnt believe in explaining things, i'm not trying to question a persons beliefs, i'm only seeking answers. other than that; its all just punishment and reinforcement - operant conditioning. simplest explanation one could ask for. if it were a wrong response then yes you would nullify that. if it was a poorly performed response then yes you would fix whatever aspect was broken independently of that maneouver. those things are what i understand, and what you keep bringing up. but what that doesn't answer is why you would withhold an over reaction that you've _intentionally_ induced, or how that would make the horse respect the original cue any moreso than it did before. why didn't you just multiply the original cue by 9 (or 8 or 7 or whatever it takes not to induce an over-reaction, *while still being enough to induce the response you wanted - with the sense of urgency or "promptness" you wanted*) and let him respond to that?

why would a person go out of their way to use "10 times more pressure than he/she *has to*", only to punish the horses *proportionally appropriate* response too that pressure? it has thus far been un-explainable.

also a spank is a cue, because it has a corresponding response. it might be a cue you would only ever use to correct non-compliance to a prior cue, but it's still a cue.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

It _has_ been explained. Over and over and over but you still fail to get it.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Yup I'm done too. On that note, I leave you with these two favorites quotes:

'Do you know the difference between education and experience? Education is when you read the fine print; experience is what you get when you don't'.
(Pete Seeger)


The man who carries the cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way.
(Mark Twain)


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

smrobs said:


> It _has_ been explained. Over and over and over but you still fail to get it.


Unlike the reiner who totally gets it, and needs reminding of that fact:wink:


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

smrobs: no it hasn't.
what has been explained is what to do if the horse gives a wrong response, and how to fix a broken aspect of a particular maneouver.

not responding soon enough (which is what OP asked about), nomatter how right or wrong the eventual response may be, is neither of those problems.

muppetgirl: i'm happy to leave it at that if you'd like. but i will respond to those quotes with some more quotes

"Almost every major systematic error which has deluded men for thousands of years relied on practical experience. Horoscopes, incantations, oracles, magic, witchcraft, the cures of witch doctors and of medical practitioners before the advent of modern medicine, were all firmly established through the centuries in the eyes of the public by their supposed practical successes. The scientific method was devised precisely for the purpose of elucidating the nature of things under more carefully controlled conditions and by more rigorous criteria than are present in the situations created by practical problems" - michael polanyi

"In order that the facts obtained by observation and experiment may be capable of being used in furtherance of our exact and solid knowledge, they must be apprehended and analysed according to some Conceptions which, applied for this purpose, give distinct and definite results, such as can be steadily taken hold of and reasoned from." - william whewell

golden horse: if a reiner "gets it", he won't need reminding of it. because "getting it" implies they have "got it". and if they have "got it" they wouldn't need reminding.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

christopher said:


> golden horse: if a reiner "gets it", he won't need reminding of it. because "getting it" implies they have "got it". and if they have "got it" they wouldn't need reminding.


WHAT?? on what planet do you reside? On this planet horses are living breathing creatures that can quite well GET IT, then decide to put two hooves up and think "an inclined plane wrapped helically around an axis you"

The don't need reminding of the action, they know that perfectly well, remember we are talking of what 99.99% of the horse world will agree is a finished horse, they need reminding that the action happens NOW, not when and if you want it to.

Now I am going to find an empty piece of wall and gently bang my head against it


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

All that really matters is winning, and if all the big time high level trainers do it then that must make it right and good. Beyond that who cares, no further explanation needed. ;D
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

if one of my horses, "finished" or not, "puts 2 hooves up" when i asked it something, i wouldnt treat it like a horse who understood what i asked. _because understanding what is asked INCLUDES understanding that they have to do it without protest_.



> we are talking of what 99.99% of the horse world will agree


using the fact that it is "commonplace" is just silly. from the michael polanyi quote i gave, i'd guess 99.99% of people at some point genuinely believed in witchcraft. people used to be willing to burn other people alive because they were _so_ sure that witches were real. willing to kill over it. that was still happening only 300 years ago, and not much can happen evolutionarily to the capabilities of any creatures brain in the space of 300 years, especially one as complex as the human brain. so don't assume we're much more capable of reason than they were. but what happened was: someone scientifically minded came along and objectively questioned the anecdotal or testimonial evidence that convinced the people of the time that witches were real, and there was and still is no scientifically verifiable explanation (a bit like here) presented in defence of that. and we've learned from that process.

why is this any different to that? either way: a question was asked, there's been plenty of testimonies, people willing to stand up for what they believe to be true (which is entirely respectable), plenty of specific examples given and plenty of experience drawn from, but no objective answer.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Now I am going to find an empty piece of wall and gently bang my head against it


No don't do that, you're supposed to be healing.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

anndankev said:


> No don't do that, you're supposed to be healing.


Thanks for reminding me, I'll go away and hide in a padded room somewhere


----------



## azarni (Aug 17, 2008)

Ok I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but I'm genuinely curious too. Why is the very popular phrase "ask, tell, make it happen", not "ask, stop your horse and whip it, then ask again"? And why, whenever people ask for training advice, is the first one often recommended and nobody ever says, "if your horse is being lazy, stop it and smack it then try again"? This is the only thread I've seen where this has been discussed so I guess I'm just wondering why it isn't recommended more often if it's a correct and effective training method.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Because it's a very advanced training method that most people cannot utilize correctly or in the right circumstances because they don't have adequate experience/knowledge.

We're not talking about backyard trail horses here, we're talking reining horses. Most average riders wouldn't even be able to successfully _ride_ a good reiner, let alone train one or give it a tune-up.


----------



## azarni (Aug 17, 2008)

Alright, I can respect that. Thank you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cynical25 (Mar 7, 2013)

christopher said:


> smrobs: no it hasn't.
> what has been explained is what to do if the horse gives a wrong response, and how to fix a broken aspect of a particular maneouver.
> 
> not responding soon enough (which is what OP asked about), nomatter how right or wrong the eventual response may be, is neither of those problems.


I disagree - the OP's finished horse not responding immediately, is absolutely the horse giving a wrong response. Based on the OP's update, the suggestions helped; here's hoping OP continues to see positive results!

Thank you, Cheri/Smrobs/Muppet/others for so thoroughly explaining your responses to the questions in this thread.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

smrobs said:


> We're not talking about backyard trail horses here, we're talking reining horses. Most average riders wouldn't even be able to successfully _ride_ a good reiner, let alone train one or give it a tune-up.


LOL aint that the truth:wink:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Whatever your position, this thread has been most interesting. I appreciate the many explanations and viewpoints. one of the best threads on the forum right now!


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

Cherie said:


> Before I start, I want everyone to know that these methods are for very well started horse -- horses that most people would call 'finished horses'. I am talking horses that know walk, trot, lope off on a correct lead. I am talking about horses that are soft and responsive in the bridle, lope a straight line without a fence and lope a round circle in the correct lead. If a horse is not very well broke -- don't use these methods. They are for 'fine-tuning' a broke horses -- not developing green ones.


Maybe give background on how a horse came to be "well started". This makes me think that there is a completely different methods to teaching a horse how to lope off promptly as opposed to reminding him how to lope off promptly. That would look inconsistent to the animal, no?



Cherie said:


> First, I find that carrying a crop and raising it is completely unacceptable to me. Threatening a horse with rein ends or crop tells me that the rider has never had a horse that responded to the lightest of aids. Never, never, NEVER threaten a horse.


We agree here somewhat. Nagging is not the answer. 



Cherie said:


> Getting a horse to respond to the lightest of aids is about ALL mental for the rider.


You are correct here but I suspect you do not really understand what the "mental" part really is with a horse (judging by your explanations below).



Cherie said:


> I think that making truly 'finished' horses is what high level trainers do and few amateurs (even those that would be considered expert riders and World Class competitors) ever attain. This is why most (not all) World Champion riders have a trainer that keeps them and their horses 'tuned' and ready.


Save us the "world champion riders" and "trainers" talk - I have met a few and most of them are dictators training robots. Many "flunk" horses out of their training programs because the horses are "too smart" (read: require too much time to train because the trainer does not know how to make him/herself believable to the horse) and seek out "jocks" (who are bred and selected to obey what they are told without question). These are not horse trainers - a horse trainer will train ANY horse to do ANYTHING reasonably well.



Cherie said:


> Amateurs and 'trainer wannabes' just keep applying more and more pressure until they finally get the result. THEN, they take off the pressure. If they are going by the rule of taking off pressure for the correct result, then they are teaching the that responding to a very heavy aid is what is wanted. The horse complies -- requiring 5 or 10 times as much pressure as the rider would like the horse to respond to.


A horse needs to be given a proper chance to understand and respond adequately to the request. You seem to be making an assumption here - that the rider is perfectly conveying their request for the horse to move off immediately. That you make that assumption does not surprise me (the horse is to blame, no?).



Cherie said:


> [I am sorry this is dragging out so long. I have never tried to put this concept into words before. It is more difficult than I thought it would be.]


It is not that complicated of a concept because it is not really a concept. It is a cruel shortcut to make a horse comply and has nothing to do with treating the animal with respect. See, a horse can be made to do many things for a man but the man should never take the horse's dignity away - this is what you are doing by treating your horse the way you propose in your "advanced concept".



Cherie said:


> Say we want the horse to go into a jog with just a light squeeze of both legs. This is accomplished in this way: The rider applies a tiny squeeze. Of course the horse ignores it. Then, the trainer/rider applies about 10 times more pressure than he/she has to but does NOT LET THE HORSE GO FORWARD. The rider can spur the hard 4 or 5 times or 'over and under the horse several times -- hard, without letting the horse go forward at all. Then, gather the horse back up (he is probably a little wound about this time) and ASK AGAIN WITH THE VERY LIGHTEST SQUEEZE. 9 out of 10 horses will now listen to that squeeze. The 10th one may take 'two' overhauls.


Why not just whip him till he bleeds while tied to a post? Then he will move off into a lope as soon as you look at his leg  



Cherie said:


> Everything you do, should work the same way. You 'over-correct' the horse, bring him back to 'start' and ask again with the lightest possible aid. Then and only then can to get the opportunity to reward the right thing. Do this consistently and you will have a horse that the most seasoned observer will not be able to see you cue.


I am glad I am still a "trainer wannabe" and a "backyard trail guy". Have met quite a few folks advocating this kind of "training" and almost always the reasons why they do it had nothing to do with the horse. 



Cherie said:


> A high level trainer that hauls high level youth and amateurs spends much of their time 'tuning up' their youth and amateur horses to keep them light and honest and performing at a high level. Most trainers will tell you that every reining horse, cutting horse or Equitation horse only has so many tune-ups in them. Then, they figure out the difference between the trainer and the horse's regular exhibitor. Most exhibitors then sell that horse to a lower level rider and get a new one that has only been 'trainer ridden'.


I have never heard of a tune-up. If you are clear in your requests AND THE HORSE BELIEVES YOU, no tune ups necessary.



Cherie said:


> So, OP -- If you have been accepting a pitiful response, your horse has figured out just how to give you just that.


Here is my advice for the OP. My wife had a horse who would not move into a lope fast enough. Nagging was the first step, we all know that does not work. A few "trainers" did the whipping, slapping, popping, kicking, spurring things with this gelding. He never responded. To make matters worse, he actually developed a bucking habit.

Then I realized what the problem was: a horse in tune with his rider will move as one with the rider. See, a horse has to BELIEVE you and your intention. They feed off that stuff. Anyone can tell you the power of focus, that unattainable thing that many people try to emulate mechanically but are often not convincing enough for a simple (dumb?) animal like a horse.

Next time you try to lope off, focus ahead, lean in front into the movement, throw your hands and rains up front if you have to, do anything to make your horse believe you that you want to go. (S)he will do it and you would have learned a valuable lesson - how to convince them in your intention, NOT in the fact that you can beat them into submission.

Once you have convinced them a sufficient number of times you can start taking cues off and simplifying the process of asking, one by one. When the horse is sufficiently good at loping off immediately, keep your hands to yourself (Instead of throwing them in front). After he masters the lope off with that, stay in your seat more upright. Simplify, simplify but stay believable. See, many times the person cannot get excited enough to transfer that to their horse. This is when they resort to mechanical means - spurs, whips, punishment - they are truly cheating their horse by treating them like a bicycle. It is in horse's nature to follow you - even the "world class trainers" will tell a beginner that. Well, get excited about your lope, focus and off you go - your horse will believe you if you mean it.

Many "world class reiners and trainers and riders" do not have time for a horse who does not believe them. They are in the business of breeding, developing (note that I did not use the word training) and selling bicycles on four legs. When one of this bred bicycles "misbehaves" nobody has time to be polite and stop and think why. That's when the violent "tune up" comes in.... Beware the tune up....

My $.02


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

i'm very glad i'm not the only one who sees the circular reasoning in "the method works to correct a _finished_ horse that has put the finger up", when the very definition of a _finished_ horse is "willingly guided or controlled with little or no apparent resistance".


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

Christopher and ognend, by that logic I then assume that a novice/intermediate rider learning on a finished horse should be able to just make the horse go because it is a finished horse. What happens when said finished horse give the novice/intermediate rider the finger but will do every thing perfectly for the trainer/owner? You can't learn to canter if you never canter. To me, it's a respect issue. Horses are breathing, thinking animals, and are more than capable of giving anyone the finger any time they feel like it.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Bagheera said:


> Christopher and ognend, by that logic I then assume that a novice/intermediate rider learning on a finished horse should be able to just make the horse go because it is a finished horse. What happens when said finished horse give the novice/intermediate rider the finger but will do every thing perfectly for the trainer/owner?


then it is rider error and as such it is the rider who should be trained. absolutely nothing to do with the horse. but that is irrelevent - OP said that nobody else had ever ridden this horse and the method cherie put forward in response to that was about correcting the horse and not the rider. it was assumed that the problem was with the horse, poor riding was never a consideration.



> You can't learn to canter if you never canter


while i agree, i find that especially contradictory to the method in question. because using that logic: you can't learn to trot, or learn to make the horse do a trot transition any sooner or better, by spurring 4 or 5 times while holding back hard enough to not actually do a trot transition...



> Horses are breathing, thinking animals, and are more than capable of giving anyone the finger any time they feel like it.


but they are also capable of being willingly guided with little or no apparent resistance. the only difference is training and lack of rider error, so why would a horse that gave the finger to someone ever be considered finished? unless it was rider error. but why then would you recommend the poor rider correct the horse, rather than cue the horse appropriately in the 1st place?


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

Great post Ognend!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

Bagheera said:


> Christopher and ognend, by that logic I then assume that a novice/intermediate rider learning on a finished horse should be able to just make the horse go because it is a finished horse. What happens when said finished horse give the novice/intermediate rider the finger but will do every thing perfectly for the trainer/owner? You can't learn to canter if you never canter. To me, it's a respect issue. Horses are breathing, thinking animals, and are more than capable of giving anyone the finger any time they feel like it.


This is the problem with people - they are willing to accept the fact that people come in all shapes and sizes and characters but they fail to transfer that to the horse. This is REALLY a respect issue, but not the one you are immediately thinking of: it is a lack of respect for the horse. Horses have personalities, they have feelings too.

In my search of the "perfect horseman" (to teach me horsemanship) I have spent tons of time and money. Some of it with people who have web sites, DVDs and the works. One guy stays fresh in my memory, he lived in Boerne, TX and was (is?) one of the top reiners. He is the source of the "jock vs. smart horse" theory, straight from his mouth. See, when all horse turns out to be is a $50,000 check - the horse loses every time. These people are not in the business of working with horses, they may as well be riding a dually throughout the arena. They do love patting each other on the back and at the same time talking bad about each other behind each others' backs.

Anyways, where am I going with this? A school horse will tolerate much more from any rider. That does not make him a "better" horse, mind you - just one that was probably born with the mellow attitude that whatever he is asked is OK and he will try. However, even these horses have limits - I have a perfectly nice 30 year old gelding who will do anything you ask BUT, manhandle him like cherie proposed and he will let you know that is not appreciated. I would expect that of my horse to begin with - even if he is an animal, he has dignity and I expect him to defend it or at least let me know it is not OK to whip him. There are better ways to approach the problem, that's why we are given bigger brains as humans.

When my wife was first trying to make her gelding lope off (or trot off for that matter) instantaneously, she went through all the motions mechanically but her heart wasn't in it. Ever seen someone do that? Well, some horses can tell the difference, they are VERY in tune with their rider. His "dragging his feet around" had nothing to do with "putting up the finger" but everything to do with his sensitivity and her lack of focus and ability to transfer that focus to the horse. So you can easily see why this horse would feel punished if you whipped him if he did not oblige - first the operator makes an error, the horse is not convinced and on top of that he gets whipped. After she managed to convince him that she means "lope now" through her body actions and focus, the horse does it every time now AND without bucking (which one of the "world class trainers" introduced after trying to manhandle him).

Oh yeah, lose the crops, the spurs and the huge bits. Every time I see someone walk up to me with a huge 8 inch shank in the horse's mouth and a set of spurs on their boots, the first question I have is: can you get (note I did not say MAKE) your horse to the same stuff without all the iron? Take the spurs off and most of these "professionals" feel naked - all of a sudden a great "training tool" is out of their repertoire.

My $.02


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Ognend-After reading your about some of your "vast" experience, in the only thread other than this you have posted on, http://www.horseforum.com/trail-riding/looking-trail-horse-beginner-35252/I find your treatment of Cherie extremely rude and ignorant. If you have been here more than a handful of times, you know that Cherie, as well as a couple others here who have tried to explain this method, have more knowledge in their pinky finger that most of us, myself included, can hope to have in a lifetime. I have just been fortunate enough to have worked with some trainers like Cherie, watch, listen and absorb, then try techniques myself. 

To even insinuate that Cherie or any of the others of us who use this technique may as well take our horses out and beat them bloody is beyond my comprehension. :evil:

You have only reinforced my opinion of your knowledge by suggesting that we (those who ride reiners) should "lose the shank bits and spurs.....":?


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

franknbeans said:


> Ognend-After reading your about some of your "vast" experience, in the only thread other than this you have posted on, http://www.horseforum.com/trail-riding/looking-trail-horse-beginner-35252/I find your treatment of Cherie extremely rude and ignorant. If you have been here more than a handful of times, you know that Cherie, as well as a couple others here who have tried to explain this method, have more knowledge in their pinky finger that most of us, myself included, can hope to have in a lifetime. I have just been fortunate enough to have worked with some trainers like Cherie, watch, listen and absorb, then try techniques myself.
> 
> To even insinuate that Cherie or any of the others of us who use this technique may as well take our horses out and beat them bloody is beyond my comprehension. :evil:
> 
> You have only reinforced my opinion of your knowledge by suggesting that we (those who ride reiners) should "lose the shank bits and spurs.....":?


I have spent the last four years fully dedicated to studying horsemanship. Have spent time, sweat, tears and money to do it. To be honest, I started with high expectations of the horse but never thought of myself and what the horse may expect of me. A lot has happened in the four years since and in my opinion, doing a thing right from the beginning is better than doing a thing wrong all your life. I have met a few "horse trainers" who have been doing the things wrong all their lives and I can bull*it when I see it.

There is never an excuse for treating the horse the way she (he?) proposed, plain and simple. I had to say what I had to say, I will let others draw their own conclusions.

I would say the same thing to anyone, regardless of their experience and who they are. If they have something to say that "beats my argument", let them say it - again, people reading this can take it home and make up their own mind. I am not here to "upset the balance of the horseforum.com world and its leaders", just to state my opinion.

I have mingled with a few "names" in the "industry". Many of them talk a good talk about "horse being #1" but I have found that this is usually reserved for the student. When their own horse "misbehaves" patience runs very short.... Seen it happen very often. I put this "whip your horse while holding on to his mouth, but he has to be a finished horse" argument dangerous, to say the least, offensive to the horse (to be polite) and stupid, to be perfectly impolite.

Finally, if you have to say something about what I recommended to the OP and the whole philosophy, please do, no need to attack me personally, attack my arguments instead and point out the error of my ways.

My $.02


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

4 years? That's about the equivalent of a drop of pee in the ocean regardless of how many books and/or videos you've watched (perhaps even _because_ of that). Did you ever work with an actual trainer or did you gain all your knowledge from books and clinician DVDs?

How many finished reining horses have you ridden? How many have you successfully trained? How many have you successfully tuned up? Unless you've done all those things repeatedly, then you are just proving yourself a fool to those that _have_ done those things.

For some reason, I seriously doubt that your knowledge went from "ZOMG, my horse rears and I can't handle it...what do I do?!" to "I know all the inner workings of training and riding a successful reining horse" in just 4 years.

If I'm wrong, though, I'd gladly change my tune....if you can provide video proof that you can get reining level responses from your horse every single time you ask.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

ognend said:


> I have spent the last four years fully dedicated to studying horsemanship. Have spent time, sweat, tears and money to do it. To be honest, I started with high expectations of the horse but never thought of myself and what the horse may expect of me. A lot has happened in the four years since and in my opinion, doing a thing right from the beginning is better than doing a thing wrong all your life. I have met a few "horse trainers" who have been doing the things wrong all their lives and I can bull*it when I see it.
> 
> There is never an excuse for treating the horse the way she (he?) proposed, plain and simple. I had to say what I had to say, I will let others draw their own conclusions.
> 
> ...


Now-spend about another 50 years doing what you have spent the last 4 doing and you may have some of the knowledge Cherie does. Four years, no matter how much $$ you through at it, books you read, clinics you go to, will EVER equal a lifetime of raising and training horses. 

If you were not attacking the way some of us, including Cherie, train with some of your statements, I would have nothing to say to you. It tends to put people on the offensive when you accuse them of abusive tactics by the way they train. Again, with some of your statements above, you insult us (those of us who have used this with success). If I insinuated that you abused your horse, or were doing something in training because you had lost your patience, or were "whipping" your horse I would like to know how you would take that. You do not know any of us, nor have you even been on here enough to truly make a judgement at all. I stand by my original opinion.

Best keep your day job.:wink: That way you can pay to "mingle" with a few more "names" in the "industry".

Just MY $.02.:wink:


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

smrobs said:


> 4 years? That's about the equivalent of a drop of pee in the ocean regardless of how many books and/or videos you've watched (perhaps even _because_ of that). Did you ever work with an actual trainer or did you gain all your knowledge from books and clinician DVDs?
> 
> How many finished reining horses have you ridden? How many have you successfully trained? How many have you successfully tuned up? Unless you've done all those things repeatedly, then you are just proving yourself a fool to those that _have_ done those things.
> 
> ...


I have ridden reining horses, top level performance. I have said what I had to say - you can debate me or you can debate what I said.

I have hung around top level cutters and reiners and those are my experiences. Your experiences may be different, don't know. It's a free country and I am free to say what I have seen and experienced. Even if it involves offending the cult of personality of someone you obviously adore.

Four years is plenty if you get the proper exposure and do things the right way. As I said (and tell me if I am wrong), you can spend your whole life around horses and still be "dumb" about them and how to train them.

My $.02


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

franknbeans said:


> Now-spend about another 50 years doing what you have spent the last 4 doing and you may have some of the knowledge Cherie does. Four years, no matter how much $$ you through at it, books you read, clinics you go to, will EVER equal a lifetime of raising and training horses.


I dare you to go around the country and talk to every "backyard psycho" who grew up around horses - just because you grew up "raising them and training them" doesn't mean you did it the right way. Sorry, those are just facts.

As for Cherie, sorry, as I said, I did not come here to bust up the cult of personality or break up a clique. Just to say what I wanted to say. You can debate me or you can debate what I said.



Cherie said:


> It tends to put people on the offensive when you accuse them of abusive tactics by the way they train. Again, with some of your statements above, you insult us (those of us who have used this with success). If I insinuated that you abused your horse, or were doing something in training because you had lost your patience, or were "whipping" your horse I would like to know how you would take that. You do not know any of us, nor have you even been on here enough to truly make a judgement at all. I stand by my original opinion.


I do not know you and all I can judge you by is your statements. Unless you are lying when writing, but let's assume you do not.

"Reining up" a horse while slapping him is stupid AND abusive. Sorry. It shows that your brain has not advanced past your dominant muscle.



Cherie said:


> Best keep your day job.:wink: That way you can pay to "mingle" with a few more "names" in the "industry".
> 
> Just MY $.02.:wink:


Thank you for the $.02. I will take them as they come.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

ognend said:


> As for Cherie, sorry, as I said, I did not come here to bust up the cult of personality or break up a clique. Just to say what I wanted to say. You can debate me or you can debate what I said.


What is this cult of personality or clique of which you speak?


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

ognend said:


> I dare you to go around the country and talk to every "backyard psycho" who grew up around horses - just because you grew up "raising them and training them" doesn't mean you did it the right way. Sorry, those are just facts.
> 
> As for Cherie, sorry, as I said, I did not come here to bust up the cult of personality or break up a clique. Just to say what I wanted to say. You can debate me or you can debate what I said.
> 
> ...


I have no idea how you quoted Cherie on the last 2-those were also mine. So if you are going to quote, at least get it right.

Just my $.03.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

franknbeans said:


> Just my $.03.


Inflation is running wild, and Canada killed the penny, so I have to go with 

Just my $0.05 CAD


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

Golden Horse said:


> What is this cult of personality or clique of which you speak?


Well, so far all the answers to my initial post were about my "attack"on Cherie, not about what I actually said. Someone told me that four years of learning horsemanship are nothing next to her, apparently I will need at least extra 50 years...


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

franknbeans said:


> I have no idea how you quoted Cherie on the last 2-those were also mine. So if you are going to quote, at least get it right.
> 
> Just my $.03.


Apologies - it must have been in the copy/paste buffer.


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

I just love a good debate. Lol Yes, I will admit that problems are 99.999999% of the time rider error. Just adding will to proper riding will not make a horse canter though. I've been riding for 15yrs and I very well expect a horse to canter when I tell it to. Horses test riders all the time. It is in their nature to be evasive whenever possible. I used to teach riding lessons. Here is an analogy I used with my students. If you could figure out a way to eat potato chips and watch a movie without consequences, rather than doing your homework, you would eat potato chips and watch a movie. The same logic applies to the horse. If he can figure out a way to get out of work without consequences, he will figure it out. That is how we end up with dangerous horses. Actions have consequences. The OP's horse has figured out that he doesn't really have to canter. There then needs to be consequences to the lack of response, rather than asking the horse again and willing it to go forward. Let's look at a world famous horse. Totilas. I think everyone can consider him a finished horse. He has yet to put forth as spectacular of a ride under Matthias Rath, as he did under Edward Gal. The horse still performs all the same movements with Rath when asked, but lacks the flair that he had wil Gal. In this case, you can't beat the horse or will the horse to perform more spectacularly. I can guarantee that you can train the horse differently to improve his performance. The horse has figured out and been allowed to give less effort. That is Cherie's point I believe. There must be consequences for actions, other wise the horse will not perform at its best. And yes, lots of top dressage riders ride without the double bridles, whips, and spurs. It is only required for FEI rated shows. At home, the horses are ridden in loose ring snaffles. You can't truly be a top rider if you need all those aids. I can guarantee that all of those top horses know that those aids might make a short appearance if they decide to ignore a correctly made request.

Edit: Golden horse that is hilarious. Canada killing the penny and caused inflation. Hilarious! I love that you said that.


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

Sorry for the second post.

To answer your question Christopher, you would follow Cherie's advice because the horse has now figured out that it doesn't have to go forward. You can cue it perfectly all you want, but the horse has learned to not immediately canter off. If you address this once by getting after the horse, you will not have to get after him again. If you burn yourself on the stove once, you won't do it again. Same concept but applied to a horse.


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

ognend said:


> This is the problem with people - they are willing to accept the fact that people come in all shapes and sizes and characters but they fail to transfer that to the horse. This is REALLY a respect issue, but not the one you are immediately thinking of: it is a lack of respect for the horse. Horses have personalities, they have feelings too.
> 
> In my search of the "perfect horseman" (to teach me horsemanship) I have spent tons of time and money. Some of it with people who have web sites, DVDs and the works. One guy stays fresh in my memory, he lived in Boerne, TX and was (is?) one of the top reiners. He is the source of the "jock vs. smart horse" theory, straight from his mouth. See, when all horse turns out to be is a $50,000 check - the horse loses every time. These people are not in the business of working with horses, they may as well be riding a dually throughout the arena. They do love patting each other on the back and at the same time talking bad about each other behind each others' backs.
> 
> ...


*If I hang a spade bit and wear big roweled Chihuahua spurs does that automatically mean that I jerk and harpoon the **** out of my horses? *
*Just because someone has those tools it doesn't mean that they are used in a cruel abusive manner. I can hang spades on all of all of our horses and wear big spurs but I can also ride in nothing but a halter bareback and get the same results. *
*You have made quite a bit of assumptions in this thread and want to lump everyone into the same category.*
*Your experience is showing.*


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

COWCHICK77 said:


> *If I hang a spade bit and wear big roweled Chihuahua spurs does that automatically mean that I jerk and harpoon the **** out of my horses? *
> *Just because someone has those tools it doesn't mean that they are used in a cruel abusive manner. I can hang spades on all of all of our horses and wear big spurs but I can also ride in nothing but a halter bareback and get the same results. *
> *You have made quite a bit of assumptions in this thread and want to lump everyone into the same category.*
> *Your experience is showing.*


If you can do everything without the "tools" exactly like you can with the "tools" - why use the tools? Tell me this - do you think the horse can tell the difference when you are all spurred and spaded up as opposed to not?

In your opinion, out of a cross section of 100 horse owners / riders in this country - let's say 50 use spurs (I think the average is higher but whatever). How many of these 50 use the spurs correctly as opposed to as tools of punishment?

I am not making assumptions - I spent time around people who were "top trainers" in at least three disciplines, I watched them work horses, I watched them "behave" in front of a client with a horse and "behave" with that same horse when the client was gone.

However, you skipped one thing I said: the post I responded to made one major assumption - that the horse was at fault, not the rider.

I actually agree with most of your post - especially the part where you say that a rider should first decide what is going on before taking corrective action. Even when the reason is that the horse has decided to not canter off immediately ("testing") - the solution should not be reining up and whipping the horse. If someone has let the horse "win" slowly - it is the responsibility on that someone to figure out a good way to fix the problem - the horse should not be whipped for lack of someone's knowledge. In general, that kind of correction shows that the "trainer" is short on time, big on muscle and short on brains. If, as you say, "getting into the mind of the horse" is important - well, there is the problem, get into their mind and find a way to change it. That't my claim and I am sticking to it.

My $.02


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

COWCHICK77 said:


> *If I hang a spade bit and wear big roweled Chihuahua spurs does that automatically mean that I jerk and harpoon the **** out of my horses? *
> *Just because someone has those tools it doesn't mean that they are used in a cruel abusive manner. I can hang spades on all of all of our horses and wear big spurs but I can also ride in nothing but a halter bareback and get the same results. *
> *You have made quite a bit of assumptions in this thread and want to lump everyone into the same category.*
> *Your experience is showing.*


To answer your previous question: if I unfairly caused my horse to misbehave because I spanked him for no reason, I would not correct that behavior to begin with because the context is not such that there is anything to correct. I made a mistake, I asked for it and I got it.

These situations happen every day: the rider is ineffective in the cues, the horse does not understand, rider gets frustrated, horse gets frustrated, rider takes it out on horse, horse reacts. Should I correct the horse and for what? My stupidity?

I will give you a recent situation: on a ride in a forest a horse is uneasy. This horse has virtually no bad habits and has never offered to buck. The rider does not recognize that the horse is uneasy, turns the horse away from group of other horses, proceeds to ask for a lope away from group. Horse is uneasy, does not pick up immediately, owner uses end of lead rope to slap the horse on the butt. Horse bucks to owner's surprise.

Who is at fault? In my opinion, owner is to blame for not observing their horse properly, not understanding that the horse is uneasy and punishing the horse for being uneasy. If they had worked with the horse a little bit more before asking for the lope, the punishment would not have been necessary and there would have been no buck.


----------



## Casey02 (Sep 20, 2011)

I just made it through the whole thread....fewww... I need drink! :shock: :lol:


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Here you go...










Has fruit and everything has to be healthy:wink:


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

ognend said:


> If you can do everything without the "tools" exactly like you can with the "tools" - why use the tools? Tell me this - do you think the horse can tell the difference when you are all spurred and spaded up as opposed to not?
> 
> *I can ride either way, pretty showing if someone can get the same results either way whether they use them or not, don't you think?*
> *(and a saddle with a horn is pretty handy for roping:wink*
> ...


*To the bolded part of your statement*....
*I totally agree, but AGAIN, the thread was based on a horse and rider that has the knowledge but has been slagging off. NOT a situation where the horse or rider doesn't know any better and just gets frustrated and goes to whipping.*




ognend said:


> To answer your previous question: if I unfairly caused my horse to misbehave because I spanked him for no reason, I would not correct that behavior to begin with because the context is not such that there is anything to correct. I made a mistake, I asked for it and I got it.
> *You misunderstood my question or perhaps I didn't not present it properly. Why would anyone spank there horse for no reason?*
> *Let's put it this way, you are taking your well seasoned trail horse out for a trail ride and that day he gets a little squirmy, wont line out because he doesn't want to leave the trailer. Do you think giving him a spank on the butt is wrong after you have gave him ample opportunity to respond to a leg and seat cue?*
> 
> ...


*No argument, rider is at fault, again a rider that can not read his horse.*

*All the examples you have been giving are novice level mistakes. We are talking about open/ trainer, whatever you want to call it, it doesn't even have to pertain to showing at all, level of training. *
*Ya know, the crap that Clinton Anderson doesn't want to show you:wink:*


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

> you would follow Cherie's advice because the horse has now figured out that it doesn't have to go forward. You can cue it perfectly all you want


the method relies on the horse being "trained" or "finished".



> these methods are for very well started horse -- horses that most people would call 'finished horses'


while the apparent fact, according to the 2013 nrha handbook, is that if you cued a _finished_ horse perfectly it would willingly do what you want, when you want, the way you want. because that is what a finished horse is - one that responds correctly to correctly given cues. and if a finished horses correct responses are "un-trained" by poor riding, the horse is no longer finished.

if the rider is trained and the horse is trained: this problem wouldnt happen.
if the rider is trained and the horse is at fault: why give a method exclusive to finished or trained horses?
if the horse is trained and the rider is at fault: why train the horse and not the rider?
if the horse is at fault and the rider is at fault: why give a method exclusive to finished or trained horses?

the point taken from that is that a "training method" reserved exclusively for "trained horses" is circular and flawwed reasoning - regardless of anyones experience.

on top of that, (keeping in mind that correlation doesn't imply causation, and keeping in mind that behaviour is a science) nobody has been able to use any kind of scientific method to explain why the method in question is effective

as an example of a scientific explanation, here is another method from page 1:



> Squeeze with your calves and then bump with the spurs


now if i'm right in assuming that A: a bump with the spurs would be enough to get the horse to respond appropriately and B: the person who gave that method would release even somewhat with the spurs and calves when the horse gave the right response, the explanation is: it positively punishes the wrong thing (wrong thing: not responding to the squeeze. punishment: bump with the spurs); and subsequently negatively reinforces the right thing (by either somewhat or entirely releasing the spurs and squeeze). simple as that.
and classical conditioning says that the horse will come to associate and respond to the original stimulus (squeeze) with the final response ("pick up the speed or move up to the next gait" was the example given)
and because of that, the method can be "boiled down" to fundamental principles (in this and most cases: operant conditioning to establish and shape behaviours, and classical conditioning to "connect" stimuli with responses) and re-applied to other situations, disciplines or animals.

now in contrast, the method in question, while yes it does positively punish a wrong response (not trotting), it also positively punishes the right response (trotting) by using an aversive stimulus (holding back) to prevent the animal from giving the right response (trotting), and it also negatively reinforces a wrong response (not trotting), and so, by any existing explanations of animal behaviour that i'm aware of, it is futile in regards to getting the right response (trotting). now if anyone has a new explanation of animal behaviour then i am all ears. and i am open to the fact that a new explanation of animal behaviour might be consistent with and explain the method in question, and in which case i will have an answer to my question and will happily and thankfully accept that.
but untill then i think it's pretty fair to wonder how and why. and note i said *how *and *why*. the nature of my posts have always been relating to HOW or WHY the method works. not once did i offer an answer or personal opinion on whether i think the method does or doesn't work.

also anything subjective about ognend (including the content of other threads or his experience or lack thereof) doesn't have any relevance to the points he's brought up - either contradict them or leave people to draw their own conclusions, but don't get personal. similarly, cherie's 50(+?) years of experience is irrelevant, and i mean no offence in saying that, but if we use personal experience or tradition to justify or explain (or contradict - which is why i've been hesitant to offer my own "personal experience" in this thread) the way things are done then horse training will not progress beyond what it already is. which, regardless of your experience, discipline or views on this particular topic, should be saddening.


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

COWCHICK77 said:


> *To the bolded part of your statement*....
> *I totally agree, but AGAIN, the thread was based on a horse and rider that has the knowledge but has been slagging off. NOT a situation where the horse or rider doesn't know any better and just gets frustrated and goes to whipping.*
> 
> *No argument, rider is at fault, again a rider that can not read his horse.*
> ...


Then there must be a paradox here somewhere - the OP seems to be "top level" but she cannot figure out the basic thing such as "my horse wont go immediately when I cue him - what do I do". I find it hard to believe that the OP is seasoned - esp. with a topic like "frustrated".

To answer your question about the horse who is squirmy and won't line up outside of trailer: I would work them around the trailer a bit at a good paced trot, lots of changes of direction etc. Then I would put the horse in a straight walk away from trailer. No need to spank (you are the one who said about getting into their head). Again, spanking is for people who don't have the time.

Talking about top people and their knowledge: did I tell you that once I visited a top level (hall of famer) cutter trainer - watched him train his horses on cows. Each session was about 20-30 minutes, the usual stuff. He rode them serially - 10-15 a day.

There was a little filly in the sequence who he rode hard - it was obvious she was not your "bred" cutter. He got off and lo and behold, the filly's bit had blood on it and the corner of her mouth had a cut and was bleeding (yes, you can pull on the bit THAT hard). Do you think the filly got a good deal with this top guy? You know what he told the owners? That the filly isn't cut out to be a cutter (excuse the pun). What I think really happened was this: top cutter X has a mold that every horse has to fit into. He has 15 a day to ride. One of them does not fit mold. Top cutter X knows only one way to train a horse who responds well to it, top cutter X punishes the horse that does not fit and marks her as a reject. 

Clinton Anderson? Never seen the man work, don't know him. However, I can tell you why a lot of people "in the biz" hate him - he has demystified horsemanship for the masses. Until he and Pat came along, it was any unwashed guy who could hang a shingle with his name outside and call himself a "whisperer". Then come along people like Clinton or Pat and all of a sudden horsemanship turns out to be mechanical for 90% of the population who do not seek out top level competition performance - they just want a safe horse to doodle around on. I have heard that a guy like Fappani apparently uses Clinton to start his horses on the ground.

Then there is Pat Parelli - I actually saw him compete in Okeechobee Florida in a local reining competition. I saw a guy boxing a cow and my wife said it was him, I said, "nah, a rich guy like that, what would he do in this local dump" - but it turned out it was him after all. Very nice fella. I think he knows horses, I have never seen his DVDs though.

But, I digress, let;s not change the topic. Never spank a horse to correct him, I stand by it.

My $.02


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

christopher said:


> cherie's 50(+?) years of experience is irrelevant, and i mean no offence in saying that


just before anyone jumps in and crucifies me for saying that, i will be the first to admit it sounds harsher than i meant it too.

the point i was trying to make was that you cant use 'personal experience' to prove up a claim, and you can't use 'lack of personal experience' to contradict a point.
i could've definitely been a lot more polite in making that point.

sorry cherie & others. i didnt mean any disrespect or offence


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

ognend said:


> If you can do everything without the "tools" exactly like you can with the "tools" - why use the tools? Tell me this - do you think the horse can tell the difference when you are all spurred and spaded up as opposed to not?


For me it's a matter of refinement in communication. I use "tools" in a signal/feel based method of riding. I get the same results from my horse, but there is a big difference in the signal offered through my hackamore and my spade. It's like the difference in a telegraph and telephone. So yes the horse can tell the difference.*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

christopher said:


> also anything subjective about ognend (including the content of other threads or his experience or lack thereof) doesn't have any relevance to the points he's brought up - either contradict them or leave people to draw their own conclusions, but don't get personal. similarly, cherie's 50(+?) years of experience is irrelevant, and i mean no offence in saying that, but if we use personal experience or tradition to justify or explain (or contradict - which is why i've been hesitant to offer my own "personal experience" in this thread) the way things are done then horse training will not progress beyond what it already is. which, regardless of your experience, discipline or views on this particular topic, should be saddening.


To everyone who invokes the "years of experience" story, read Ed Connell's "Vaquero style horsemanship" book. In it, in the beginning he explains how old timers used to "cure" bucking by provoking the horse to buck and then quirting him on the nose. The "top ones" were the ones who would always hit the nose and never the eyes.

I could easily see ourselves having this discussion a hundred years ago, me saying "quirting a horse is stupid, there are better ways" and someone coming along telling me how I only have four years of experience and XYZ has fifty so I better shut up....

My $.02


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> For me it's a matter of refinement in communication. I use "tools" in a signal/feel based method of riding. I get the same results from my horse, but there is a big difference in the signal offered through my hackamore and my spade. It's like the difference in a telegraph and telephone. So yes the horse can tell the difference.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's great but was not really the question: can your horse do the same stuff, react the same way, with the same speed and intensity of the reaction with your spurs on and spurs off, all other things being equal? If so, why use the spurs?

You know, I have heard of a lot of people say the same thing - that the spurs are for refined communication. Sure, I understand. However, I have seen a lot of people used them to make the horse do stuff when he doesn't do something right. The tool of refinement quickly turns into a tool of punishment. Unless you are of perfect character, perfectly cool to control yourself etc. spurs are best left hanging on the wall.

Hey look, imagine if police officers would reach for the gun every time they didn't like your answer - nobody would like that, would they?

A lot of people think that a horse has a limited communication capability, I mean after all they cannot speak and they have no apparent long term goals and ambitions. But then again a lot of people talk about them as "trying to always get out of work if they can" etc.

I used to ride with a very good reining trainer - he had a philosophy: if I set out to teach my horse something today, if he gives me the answer in 10 minutes, he is done for the day (in the arena, they always used to get ridden on trails too, just to let them change scenery and "air out"). I also met a top reiner who rode the horses for an hour no matter what he was teaching and when the horse gave an answer. They also never left the arena. Whose horses do you think tried to "get out of work" more? Whose horses were happier to do what was asked of them?

My $.02


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

christopher said:


> ..the point i was trying to make was that you cant use 'personal experience' to prove up a claim, and you can't use 'lack of personal experience' to contradict a point.


Wrong on both counts, specious reasoning at its finest 

In any discussion regarding horsemanship, personal experience is the very thing that defines an accomplished horseperson. A horseperson's _bona fides_ are earned, not book learned or borrowed from the current trainer du jour's latest youtube vid :wink:

A lack of personal experience is most certainly grounds to contradict a point. Earlier this year we had a younger person posting here, and while she made some cogent points periodically she would post up something that was so fundamentally wrong and inappropriate it became apparent she really had zero personal experience and was only parroting things she read or saw on the internet. This attention seeking child had never even ridden and it was her lack of practical application of the advice she prattled on about that eventually tripped her up.

Bottom line? Book (or for that matter chronic seminar auditing) smart ≠ IRL experience.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

ognend said:


> That's great but was not really the question: can your horse do the same stuff, react the same way, with the same speed and intensity of the reaction with your spurs on and spurs off, all other things being equal? If so, why use the spurs?
> 
> You know, I have heard of a lot of people say the same thing - that the spurs are for refined communication. Sure, I understand. However, I have seen a lot of people used them to make the horse do stuff when he doesn't do something right. The tool of refinement quickly turns into a tool of punishment. Unless you are of perfect character, perfectly cool to control yourself etc. spurs are best left hanging on the wall.


If you already understand why are you asking? People misuse all kinds of tools, what's you're point, people who know how to use spurs souldn't because some other people abuse them?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

DimSum said:


> In any discussion regarding horsemanship, personal experience is the very thing that defines an accomplished horseperson.


On the converse side, the wrong personal experience is what defines the same person too. When I was "green" I used to be offered all sorts of advice from people with the "experience". I even paid for some of it. When I actually learned and practiced proper horsemanship and put my head in the proper frame of mind, I realized that many of the folks who offered advice had no clue whatsoever. Some did stuff 'cause 'diddy did it', some did because it worked with one horse 18 years ago, some, well, had no reason for doing what they were doing, they just thought it sounded good. Then there were some who knew what they were talking about. That's the problem with horsemanship when there are no government bodies to regulate who can charge for the advice - all sorts of people do it without consequence. Hey, you might want to stick around - I am writing a book describing my experiences as a "greenhorn" - I think not many people will like what I have to say.



DimSum said:


> A horseperson's _bona fides_ are earned, not book learned or borrowed from the current trainer du jour's latest youtube vid :wink:


Horses are forgiving creatures. You could train one harshly and still have a "good" horse.



DimSum said:


> A lack of personal experience is most certainly grounds to contradict a point.


So is the wealth of the wrong long term experience. Experience aside, as I said, treating the horse like she proposed is not horsemanship. May get the job done but so can quirting a horse on the nose when he bucks.

My $.02


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

Mike Zimmerman said:


> If you already understand why are you asking? People misuse all kinds of tools, what's you're point, people who know how to use spurs souldn't because some other people abuse them?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You said that your horse can do the same exact stuff with the spurs as without. So I am asking why use the spurs then, apparently to you and your horse it's just extra metal.

I suspect that your horse really can't do the same stuff without your spurs on. I am just waiting for you to say it.


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

ognend said:


> On the converse side, the wrong personal experience is what defines the same person too.


Surely it does, which is the crux of what Cherie is trying to impart to you, haven't you been reading the posts? You just made her point, the horse learns from that "wrong" experience just what is expected of them. 



ognend said:


> Horses are forgiving creatures. You could train one harshly and still have a "good" horse.


Harsh is in the eye of the beholder, a simple swift correction without anger is not the same as being "harsh". You want harsh, go to any lower level show and see what happens when Dobbins doesn't perform to expectations once they exit the arena-or see what goes on in the warm up arena. One of the reasons I no longer care to show at any upper level but I digress here.



ognend said:


> So is the wealth of the wrong long term experience. Experience aside, as I said, treating the horse like she proposed is not horsemanship. May get the job done but so can quirting a horse on the nose when he bucks.


:lol: come up with something that isn't a straw man argument and I'll get back to you. Otherwise, all you are advocating is a position that really shows you haven't got a good grasp of what Cherie is trying to communicate.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

The longer this thread goes on the more I understand that it is like trying to explain color to a blind person, or maybe better to explain that genuine feeling of joy, no joy isn't the right word, I can't find the right word to explain it....

Frustration is what I feel when I am trying to put into words what I feel and know, and I can't make the darn language work for me....

Ok the intense feeling of sheer pleasure when you and your horse are working together at a high level of training. I have found joy often when riding, that communication, shared purpose etc etc, the joy of getting a greenie to move off of your leg, those first faltering steps under saddle, or just poodling down the track on a loose rein on a loved and trusted companion, but that sheer pleasure feeling.....very rare

Reminder, I am talking about the highest level of training, something that I have had the teeniest tiniest glimpse into, riding a horse who knows its job inside out, and is happy in it's work, that is something completely different, that not everyone gets to experience. For me it was riding a couple of awesome reiners, Oh, and many years ago a good, but not top class show jumper (who showed me that although I had been jumping for years I knew NOTHING:lol 

So eventually to the point, so many people don't get that for QUALITY western riders the scary looking spade and Cathedral bits, and the big fancy looking spurs are simply proving that their horse does not need them, horse and rider are at the peak of their training, because lets be honest if I got on a horse with a big bit, and wearing big spurs I would give myself a life expectancy of about 2 minutes before the wreck happened.

This whole discussion as I say is trying to explain something to a few who will never ever get it, and that is sad. Those who over analyse, and appear to have digested a training manual or six, or have learned their stuff through You Tube, will obviously poo hoo those who have spent years learning their craft, because the one thing they don't have is years of bruises, sweat and tears as you really get to understand and read horses.

Yes of course years of experience doesn't mean that someone is good by default, but when you spend time with them, listen to what they say, watch them work, apply the advice that they share, then you pretty soon work out who has been doing the wrong thing year after year, and who actually knows their stuff.

There are many many people on these boards, and having been here a few years I know who actually knows their stuff and who is full of bovine excrement. I have to say that it is those who have the best advice are more usually those who have done it for a while.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

ognend said:


> You said that your horse can do the same exact stuff with the spurs as without. So I am asking why use the spurs then, apparently to you and your horse it's just extra metal.
> 
> I suspect that your horse really can't do the same stuff without your spurs on. I am just waiting for you to say it.


I never even said I use spurs, so you'll be waiting a while LOL!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

Golden Horse said:


> ... because lets be honest if I got on a horse with a big bit, and wearing big spurs I would give myself a life expectancy of about 2 minutes before the wreck happened.










hang on I have to get some paper towel to wipes the spit off my screen


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

ognend said:


> On the converse side, the wrong personal experience is what defines the same person too. When I was "green" I used to be offered all sorts of advice from people with the "experience". I even paid for some of it. When I actually learned and practiced proper horsemanship and put my head in the proper frame of mind, I realized that many of the folks who offered advice had no clue whatsoever. Some did stuff 'cause 'diddy did it', some did because it worked with one horse 18 years ago, some, well, had no reason for doing what they were doing, they just thought it sounded good. Then there were some who knew what they were talking about. That's the problem with horsemanship when there are no government bodies to regulate who can charge for the advice - all sorts of people do it without consequence. Hey, you might want to stick around - I am writing a book describing my experiences as a "greenhorn" - I think not many people will like what I have to say.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I get the feeling from this paragraph that you now consider yourself to have learned the proper way of horsemanship, how it truly IS, and that you didn't know it in the past, but now you do. it's usually just about that time that something comes along and shakes up our beliefs that we "know" what is right. At least, if we allow that we might not know everything, it can.


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

tinyliny said:


> ... it's usually just about that time that something comes along and shakes up our beliefs that we "know" what is right. At least, if we allow that we might not know everything, it can.


True enlightenment-whether it is riding a horse or walking down the road in life- is when you know there are things _you don't know_ :wink:


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

DimSum said:


> Surely it does, which is the crux of what Cherie is trying to impart to you, haven't you been reading the posts? You just made her point, the horse learns from that "wrong" experience just what is expected of them.


Do not try to turn the argument away from where it is going. I was not talking about the wrong experience for the horse - rather for the "trainer". Someone can spend years "training" and still be clueless since they do not do the right thing from the get-go and just keep perfecting the bad thing. 



DimSum said:


> Harsh is in the eye of the beholder, a simple swift correction without anger is not the same as being "harsh". You want harsh, go to any lower level show and see what happens when Dobbins doesn't perform to expectations once they exit the arena-or see what goes on in the warm up arena. One of the reasons I no longer care to show at any upper level but I digress here.


We agree here. However, I think you are escaping my point - simple swift corrections need not exist if you are paying attention. And if you are not and your horse progresses (or rather regresses) to a bad place, it is not his fault so why whip him? Fix yourself, stay on it and the horse will come back to you. Question is: how much time and patience do you have? Or is it easier to "swiftly correct"?



DimSum said:


> :lol: come up with something that isn't a straw man argument and I'll get back to you. Otherwise, all you are advocating is a position that really shows you haven't got a good grasp of what Cherie is trying to communicate.


Eh? You have an argument? Past the "Cherie is vastly experienced, you are too stupid to understand what she is saying to you" "argument"?

My $.02


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

tinyliny said:


> I get the feeling from this paragraph that you now consider yourself to have learned the proper way of horsemanship, how it truly IS, and that you didn't know it in the past, but now you do. it's usually just about that time that something comes along and shakes up our beliefs that we "know" what is right. At least, if we allow that we might not know everything, it can.


I agree with you. However, this is not about knowing everything, this is about me daring to criticize someone who apparently has 50+ years of experience and damned if she is not the best.


----------



## Sharpie (May 24, 2009)

ognend said:


> We agree here. However, I think you are escaping my point - simple swift corrections need not exist if you are paying attention. And if you are not and your horse progresses (or rather regresses) to a bad place, it is not his fault so why whip him? Fix yourself, stay on it and the horse will come back to you. Question is: how much time and patience do you have? Or is it easier to "swiftly correct"?


Read the entire thread. Really appreciated that drink a few pages back.

You know the old saying "Practice makes perfect"? I learned a while back that it is dead wrong. Practice makes permanent. Whatever it is you learn to do, done often enough, will become the go-to routine muscle memory with repetition. So, when we practice with an aim to improve, we must be constantly changing bits so they are closer to the ideal (whatever that is for a given discipline).

So, if my goal is a healthy horse sound in mind and body that is able to do a certain task as near to correct as possible, why would I let him practice doing it wrong when correcting him quickly will end it immediately? As an example- I let my horse eat while we're out on the trail (a divisive issue all by itself, I know) but with the proviso that he must stop eating and move along when I tell him to. Those are the rules, exactly as they have been for a couple of years. Every so often, he wants to flip me the bird. He gets a solid smack (your "swift correction") for that and then we'll be good for a few weeks. I could stop letting him eat entirely and sidestep the issue, but I prefer not to. This is a case of a horse who knows the correct answer but chooses, on occasion, not to give it. I honestly cannot fathom how saying, with a quick smack, which horses well understand and use on eachother with biting or kicking, "No- Wrong Answer!" is going to be detrimental to the horse or our relationship.

Now, for a horse that honestly doesn't understand what is being asked, is fearful, is overwhelmed, or any of those things, a different approach is certainly in order. But that is the dance- you have to know what you're asking, your horse has to know what you're asking, and you have to know that your horse knows what you're asking. Like the earlier example of the seasoned trail horse not wanting to move out away from the trailer, yes, you can work them there until they agree leaving is the easier way. That is certainly one option. But if the horse knows its job, giving them a quick smack is both less time consuming and less tiring for you both if you have a long day out ahead of you. Why waste time re-teaching a lesson the horse already knows well and is just seeing if they can conveniently 'forget' for the day?

A horse who understands a properly asked request and decides to ignore it should be disciplined. I want my horse to go because I said so. Not because he thought it would be a good idea. At the end of the day IMPO a horse should listen to the human because the human is the leader, and horses (at least mine) tend to make stupid and potentially dangerous decisions left to think for themselves in a world full of man-made monsters and dangers. 

The idea that no horse will ever make a bad/lazy/wrong choice just seems silly to me, as is the idea that it is never the horse's fault. Of course 99% it IS the human causing the problem, but yes, sometimes horses choose to do something foolish too, and you cannot always prevent it, only try to reduce the likelihood of it happening again. (See: ways horses try to kill themselves in pasture, or in stall, or in field, or in the wild, etc)


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

Sharpie said:


> Those are the rules, exactly as they have been for a couple of years. Every so often, he wants to flip me the bird. He gets a solid smack (your "swift correction") for that and then we'll be good for a few weeks.


The fact that you have to smack the horse every so often shows you that he never learned the "lesson" and that you are very ineffective in teaching the lesson.



Sharpie said:


> A horse who understands a properly asked request and decides to ignore it should be disciplined. I want my horse to go because I said so.


Then perhaps a motorcycle would be a better choice? Seriously though, to come back to that trail horse response. The horse around the trailer is uneasy and squirmy, you as a human need to first figure out why he is so BEFORE you punish him for being so. If your child if afraid of the dark and cries in the bedroom, do you run out and slap it? I mean, the child may not do it every night, just occasionally when something scares her "in the dark".



Sharpie said:


> The idea that no horse will ever make a bad/lazy/wrong choice just seems silly to me, as is the idea that it is never the horse's fault. Of course 99% it IS the human causing the problem


Now read that again.

You folks so far sound like a group of people convinced that the horses of the world are in a conspiracy against you - they don't want to work, they are evasive, "flip you fingers", try to cheat you out of your well deserved time on the trail just to s*rew with you. All that from an animal with a squirrel sized brain 

My $.02


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Oh the meadow muffins.......


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

ognend said:


> The fact that you have to smack the horse every so often shows you that he never learned the "lesson" and that you are very ineffective in teaching the lesson.
> 
> No it shows that the horse will test the boundaries every now and again, because they are not machines, they have free will
> 
> ...


Hey wasn't there a a thread about "You people" a while ago?

The fact that my horse may have a squirrel size brain, means that he doesn't retain information well, because 99% of it is taken up with eating...

Again I don't actually own a horse that has the level of training that this discussion is about, so for my own horses, well Gibbs has little clue how to lope in an arena, so I have to ask, ask again and give him space to move into the pace. Ben is so unsure about cantering under saddle that I would ever correct him yet, if he can get the pace, then go ahead young man. Emmy, knows her leads, if she gets it wrong it is totally my fault at this stage for not asking clearly, I'll let her go a few strides, then I'll slow her and ask again, no worries.

If and only IF I was riding the calibre of horse that we are talking about, and IF and only IF I had the experience and talent to ask the right way, darn right I would shut them down quick if they chose to ignore the correct request.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

DimSum said:


> hang on I have to get some paper towel to wipes the spit off my screen


Here













Muppetgirl said:


> Oh the meadow muffins.......


Plenty for you if you need them Muppet :rofl:


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

Before I go on to argue my point, I just have to say this. Everyone needs to stop with the finger pointing and whining. This thread is nothing personal. It's about having a great, logical, debate about the logistics of getting an immediate response from your horse. There have been lots of interesting and good points thrown out by both sides. So please, let's leave the bickering behind us. Thanks!

On to my point now. Lol I believe one of the major questions that has come up is the why Cherie's tip is effective and why is it only for finished horses. I am not Cherie, but this is my take on it. A finished horse knows what is expected of it. It is not learning anything new like a green horse. A finished horse wouldn't become frantic or panicked because it doesn't understand a perfectly made request. A young horse will do those things. If you ask a finished horse to immediately step into the canter (assuming the horse was perfectly cued) and fails to do so (assuming there is no rider error), the rider would then immediately stop the horse. The rider would then get after the horse, not allowing him to step forward. You then start again, as soon as the horse has settled from reacting to being gotten after, by cueing the horse correctly. The horse will then move off of your leg, immediately, as requested. All of this happens within about 10 to 15 seconds of the horse failing to respond to the cue. The reason you do not let the horse go forward is because the horse will then be moving off of the whip/spurs, rather than the suble cue from your calf. The idea is that the horse correlates the touch of your calf to an immediate transition, rather than being whipped/spurred. You would not do this with a young horse that is learning because they have no clear expectation of what they were supposed to do in the first place. You would only put the youngster into a state of panic, confusion, or they would have a horsey meltdown. 

Also, as stated earlier in this thread, all finished horses become finished by learning their actions have consequences. I think we can all agree to this. How does a foal learn to not walk all over it's handler? How does a young horse learn biting his handler is unacceptable? Not by being coddled, that's for sure. And how does that baby horse then become a finished reining horse one day? No horse becomes finished without learning that there are consequences to their actions.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

I would just like to remind folks (actually a certain "folk") that this thread was not and is not referring to trail horses. That is a totally different subject. Using examples about them is irrelevant.


----------



## katbalu (Sep 8, 2011)

Golden Horse said:


> Hey wasn't there a a thread about "You people" a while ago?
> .


There was  I just picked that title so people would read it. But that thread wasn't a negative 'you people'; it was a positive 'you people'  as in, 'you people' that are awesome or even just pretty decent riders tell me about a time where you weren't so great, or weren't even okay @ riding, and how far you've come... (Give me hope!)... Anyway, back to the regular scheduled programming....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

DimSum said:


> Wrong on both counts, specious reasoning at its finest
> 
> In any discussion regarding horsemanship, personal experience is the very thing that defines an accomplished horseperson. A horseperson's bona fides are earned, not book learned or borrowed from the current trainer du jour's latest youtube vid
> 
> ...


you said "A lack of personal experience is most certainly grounds to contradict a point"
yet you also said "she made some cogent points" in reference to a person who "had zero personal experience". were her cogent points contradicted solely by her lack of personal experience? or were they still cogent points? if she hadn't posted something "fundamentally wrong and inappropriate" or made apparent that she "had zero personal experience" would you have looked at her cogent points any differently? if someone with great personal experience posted something "fundamentally wrong and inappropriate" would you see it as cogent for no reason other than that the person who posted it has great personal experience?

bagheera: thank you for trying to be unbiased - i like that.
i am happy to agree to disagree on what a finished horse is. "A finished horse knows what is expected of it" whereas to me a finished horse DOES (rather than just knows) what is expected of it - assuming the cue is correct.
and i agree that actions need consequences (both positive and negative), what that doesn't answer though is why the method put forward is an effective consequence.

franknbeans: are the principles by which a reining horse learns different to those by which a trail horse learns?


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

Shadow said:


> Hello, I'm looking for some advice. *I'm finally able to ride all I want. *March, April, May, I rode her darn near every day, since then about 3-4 times a week. *I started her at 3 and been the only one of her back. She turned 8 in Feb. I started rein training her earlier this year also. *I would say she's trained fairly well western style. *I'm to the point of trying to speed things up and when I ask her, because I know for a fact she knows what I am asking, I expect her to do it NOW, not when she gets around to it but when I ask. *(There is my frustration!) *I have to take it to a place I don't like when I have to keep nagging at her to respond when I ask. *She will sure do it when I take it there but I hate doing that.
> **Is this just another step in her training process? *Will she eventually give it up and respond when I ask her without me taking it to that other place?
> **Just this year, I finally seen a lot more maturity in her. *I really think in a couple years I could take her straight up in the bridle if I can get this worked out. *
> **I also know that earlier this year I was pushing too hard for results and have since backed off a bit but I do still expect her to respond quicker.
> ...


This is the the OP's first post, she just started rein training this horse earlier this year, this is not a finished reiner even though it's 8 years old.*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Sharpie (May 24, 2009)

christopher said:


> i am happy to agree to disagree on what a finished horse is. "A finished horse knows what is expected of it" whereas to me a finished horse DOES (rather than just knows) what is expected of it - assuming the cue is correct.
> and i agree that actions need consequences (both positive and negative), what that doesn't answer though is why the method put forward is an effective consequence.


Well said- and a good thing to be clear on. Out of curiosity, from your point of view, can a finished horse sometimes need re-training? Ie, for whatever reason, stop being 'finished', and if so, what would it take/proof would be needed for them to regain the status of a finished horse as you define it? Would a horse be finished if it only DOES for certain riders while others it might give trouble (assuming equally skilled/technically competent riders).

I think your standard is higher than what most people think of, but certainly wouldn't argue that is a bad thing.


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

I think we are finally understanding each other. While I believe it is great to hold a horse to a high standard based off of the training it has received, it does not make sense, imo, to assume it will always choose the correct response because of said training. Every time someone gets on a horse's back, they become a "trainer," (great, good, bad, or ugly) and that saying is widely accepted because horses are always learning. From the time they are born until the day they die, they are learning new things from their environment and the people who handle/ride them. I believe it is unfair to hold a horse to that high of a standard. They have every right to make mistakes, make decisions, and learn new things. If a horse does only what it is trained to do, I don't feel that it will take a rider to the level they'd like to achieve. (assuming we are talking top level riders) This thread is geared more towards reiners, but I am more familiar with jumping horses. A horse that is finished, say a Grand Prix jumping horse, he might be great at his job, but he will never win the big classes. It takes heart for a horse to be the best. Even for a reining horse. No one wants to see a robotic horse in the show ring. It takes a bit of spunk, playfulness, and curiosity to make a top horse. I'm not saying you should expect a horse to be playful or naughty, but you have to make an allowance for imperfection. Even at the top.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

ognend said:


> You folks so far sound like a group of people convinced that the horses of the world are in a conspiracy against you - they don't want to work, they are evasive, "flip you fingers", try to cheat you out of your well deserved time on the trail just to s*rew with you. All that from an animal with a squirrel sized brain
> 
> My $.02



I hope I don't come across that way. I don't think everyone here thinks a horse is out to get us or get out of work or flip us off.

The disciplining of a mounted horse that knowingly ignores a rider's cue should be all about getting his full and attention, so you can ask again and expect a correct response. NO?. So, if you over and under him, or snap him with the mecate, or use a dressage whip to smack him , or a quirt, it should be about seriously getting his attention, more than about causeing a lot of pain.
If there is another way to get a horse's attention, really quickly and sharply, so that it's very meaningful and memorable, what would that be?


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> If there is another way to get a horse's attention, really quickly and sharply, so that it's very meaningful and memorable, what would that be?


Although I find it less than reliable, I've seen plenty of people who yell or scream at their horses. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Sharpie said:


> Well said- and a good thing to be clear on. Out of curiosity, from your point of view, can a finished horse sometimes need re-training? Ie, for whatever reason, stop being 'finished', and if so, what would it take/proof would be needed for them to regain the status of a finished horse as you define it? Would a horse be finished if it only DOES for certain riders while others it might give trouble (assuming equally skilled/technically competent riders).
> 
> I think your standard is higher than what most people think of, but certainly wouldn't argue that is a bad thing.


it's not just my standard for finished. the nrha handbook says "The best reined horse should be willingly guided or controlled with little or no apparent resistance" and the measurement of that is "0 to *infinity*". which is why i've said before in this thread that "finished" is an unacheivable ideal. it is also why i've tried to put quotations around the word finished in this thread - it is a word i personally would be hesitant to use in describing any actual, non-hypothetical, horse. it is also why a "finishing" method reserved for "finished" horses is just, thus far, nonsense.

and assuming equally skilled and competent riders, the (hypothetical) "finished" horse will respond correctly regardless. but that shouldn't (note i say "shouldn't", not "doesn't") exempt those riders (trainers - "every rider is a trainer") from explaining their training methods using some new or existing explanation of animal behaviour, and not just anecdotes, personal experience or correlation.



Bagheera said:


> While I believe it is great to hold a horse to a high standard based off of the training it has received.


my standards for a horses 'training' (adjective) are not based on the training it has received, but on the responses the horse gives in any given moment or to any given cue. and if a horses responses are poor (again assuming it isn't rider error), regardless of how much or how well it's been "trained" (verb), it is not "trained" (adjective).



Bagheera said:


> horses are always learning. From the time they are born until the day they die, they are learning new things from their environment and the people who handle/ride them.


i entirely agree with this. and that is why if i was riding a trained horse and it gave me the finger i would firstly retract my opinion on the horses "trained" status, and use some application of the 'principles of learning' to _teach_ the horse A: not to give me the finger and B: to comply. and that would never involve giving entirely conflicting cues ("forward cue" multiplied by 10 while holding back hard enough to not let the horse go forward = conflicting cues) to the horse, unless the final objective was to conflict an existing cue.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

So therefore, a finished reining horse who 'knows its ****' is not finished in your eyes if it takes a misstep even with a **** poor rider on board or with a world class trainer on board?. Gee your 'standards' are so high I'm curious to see some of the horses you've trained and shown, but we might be holding our breath for that right? 

The micro analyzing and semantics here is rather ridiculous.

Why don't you tell us how you set up and correct a horse who blows through a lead departure? Instead of referring to manuals and books.


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

christopher said:


> you said "A lack of personal experience is most certainly grounds to contradict a point"
> yet you also said "she made some cogent points" in reference to a person who "had zero personal experience". were her cogent points contradicted solely by her lack of personal experience? or were they still cogent points?


Shakes head. You really should learn what a logical disconnect is as you have a chronic case of it :lol: A person who posts up advice without the experience to back it up is merely parroting what they have been told, like a child mimicking their elders (or in this case what the uber trainer Gawd just posted on his blog). They lack the practical experience to recognize when that "one answer fits all" is not applicable in this situation-or is even dangerous to attempt. 

Your whole argument reminds me of the "Don't worry, I stayed at a Holiday Inn" commercial where the guy is standing there about to perform surgery. Well, a person with no experience who posts up other people''s advice without the practical experience to back it up is cut from the same cloth. Left up to me I'll take the guy who went to medical school to do my surgery, kthxbai :lol:



christopher said:


> if she hadn't posted something "fundamentally wrong and inappropriate" or made apparent that she "had zero personal experience" would you have looked at her cogent points any differently?


Actually yes in her particular case, as I do not worship at the NH altar and have seen far too many horses messed up by people who watch a few videos and think waving a magic stick is the way to go. 



christopher said:


> if someone with great personal experience posted something "fundamentally wrong and inappropriate" would you see it as cogent for no reason other than that the person who posted it has great personal experience?


Again, specious reasoning and straw man arguments but I will indulge you this last time. If I disagree with something someone here has posted I would not hesitate to speak up, and have done so on occasion. I don't care if it was George Morris himself, if I thought it was unsafe or wrong I would say so.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

just a quick reminder to keep the discussion civil and respectful. Differ with dignity, please.


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Unfortunately, you can't read a set of instructions and have a clue how to train a horse. When dealing with cars or computers, you aren't dealing with 1000+ pounds of muscle with a mind of its own. Just because the creature has free will and makes a choice doesn't make him any _less_ finished. That training and knowledge is still there, but it's up to the rider to ensure that the horse follows that training.

Training a horse is _not_ like writing a computer program where you can expect an identical result to an identical set of commands every time those commands are entered for eternity. Something with a mind of it's own will begin to anticipate what you want, they may decide that they just don't feel like being "crisp" that day, or they may have their attention broken because one of the other horses in the barn whinnied. 

It's not a mathematical equation where x always = 5 like in 2x+3=13. With horses, there is no correct answer because x is variable.

That's where experience comes into play. When I mentioned that 4 years was just a drop in the ocean, I don't know where you got the idea that I was comparing you to Cherie:?. I was speaking generally. 4 years is not enough time to learn enough to have a solid base and enough knowledge to understand or utilize some of the more advanced techniques. Unless you spent 20 hours out of every day under intense instruction on different horses of different training levels, 4 years experience simply can't compare to more.

I'm not talking about 50 years of crappy horsemanship. Everyone knows that a crappy horseman is a crappy horseman regardless of whether he's been riding for 5 minutes or 5 decades. BUT, a good horseman with 4 years experience simply won't have the experience or knowledge as a good horseman with 20+ years experience.

So, I'll leave with the invitation for someone who says that the method Cherie described is _never_ necessary to prove her wrong. Show off your high level reining or ranch horse that executes the thing you ask for perfectly, 100%, every time, without a hint of hesitation or attitude.


----------



## ognend (Sep 3, 2009)

DimSum said:


> Shakes head. You really should learn what a logical disconnect is as you have a chronic case of it :lol: A person who posts up advice without the experience to back it up is merely parroting what they have been told, like a child mimicking their elders (or in this case what the uber trainer Gawd just posted on his blog). They lack the practical experience to recognize when that "one answer fits all" is not applicable in this situation-or is even dangerous to attempt.
> 
> Your whole argument reminds me of the "Don't worry, I stayed at a Holiday Inn" commercial where the guy is standing there about to perform surgery. Well, a person with no experience who posts up other people''s advice without the practical experience to back it up is cut from the same cloth. Left up to me I'll take the guy who went to medical school to do my surgery, kthxbai :lol:


You still haven't addressed the issue though.

And I did offer an alternative to her "rein up and whip" approach.



DimSum said:


> Actually yes in her particular case, as I do not worship at the NH altar and have seen far too many horses messed up by people who watch a few videos and think waving a magic stick is the way to go.


But hang on, weren't we talking about finished horses and top trainers? These are not hopefully the guys with a few DVDs under their armpit. Pray tell, which NH or non NH method do you use (can be your own, no problem)? Do you cure a buck with a quirt on the nose? Do you saddle for the first time by tying to the post and blind folding? What exactly bothers you with the "NH altar"?

Heck, I will take anyone who has the interest to watch those DVDs to better themselves. On the other hand. God save you from all the "local" backyard trainers who urinate all over Clinton Anderson and Pat Parelli while serially destroying horses with their "50 years of experience received from Daddy".




DimSum said:


> Again, specious reasoning and straw man arguments but I will indulge you this last time. If I disagree with something someone here has posted I would not hesitate to speak up, and have done so on occasion. I don't care if it was George Morris himself, if I thought it was unsafe or wrong I would say so.


That's what I did - I disagreed with something someone said and I spoke up. Apparently I ran afoul an "NH altar hater" who refuses to discuss what people say because they do not have the same years of experience as (s)he does while at the same time talking about straw man arguments. Interesting...

My $.02


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Christopher-their are very few similarities between trail horses and reining horses, other than, of course that they are horses that are trained to be ridding. THere are totally different expectations. The OP has asked about REINING, not trail. That was what I was pointing out. Since your buddy, ognend has trail horses, and that is where his experience-all 4 years of it-is, that is what he is spewing. Training a trail horse is not relevant to training a reiner, other than a very few, very basic, principles


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

franknbeans said:


> Training a trail horse is not relevant to training a reiner, other than a very few, very basic, principles


Like rider on top, biting end usually going forward etc?




> Heck, I will take anyone who has the interest to watch those DVDs to better themselves. On the other hand. God save you from all the "local" backyard trainers who urinate all over Clinton Anderson and Pat Parelli while serially destroying horses with their "50 years of experience received from Daddy".


Blatantly cherry and running, have to go take food to the combine driver:

Really? you would take ANYONE who watches the videos, regardless of their level of understanding of what they are seeing and their ability to actually reproduce it. 

The one thing that good trainers have, whatever label you want to pin on them is timing, and that is where the experience comes in you simply cannot learn that from watching a video or worshipping at the feet of any guru, you have to get out there and do it.

I would far rather God, or any supreme being of choice, sent me someone who can actually DO IT rather than sell videos about it.


----------



## franknbeans (Jun 7, 2007)

Pretty much, GH! Rider TRIES to stay on top......

Some folks think watching DVD's on the couch makes them good at horsemanship, riding, etc......That is all good, but actually DOING is invaluable. I however, love watching folks come out to the barn who have just watched one of those "training" dvd's, or read one of the books.........who deal with the actual live horse, and it does not go well. Provides endless hours of entertainment. ;-) And the horse actually ends up less trained than the person. Very amusing.


----------



## Muppetgirl (Sep 16, 2012)

Or the horse needs to be retrained! That's why I won't let anyone ride my horse unless they're better than me!


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

ognend said:


> Then there must be a paradox here somewhere - the OP seems to be "top level" but she cannot figure out the basic thing such as "my horse wont go immediately when I cue him - what do I do". I find it hard to believe that the OP is seasoned - esp. with a topic like "frustrated".
> 
> *Well, the discussion has somewhat taken a turn towards the high level or reiner direction whether the OP is at that level or not. But even at that every trainer can get stumped at some point. No one knows it all. Trainers that I have worked for have other trainers come over with a trailer load of horses so they can pick each other brains and have other people watch them ride. I think everyone can admit that they need some outside help or an objective eye. If not and you think you got it all figured out-your doing it wrong.*
> 
> ...





franknbeans said:


> I would just like to remind folks (actually a certain "folk") that this thread was not and is not referring to trail horses. That is a totally different subject. Using examples about them is irrelevant.


*Sorry, my bad, I used a trail ride reference...*


*To Christopher:*
*You were asking about the negating of a spanking but not letting him go forward. I witnessed something that happened among my own horses this morning and it reminded me of this thread so I thought I would share.*

*I throw the hay over the fence to all the horses(they are all in the same area, a few acres, 4 horses). Young colt walks by the herd boss. Boss gives him the stink eye and slightly shifts his weight and one swish of the tail to threaten that he is turning his butt to him to kick. Colt ignores him, Boss herds the colt to the corner in a hurry and won't let him get out by cutting him off and biting the neck if tries to go forward, cutting him off and biting the hind if he tries to evade by running backwards to spin around and get out of the corner the other direction. Boss finally lets him go, goes back to his hay, colt has to walk by to get back to his hay. Boss again subtly signals like he did before, colt takes off at a gallop.*

*So the Boss subtly cued him to "move off", colt didn't respond fast enough. Boss took him to the corner and wouldn't let him get away from the punishment but was reinforcing the "when I say move -I mean move!" signal. Next time the boss gave the cue, colt moved off in a hurry.*

*And that is not the first time I have seen that horse punish another horse that way. But it works within the herd so why wouldn't work under saddle? *


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

Hummm.... I think we have to agree to disagree. I can't seem to convince you that even a finished horse will "give their rider the finger," and you can't convince me otherwise. All I can do is ask that, in the future, please do not discount a horse's abilities because they tell you no once. Give them a chance to show you how great they can be, even if they make one mistake. When you stop believing in them, they stop trying for you.

As for explaining why holding a horse back when you get after it works, I think I already did so, but I will explain again. If you ask a horse to make a canter transition with just the touch of your calf, and it does not, you have three options as a response. You can nag the horse, which we all agree, does nothing. You can whip/spur the horse, let them jump forward into the canter, which teaches the horse to go forward at the touch of the whip/spurs. Or you can whip/spur the horse while holding it back, and then ask them to transition again at the touch of your calf. This teaches the horse to go forward at the touch of your calf. COWCHICK77 did a good job of explaining how this technique is also seen within the herd dynamic. 

I hope this clears up your questions. Keep in mind this is just a training technique and will not work for every horse. All training techniques have a time and place to be used by the right person. And along with that, all training techniques can be used in an abusive manner. As stated earlier, it is about knowing the horse, what it is capable of, how it has been trained, and, most importantly, how the horse thinks.

When it comes to "experience" I have to agree that having on hand experience far outweighs read/seen experience. I put experience in quotations because there is no scale for what a person has learned. I know certain people who have been working with horses for only 6 years who know a lot more about horses than some people who have been working with horses for 20 years. The same is true in reverse. It all depends on the kind of hands on work you have done, who you have learned from, and how quickly you learn. Somethings can not be learned through reading. Having a "feel" for a horse is one of them. You can read all you want, but until you've done the time in the saddle, you will not truly be able to "feel" the horse. That kind of hands on experience is priceless.

As for NH, I think it has it's place. I also think that NH training techniques can turn dangerous, when used incorrectly or used by someone who does not understand the purpose of the technique. The reverse is also true. The main reason people hate NH, a specific trainer, or a style of training, is because a lot of people allow themselves to become die hard loyalists. You can't train a horse well if you only follow one training method. Every horse is different and has a mind of its own. You have to train each horse as an individual. It is important to pull techniques from all different training methods to give a horse the most personalized, complete training to help it succeed. I think we can all agree on this. People just need to stay away from jumping on the band wagon of a single method, but people will always jump on a band wagon, and the horse will always lose because of it.


----------



## Shadow (Jun 28, 2010)

Note to self: NEVER. EVER POST A THREAD, THEN BE WITHOUT INTERNET ACCESS FOR A WEEK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's a lot of reading!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't have the words and not even gonna try (I'd lose) not good with words.

Two additional comments. 1. I will never be the trainer many are, seriously. I realize that and can only try to do the best I can. I'm still learning all the time. 2. I do believe that in this particular case, Cherie and those agreeing with her advice were dead on. I had another very good ride today. Not perfect but I'd be awfully greedy for asking for more out of her.

Shadow


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

Shadow, glad to see you back and so glad you didn't run away after this whole debate LOL.

That's great news that you had a better ride. I'm sure they'll continue to improve every time you step in the stirrup .


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Glad you worked your way through the thread Shadow, and that you had a better ride.

Now remember never turn your back on a thread!


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

Muppetgirl said:


> So therefore, a finished reining horse who 'knows its ****' is not finished in your eyes if it takes a misstep even with a **** poor rider on board or with a world class trainer on board?.


if the horse is trained and the rider is at fault: it is the rider who needs training, not the horse.
and call me idealistic but if the horse is trained and the rider is trained: this wouldn't be a problem.



Muppetgirl said:


> The micro analyzing and semantics here is rather ridiculous.


i wholeheartedly agree that it's ridiculous. but that is what it comes down to when you present an "advanced training method" reserved for "advanced" "trained" horses.



Muppetgirl said:


> Why don't you tell us how you set up and correct a horse who blows through a lead departure? Instead of referring to manuals and books.


why dont you tell us how excessively giving a cue while withholding the response to that cue would make the horse more likely to respond sooner or better or with less pressure in future? instead of referring to personal experience or specific examples.



DimSum said:


> Shakes head. You really should learn what a logical disconnect is as you have a chronic case of it A person who posts up advice without the experience to back it up is merely parroting what they have been told, like a child mimicking their elders (or in this case what the uber trainer Gawd just posted on his blog). They lack the practical experience to recognize when that "one answer fits all" is not applicable in this situation-or is even dangerous to attempt.


does the fact that they copied it from someone else, having never experienced it for themselves, in and of itself make the advice wrong?



DimSum said:


> Your whole argument reminds me of the "Don't worry, I stayed at a Holiday Inn" commercial where the guy is standing there about to perform surgery. Well, a person with no experience who posts up other people''s advice without the practical experience to back it up is cut from the same cloth. Left up to me I'll take the guy who went to medical school to do my surgery, kthxbai


i have "practical experience" (irrelevant) of most of the alternative methods posted in this thread, and most of them can be explained using a scientific method (relevant), and do not seemingly rely on circular reasoning (relevant).
and speaking of logical disconnection - medical school doesn't specifically imply much, if any, "practical experience". it does imply a lot of study or "book learning" though. and coincidentally "The M.D. degree is typically earned in four years"

cowchick: that's fair enough. and i'm not saying what the boss horse did didn't work, and nor am i particularly saying that cherie's method doesn't work. but *why* did what the boss horse did work?



bagheera said:


> All I can do is ask that, in the future, please do not discount a horse's abilities because they tell you no once. Give them a chance to show you how great they can be, even if they make one mistake. When you stop believing in them, they stop trying for you.


i absolutely do not discount a horses abilities ever. i will retract my opinion on their "finished status" yes, but all that means is that i see them as a "not finished horse in need of more training", and not a "finished horse giving the finger".
also whenever i cue a horse i am always trying to give them a chance to show me how great they can be. which is why i personally wouldn't be inclined to withhold a relatively appropriate (relative to the fact that the rider multiplied the pressure by an excessive amount) response.



bagheera said:


> This teaches the horse to go forward at the touch of your calf


 that's great. but *why*?



bagheera said:


> I know certain people who have been working with horses for only 6 years who know a lot more about horses than some people who have been working with horses for 20 years. The same is true in reverse


which is why i take "it's been my personal experience that it works" as an example and not a reason. a correlation, not a cause.

shadow: congratulations on good results. please don't think that me asking why (and pointing out fallacies in answers to the question why) is a specific attempt to undermine the method or your efforts. if it works for you that's great - do what you need to do. i am only here to find out *why*.


----------



## katbalu (Sep 8, 2011)

Dude. They've told you why. At this point, you maybe have to consider that it's not their lack of explanation, but perhaps it's your lack of comprehension. Or maybe you think semantics is the best game EVER. Please read previous sentences in the most polite way possible.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## COWCHICK77 (Jun 21, 2010)

christopher said:


> cowchick: that's fair enough. and i'm not saying what the boss horse did didn't work, and nor am i particularly saying that cherie's method doesn't work. but *why* did what the boss horse did work?


Simple, the horse doesn't think that not being allowed to move as negating the punishment. 
_You_ think that it negates the spanking, not the horse. If the horse thought that way it wouldn't work right?






COWCHICK77 said:


> *Fair enough answer.*
> *But I do disagree with the "spanking is for people who don't have the time." You seem to think if I spank my horse constantly or want to put people who do spank their horses in the same category as horse beaters who bloody mouths and hides. *


I didn't proof read before posting so I wanted to correct this statement.
It was supposed to read:
*Fair enough answer.*
*But I do disagree with the "spanking is for people who don't have the time." You seem to think if I spank my horse I constantly do so(I very rarely need to). You want to put people who do spank their horses in the same category as horse beaters who bloody mouths and hides. *


----------



## Bagheera (Apr 23, 2013)

Well, I've got to say its been fun. I am officially pulling out of this thread. I feel I have explained myself in a clear and detailed manner. Christopher, I am sorry you did not understand my two explainations of Cherie's training technique. I am not in the habit of continually repeating myself and should I continue to try to explain this, I will be doing just that. 

Shadow, I am so glad that you are having good results with your horse. Keep us updated on the progress. 

Lastly, remember to keep it friendly guys.


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

katbalu said:


> They've told you why.


they've told me that it works. told me why one might want to use the method, told me what it serves to correct, told me a lot of things here but none of it is or adds up to how/why it works.
perhaps i've missed it? if so could someone give a quote of where it's explained?



cowchick77 said:


> Simple, the horse doesn't think that not being allowed to move as negating the punishment. _You_ think that it negates the spanking, not the horse.


but when you punish "lack of X response" only to also reinforce "lack of X response" you're not teaching the horse to give X response. that is, according to operant conditioning which is what the enormous majority of training methods posted by respected members on this forum are explained (perhaps unknowingly) by.



cowchick77 said:


> If the horse thought that way it wouldn't work right?


apparently. which is why i'm not saying it doesn't work.


----------



## showjumperachel (Jul 13, 2013)

Okay, I have spent more time than I care to admit reading this thread and have only gotten to page 12, so I'm jumping to the last page now. Hopefully I didn't miss anything (judging from all the previous comments I'm guessing not, since this discussion has shown to be essentially circular).

When I first read what Cherrie *originally* said, my immediate thought was that my horse would launch himself into a bucking fit if I did that. But then the more I thought about it, I DO do that. It's as simple as this example:

I ask my horse for the left lead canter. He responds by not cantering correctly (the canter depart is included in the correctly part). I bring him back to a walk and give him one good whack with my dressage whip (disclaimer: more horse has never had welts, lacerations, etc from me "beating" him). The whack is to say HELLO, did you hear me?! Its almost like a wake up call to get their full, undivided attention. However, I am not giving him the cue to canter during this whack (I don't know if I differ in what others do in this regard), it is simply a whack. Hello, wake up, pay attention. I then ask for the canter depart and he ALWAYS gives it (or whatever other transition I'm asking for) immediately. I just have to shift my weight to the outside and we are cantering.

To summarize:
I ask for canter. Correct canter not given. Stop asking and give wake up call to horse. Ask again. Correct canter given. Praise - good boy! 

Maybe I am entirely missing the point and "not getting it", but this is what I do and it works for my horse as well as other horses I have ridden. And isn't that the bottom line, essentially? Does it work for you or doesn't it?

Hope this helps somewhat!


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

*Showjumperachel*, I can summarize it for you:

To paraphrase Arthur Schopenhauer...
"_people argue for victory more than for truth_"

:wink::lol:


----------



## christopher (Feb 11, 2011)

DimSum said:


> _people argue for victory more than for truth_


seeing as though i didn't present much of an alternative, what was i ever going to "win" with?
whether my question is answered or not, there was never to be any "victory" in it for me. the only point was to seek an answer to a question. though it's become pretty obvious that nobody knows precisely why the method works - only that it does work. which is great. i'm happy to leave the thread at that but please don't assume that i'm arguing for victory more than for truth.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Glad to hear it:wink:


----------

