# What is Classical Riding



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

*WHAT ACTUALLY IS CLASSICAL RIDING ?​*
The modern home of the Spanish Riding School is in Vienna, although historically it has been based in other parts of the long lost Austro Hungarian empire. Lippica, the ancestral home of the Lippizaner horse is to be found near Trieste and the breed is a revered iconic symbol of modern Slovenia. It is accepted that, like so many of the well known horse breeds of Europe, the invariably white/grey Lippizaner has Andalucian genes - as indeed reputedly do The Cleveland Bay and Welsh Cob breeds of Britain. The Austrian school of Classical Riding is seen as an art form of equestrian dressage arising directly out of the principles established by a seventeen century French horse master - de La Gueriniere. So, in effect the world renowned riding centre in Vienna, Austria based on a Frenchman’s schooling methods is neither in Spain, nor are the horses Spanish nor are the riders Spaniards. 
However in Jerez, Andalucia in Southern Spain, there is a Spanish School of Equestrian Art where Spaniards perform on pure blooded Spanish Andalucian stallions, riding techniques developed in Spain. Both riding schools provide a elegant display of dressage to a very high standard perhaps arguably better described as Equestrian Art. The uniforms and especially the hats are different but the displays bear a remarkable similarity. A highlight of the display at both centres is for the horses to perform above ground movements such as the Levade, the Capriole and other High School/Haute Ecole specialities. It has been suggested that these movements were developed so as to be useful when the horse was being used as a warhorse in battle. More realistically nowadays, these moves are to be seen as an acrobatic display, which indeed it is, by highly trained pedigree stallions for paying customers. But the movements are magic to watch. A similar equine display but mostly in time to music is offered by Le Cadre Noir of the French Cavalry at Saumur, perhaps underlining the point that such a display is more ballet than horse riding. Each of these centres is nowadays regarded as being tourist attractions as well as a national depositary of the skilled traditions of equestrian excellence. Interestingly the British Military school of Equitation at Weedon was closed in 1938 as being irrelevant to modern warfare. Perhaps in the XIXth century Capt Nolan of Charge of the Light Brigade fame was arguably one of Britain’s more famous horsemasters until he was killed at Balaclava but he was merely concerned in breaking remounts for use by cavalrymen within 6 weeks - nothing stylish. Nolan was also convinced that geldings could perform as well as stallions. Much earlier the Duke of Newcastle published a book in 1657 on training horses but failed to create a durable basis for the art of horsemanship partly because of his cruel methods. Hartley Edwards is perhaps the most famous British guru of modern times but his books are mostly concerned with basic training. Sylvia Loch, whose dead husband Lord Loch, was an instructor at Weedon, in effect preaches the use of de la Gueriniere’s and certain other classical instructors methods. Little she preaches is new but she applies the techniques to everyday horses of all breeds.
“Dressage” incidentally is the French word for “training“ or more exactly “to develop through standardised training methods a horse’s natural ability and willingness to perform, thereby maximising its potential as a riding horse“. However to reach the ultimate standards of haute ecole display, the horse must be taken by highly skilled horsemen through a long process of education and training which traditionally has been divided into three phases - the young novice horse, the campaign horse and finally the haute ecole horse. In truth for everyday riding, even for success in modern dressage competitions, this high school riding is of little use to amateur riders, however the fundamental principles utilised throughout the training phases of haute ecole are applicable to all horse training.
The past director of the Spanish School in Vienna, Alois Podhajsky, has stated clearly that the prime purpose of Classical Training is to produce by natural methods and without restraints a well mannered, quiet, supple, obedient & responsive horse which by its smooth movements is a pleasure to ride. An objective which must be close to the heart of all horse owners. Equine experts such as the American, Pat Parelli, must be also be considered when trying to get the best out of one’s horse whilst at the same time retaining a harmonious relationship with the animal. The British for some reason, perhaps associated with concepts of efficiency, always want to hurry a process when it naturally must take time. Nolan made his name by being able to train horses for war in six weeks. However it must be said in mitigation that cavalry horses did not last long on a battle field.
During the era when the horse reigned supreme in transportation and war, Britain was, and indeed still geographically remains, an island. All those years ago, ideas of best practice did not readily cross The Channel. Nowadays Britain is connected to the rest of Europe by various methods of communication and ideas can now readily flow backwards and forwards. Perhaps for reasons of relative isolation, on several scores the British attitude towards horses is different. British riders and thousands of furry foxes enjoy a green and pleasant grassland, criss-crossed by bridle paths and split into fields divided by 3 ft high fences or 6 foot high hedges. We have developed from Arabs and Turkomens a breed of horse - the Thoroughbred - which has a broad range of aptitudes. Out in the green countryside live yet more ancient breeds of horses, cobs and ponies each fit for a special purpose. The military, the police, the farmers and the fox hunters all have played their part in the creation of Britain’s national equine herd. Similarly the British passion for crossbreeds has influenced the quality of the horse population. We Brits believe that too much interbreeding can be counter productive as we have found with our dogs. Even in modern times it is remarkable that the breeding of many horses can only be guessed at. Only recently after much resistance has the equine passport scheme been introduced much to the distain of the breeders, who point out that the British don’t eat horseflesh. This scheme which passes on a profile of a horse’s history should inevitably in the future influence breeding practices. Few breeders seem to consider temperament as an important inherited characteristic in a horse, yet when training a horse, temperament and intelligence are of utmost importance. But maybe that is the problem - it is rare for the breeder to attempt to sell a horse “ready to ride” - that’s perceived to be the dealer’s area of expertise or the job of the British Horse Society. Also in Britain, the female is the dominant influence, not only in that mares are invariably used for riding as well as breeding but mostly that the rider is a woman. Horses in Britain aren’t put down when they have reached the end of their useful lives, many live on for years as pets eating the abundant and cheap grass. And of course, stallions, which can be temperamental, are mostly kept entire for breeding purposes only and not to be ridden as in Iberia. The influence of the Irish must also be allowed for - where else but Britain could they find an outlet for all of those cross bred horses, many of which have no pedigree whatsoever. Perhaps it is not without just cause that many continental horsemasters have said in the past that British horses are not for schooling to a high standard. As competitive dressage comes more into vogue, then perhaps the Brits must start to look at the quality of the national herd of horses. Neither is it good that most aspirant riders are taught to ride by rote - up on the horse’s back. Unfortunately the theory of how horse and rider should come together is rarely discussed in depth even in the riding centre, often because the principles of riding are not better known by the instructor. A piece of paper does not necessarily signify a good instructor. It is time that we Brits got our act together and that we read what the continentals have been reading for 400 years. There is little to know about horse behaviour that our forbears did not learn long ago.
Not to be forgotten in this article is the example of myself, who nutures a pretty dapple grey Irish Draught mare with a divine temperament. She is not bred for haute ecole but there again neither is her master. Her role in my life is to be my companion and my reason for getting up early each day. 
To summarize, Classical Riding Art is for the professionals, but the basic Classical Training methods used to train at the lower levels the haute ecole horse is for anyone who wants to learn how to get the best from not only their horse but also from themselves as a rider.

Barry G

Below is a photo of an Andalusian gelding being ridden in national park close by


----------



## CandyCanes (Jul 1, 2013)

Wow what a post! 
Very informative. 
I vote that it gets pinned!


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

I have read, too, that they_ surmise_ the efficacy of above ground movements being used in battle. In my experience as a (now retired) 26 year veteran of American Civil War Reenacting (Cavalry, the whole time and Infantry escourt and scout), our horses became just as aggressive as the riders during battle. My herd leaders would OFTEN bite at the opponent's horses as we parlayed and, although we were "playing" they inherently understood that we played to win. *I am fully convinced* that a well schooled military mount taught to perform the Capriole and Courbette would willingly injure and kill both human and equine during a battle.
They aren't JUST pretty movements. The horse was MADE for battle.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Really interesting article Barry. I have barn duties calling to me so will get back to it later - though interesting when you realize that many - of our UK 'mutts' - the non purebred horses - are the highest valued show ring horses.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

JD, We Brits have no excuse. We have been working horses since before the Romans invaded the island of Great Britain. Sadly in 1914 we stripped our island of the national herd of horses in pursuit of a futile war against the Germans and we had to start again to build the national herd in 1918. Luckily horses weren't needed by the army in WW2

But when I look today at the range of quality horses which can be found out in the English countryside, I am amazed at the variety and the quality of the horses which can be bought at bargain prices. I am convinced that somewhere there will be a British breeder of most of the internationally popular breeds. 
As for Welsh cobs, well a visit to the annual Welsh Show at Builth Wells will prove my point as to quality.

Only last month my wife rode a magnificent Shire gelding around the hills of the Lake District. Every thing equine is to be found on this tiny green and verdant island to delight the foreign visitor interested in horses. I am surprised that to date, the holiday visitors come to watch the cavalry horses performing in the Queen's birthday in London rather than come to ride a horse along Rotten Row. Mind you, those Horse Guards horses are something special, as are the 
Metropolitan police horses which guard the parade. 
Barry


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hmmm..."the basic Classical Training methods used to train at the lower levels the haute ecole horse is for anyone who wants to learn how to get the best from not only their horse but also from themselves as a rider."

What is your definition of "the basic Classical Training methods"? Are you talking about actual training methods (round pen, use of whips, a particular progress, a series of exercises to use, etc)? Are you talking about instruction in riding, and if so, what style of riding? Are you talking about putting a horse 'on the bit', or riding a horse with contact?

How do you define the "best" from your horse? Does "best" equal a free-moving athlete covering the most ground for the least effort? Does it mean a horse that uses its own initiative to get the job done? Is a cow pony cutting cattle using the best movement? Or does "best" involve rounding the back and more vertical motion in the horse?

Do you prefer to move your balance forward to match the natural balance of the horse, or move the horse's balance back (collection) to match the position of the rider?

Is a barrel racing horse the best trained, because it can move both very fast and turn very fast?

The problem with calling any one approach or style "best" is that it fails to define "best for what?" My 13 hand BLM mustang was born in the wild. Put him in the desert, and he is both practical & sure-footed. Put him in an arena, something he associates with being used as a barrel racer by a kid and as a lesson horse later on for beginner riders, and he gets scared - too many bad memories, I guess. He probably is physically incapable of putting much lift into his motion, since his rider is typically 25-33% of his weight...but he'll pick his way through the desert just fine.

I've got a book from the western side (the dark side?) called "Countdown to broke". With Mia, I put most of the intermediate & above stuff on hold for a year or two while we have worked on 'calm & relaxed"...but I'd be willing to bet many of the exercises it uses and movements it requires for a 'broke' horse would look pretty familiar to a dressage instructor, although I'm sure the author's definition of collection, for example, conflicts with the FEI.

I also received this week a book by Harry Chamberlin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Chamberlin) on schooling a horse. While I am sure there would be some overlap, and while Chamberlin has nice things to say about dressage training when done by an accomplished rider, his opinion on how to train a horse and how the recreational rider should ride would differ significantly from many trainers in dressage. A quote from his book appears in Littauer's book below:










None of the above should be taken to mean dressage is wrong, or that it is an inappropriate way to train a horse. If someone wants to get the best from themselves and their horse, then good instruction will save years of effort. But I do object to linking that training to "Classical Riding". The trainer who worked wonders with Trooper and Mia (and Lilly before them) came from a barrel racing background. Someone schooled well in jumping will use a different approach than the position and goals of "classical dressage", yet also ride well for what they want to do. And I know guys who can work cattle on horseback and do it very well, yet who have never read the 'classical masters'.

I doubt the Mongol hordes or the Plains Indians followed the methods of de La Gueriniere, but they were famous for their horsemanship. BTW, the following illustration came from _École de Cavalerie_ by Francois Robichon de la Guérinière *1729*:








​ 
In conclusion, there are many effective ways to ride a horse, and to "get the best from not only their horse but also from themselves as a rider". What works best for an individual rider and individual horse will depend on the goals of the rider and the aptitude of the horse. It might end up looking a little different than what Francois Robichon de la Guérinière envisioned :lol::


----------



## DimSum (Mar 28, 2012)

Well written OP. My only (minor) complaint is to suggest you consider breaking up some of the larger paragraphs in deference to those of us with older eyes


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

BSMS, My underlying aim in most of these long winded posts which from time to time I write for a thread is to encourage horse owners and riders to think about what they are doing with their horses. In the XX1st century we are moving into a new era when, with advances in modern day science, we can learn more about how a horse moves, sees, hears and generally responds to its master and to what is expected of the animal. The use of high speed photography is only one of the aids - amongst others we should also be using instruments to measure the shock of a horse landing after jumping a 4 foot high fence.
I have high admiration of the skill of Native Americans riding and fighting bareback using bosals in place of metal bits. Out in Asia, Mongols use similar techniques. 
As for the Western cowboy, well much of his undoubted skills are reflected in the Portuguese bull ring where horses are used to fight the bull, where, incidentally, it is a disgrace for the bullfighter to allow his horse to be gored by the bull. In Spain, Doma Vaquera, which presumably was exported to Central America by the Conquistadors, is still the way by which up on the hillsides, the farmer herds his goats.
Personally I'd like to see international equine competitions spread their wings so as to take in more disciplines from around the world. By all means let us develop dressage but why oh why do we have to design jumping courses which are laid out, seemingly to trap the horse. 
Horse loving is an international infection. When from time to time I have turned up at a horse yard in a foreign country carrying a riding hat and a pair of riding boots, usually I have been offered a ride on a horse. OK I have used sign language to communicate but horses are fundamentally the same in all countries.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

*The concepts behind Classical Riding*

A few years ago, a riding instructor and I thought to form a classical riding group. The club did not materialize but the principles behind the concept remain the same
quote/

*The Ethos of the Classical Riding System
What does it comprise of & What does it do for the horse?​*
The Classically trained horse and rider should present a picture of effortless elegance, lightness and harmony. Classical training involves the study of the biomechanics of the horse and the rider. By lateral thinking the trainer will avoid conflicts of strength between horse and rider. Artificial aids such as tie downs and other restrictive ancillary tack will not be used to contain the horse. There will be no forcing of outline. 

The classicist believes that from collection all else flows. Under the classical system, if well schooled and well ridden, even the average horse will have a fair chance of success in their chosen speciality. Riders from all disciplines will be welcomed so as to encourage them with their training. 
Classical training will produce a horse which is responsive and attentive.
The horse will develop a calm, confident & obedient frame of mind.
The horse will be responsive to the rider’s aids.
The horse will bend evenly throughout the whole body.
The neck will be stretched forward and rounded and will not be compressed.
The head will be steady, under a light rein and will give the impression of self carriage.
The head and neck will be correctly aligned.
The hind feet will step into or beyond the track of the front feet.
The horse will move forwards willingly in rhythm taking the required length of stride actively but without hurrying.
The horse’s withers will lift to give the impresson of lightness on the forehand.
The horse will show a certain looseness in the shoulders with a rhythmical softly swinging back thereby allowing a comfortable ride. 

Classical Training is all about the mutually harmonious development of the physique and ability of the horse along with the knowledge of the rider. It was devised to protect the horse from abuse, both of an intentional or an unintentional nature.

/unquote

BG


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_Classical training involves the study of the biomechanics of the horse and the rider...The classicist believes that from collection all else flows._"

Herein lies the problem with classical training. While I agree it is a valid form of training, it has a problem in its core: the conflict between the biomechanics of a horse and the style of riding taught in the 1700s and 1800s. The assumption made by the classicists was that a horse is best balanced when there is equal weight on each leg. As Littauer was told, 'A table is best balanced when it has equal force on all legs'. Thus the attempt to 'balance' a horse by getting it to distribute weight equally. However, horses naturally carry their weight in a 57/43 split, with 30% more weight on the front than on the rear legs.

Achieving collection ( equal weight on the rear) is biomechanically tough for a horse. Any horse can do it briefly without a rider, but sustaining it with a rider takes a great deal of work. Achieving it requires a progression taught in the dressage scale, to include being 'on the bit'.

From The Training Scale for Horses"Relaxation, Rhythm and Contact are part of the “familiarization phase” when a horse is encouraged to rediscover his natural balance when carrying a rider. He is encouraged to relax, to find his natural rhythm and to seek an elastic connection to the rider via the rein.

The second phase is the development of the thrust from the hindquarters an takes in impulsion and straightness.

The third phase develops the carrying power of the hind legs; collection."​I would argue Relaxation & Rhythm are indeed critical to any horse moving athletically and willingly. Littauer put 'contact' as the point the elementary rider moved to the intermediate level. It seems to me that is the point at which the training scale starts to become a classical training scale with collection as its goal - "_The classicist believes that from collection all else flows._"

Continuous, gentle contact has other uses as well. It can help calm a nervous horse, reminding her she has a rider on her back who can make decisions for her. It is also entirely possible to ride with light contact AND a natural headset...so in that sense, perhaps the website is right and 'contact' is an essential element of all good riding.

And in that sense, I would argue a western rider using slack in the reins, particularly when the weight of the slack reins is amplified by the shank (typically amplified 1.75 times or more) is a form of riding with gentle contact. The horse can feel small changes in the riders hand without getting any sharp tug on his mouth.

But contact is also where the rider begins to lift the back. We read of rounding the back, and I'm sure I'm not the only person who has heard it compared to either an arch or to a bow, giving strength to the back. Yet biomechanically, the back always sags some under a rider's weight. With a collected horse, the bend is only slightly (1/4" to 1/2", IIRC) less than with an uncollected horse.

But it is important to understand that the back's purpose is to protect the spinal cord by keeping the backbone within a limited range of motion. And the effort to lift the back vertically, and to turn some of the forward thrust of the rear legs into upward thrust, is hard for the horse. That is why the dressage scale exists - to show a progression of training that makes collection possible.

"_The classicist believes that from collection all else flows._"

Arguably - and I think we are good enough friends to argue amiably, if at all - it is: "*TO* collection all else flows", because the other steps and training now are geared toward achieving collection. But that is hard to do, and outside the ability of most recreational riders who spend a couple hours or so on horseback each week. The sort of soft contact and training that allows collected gaits is beautiful when done well, but horrific if done poorly, which is what both Chamberlin and Littauer saw in the average cavalry officer attempting it. And the average cavalry officer, when schooling, might spend 4-6 hours/DAY riding, with qualified instructors, while the recreational rider often doesn't reach that level in a week of riding.

About 18 months ago, maura made this point about cantering:



maura said:


> Riding the canter correctly and well in a full seat is difficult, and many more riders do it badly than do it well. As Allison stated above, it requires a degree of abdominal fitness, as well as correct position, relaxation and a good understanding of gait mechanics and how the horse's back moves. That's out of reach for a lot of recreational riders. I would much rather see an elementary or intermediate rider cantering in half seat, allowing the horse to move freely, than someone attempting and failing a full following seat and punishing the horse's back in the process.
> 
> There is nothing inherently insecure about riding the canter in half-seat or two point as long as the rider is in balance.


http://www.horseforum.com/english-riding/riding-canter-half-seat-120340/

Even with a western saddle, which distributes the weight over a greater area, I've seen inexperienced riders happily cantering while their horse's ears are pinned back because of the bouncing. I found maura's post like a cool breeze on a summer's day. I didn't NEED to sit the canter. Not fully. I could be as light in the seat as needed while both my horse and I gained proficiency at a canter. And with time, I gained enough proficiency to canter with weight in the saddle and a horse who seems happy.

To get back to biomechanics, the horse's back moves up and down, but not evenly. At the horse's center of gravity, somewhere under the withers, there is almost no back movement. At the loins, there is a lot. Weight in the stirrups = a saddle that is free to pivot, because the stirrup bars are roughly at the horse's center of gravity and place of least movement. Biomechanically, to the extent we are not over the withers, we are restricting the horse's back and making the horse work harder to move our weight.

I like your definition of classical riding, Barry. It is an approach that a thinking, caring soul can use in training a horse to move in accordance with classical European riding. And done well, it is a thing of beauty. Watching what a skilled rider can bring out in a horse using this approach puts a smile on my face - and on the horse's, when it is done well.

Where I may part ways with you is that I believe it is an uncommonly difficult style to ride well, and I think many recreational riders will never have the time or physical conditioning to do it well.

"_Nolan made his name by being able to train horses for war in six weeks._"

I think Nolan would appreciate the simplicity and the quick results of "non-classical" riding, both forward riding and western riding (in western tack). To use an analogy: I've fought with my weight most of my life. In theory, losing weight is simple - eat less, move more, repeat as required. However, many of us reach a point where we simply are not willing to eat less, or unwilling to move more, and thus need to content ourselves with the body we are capable of having given the limits of how we live.

In like manner, many recreational riders would do well to think about how many hours they can afford to spend riding, how much training their horse can get, and what they need to achieve to ride well. When viewed from the limits of work & family conflicts, what most of us can afford in training, etc, I think "non-classical riding" is a better approach for the average recreational rider.

Let me ask a final question: Did the excellent training Didi received make her a better general purpose mount, or a harder ride for the average rider?

And this all needs to be viewed within the framework of the modern riding world. Many people do all their riding in an arena. So if the perfection of classical riding gives them something to work on each time they ride, great! I used to poo-poo 'western dressage', and wrote many & long posts poking fun at it - but if it is what someone likes to work on when riding, who am I to complain? So I also have no heartburn with those pursuing classical European riding...as long as they understand it is a demanding path of self-improvement for both horse and rider.


----------



## Ian McDonald (Aug 24, 2011)

Really enjoyed reading this. I like that gelding too - he really carries himself in good form!


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

BSMS, You have obviously studied the subject well and in depth. I think what you have written will be hard for the average rider to properly understand.

My own feeling is that the horse trained for competitive dressage becomes more and more difficult for the average to ride "properly" as the horses muscles develop and the horse starts to adopt a rounded outline. The rider must also develop the centre core of muscles perhaps by taking Pilates exercises. However most amateur riders are facing a fight with time allocation since the majority will have other responsibilities which demand their time.
And I take the point that the horse who is worked on a daily basis so as to drop its nose to the six oclock position (Ramener) will find the typical trail rider's weight as being uncomfortable to bear.

Both Joe and DiDi became more difficult for me to ride, the fitter they became for dressage competition. I took it that I had taken from them the control of their own neck which they used to balance both themselves and the weight of their rider.

Of course the two dressage trainers who had worked on my two horses had an ideal in mind. They were trying to reproduce the ''rounded outline' achieved by semi professional riders who had come to specialise in competitive dressage. In fact DiDi had been schooled for dressage at an early age of her training by her previous owner, whereas Joe had been a working horse in a trekking centre. He had developed strong muscles under the neck - whereas DiDi had well developed muscles on the top of her neck. Joe needed to be able to balance himself at the canter and the gallop even when carrying a novice level of rider.

Joe eventually dumped me - I believe now in revolt. DiDi simply could not understand why I, who had learned to ride fox hunting style back in the 1970s - long before the fashion for dressage had started in Britain, allowed her a long rein. I used the reins and a light contact thru the bit as a communication aid and not to keep her 'on the bit'.

But what we are talking about now is the theory behind how we ride and how the horse carries our 100 kilos of weight. 

I come back to the expression : horses for courses. If we want to climb the ladder in competitive dressage then both horse and rider must develop the muscles and the rider must understand the principles involved. If we want to canter and gallop over uneven terrain out in the countryside then we must give the horse the freedom to carry us. We must also show the animal that mechanical abominations are not to be feared - if we the riders ourselves show no fear.

But what must come into the sport is much more theoretical work. Setting a novice on the back of a horse and sending the pair round and round in circles in an enclosed arena so as to train the human's responses by rote is simply not enough in this modern world. The writings of Littauer, Young, Loch and others must come to form the basis of theoretical training. Every rider must come to see that there is more than one way to ride a horse. 

One of the joys of horse riding is that it is a never ending learning and fascinating process which can last a lifetime. The more we learn about man's partnership with a horse, the more we realize how much there is to learn.

BG


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

These two ways of going are not mutually exclusive, which is what seems to be implied in your post there, Barry. Look at eventers. 4*/Advanced horses have to be able to do the equivalent of an advanced medium dressage test and then gallop cross-country over uneven terrain for up to four miles, jumping fences that can be as high as 1.20m. 

My dressage horse can go round in a dressage ring 'on the bit,' slop along the road on a long rein, or trot, canter, and gallop in fields, on tracks, and over small cross-country jumps. She also can get round small show jumps in a passable manner: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnHR7dAYCdo.

The point of what is sometimes viewed as basic dressage training (but some would just call it "training") is to develop the strength, flexibility, and softness of the horse, which should hopefully improve the riding experience for both rider and horse and increase the horse's working life. Regardless of discipline. Riding a horse who is stiff, heavy in the hand, and hollowed underneath the saddle like a banana isn't nearly as pleasant as riding one who is soft and has a topline to carry you.

I would add that it is very difficult to pinpoint what differentiates "classical" dressage from "modern" dressage, although many a rant and an argument on this subject has been posted on the internet. That said, it is often viewed as different systems. Simplistically, the former seeks to achieve lightness early on, asking the horse to give to the hand, and then developing power and engagement from the hindquarters, while the latter seeks to achieve lightness by developing power from the hindquarters first and pushing the horse into the contact, and then it will become light.


----------



## DuckDodgers (May 28, 2013)

Don't have time to read it right now, but definitely coming back to this! A few months back I watched a really interesting documentary about the Spanish riding school on PBS that some may find interesting as well


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Silver,
The world of 4 star eventing horses is way up in the clouds for me, although DiDi was stabled in Gloucestershire, the English county in which royalty and nobility keep their hundred thousand dollar nags. From time to time the eventers would be delivered to the local arena in their posh horse wagons to practice their skills amongst we lowly local amateurs. Those horses were worked on daily by experts and winning even at the top levels was/is the only acceptable result. Maybe my dapple grey mare DiDi could have got to affiliated elementary competition level but that would have been her lot. 

But my jet black working class trekking horse Joe, was never in that league. He, bless him, was a hairy working class carthorse, who did not suffer fools on his back gladly. I do really believe that he hated his classical riding instructor who pulled his nose down and urged him forwards with her own substantial rump. He wanted control of his own neck at all times. I don't think he ever forgave me for leaving him with that woman who insisted on instant obeyance.

When one day I watched him being ridden on a loose rein by a slovenly, *** smoking, rider out into a thunder storm, I recognised him for what he was. When I sought a sure footed, fearless trekker, then he was the mount to tack up. He could smell a bog from twenty yards. You could stand on the edge of a precipice and admire the view; you could ride at a truck and expect it to stop and allow you to pass. But if you crossed him he'd go down on his knees and roll with his rider still in the saddle or he'd whirl around on his hind quarters and bolt in the opposite direction. He'd not worry about being 'rounded in outline' and looking pretty. After all he could chase sheep off a mountainside if the rider had the nerve to trust him cantering down a steep hillside.

No, from my experience some common horses are suited for a rider's purposes - others, a few, can be trained for a multiple of usages. But the three day eventers come at a price which I could never afford since, when recognised they are something special and they cost a premium to own.

Or maybe I myself was not special enough as a rider or trainer. At heart all I ever wanted was a bomb proof horse which would take me down to the pub on the busy main road for a glass of red wine after a fast ride up in the forest. Anyway I never possessed a silky top hat nor a pair of white breeches.

Barry


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

Subbing. Good food for thought.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> ...My own feeling is that the horse trained for competitive dressage becomes more and more difficult for the average to ride "properly" as the horses muscles develop and the horse starts to adopt a rounded outline. The rider must also develop the centre core of muscles perhaps by taking Pilates exercises. However most amateur riders are facing a fight with time allocation since the majority will have other responsibilities which demand their time...
> 
> ...I come back to the expression : horses for courses. If we want to climb the ladder in competitive dressage then both horse and rider must develop the muscles and the rider must understand the principles involved. If we want to canter and gallop over uneven terrain out in the countryside then we must give the horse the freedom to carry us. We must also show the animal that mechanical abominations are not to be feared - if we the riders ourselves show no fear...
> 
> ...Every rider must come to see that there is more than one way to ride a horse...





thesilverspear said:


> These two ways of going are not mutually exclusive, which is what seems to be implied in your post there, Barry. Look at eventers. 4*/Advanced horses have to be able to do the equivalent of an advanced medium dressage test and then gallop cross-country over uneven terrain for up to four miles, jumping fences that can be as high as 1.20m...


I think you both make valid points. The movement used in classical riding is ill-suited for traveling over as much ground as possible as efficiently as possible, but a talented and skilled rider can train a horse to do both. I cannot speak from personal experience here, but I've seen a number of forum members say their horse, for example, will react to a western curb by thinking, "Hmmm, we're barrel racing today". But put a snaffle in his mouth, and he'll respond with, "The mission for today? Classical European riding!"

I tend to view eventers as extraordinary riders of extraordinary horses. There are also dedicated dressage riders who regularly take their dressage horse out for long hacks, resulting in a horse who can do it all.

Littauer & Chamberlin both make the point that a gifted rider who does the work can have a horse who can do it all. But their concern was for the average rider. Littauer taught students as a commercial enterprise. Chamberlin was concerned with the needs of the cavalry, which required using men and horses of average ability. And both were primarily concerned with having a horse who can cover lots of rough ground efficiently.

I think both Barry & I agree that a rider of limited experience or limited time needs to choose a style that matches their primary goal in riding, and become proficient in that style first. It could be western, hunt seat, dressage, cutting - they all have their place. But a recreational rider will help himself and his horse if he chooses a style that matches his goals and ability.

In Commonsense Horsemanship, Littauer spends the first few chapters (1-4, IIRC) discussing how he came to choose a forward balance system of riding. I didn't agree with him at first, but came to over time...with the caveat that the style of tack used can also change the effect of the style of riding.

I may differ from most members of HF in this: I consider the classical European style of riding one of the most challenging to learn to do well. I think Littauer is right is saying that "soft collection" - the ultimate goal of the classical style - requires a level of athletic ability and sensitivity to the horse that is beyond the average recreational rider.

Compare it with the '"classical" Old West style - with a deep saddle, legs forward, moving with the horse via the waist instead of the small of the back, slack reins used primarily with neck reining. The legs forward shifts the rider's center of gravity forward, with his legs wrapped around the horse's center of gravity. It makes "heels down" instinctive. The long leg makes it easy to deal with sudden stops and keeps the leg wrapped around the horse in anticipation of a horse shying. Anyone who can sit in a chair and stand up can also absorb the motion of the horse with their waist. The saddle tree distributes the weight over an area 50-100% larger than a typical English saddle, and it extends well beyond the cantle. Soft contact is provided by the slack reins, which absorb motion from the beginning rider's hands without jerking on the mouth. With a typical western horse, the bit is used primarily for a stop cue when the horse is too excited to listen to the leg and seat.

All of this combines to make basic western riding a very easy system to learn without pain to the horse. It can go on and be refined until horse & rider move as one, and any dedicated western rider will seek to improve - but the underlying system of riding can be learned very quickly by both horse and rider.

Littauer and Chamberlin believed a forward system was also easy to learn and forgiving for the horse, particularly when combined with using the reins only when needed. It puts the rider's balance in synch with the horse, emphasizes getting weight off the back of the horse and having the main point of weight-bearing be where the horse's back moves the least. Littauer's goal included having a new rider jumping 2 1/2 feet in less than 20 lessons. 

I have a number of books suggesting 'dressage is for everyone', but I think that ignores the difficulty of riding that style well and the limited amount of time available for the average recreational rider. The classical style Barry discusses is thing of uncommon beauty done well, but also a thing uncommonly hard on horse and rider when done marginally. Neither the Spanish Riding School nor Samur accepted beginning riders...:shock:

" _He, bless him, was a hairy working class carthorse, who did not suffer fools on his back gladly...He wanted control of his own neck at all times._"

In some ways, he sounds like Trooper. Trooper WILL suffer fools. After all, his original ranch use was to give a new sheepherder from South America one lesson on how to ride a horse, and he then would be dumped with that "rider" 50-75 miles from the closest source of help & ridden 10+ hour days in rough country. 

However, he expects a loose rein. He doesn't care what bit you put in his mouth because he doesn't expect it to ever be used. Like Joe, he might not be collected, but he can turn up his own butthole if needed. Let him solve the problem, and he will - but he won't collect while doing so. Like Mia, he can do an in-place 180 with enough speed to bruise my thigh on the poley of my Australian saddle, but he'll brace his back to do so. It would require a skillful hand to guide him into contact and roundness without causing rebellion. I don't have that hand.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

BSMS,
When planning to ride fast across country, we would always adjust the stirrup leathers short on a English GP saddle. At extended canter or gallop we'd plan to lift up off the saddle and carry our weight fully in the stirrups thereby leaving the horse's spine free of all weight.

The reins would be held short with hands on either side of the neck but the movement back & forth of the fast moving horse would be matched so as to keep a light contact thru the bit with the horse's mouth.

The idea was to place the riders weight over the centre of gravity of the horse - ie up front and down under the wither.

The rider would lock his knees into the knee rolls to give extra security.

A similar pose would be used for trotting uphill on a hard surface ie tarmac. 
Trotting downhill would be taken at the sitting trot - with partial transfer of weight onto the stirrup bars.

Of course, the rider would be leaning forwards and over the horse's neck.

It was important to allow the horse freedom of movement in its neck - since that would be its balancing aid.

This style of riding would be anethma to the purist

Barry.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I suppose I am mystified by the assertion that learning both dressage and "hunt seat" (as Yanks call it) is some amazing feat of equestrianism beyond the skill of your average amateur rider. I really don't think it is. Yesterday, I was practicing my half-passes. Today, I was cantering across a field with undulated ground and dips in half-seat and horse was not in an outline (they can see the footing better when they're not). I am not amazing. I am a thoroughly average rider. My horse is a 20-year old draft cross. She is amazing to me, of course, but in the grand scheme of horses, she is thoroughly average. Both Britain and the US (and no doubt other places) are filled with thoroughly average amateur riders on average horses of all breeds practicing many different disciplines. There's even a word for this, seen in horse sales ad: "all-rounder," which means something that can turn its hoof to just about any discipline, but isn't going to be a world-beater at anything. If you go to a three-day event, you'll see people at BE80, BE90, and BE100 trundling round a dressage test, some show jumps, and then getting their horses round a little cross-country course without dying, riding everything from cobs to TBs to Irish draughts and warmbloods. 

Like anything, the pinnacle of classical riding, the haute ecole, takes years of devotion, dedication, stubborness, and hard bloody work and no little talent to achieve. I for one know the SRS or folks at Saumur won't ever be knocking on my door. But the basics of dressage can be taught to any horse or rider. Indeed, I teach them to my novice students, because these basics are that of softness and suppleness, balance and timing, a horse that will listen to you. All of which are pretty handy to have when you're on a hack and things go pear-shaped and might be the difference between staying on or hitting the deck.

Also, a lot of dressage people cross-train by cantering on the trail or in fields and/or jumping. Just like with human athletes, working the muscles in different ways benefits the health (mental and physical) and general condition of the horse.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> Like anything, the pinnacle of classical riding, the haute ecole, takes years of devotion, dedication, stubborness, and hard bloody work and no little talent to achieve. I for one know the SRS or folks at Saumur won't ever be knocking on my door. But the basics of dressage can be taught to any horse or rider. Indeed, I teach them to my novice students, because these basics are that of softness and suppleness, balance and timing, a horse that will listen to you. All of which are pretty handy to have when you're on a hack and things go pear-shaped and might be the difference between staying on or hitting the deck.


Totally agree. Basics of dressage are just learning to ride in a balanced and sensitive way.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Ladies, I won't say an owner can't teach one day 'hunt' seat and on another day basic dressage - of course they can. 

But I will say that if I still had my horse DiDi, then once she had proved herself at Novice level dressage (and she was nearly there) then I'd concentrate on teaching her how to cope with the social hub hub of riding around the local community. I'd use the writings of Michael Peace (The 100% Horse) as a guide.

Also if I still had my cussed, expelled trekker, named Joe, then I'd give him back the unrestricted use of his neck. I'd forget all about rounded outlines and Ramener. 

I'll wager that Joe was by breeding a modern day Galloway who were said to be in olden times, the mounts of the Border Reivers. So, if Scotland does get its independence, then my lovable rogue of a horse would have been worth his weight in gold to some Geordie pillager. Come to think of it, it is a great pity that The Boyo lost his manhood to some lady with a pair of sharp scissors.

Barry G


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> Ladies, I won't say an owner can't teach one day 'hunt' seat and on another day basic dressage - of course they can.
> 
> But I will say that if I still had my horse DiDi, then once she had proved herself at Novice level dressage (and she was nearly there) then I'd concentrate on teaching her how to cope with the social hub hub of riding around the local community. I'd use the writings of Michael Peace (The 100% Horse) as a guide.
> 
> ...


 
Basic dressage is what you use to control your horse out hacking or hunting, or schooling, not used one day and then something else the next, the blend is there all the time.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The photo below comes from a book written by someone who describes herself a "Classical dressage trainer". She uses it to illustrate how a person should absorb the motion of the horse's back while doing a sitting trot:










The idea seems to be that the lower back curves and then straightens, thus allowing the horse's back to rise and fall without moving the rider out of her seat.

If someone can do that, then great. But as a 55 year old guy, I can tell you MY back will NEVER flex back and forth like that. In fact, I know almost no one who has that level of flexibility and core strength. At the maximum deflection of my lower back, I might get 1/8 - 1/4 inch of rise in the seat - and I'm being generous. And while Mia has a smooth jog, it isn't 1/8 of an inch smooth.

In a forward seat, you would be leaning forward, and your ankles, knees and waist act as hinges while your center of gravity is over the part of the horse that moves the least. In a half-seat, your weight is barely on the saddle.

In an old western seat, your feet would go forward and you would use your waist as a hinge to absorb the forward & upward motion. And the tree of a western saddle extends well beyond the rider's rump, spreading any impact over a greater area.

I grant that any of those ways can give an effective seat, but which is easiest to learn and requires the least amount of practice? If you want to show exceptional ability, then absorbing the motion in with the spine would work. Not for me, but for a fine athlete.

However, if your spine is more rigid, like mine, and you try to absorb the motion with it, you will fail. You then go up and down on the horse's back like a pile driver. The 'classical' position has robbed me of my hinges, and thus robbed my aging body of its ability to move with the horse. That might be a personal problem, but it also might be a challenge for any new rider. Thus my conclusion that the classical European style is a refinement of good riding, rather than the foundation for it.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> The photo below comes from a book written by someone who describes herself a "Classical dressage trainer". She uses it to illustrate how a person should absorb the motion of the horse's back while doing a sitting trot:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I'm not sure the back does arch like that or flex like that, the back should be never arched and that looks incorrect, but I'm no classical expert.

I'm also not sure I understand how your aging body's inability to flex has impact on what is the foundation and basics of good riding. Dressage is the basics of control and balance but onto that you add the forward seat and rising as necessary to make things easier for carrying out different actions such as hunting, polo, or jumping.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Clava said:


> ...I'm also not sure I understand how your aging body's inability to flex has impact on what is the foundation and basics of good riding. Dressage is the basics of control and balance but onto that you add the forward seat and rising as necessary...


It seems reasonable to me that a good foundation for riding would be one that is easy to learn and perform without giving pain to the horse. As basic foundational proficiency increases, so would the options to refine one's riding into a more demanding level.

A forward seat is not just a seat, but an approach to riding. So is western riding. In classical European riding, all things flow to collection. That was the goal - to ride a horse with soft collection. But some of what one does to get there is a challenge to both horse and rider.

Which is easier to learn and more forgiving to a horse's mouth - riding with slack in the reins or even a bitless bridle, or putting the horse 'on the bit'? And if a horse is 'on the bit' with a near vertical head, what happens to the horse's binocular vision? Since the horse has an area of the eye capable of much greater resolution, what happens if you restrict the ability to examine something with that area of the eye?

My argument is that all 'classical riding' is "_Haute Ecole_" - High Schooling. It is not a foundation, nor is it for beginners who need Elementary School, or even Kindergarten. It is a demanding refinement of good riding, and should be respected as such. But if I want to teach a kid math, I don't start with Trig. Trig and Calculus come later, for those with an interest and the aptitude.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

That looks incorrect to me too. I have had trainers over the years ranging from classical-ish to people firmly entrenched in the German system. I was told that arching your back like in the above picture is incorrect (and it is very difficult to sit my horse's bouncy trot if you ride like that). You sit up straight but you engage your abs, thereby softening your back (a bit like the horse does), not hollow it.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I think there are several levels of arguments being made here -- LOL.

BSMS is saying that "classical" riding is what the SRS does, with the goal being extreme collection, the high school movements. I suppose I am saying -- and Clava too -- that my understanding of "classical" dressage is that it is a system used to train the horse and rider from the very foundations of their training. It might, at the end of the day, result in the high school movements. It might not. All the formal definitions I have encountered suggest that "high school" specifically refers to the advanced movements. The basics of it (I have a book right here -- Jean-Claude Racinet's "Another Horsemanship") are not dissimilar from that seen in (good) competition dressage or even some of what guys like Mark Rashid advise. Separation of aids, release of pressure, creating lightness, softness, etc. I practice this stuff not in the hope that my horse will do piaffe and passage and levade some day, but because what lightness we find is addictive and has probably contributed to her longevity as a riding horse.

I agree that everything must be separated for learners. I try to have people ride on no or very minimal contact (provided they're not on a nutty horse) in order to develop seat and balance without whacking the horse in the mouth. I don't ask anyone who hasn't developed passably independent aids to put a horse 'on the bit.' At the SRS, new students spend six months on a lunge line learning how to sit on the horse. I wish I could make people spend six months on the lunge line.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I'm sure if you hollowed your back to that extent you'd likely end up sitting on the wrong part of your anatomy - I did once work for a very good and rather 'posh' older lady who would yell out at you to not sit on your !*#+, which was very embarrassing so I always avoided doing it


----------



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

If you actually watch a sitting trot - there is actually quite a degree of spine flexion. Maybe not to the extent shown in the photo - but the point is that the back is not static in a DRESSAGE sitting trot - where it might be in western, hunter eq, etc..






I once again agree with bsms. There are plenty of hunt seat, reining, cutting, breed show, etc.. coaches who can teach you to ride in a soft and responsive manner and it has little if nothing to do with dressage.
Dressage, at the point in which I would say one is at a novice level (second/third level), becomes utterly useless in most other forms of riding. Like every other discipline. Cross training is used to help the horse progress in another sport. Jumping 5' is going to do little to improve a cutting horse or a dressage horse. But low level jumping can. Doing a barrel pattern at 1D speed is not going to make your dressage any better, but doing the pattern slowly to increase responsiveness might. To say that cutting is the basis for all riding is just as weird as "oh dressage is the basis of all riding". Because a pirouette worth an "8" or two tempi changes isn't going to help with your trail course or WP class. Saying "dressage is the basis for all riding" is basically inferring that a GP dressage horse will win 100% of the time in all other disciplines. Which is extremely false.

Good riding is good riding - it is needed for all disciplines. Where you take that, depends on your seat style and horse type preferences. Dressage is not the greatest sport on the planet. If it were, non horse people might actually know what it is!!!


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I agree with that, but the OP was discussing a horse who was showing at Novice level dressage (which is about Training/First in "American"). I possibly misread his posts, but he did seem to be saying that this somehow made it more difficult for the horse to also be a trail horse or gallop across a field. The horse in question, as I remember, was very hot and spooky, so it may have been difficult/terrifying to do all those things on her, but that has no bearing on the sport itself and plenty of horses at that level have long and varied careers as "all-rounders." 

For whatever reason, telling people, "I can teach you the basics of dressage so your horse is a nicer ride on a hack" gives them more information about what will happen in a lesson than if I said, "I am going to teach you the basics of riding." Of course it's the basics of riding. But to the people I am working with, what I am saying translates to, "We will be riding figures, working on my seat, my balance and contact and getting the horse bending and flexible and not running onto his forehand." This is how many people who are not seriously into dressage and will never in their lives see a Fourth Level/Adv. Medium test (much less FEI) see it. Obviously one wants these things other disciplines as well, but then again, I tend to not get into discussions about semantics with my students about "flatwork" v. "dressage."


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

We are talking the basics of dressage here and not anything at higher levels.
Its probably easier to understand the meaning of that better if you live in Europe where you will start off that way (if you have a good instructor) and then use that knowledge and grounding to go off in whatever direction you choose.


----------



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

jaydee said:


> We are talking the basics of dressage here and not anything at higher levels.
> Its probably easier to understand the meaning of that better if you live in Europe where you will start off that way (if you have a good instructor) and then use that knowledge and grounding to go off in whatever direction you choose.


It is the same everywhere in the world. All depends on if you have a good instructor. Little about the basics depend on what discipline that instructor focuses on.

In my area there is a western coach I would far rather send anyone to learn from because she teaches good basic riding. All without the "d" word. Figures are important in reining, in hunt seat equitation, in jumpers, etc.. not just dressage. So is a good seat, forgiving hands etc.. none of this stuff is exclusive to dressage.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I can't think of another equestrian sport where people actually suggest that the low, basic levels of that sport are somehow not that sport. If you are doing BE80, you are still eventing. If you are jumping 2', you are still jumping. If you asked someone who just rode a Training Level test what they were doing, I bet you $100 they would say dressage.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

thesilverspear said:


> I can't think of another equestrian sport where people actually suggest that the low, basic levels of that sport are somehow not that sport. If you are doing BE80, you are still eventing. If you are jumping 2', you are still jumping. If you asked someone who just rode a Training Level test what they were doing, I bet you $100 they would say dressage.


Agree!!
Where I'm from shows were Jumping, all levels, dressage, all levels, and a very basic " rider test" for first timers. Never ever was lower level dressage not considered dressage.


----------



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

thesilverspear said:


> I can't think of another equestrian sport where people actually suggest that the low, basic levels of that sport are somehow not that sport. If you are doing BE80, you are still eventing. If you are jumping 2', you are still jumping. If you asked someone who just rode a Training Level test what they were doing, I bet you $100 they would say dressage.


The basic levels of dressage are designed to reward developing horses moving towards FEI levels. Not to teach folks how to ride.

One does not need a dressage instructor to learn how to ride properly. Many western, hunt seat, etc.. instructors are perfectly capable of doing the same job these high and mighty _Dressaaaage_ instructors are able to do. Lots of the time, they do a way better job as well.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Of course a good hunt seat/western/polo instructor can teach basic riding. I never said they couldn't. 

If those learners ride a Training Level test at an unaffiliated show, they'll still tell you they're riding a dressage test. I am aware that the tests were intended to develop the horse towards the upper levels, but you know perfectly well that shows are full of ammy riders who's main riding aspiration is to some day show First Level on horses with zero upper level potential. Chances are the people who have horses with serious potential are riding them in the FEI Young Horse classes anyway.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hmmmm...yes, someone riding a test in dressage will tell you they are riding dressage. And they might be graded on how well they are setting themselves up for success later down the road. But that does NOT mean riding with soft hands, a balanced seat, concern for the horse's motion, etc are dressage. 

My daughter took lessons from a former barrel racer, and all those things were emphasized. I took lessons from an ex-reiner, and she emphasized all those things - but I'm pretty sure, based on how she used terms like collection, that she had never read a book on dressage, and she had no interest in teaching someone to put the horse 'on the bit'. I also liked that she did not teach position as something static, but that your position should constant change depending on what you wanted your horse to do.

Those are fundamentals of riding, IMHO. They take somewhat differing forms depending on the tack used, but they are no more exclusively dressage than they are exclusively barrel racing. The Plains Indians and the Mongol cavalry were admired for their skill, but their ideas on riding and training had nothing to do with any 17th century European.

For someone starting off riding, the style to choose may depend on what is available in your area. In many parts of Arizona, you'd be hard pressed to find a competent instructor in dressage. OTOH, if I was still living in Upper Heyford, UK (just north of Oxford), I might have problems finding good instruction in western riding.

On the whole, I would prefer to start someone with an approach to riding that makes gentleness to the horse easy for a beginner. For GP riding by the average recreational rider (someone who rides a few hours/week), I still would prefer a style that is as easy as possible and gives the horse maximum freedom. Once a person dedicates themselves to serious training, then all bets are off and ANY of the equine sports are fair game for both horse and rider.

But when someone rides 2-3 hours/week, and is not already proficient in a certain style due to intensive study earlier in their life, then I think it is best for both horse and rider to scale back their goals and adopt a simplified system, with the emphasis on minimum interference with the horse's natural abilities. Those with the time and ability to press toward higher goals can then be admired without being imitated poorly to the detriment of the horse.


----------



## EquineObsessed (May 24, 2013)

I think everyone is starting to say the same thing. The basics of any discipline will help riders, because too many riders skip the basics and get in over their heads. Advanced dressage is ONE form of good riding and horsemanship. The basics of riding- good seat, soft hands, clear cues- is universal for every discipline, so of course people benefit. I have nothing but respect for top level dressage horses, even if my goals are widely different. I do agree that the basics of classical training and dressage benefit most riders, simply because they are the basics of good horsemanship. I would be equally happy, and I think it would be equally beneficial, if a rider learned the basics of any western discipline, because the basics are fairly universal. Every horse and every rider benefits with a foundation.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> The basic levels of dressage are designed to reward developing horses moving towards FEI levels. Not to teach folks how to ride.
> 
> .


Totally disagree. In the UK when you learn to ride you learn from the view point of basic dressage and then if you wish to go on to other sports you can do so.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes, people do seem to be dividing along national lines. 

I do see what BSMS is saying. I don't disagree. Indeed, I wrote earlier that I don't ask novicey students to put their horses in an outline. If someone wanted to learn how to do that, I would teach them (after they've developed the balance to be able to maintain a contact without accidentally yanking on the reins). But with most people I work with, the goal is to get them to be safe, happy hackers with well-trained, responsive horses and tools that may get them out of dodgy situations. Incidentally, the majority of horses I work with, even the greenies, put themselves 'on the bit' when they are ridden forward into a soft contact. Funny how that works!


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> Yes, people do seem to be dividing along national lines.
> 
> I do see what BSMS is saying. I don't disagree. Indeed, I wrote earlier that I don't ask novicey students to put their horses in an outline. If someone wanted to learn how to do that, I would teach them (after they've developed the balance to be able to maintain a contact without accidentally yanking on the reins). But with most people I work with, the goal is to get them to be safe, happy hackers with well-trained, responsive horses and tools that may get them out of dodgy situations. Incidentally, the majority of horses I work with, even the greenies, put themselves 'on the bit' when they are ridden forward into a soft contact. Funny how that works!


 
Working in a kind of outline comes with time not something that is necessarily achieved as a learner but eventually they should learn it, but I would expect any properly schooled horse to work in outline and anyone learning to ride to eventually be able to ask and achieve a correct contact - out hacking or hunting there are times when riding in an outline and being soft and responsive is a useful way for a horse to work and really is the basic minimum I would expect from a horse and a rider. This is why basic dressage over here is the norm, if you go out to buy any schooled horse you would expect it to work in a light and responsive contact in a basic outline, you could then go on to do what you like be that jumping eventing, hunting or polo. Watch any low level dressage video over here and the basic riding will be the same as out hacking for many people (maybe just more free walks on a long rein :lol: )


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I agree with that but have to lower my standards, given that I frequently work with green riders on green horses or green riders who bought something thoroughly lacking in good basic schooling. If we can get to the basic minimum, we're making progress. It is actually ok and progress towards that ideal is made when they are having me school their horse (and maybe taking lessons on schoolmasters), but when they want a lesson on their greenie rather than me riding their horse for an hour, I have to work with what's in front of me. Which is more what BSMS has said -- making it as easy on the horse as possible. An experienced school horse can put up with some conflicting aids while the rider learns. A poor greenie is like, "What???"


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> I agree with that but have to lower my standards, given that I frequently work with green riders on green horses or green riders who bought something thoroughly lacking in good basic schooling. If we can get to the basic minimum, we're making progress. It is actually ok and progress towards that ideal is made when they are having me school their horse (and maybe taking lessons on schoolmasters), but when they want a lesson on their greenie rather than me riding their horse for an hour, I have to work with what's in front of me. Which is more what BSMS has said -- making it as easy on the horse as possible. An experienced school horse can put up with some conflicting aids while the rider learns. A poor greenie is like, "What???"


Green on green is never a good combination:lol:

Teaching a green horse you should always make it easy, they need time to trust the contact and build up the muscles, it is just that I think the aim of a good outline is still there, but it might take years


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I'm beginning to think that unless you have grown up in the UK and Europe or lived there/had some direct influence from correct riding tuition from those areas you are going to be clueless about what we're talking about!!!
A good dressage Instructor in the UK should not be 'high and mighty' about what they teach - there have been some over the years and always will be a few but they don't do riding any favours at all - they just scare people away
A good showjumper has to know how to collect, change legs, shorten a stride, a good gymkhana pony should be able to change leg around every bending pole, be so balanced it can turn on a sixpence and so collected it can almost canter on the spot while you drop something in a bucket without losing impulsion, a good hunter should be able to back up and turn on the forehand to open the gates and step sideways to allow hunt staff to get by in a narrow place...............the refinements of a top dressage performer might not be there but the principles behind the actions are.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

jaydee said:


> I'm beginning to think that unless you have grown up in the UK and Europe or lived there/had some direct influence from correct riding tuition from those areas you are going to be clueless about what we're talking about!!!
> A good dressage Instructor in the UK should not be 'high and mighty' about what they teach - there have been some over the years and always will be a few but they don't do riding any favours at all - they just scare people away
> A good showjumper has to know how to collect, change legs, shorten a stride, a good gymkhana pony should be able to change leg around every bending pole, be so balanced it can turn on a sixpence and so collected it can almost canter on the spot while you drop something in a bucket without losing impulsion, a good hunter should be able to back up and turn on the forehand to open the gates and step sideways to allow hunt staff to get by in a narrow place...............the refinements of a top dressage performer might not be there but the principles behind the actions are.


 
Exactly!!!


----------



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

jaydee said:


> I'm beginning to think that unless you have grown up in the UK and Europe or lived there/had some direct influence from correct riding tuition from those areas you are going to be clueless about what we're talking about!!!
> A good dressage Instructor in the UK should not be 'high and mighty' about what they teach - there have been some over the years and always will be a few but they don't do riding any favours at all - they just scare people away
> A good showjumper has to know how to collect, change legs, shorten a stride, a good gymkhana pony should be able to change leg around every bending pole, be so balanced it can turn on a sixpence and so collected it can almost canter on the spot while you drop something in a bucket without losing impulsion, a good hunter should be able to back up and turn on the forehand to open the gates and step sideways to allow hunt staff to get by in a narrow place...............the refinements of a top dressage performer might not be there but the principles behind the actions are.


My point is, these things are not exclusive to dressage. They are good basic riding skills. Dressage does not mean good riding. I hear lots of you "oh dressage is wonderful and perfect" folks harp on Anky and LDR and international dressage in general. How many "dressage" people yearly get barred from owning horses because of abusive practices as deemed by a court of law?
Good riding is the basis for all sports, including dressage. Dressage is not the basis for anything and while I agree that the above skills are essential for all riding, what I do not agree about is that they are dressage. A decent jumping or hunting or reining or any instructor will teach those things without a lick of dressage training.

And please don't tell me about not being exposed to European whatever or "correct riding". Excuse me, but seriously? Get a clue.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> And please don't tell me about not being exposed to European whatever or "correct riding". Excuse me, but seriously? Get a clue.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
Exposed to correct European riding when I had to teach you how to ride :twisted:
I joke, obviously.

Good riding is good riding. I was taught to ride in Germany. There is a HUGE difference between your general flat work/ good riding and dressage.

As someone who rides well is not specifically 'dressage' orientated you are a 'freizeit reiter'.. a free time rider. You could label myself as this, as I do not compete but ride to train myself and the horse.

There is a HUGE prejudice about the difference of the two out here. This is coming from someone who is extremely small horse world.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> My point is, these things are not exclusive to dressage. They are good basic riding skills. Dressage does not mean good riding. I hear lots of you "oh dressage is wonderful and perfect" folks harp on Anky and LDR and international dressage in general. How many "dressage" people yearly get barred from owning horses because of abusive practices as deemed by a court of law?
> Good riding is the basis for all sports, including dressage. Dressage is not the basis for anything and while I agree that the above skills are essential for all riding, what I do not agree about is that they are dressage. A decent jumping or hunting or reining or any instructor will teach those things without a lick of dressage training.
> 
> And please don't tell me about not being exposed to European whatever or "correct riding". Excuse me, but seriously? Get a clue.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Surely dressage is...

the art of riding and training a horse in a manner that develops obedience, flexibility, and balance: 
 What Jaydee and I have been describing is exactly that. It is the basis for most ridden work in the UK and is the basis of the other sports we have mentioned and how most people are taught to ride as a starting point.

It obviously means something different to you.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Clava said:


> ...I would expect any properly schooled horse to work in outline and anyone learning to ride to eventually be able to ask and achieve a correct contact - out hacking or hunting there are times when riding in an outline and being soft and responsive is a useful way for a horse to work and really is the basic minimum I would expect from a horse and a rider. This is why basic dressage over here is the norm...


This is the sort of dressage snobbery that really annoys me. A horse can be soft and responsive while moving in a way that has nothing to do with dressage or European classical riding. If the natural balance of a horse is 57/43, then there is NO requirement to make it 50/50 for the horse to move well.

There is NO requirement for riding with contact. Most western horses are NEVER ridden 'on the bit', with constant contact, and yet they move freely, with balance, and respond well to their rider.

"_A horse is said to be “on the bit” when the neck is more or less raised and arched according to the stage of training and the extension or collection of the pace, accepting the bridle [emphasis added] with a light soft contact and submissiveness throughout. The head should remain in a steady position, as a rule slightly in front of the vertical, with a supple poll as the highest point of the neck, and no resistance should be offered to the rider._”

Indeed, riding with the horse 'on the bit' robs the horse of his vision and impedes his balance. It is totally acceptable in an arena if it helps the rider achieve a goal such as collected gaits, but we now know a lot more about a horse's vision that the 'classical masters' of the 1700s. We know a horse has limited binocular vision and a smaller area of 'high resolution' vision, and needs to move its head to see well.

Rather than the default mode of good riding, putting a horse 'on the bit' is something that should only be done for limited goals in places where footing is not critical and where the horse can assume the rider knows the footing. Even then, you are essentially asking the horse to move with your hands over its eyes...so the NORM should be to allow the horse to move its head. The EXCEPTION, used for certain horse sports, would be to control the movement so that you can achieve some other goal that you rank higher.



Clava said:


> Totally disagree. In the UK when you learn to ride you learn from the view point of basic dressage and then if you wish to go on to other sports you can do so.


Then maybe the UK ought to rethink its training program. Or maybe, at a minimum, the folks in the UK should be more open-minded about how others choose to do things. There is no rational basis for saying folks should start with dressage unless dressage is the only instruction available. I would love to hear why the Plains Indians were NOT great riders since they never studied dressage and never put their horses in an outline or on the bit.

There ARE common principles to all good riding. Not using the reins for balance, moving in synch with the horse, using your balance to help the horse's balance - all of those are a requirement for good riding. Caring about the horse and respecting its needs are also critical principles in good riding. 

Riding in an outline and putting a horse "on the bit" are NOT aspects of universal good riding. For many purposes, they are contrary to good riding. Calling those "the basic minimum I would expect from a horse and a rider" is offensive to the many millions of riders who ride happy, responsive horses without it. I would love to hear why a cutting horse is not well trained or responsive and willing. I would love to hear why endurance horses need an outline. I would love to hear why an ex-ranch horse like Trooper, who can move with his rider thru rough country and, if need be, bring his rider home in total darkness in the mountains, is a poorly trained horse.

I'm bewildered that anyone would believe that a horse that prances around an arena - and for the record, I admire good dressage riding - is superior to a horse who brings his lost rider safely back in a snowstorm in the mountains. That happened last December on the ranch where Trooper was born. The sheepherder got lost in the snowstorm, gave up, dropped the reins on the horn, and began confessing his sins to God so he could die with a clean conscience. Apparently he had a lot to confess, because he said he was still confessing an hour later when his horse stopped 2 feet from his trailer. THAT guy now takes very good care of his horses. And he has experienced what a good horse can do without needing to be 'on the bit'. In fact, if he had kept the horse on the bit, he'd be dead!

What you are describing is a horse that is schooled FOR DRESSAGE. And it is fine, for dressage. I enjoy watching videos of dressage competition, although I'm also enough of a colonial rube to enjoy watching videos of cutting or campdrafting. :? But it is NOT the desired goal of all riding, and the lower level instruction in dressage combines universal principles (don't balance on the reins) with things intended to set one up for success later in dressage.

I think I understand what thesilverspear is writing, and I have no real disagreement with her that I know of. Dressage is a valid way to begin riding, and it is a valid school of training for both horse and rider. It is certainly not the ONLY good way to ride, nor do ALL of the things taught in dressage apply to other horses.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Clava said:


> Surely dressage is...
> 
> the art of riding and training a horse in a manner that develops obedience, flexibility, and balance:


Let me make that statement more realistic for the millions of horses around the world:

Dressage is...*AN* art of riding and training a horse in a manner that develops obedience, flexibility, and balance:


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> Let me make that statement more realistic for the millions of horses around the world:
> 
> Dressage is...*AN* art of riding and training a horse in a manner that develops obedience, flexibility, and balance:


Why more realistic :? even my woolly 11.1 pony can have a go at dressage, or my friend's shire cross.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> My point is, these things are not exclusive to dressage. They are good basic riding skills. Dressage does not mean good riding. I hear lots of you "oh dressage is wonderful and perfect" folks harp on Anky and LDR and international dressage in general. How many "dressage" people yearly get barred from owning horses because of abusive practices as deemed by a court of law?
> Good riding is the basis for all sports, including dressage. Dressage is not the basis for anything and while I agree that the above skills are essential for all riding, what I do not agree about is that they are dressage. A decent jumping or hunting or reining or any instructor will teach those things without a lick of dressage training.
> 
> And please don't tell me about not being exposed to European whatever or "correct riding". Excuse me, but seriously? Get a clue.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You personally might not need to be exposed, but your teachers, or the teachers of your teachers certainly were. 
If you look at the OP, there is a translation of the word "dressage" and it's a rather good one. 

I guess we from across the big water do have a different way of seeing and doing things. You can call that tradition, maybe. There, traditionally you start out with a dressage base, then branch out. Not only riders, horses also. A grand prix jumper is fully capable to do an upper level dressage test. Maybe not as pretty, due to lack of finesse, but certainly correctly. Therefore, an instructor for jumping can certainly teach good riding. So can a good reiner, just with a different goal. And different methods.


----------



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

I made a picture!!










On the left is what BSMS, Duffy, I and others are trying to explain. On the right side is how you sound to us.
Have a Grand Prix horse?? GREAT! Now you can win at trick riding competitions and take the horse racing and also be a winning vaulter and go to the Olympics in Reining and eventing and then after that go barrel racing and you'll win at everything because you have a _Dressaaaaage_ horse and dressage is the only riding that matters!! Everything else sucks and is worthless unless you have a _Dressaaaaage_ instructor and a _Dressaaaaage_ horse and a _Dressaaaaage_ arena and have only read classical _Dressaaaaage_ books about training your horse in _Dressaaaaage_.


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

Unable to see the picture as I am in work right now (also have some more hopefuls to send your way anebel!!).

I enjoy seeing two sides to the coin, but I always thought good "horsemanship" is the basics of any horse. Then you branch off in to whatever you decide to do.


----------



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

deserthorsewoman said:


> You personally might not need to be exposed, but your teachers, or the teachers of your teachers certainly were.
> If you look at the OP, there is a translation of the word "dressage" and it's a rather good one.
> 
> I guess we from across the big water do have a different way of seeing and doing things. You can call that tradition, maybe. There, traditionally you start out with a dressage base, then branch out. Not only riders, horses also. A grand prix jumper is fully capable to do an upper level dressage test. Maybe not as pretty, due to lack of finesse, but certainly correctly. Therefore, an instructor for jumping can certainly teach good riding. So can a good reiner, just with a different goal. And different methods.


And it's the **** same here. But jumpers don't call it dressage. They call it flat work. And they dont have to call Klaus von Heinrick who is a _Dressaaaaage_ trainer to come teach them. The good jumper trainers here all understand the good basic riding skills do for any discipline and because they have Good Basic Skills they can hop on a dressage horse or a jumping horse or a reining horse or a cutting horse etc.. and be successful. And dont tell me the cutting horse spent a year with Klaus von Heinrick learning about _Dressaaaaage_ and the aids before the jumper guy is able to ride it. Or would that sort of thing be beneath you?


----------



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

Clava said:


> Totally disagree. In the UK when you learn to ride you learn from the view point of basic dressage and then if you wish to go on to other sports you can do so.


Ok so the directives at the top of the test are different than ours?? Instead of talking about the horse showing good rhythm and impulsion and that the horse accepts contact it says "To show that the rider can stay on the horse for the duration of the test with her heels down and back straight with her thumbs up and only pulling on the horse 50% of the time or less. Bonus points for smiles!"

Because dressage is a competitive sport... So I just go by what the FEI tells me and as far as I know world wide there is 1 score on the test for rider... Unless in an Eq. class.


----------



## Corporal (Jul 29, 2010)

As IF this thread couldn't get more argumentative, I'd like to throw a few more points into it.
I believe that basic dressage training makes any horse better. Period. 
No rider wants to fight with the reins as if they are having a tug-o-war with their horse. 
No rider wants their horse to throw their weight forwards.
No rider wants to have to kick their horse to move. 
No rider wants their horse to be heavy or unrespondant to reining.
I believe that basic dressage teaches flexibility and obedience and teaches the horse to carry himself and the rider on all 4 legs, instead of carrying 2/3 of his own weight plus the rider on his front two legs.
Beyond that I believe that the dressage community is a _little bit_ out of balance when I see dressage horses that:
--shy
--rear
--bolt
Even the OP has mentioned that his horse "revolted"?!?!?
*What is the purpose of ANY type of training if your horse finds it repugnant???*
I do not find _dressage_ repugnant, but the application is if your horse doesn't eventually come to enjoy it as much as the rider seems to enjoy it.
In my hobby we had a handful of horses that just LOVED doing CW Reenacting. Our original herd leader, "Tyke" (1970-1998, RIP), a QH/TWH cross who had done many things before I bought him as a 15yo, including TB race track pony, thought that his world opened up as a commander's mount. He would voluntarily park--our commander wasn't much of a rider, just an assertive personality--and was head arched, ears forward, tail up the whole time there were troops and a crowd. He was always ready to pose. *He just loved it*. "Corporal" (1982-2009,RIP) enjoyed it, too, bc he loved racing messages. Once, when I was breaking in our OTTB to the hobby, my DH rode Corporal, and he laughed when just pointing him to another commander meant that Corporal would dash off and slide stop at his destination with the lightest cue.
I believe that we would ALL like our horses to LIKE our sport.
I see no purpose in forcing your horse to a sport that they don't like. AND, I would warn anyone here that rushing your horse that has a talent in a sport will get you the same rebellion.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> And it's the **** same here. But jumpers don't call it dressage. They call it flat work. And they dont have to call Klaus von Heinrick who is a _Dressaaaaage_ trainer to come teach them. The good jumper trainers here all understand the good basic riding skills do for any discipline and because they have Good Basic Skills they can hop on a dressage horse or a jumping horse or a reining horse or a cutting horse etc.. and be successful. And dont tell me the cutting horse spent a year with Klaus von Heinrick learning about _Dressaaaaage_ and the aids before the jumper guy is able to ride it. Or would that sort of thing be beneath you?


I really don't get why you are attacking me personally here. I didn't attack you. I was trying to explain the difference. And for you information...I have long given up dressage, or english riding in general. I ride with a western saddle but still collect my horse. And said horse is fully capable to do so. I'm leaning towards vaquero style western BECAUSE it is in general more collected. Because I like it better, looks wise. And appreciate the responsiveness and lightness. 
AND I'm being more and more turned off by dressage, due to the current tendency I see. Not that I don't like the sport, I just don't like the attitude around it. One used to have to earn the spurs, nowadays money can buy them


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Ok so the directives at the top of the test are different than ours?? Instead of talking about the horse showing good rhythm and impulsion and that the horse accepts contact it says "To show that the rider can stay on the horse for the duration of the test with her heels down and back straight with her thumbs up and only pulling on the horse 50% of the time or less. Bonus points for smiles!"
> 
> Because dressage is a competitive sport... So I just go by what the FEI tells me and as far as I know world wide there is 1 score on the test for rider... Unless in an Eq. class.


 
Directives are the same of course, but dressage is not just limited to the completion arena. It is not solely a competitive sport, it is a way of riding, you can be practising dressage alone in a school or out hacking. If I do shoulder in down the road it is still dressage even if no-one is judging me.


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

Clava said:


> Directives are the same of course, but dressage is not just limited to the completion arena. It is not solely a competitive sport, it is a way of riding, you can be practising dressage alone in a school or out hacking. If I do shoulder in down the road it is still dressage even if no-one is judging me.


And you can jump logs in the woods, but does that make you a cross country rider? 

I agree dressage should be more accepting of lower level riders, and agree that it has great benefits for horses. But if. I told my old yard owner he was training his QH in dressage for the first rides he would have had my head.

Good riding and a good basic horsemanship level, fine. But I don't think that then means you are a dressage rider.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

DuffyDuck said:


> And you can jump logs in the woods, but does that make you a cross country rider?
> 
> I agree dressage should be more accepting of lower level riders, and agree that it has great benefits for horses. But if. I told my old yard owner he was training his QH in dressage for the first rides he would have had my head.
> 
> Good riding and a good basic horsemanship level, fine. But I don't think that then means you are a dressage rider.


Well actually yes it does :lol: what else do you think XC is? It is jumping natural fixed obstacles and negotiating water. You all seem to have things very pigeon holed. Anyone who can jump fixed jumps, do steps and drops and go through water can do XC, anyone who can ask for accurate transitions and has an obedient and balanced horse can attempt a dressage test...it isn't rocket science at the low levels, dressage is riding in a balanced way and on a schooled horse to those aids and it is the where basic good riding comes from.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

DuffyDuck said:


> And you can jump logs in the woods, but does that make you a cross country rider?
> 
> I agree dressage should be more accepting of lower level riders, and agree that it has great benefits for horses. But if. I told my old yard owner he was training his QH in dressage for the first rides he would have had my head.
> 
> Good riding and a good basic horsemanship level, fine. But I don't think that then means you are a dressage rider.


I guess all this big discussion is not so much about dressage as a way of training, but rather a status. 
We used to have" Dressurstunde", " Springstunde" and "Ausritt". And differentiated between "Anfaenger" and "Fortgeschrittene". Apparently that has changed there, too. Nowadays you do more than an equitation test, you ride dressage and master 2 feet you're a jumper. 


To Corporal's post: responsive and light in the hand....get a bigger bit....carrying weight on the forehand...who cares, it's natural, uncontrollable and bokting...again, bigger bit. I see that a lot. In any tack. Guess I'm too old-fashioned.....


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The UK has its own 'freetime riders' and plenty of them - they are the people who buy a horses and 'teach themselves in a fashion, have a friend who knows how to sit on a horse teach them. When I was young you could hire a pony from one local man and the rates varied from having a halter and riding bareback to having a saddle and bridle. Plenty of people learn to ride in way that mostly just involves being able to stick on, rise to the trot, kick for go, kick harder for go faster, pull the reins to stop and pull on one rein or the other to steer
New laws governing riding schools are at least working towards assuring that people that pay to take lessons with them are coming out with more knowledge than this - not just high risk passengers in many cases
Just because a rider starts out in the typical BHS low level dressage style of riding and works their horse in that direction doesn't mean they have to go off into high level dressage, it just gives them the tools to get the best they can out of what they do


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

deserthorsewoman said:


> ...To Corporal's post: responsive and light in the hand....get a bigger bit....carrying weight on the forehand...who cares, it's natural, uncontrollable and bokting...again, bigger bit. I see that a lot. In any tack. Guess I'm too old-fashioned.....


Carrying more weight on the front than back IS the natural way of moving for a horse, and thus what their legs are built to do. That is why collection - shifting the balance toward the rear - takes training and effort. Sustained transfer of weight requires a LOT of training to prevent harm to the horse. That does not make it wrong. But it does strongly suggest that it is not essential to good riding. Unless there is some reason for the horse to shift its balance in a way difficult to the horse, it should not do so. So if my goal is a horse who covers ground efficiently, working with the horse's natural balance is good riding.

Get a bigger bit? Well, Mia learned to get a snaffle 'in her teeth' when excited, which made it a bad choice of bit to use on a nervous horse. Switching to a western curb means she can be ridden in a gentle bit and yet not escape its effects when excited. The result is a horse who stays relaxed in situations where she used to panic.

Using a bit that helps your horse relax and yield to the rider's decisions is not bad horsemanship. My entire family has gone from calling Mia a weirdo nutjob a year ago to saying she is a fun horse to be around. If that transition makes me bad, then I hope more horses have bad riders! When a horse relaxes in a bit, it isn't harsh or wrong.

Of course, I'm content to have her listen to the bit and my other aids instead of being "on the bit". As a general principle of good riding, letting the horse to move its head for balance and improved vision should be the default setting, and we should only limit the horse's head movement if we have a positive reason to do so.

That is why it is a mistake to say dressage or "classical riding" a la 1750 Europe is 'just good riding'. Having a balanced horse is good riding anywhere. Having a responsive horse is good riding anywhere. Having a relaxed and confident horse is good riding anywhere. Not balancing on the reins is good riding anywhere.

But "toes forward" is good for some riding. A very vertical position is good for some riding. "On the bit" is good riding for some purposes, and bad riding for others. In discussing the lower levels of "classical riding", one needs to distinguish between the things done because all good riders do them, and the things done to set one up for success as you progress in dressage (or training for classical riding).


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

This is probably one of the most amusing but easy to understand explanations of why collection is important that I think I've ever seen - seems a bit tedious to start with but it gets the point over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RWwCRmoMAE


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

jaydee said:


> This is probably one of the most amusing but easy to understand explanations of why collection is important that I think I've ever seen - seems a bit tedious to start with but it gets the point over
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RWwCRmoMAE


 
Very good :lol:


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

jaydee said:


> This is probably one of the most amusing but easy to understand explanations of why collection is important that I think I've ever seen - seems a bit tedious to start with but it gets the point over
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RWwCRmoMAE


If this doesn't sink in.....triple "like"


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Well, if your goal is for a horse to stand up or sit down, fine. But if your goal is to cover ground efficiently, or if you have 4 legs instead of 2 and the front legs are what you normally use to support your weight, then the video is just stupid. Or perhaps "immaterial & irrelevant".

I have sat thru enough spins on Mia to know a horse can do a 180 with incredible speed - enough to bruise my thighs on the poleys of my Australian, non-European saddle - without being ridden collected. Nor do I spend most of my ride hoping my horse is ready for a fast spin. I normally want her to move efficiently and confidently FORWARD. Not up & down, and not ready to switch directions like a cutting horse working a cow, but forward. 

That video is the same sort of careless analogy that drives far to much of riding horses. The oversimplified analysis of balance and motion, or the action of bits, or how riders balance or how the horse's back works or their vision works, leads to faulty riding. A failure to understand why collection is good at times and harmful at times results in bad riding. What is appropriate for a cutting horse who is cutting or a dressage horse who is dressaging is not appropriate for all horses at all times. And the limited periods of collection needed by most horses for most riding does not require very extensive training...


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

bsms said:


> Carrying more weight on the front than back IS the natural way of moving for a horse, and thus what their legs are built to do. That is why collection - shifting the balance toward the rear - takes training and effort. Sustained transfer of weight requires a LOT of training to prevent harm to the horse. That does not make it wrong. But it does strongly suggest that it is not essential to good riding. Unless there is some reason for the horse to shift its balance in a way difficult to the horse, it should not do so. So if my goal is a horse who covers ground efficiently, working with the horse's natural balance is good riding.
> 
> Get a bigger bit? Well, Mia learned to get a snaffle 'in her teeth' when excited, which made it a bad choice of bit to use on a nervous horse. Switching to a western curb means she can be ridden in a gentle bit and yet not escape its effects when excited. The result is a horse who stays relaxed in situations where she used to panic.
> 
> ...


The horse, as you stated previously, carries more of its weight on its forehand. Now if you put more weight on it in form of a rider, why wouldn't you have that horse learn how to carry that EXTRA weight more comfortably and therefore prevent possible injury/damage down the road?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Do any of y'all ever go jogging? When jogging, do you "collect' and get ready to spin on a moment's notice? Or do you stretch out and stride forward?

Ballet is good. Dressing up like a ballerina and dancing across the desert is not.

Collection is hard work for a horse. Why would I want my horse to be working hard if I do not have a positive goal that will benefit from that hard work? How many of y'all value a boss who tells you to "Work harder, not smarter"?


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

deserthorsewoman said:


> I guess all this big discussion is not so much about dressage as a way of training, but rather a status.
> We used to have" Dressurstunde", " Springstunde" and "Ausritt". And differentiated between "Anfaenger" and "Fortgeschrittene". Apparently that has changed there, too. Nowadays you do more than an equitation test, you ride dressage and master 2 feet you're a jumper.
> 
> 
> To Corporal's post: responsive and light in the hand....get a bigger bit....carrying weight on the forehand...who cares, it's natural, uncontrollable and bokting...again, bigger bit. I see that a lot. In any tack. Guess I'm too old-fashioned.....


Maybe they dumb it down for me 

In all honesty, most yards offer reit Unterricht. You have to look for trainers for your jumping dressage, xc lessons (I am using English as the best example as I have very little experience with western tuition). 

But there is a massive difference these days. It frustrates me that unless you compete at A, most dressage snobs will look down their noses! Not all, but a good chunk!

I still have a firm belief in what I say. A good basic understanding of riding will lead you down any path you wish to take. Having a horse soft and flexible and have a certain degree of collection is, for me, good horsemanship.

On the other side, to compete in Germany you have your reitabzeichen which are your riders tests.. Theory and practical. Bronze is a basic dressage test and jump course of 80-100cm, silver is next level up for dressage (unsure how German scale matches up to US?) and again more jumping..100-120 I think, and then you go either dressage or jumping for the gold.

Does that mean the "basic" levels require good understanding of dressage, and jumping? Or is it just basic horsemanship before you branch off?


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

Because your horse would last longer. Easy as that.


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

They dumb it down for me so my horse will last longer, or the way they test the rider?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - You obviously didn't get the meaning behind that video at all - it has nothing to do with standing up and sitting down - its about being prepared to stand up or sit down or if you put it into the context of riding - to have a horse prepared to immediately respond to your aids/cues!!!
Not all of dressage is about collection either - doing a good job of this in your test will earn you good points. I'm sure someone with more time can find a better example than this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZgzJ5YkDdY


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

deserthorsewoman said:


> The horse, as you stated previously, carries more of its weight on its forehand. Now if you put more weight on it in form of a rider, why wouldn't you have that horse learn how to carry that EXTRA weight more comfortably and therefore prevent possible injury/damage down the road?


Because changing the horse's natural balance is not required for riding. That is the point of a forward seat - to adjust the rider's balance to match the horse's, rather than make the horse adjust its balance to match where we want to ride.

If the hind legs are used to carrying 43% of the horse's weight, why would you want to add BOTH the rider's weight PLUS additional weight from the horse to legs not adapted to carrying it?

If kindness and respect for the horse are part of good riding, then we should only overload the horse's hind legs for a reason. That reason can include being ready to switch direction, make an efficient and tight turn, etc. It can include collected gaits. But I am stunned that anyone thinks a collected gait is easier for the horse when moving forward than an uncollected gait.

If sustained collection was easy for the horse, there would not be a dressage training scale with collection at the end.

BTW - in old style western riding, moving the lower leg forward shifted part of the rider's balance forward. In addition, the extended saddle tree meant any weight to the rear was distributed over a much larger area. The combination makes for a style that is closer to a horse's natural balance, while allowing some weight to the rear without harming the horse. It is, again, a style that is both easy to learn AND easy for the horse to perform, which is why it works without needing years of conditioning for the horse. :wink:


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I think I am in love with that trainer, Jaydee.

Carrying more weight in the front than the back is the natural way of moving for a horse, but (regardless of discipline) not the ideal way for it to move when carrying 100+ lbs of rider. I find that I have to carry myself differently when carrying a heavy pack on a long walk-in than with a light pack or no pack. Your horse has no idea how best to carry a rider. That's why you teach them this stuff. The Mongolian horsemen and anyone else who used horses for hunting or battle or herding cattle will certainly teach them collection. Regardless of what they call it, they require the horse to be quick and responsive and able to stop and turn on a dime all while carrying a large man. 

It may increase the working life of the horse. The hind legs are stronger, better able to carry your weight. It just feels unpleasant when a horse plows into its forehand on a transition and, like the video indicated, it's then not in a very good, well balanced place to answer your next question. 

What do you do when you ride downhill? Surely, you have to minimally collect horse on the downhill. If you don't, the horse just falls on his face, careens around the turn, and it does not look very pleasant for horse nor rider. It is much more comfortable when you ask the horse shift his weight to the his hind end.

Clava, I really hope you didn't assume that I think it's a good idea for green riders to be on green horses. I perhaps erroneously assumed that I have posted here enough to be "known," in a cyberspace way, as not an idiot but it is a big forum. People call me long after they've bought the horse, when they realize they need help with it. Other than suggesting that the horse is not exactly appropriate for their level of riding (and I have done), there isn't a lot I can do other than help them as best I can.

BSMS, I bet your mare collects herself the second before she does a 180.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

deserthorsewoman said:


> Because your horse would last longer. Easy as that.


Any evidence? ANY? I've offered that challenge many times, and have yet to see any study that backs up the claim. Meanwhile, the claim is somewhat bizarre on the face of it, since you have to train & condition the horse to move in a way that would injure it without the training, but supposedly lengthens its riding life with it!

It doesn't explain a lot of old ranch horses I've met, or all the western-ridden horses who seem to be living long and productive lives without this training.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

DuffyDuck said:


> Maybe they dumb it down for me
> 
> In all honesty, most yards offer reit Unterricht. You have to look for trainers for your jumping dressage, xc lessons (I am using English as the best example as I have very little experience with western tuition).
> 
> ...


As you said, for bronze you do dressage- and jumping. That's exactly what I meant. At that level it would probably be considered flatwork here in the US. I just never saw the need to differentiate between flatwork and dressage. What's considered dressage in north america is upper level dressage in Europe. So where there's an upper, there must be a lower also, right? But, according to some members lower level dressage doesn't deserve to be called dressage. Which is not the case in europe. And if a rider wants to go up in levels, you find a trainer who teaches these levels.


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

I agree if there is an upper, there is a lower. 

But the basics of riding is flatwork and horsemanship, not, IMO, dressage. The first time you sit on a horse and learn to ride, whether it be classical, modern, European, Canadian, American, Russian etc etc you are not riding dressage. You are learning flatwork.

You improve on that as time goes on (everyone remembers the awkward rising trot phase!) and one would hope you learn the basics to ensure a happily working horse.

I know riders who have been riding the same years I have. Would I say they are dressage riders because they can get a horse soft and round, flex it and ask for it to work more or less from behind? No. They are working at a consistent level which is beneficial to both horse and rider because they accept and work together. Moving on up from that stage to further train together.. Yes. Now, of course every time we sit on a horse we train it. But from that basic level of being able to communicate with the horse on that level, you can branch out in to what you and your horse want to do. A lot dabble in everything, some want to specialize. But I disagree on labeling basic school work dressage.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

bsms said:


> Any evidence? ANY? I've offered that challenge many times, and have yet to see any study that backs up the claim. Meanwhile, the claim is somewhat bizarre on the face of it, since you have to train & condition the horse to move in a way that would injure it without the training, but supposedly lengthens its riding life with it!
> 
> It doesn't explain a lot of old ranch horses I've met, or all the western-ridden horses who seem to be living long and productive lives without this training.


You keep forgetting that a) western breeds are built differently and therefore collect much easier than a 17 hand warmblood, and that western training places great emphasis on collection early on, to make it possible to ride with very little or no contact later on.

And for long productive lives....one of my horses is one of these ranch horses. She didn't last. Got her at age 16, pretty beat up and done. She's unusually long in the back, not easy to collect.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

So what are all those people riding Novice tests in Britain an First Level tests in the US doing? 

It is all semantic. If you label yourself a a "dressage rider" (even a lower level one), then getting the horse soft and round and vaguely moving from behind is dressage. If you label yourself as "jumper/western/whatever," then it is school work, flat work, or, according to some on here, unnecessary.


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

thesilverspear said:


> So what are all those people riding Novice tests in Britain an First Level tests in the US doing?
> 
> It is all semantic. If you label yourself a a "dressage rider" (even a lower level one), then getting the horse soft and round and vaguely moving from behind is dressage. If you label yourself as "jumper/western/whatever," then it is school work, flat work, or, according to some on here, unnecessary.


Gotta love horse people. So many ways to skin a cat and no one agrees on anything 

All I can say is thank goodness we aren't all in the same barn or we would have many a late nights talking!


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

deserthorsewoman said:


> As you said, for bronze you do dressage- and jumping. That's exactly what I meant. At that level it would probably be considered flatwork here in the US. I just never saw the need to differentiate between flatwork and dressage. What's considered dressage in north america is upper level dressage in Europe. So where there's an upper, there must be a lower also, right? But, according to some members lower level dressage doesn't deserve to be called dressage. Which is not the case in europe. And if a rider wants to go up in levels, you find a trainer who teaches these levels.


Exactly, flatwork is schooling which is basic dressage. If people say they are having a flatwork lesson then they may equally call it a dressage lesson. An Into dressage test is in effect extremely basic riding (just walk and trot) and simple expectations of the horse, but it is still dressage.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

So.... we all agree. Sheesh!

And to get back to Barry's initial posts, neither flatwork, nor schooling, nor dressage innately makes a horse too hot nor too advanced to enjoy a happy hack, go hunting, or gallop up a rough track, but an individual horse may just be a hot horse no matter what you do with it.

The more important question is, do I get to take the cute Aussie trainer home with me and will my OH object?


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

But.. Do we?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

deserthorsewoman said:


> You keep forgetting that a) western breeds are built differently and therefore collect much easier than a 17 hand warmblood, and that western training places great emphasis on collection early on, to make it possible to ride with very little or no contact later on.
> 
> And for long productive lives....one of my horses is one of these ranch horses. She didn't last. Got her at age 16, pretty beat up and done. She's unusually long in the back, not easy to collect.


Hmmmm...don't know about warmbloods, but I doubt that the average quarter horse is all that easy to "collect". Collection is not based on height. Length of back would be a factor, but if quarter horses have more natural talent of collecting, why don't we see more of them being used in dressage? Dump the warmbloods & get some cow ponies in there!

As for your example...a sample of 1 is your evidence? Particularly one that was "unusually long in the back"?

When the US Cavalry looked at it, they concluded a focus on collection caused a horse to break down sooner, not later - when using average horses and average cavalry riders, with a goal of using the horses for long marches. See "_American Military Horsemanship_", pages 61, 62 & 78.

Thus someone whose interest in horses leaves the arena might want to consider preserving the horse's health by using its natural balance.

Suppose you need to carry 100 lbs. If you put all the weight into a backpack, it will throw off your balance and you will risk injury. However, if you carry 50 lbs in each hand, it is much easier to adapt. When I carried heavy metal plates on both my chest and back, moving in a balanced fashion was easy. Well, harder than without the weight, but retaining my natural balance made things much easier than putting it all on my back and leaning forward. Besides, I was carrying the plates to keep someone from shooting me, and I didn't want my chest unprotected. :wink:

A considerate rider will not try to put ALL his weight on the front, nor on the rear. Ideally, the rider's center of gravity should be as close as possible to the horse's. That will apportion the strain according to how the horse's body has evolved to carry it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

DuffyDuck said:


> ...All I can say is thank goodness we aren't all in the same barn or we would have many a late nights talking!


Rumor has it the Gunfight at the OK Corral started when the Clantons and the McLaurys tried to convince the Earps to collect their horses and put them "on the bit". Well, that went over like a turd in a punchbowl, and you know what happened next:


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

that's a way to stop arguing with a stopsign.....:rofl:


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> .... but I doubt that the average quarter horse is all that easy to "collect". Collection is not based on height. Length of back would be a factor, but if quarter horses have more natural talent of collecting, why don't we see more of them being used in dressage? Dump the warmbloods & get some cow ponies in there!


It is nothing to do with natural talent. it is to do with training, any horse can learn to collect to some degree expect perhaps those with very poor conformation such as a ewe neck.

All the horses and ponies I know from shire crosses to shetlands could be asked to collect, I can't think that the quarter horse is so going to find it so difficult if schooled correctly. Dressage competitions I go to are full of every breed, including our own version of "cow" ponies - the coloured cobs.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Fellow Members
I woke this morning and as usual with my coffee I turned on the laptop only to find an exceptional number of posts to the thread. AmazingWe seem to be coming to the conclusion that Classical Riding is nowadays taken to be in Europe modern day dressage - as performed in the arena.
I wonder if this means that Classical Riding for Western riders is Doma Vaquera as performed in Andalucía - but I think not.

What surprises me that little attention in the English riding group has been given to the correct use of stirrups - perhaps another contentious issue and the question of bits, bridles and restraining leather tack.

I have an article on stirrups but I can't post it in its present form because it is not all my own copy - but maybe, with time, I can re word it.

And where , if anywhere, do the principles of Natural Horsemanship fit in with Classical Riding??


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> Fellow Members
> I woke this morning and as usual with my coffee I turned on the laptop only to find an exceptional number of posts to the thread. AmazingWe seem to be coming to the conclusion that Classical Riding is nowadays taken to be in Europe modern day dressage - as performed in the arena.
> I wonder if this means that Classical Riding for Western riders is Doma Vaquera as performed in Andalucía - but I think not.
> 
> ...


 
What is the contention over correct stirrups?


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Barry Godden said:


> And where , if anywhere, do the principles of Natural Horsemanship fit in with Classical Riding??


Pressure. Release. Or "negative reinforcement" of you are going to be Skinnerian about it. Fundamental basis of all good horse training. The classical books I have are very explicit about how you use it to train. So are the "natural horsemanship" people (well, for the sake of argument, the ones who aren't wacko). So does any good trainer in any discipline. Your average riding school or average rider muddling along? From what I can see, not so much. Not that they don't use it or don't teach people to use it, but from what I can see, they are not clearly stating, "You must release or soften the aid after you use it and get the desired response so the horse knows he did the right thing!"

I was unaware stirrups were a contentious topic.

Edit: *snap* with Clava!

Edit II: I think some of us have come to an agreement that basic schooling, a horse who is forward, soft, responsive, and using its hind end, is something that can be called "dressage" if you see yourself as doing dressage, but might be called "flatwork" or "schooling" by people in other disciplines. Whether that is "classical" depends on whether the rider sees themselves as a classical rider (apparently a flat cap is critical) and but, as I said earlier in the thread, my understanding of 'classical dressage' is that it is more or less a specific philosophical position in some sense and consists of training techniques employed get the horse forward, soft, responsive etc, rather than the description of the result.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I also meant to say people identify as classical riders are also identifying with a historical position. They will tell you that their horsemanship comes from the writings of dead 17th to 19th century white guys, Boucher, Cavendish, Gueriniere, and the like.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I'm sure that most of the difficulty in recognizing basic horsemanship as dressage is because the word dressage is now to many people only identified as the equine sport of that name - and even then to some people only at the higher levels. 
In Europe dressage meant 'training' from the French word 'dresser' 'to train' and the first dressage classes were tests of that horse and riders training
The different positions we see are merely part of the evolution of riding to suit the need - but the basic principles are all still there.

Silver Spear - I think you might be fighting off quite a big crowd to get your hands on that cute Aussie!!!


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

Barry Godden said:


> Fellow Members
> I woke this morning and as usual with my coffee I turned on the laptop only to find an exceptional number of posts to the thread. AmazingWe seem to be coming to the conclusion that Classical Riding is nowadays taken to be in Europe modern day dressage - as performed in the arena.
> *I wonder if this means that Classical Riding for Western riders is Doma Vaquera as performed in Andalucía - but I think not.*
> 
> ...


 
Oh, but it is! For those of us who use our horses for similar traditional work. Just very few take our to town or make videos.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Clava said:


> It is nothing to do with natural talent. it is to do with training, any horse can learn to collect to some degree...


True. But the point I was responding to was this:



deserthorsewoman said:


> You keep forgetting that a) western breeds are built differently and therefore collect much easier than a 17 hand warmblood...


If Quarter Horses are built in a way that allows them to quickly and easily collect, while a warmblood finds it difficult, then why are there a lot more warmbloods being ridden in dressage than quarter horses? If QHs are naturally good at a sport, and warmbloods are not, wouldn't you expect to see lots of QH and few warmbloods being used?



jaydee said:


> I'm sure that most of the difficulty in recognizing basic horsemanship as dressage is because the word dressage is now to many people only identified as the equine sport of that name - and even then to some people only at the higher levels.
> In Europe dressage meant 'training' from the French word 'dresser' 'to train'...


If you tell someone to find a dressage trainer to help them, do you then apologize for the redundancy? If the person then goes to someone from a barrel racing background, and starts working on getting quarter horses to sprint around barrels, do you tell them, "Glad to see you are studying dressage?"

No...I thought not. When you say dressage, you are referring to the "classical riding" taught in Europe or to the sport of dressage. I don't believe you ever call barrel racing trainers "dressage trainers".

If you bought a book on dressage, would you be disappointed if all it covered was a forward seat? Or would you say, "That's dressage!"? 



thesilverspear said:


> ...I think some of us have come to an agreement that basic schooling, a horse who is forward, soft, responsive, and using its hind end, is something that can be called "dressage" if you see yourself as doing dressage, but might be called "flatwork" or "schooling" by people in other disciplines...


Same question as above. To rephrase it slightly, when you see the picture below, do you think to yourself, "Bob & Mia are working on classical European riding, IAW the teaching of various European masters", or do you think, "Western rider, Aussie saddle, mare who is thinking about racing the other horse". When I look at the picture, I think number two:








​ 
Yet my goal at that point was to get her to focus on ME while cantering, and to ignore Trooper - to give up her competitive instincts, and be responsive to me. And with time, it is working...better, at least. Anyone who saw her 6 months ago, or when this picture was taken, would say that she is currently more relaxed, more responsive, and better balanced - but I haven't gone to a dressage trainer (oops, redundant!), I haven't read any dressage books lately, I haven't cracked open the writings of any dead Europeans (other than Littauer, who I don't think most people would describe as a dressage trainer)...I've just watched how my horse responds, and spent more time doing things that get her to respond to me.

Feet slightly forward, heels down, toes out, most of my weight in my thighs, western curb, slack reins, striving for natural balance and a natural headset unrestrained by the rider, neck reining...does that sound like "de la Gueriniere’s and certain other classical instructors" as mentioned in Barry's original post on classical riding? Or does it sound more like Littauer with a western twist?

If I went to a dressage trainer, would she ooh & aah over my riding style? Or would she try to keep from throwing rocks at me? Yet my goal - a horse who trusts me, focuses on me, is responsive to me, with a relaxed back feeling comfortable as she moves - all of that is essential to all good riding. And since I've seen dramatic improvement in Mia over the last year, 6 months, and even over the last 3, I have to conclude what I am doing is working. It just doesn't owe a lot to the principles taught by "de la Gueriniere’s and certain other classical instructors"...:?

My wife used to encourage me to sell Mia. My daughter used to tell me Mia was an Amazon nutjob. Now they both say she is a sweet horse, although neither has any great interest in riding her. Still, my daughter DID get on Mia recently, which I never thought I would see. The only time she tried to ride Mia before this, Mia threw her about 60 seconds after mounting :-x:








​


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Last night I took time to look up the results of what my friend Kate did with DiDi in the period of Nov 2011 to Dec 2012. In the pursuit of recognition in the British World of dressage, she entered the horse into 18 dressage competitions and rose thru Intro level -( ie walk and trot); thru Unaffiliated Prelim; thru Unaffil Novice; thu Affil Novice and then into Affiliated Elementary.
At the end we were preparing DIDi for a national competition at Novice level.

By now to me this was the real game of Dressage. DiDi was ridden every day for about and hour whilst preparing herself for the next competition.

But I was told that Elementary level was her best hope since to go higher she'd have to walk differently, she was too small at 15 hands. and she was a dapple grey mare instead of 16h1 bay gelding. "Go out and buy a warmblood" I was told by the experts.

What I had not realised was that my pretty mare had Grade 4 ulcers in her lower stomach, which accounted for her irritability - or was it the training routine? Although in fairness it could also have been the EHV5 virus eating away at her lungs.

I still ask myself one year later whether the fiercely competitive world of competition dressage in Britain was contributory to her inevitable demise.
Should I have withdrawn her from competition?

And that is where we take our stance towards our horse. Do we train it and push it on? or do we relax and treat our horse as the companion in a life style.

I stopped riding DiDi early in 2012 when I decided to enter her into competition. After almost 40 years of riding - including trips around the world, my style of riding was not good enough for the competitive world of dressage. My hands, legs and a*se taught her bad habits - so I was told by the experts
And I was too old to change - maybe honest advice.

But, watch horses canter and gallop - they run with their noses at 8 oclock. Look at most amateur riders - much of their weight is carried on the stirrup irons.

'Dressage' to me is a competitive sport - a dance of human and equine in the arena - sometimes to music. So, that's where we riders come back to adopting 'Classical Riding' - it is partly a philosophy of what we do with' and how we treat our horses. Personally I find puissance jumping obscene.

I don't want to see the sport of Dressage forget that the part of the twosome which does the work is the horse. We can't all own a Totilas.

Barry G


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> If the person then goes to someone from a barrel racing background, and starts working on getting quarter horses to sprint around barrels, do you tell them, "Glad to see you are studying dressage?"
> 
> No...I thought not. When you say dressage, you are referring to the "classical riding" taught in Europe or to the sport of dressage. I don't believe you ever call barrel racing trainers "dressage trainers".
> 
> ...


When we say dressage we are referring to a range of riding from basic riding skills which work towards balance, harmony through collection and effectiveness of aids through to high level competition...I don't think (but don't know) that barrel racers work on collection so I really don't understand your point? It is the start, not the next step which would be the forward seat of another discipline, or a related one such as eventing.

Once you have the basic balanced skills of a good rider with control of your horse and the horse understanding collection and softness then you can go off and gallop in the forward seat or go jumping...this is how we are taught. Dressage was training and originally training for battle. It has become highly refined but the basics are still a good starting point for many riders wanting a foundation leading to other things if they choose. maybe not Western riding though....but I cannot comment on that.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - I imagine if someone had no knowledge of what the original meaning and intention of dressage was that would be their reply
Off track advice - If your daughter rides Mia again she might do better to adjust her stirrups as they look very uneven in that photo - either that or she's sitting over to one side.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

I've skimmed over the majority of this thread, and I'm confused what everyone is arguing about. xD There doesn't seem to be much of a point when no one is going to give or concede. I don't think Dressage or Classical Riding is claiming to be the end all awesomeness of horseback riding. xD There will always be other disciplines and other seats.


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

here's some comments I have to address some other's comments:

-- someone stated "correct" was to NEVER ride forward...hmm, seems to me jockies are almost alway "forward", their heads are beside the horses neck, forward of the whithers in most cases...when I leave the roping box I am extemely forward--if I wasn't I would be rocked back into the saddle and would then be behind the horse and unable to swing my rope or control my horse with any confidence...I related a story about a "hoity toity" dressage person who laughed at me when I told her she couldn't maintain a "proper" seat when one of my "nag" QH "ponies" left the roping box....after Yella broke from the box, and she had to grab the saddle horn to regain her balance did she "see" that there are more than a few ways to "skin a cat"...as my grandad would say; she also said that was one of the most exhiliarating things she had ever done...and had gained a respect for us "unrefined" western/cowboy type riders and our cow ponies

-- there are two times during a roping run when I "collect" the horse -- in the box-so the horse has equal weight on ALL 4 feet, not more on the back feet or more on the front...I will also collect my horse once I have roped the steer and am preparing the horse to pull the cow through the corner in a controlled manner, they will use their hind end more here to help carry the weight of the cow through the corner...other than that, my ponies are "lined out" and more on the forehand.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

^^^I don't understand what you're saying at all
First off I grew up around racing yards and jockeys and I don't think they would describe a racing seat as 'riding' the sense of the word as we see it as their legs are so high up they aren't doing anything at all - can't even push the horse forwards with them
If you understood what we're trying to say here - its the principles of dressage that are used in other forms of riding sport. I wouldn't use the same seat for jumping or hunting that I would use for dressage or showing and I wouldn't use the same stirrup length for low level dressage that I would use for high level dressage - but the basic thinking behind them all would be the same.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Clava said:


> When we say dressage we are referring to a range of riding from basic riding skills which work towards balance, harmony through collection and effectiveness of aids through to high level competition...I don't think (but don't know) that barrel racers work on collection so I really don't understand your point? It is the start, not the next step which would be the forward seat of another discipline, or a related one such as eventing.
> 
> Once you have the basic balanced skills of a good rider with control of your horse and the horse understanding collection and softness then you can go off and gallop in the forward seat or go jumping...this is how we are taught.


I understand that is how, apparently, many folks in Europe progress in riding. That is fine. It is a valid way to progress.

An equally valid way, depending on one's goals, would be to work on your balance and getting a responsive horse while starting in a forward seat. In southern Arizona, one might start your with riding like this traditional western Arizona rider:








​ 
Oops, wrong picture! :lol: I meant this one:








​ Depending on your goals, you could spend the rest of your life riding like that while being neither cruel nor abusive to the horse. With the right saddle, moving in synch with the horse...it works. It isn't good for jumping, and it won't win you points in the dressage ring, but I know guys who will cover 50 miles in a day, then mount up and do it again, riding like that - without soring their horse.

My goals for Mia do not include an elevated trot. My goals are things like: Don't race the other horse unless asked. Pick your own way thru the desert - I can't see the cactus in time. Tuck your rump under and scoot down a short steep hill and don't panic if you slip a little. If I ask you to slip between some mesquite trees, push on through.

For my purposes, I need a horse who takes care of her own balance, puts her own feet where she needs them, who responds to me but is willing to tell me no if she thinks she can't make it, who has confidence but who is also alert to things (rattlesnakes) that I might miss, etc. For riding 3 hours in 100 deg heat with no water, I don't need collection. I need efficiency. I want her to be able to trot or canter in places where the footing changes with every stride, and to have the sense to slow without my asking if it gets to be too much.

My main reason for riding, truth be told, is that I enjoy her company. So it makes sense for MY goals to make it "fun" for her. An interested, observant horse, looking around and checking out the next ravine is fun for both of us.

I do object to anyone saying this is low schooling. Teaching a horse to surrender her fears, to have confidence, to balance herself, to make good decisions for us both when riding - some horses may be born to it, but Mia was not. When she sighs, lowers her head and strolls relaxed down a trail, I'm one of the few people who realize how much work it has taken from us both.

On the bit and sustained collection are foreign to our goals. I want a thinking, engaged companion who understands what we are doing and thus does it without my direction. A light squeeze and/or kissing sound means 'shift gears up'. Saying "Easy" means drop a gear. Bringing my hand to the rear a little means stay in gear but shift more weight to the rear. Moving my hand forward and in rhythm means stay in gear but go faster.

Pretty elementary cues, but fully sufficient for our riding. I don't need to constantly cue my horse via my heels, so I don't need a heel position that supports it. I do sometimes need my legs to 'fence' my horse in on either side so she knows to stay pointed at the scary thing. I find much to admire in forward riding, but I need my legs long to help me stay on if my horse shies or jumps sideways.

None of this is classical riding a la de la Gueriniere. Our goals differ. I can respect classical riding without wanting to imitate it.

But can anyone on this thread understand why I resent being told I need to put my horse 'on the bit' to ride her well, or that all good riding comes from the classical riding style? Some of this debate is rooted in a previous thread, where my objection was to being told a rider needs to point his toes straight ahead to be balanced or have a good seat, or the many threads where someone says 'shoulder-hip-heel' need to be in a vertical line for balance. That sort of thinking substitutes things that are good for a classical style of riding and turns them into things required of all good riding. It replaces function with form, to the detriment of good riding.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> ...I wouldn't use the same seat for jumping or hunting that I would use for dressage or showing and I wouldn't use the same stirrup length for low level dressage that I would use for high level dressage - but the basic thinking behind them all would be the same.


If you use a different stirrup length, different saddle, different balance, different rein and bit, different cueing, different approach to horse initiative - in what meaningful sense is the basic thinking all the same? In what meaningful sense is neck reining the same as putting a horse 'on the bit'?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

If you neck rein a horse you're usually also using leg cues/aids to ask him to turn in a circle, step over sideways or just move his quarters - all of these cues are found in dressage - its all about evolution and adaptation
Even a dressage rider is constantly shifting body and leg position depending on what they're asking the horse to do at any given time
In the jumping ring you aren't constantly sitting in 2 point


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> But can anyone on this thread understand why I resent being told I need to put my horse 'on the bit' to ride her well, or that all good riding comes from the classical riding style? Some of this debate is rooted in a previous thread, where my objection was to being told a rider needs to point his toes straight ahead to be balanced or have a good seat, or the many threads where someone says 'shoulder-hip-heel' need to be in a vertical line for balance. That sort of thinking substitutes things that are good for a classical style of riding and turns them into things required of all good riding. It replaces function with form, *to the detriment of good riding. *


I think this is the issue, I don't believe it is to the detriment of riding  The function is to produce a pleasant horse to ride that is strong and appropriately muscled that can turn it's hoof to anything...the form, for me, is to do so with a balanced rider (or you cannot have a balanced horse).


...and no-one should be constantly cueing the horse with their heels?


With regards to a horse thinking for itself...all mine hack and are alert and careful with their hooves, can hunt fast over varied terrain and do so with a contact which does not impede them...horse for courses eh:lol:


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Anyone who says toes need to be pointed forward for either the horse or rider to be balanced is simply ignoring the evidence of millions of horses and riders who use a different style. Anyone who says the shoulders, hip and heel all need to be in a vertical line for a balanced rider is ignoring all the balanced riders who reject that approach.

Fundamentally, the "classical riding defines good riding" approach ignores reality. There simply is no need for a horse to be "on the bit" to be balanced, responsive or under control. The FEI definition of "on the bit", with a near vertical headset, is contrary to the principle of horse initiative and active participation because it robs the horse of its best vision.

A collected horse is not a balanced horse compared to an uncollected one. Balance varies with goals, so a style of riding that, as Barry put it, "believes that from collection all else flows" is a style that doesn't meet many riders goals. 

Someone may want to use their heels to constantly cue their horse. I have no use for it. Thus a position intended to support constant cueing with my heels is irrelevant to my riding.

You cannot separate position from goals. The classical riding style is meant to achieve a limited style of riding. It is not universal, nor is it the foundation that all other riding rests upon - because it is BAD riding, when used at the wrong time or with the wrong horse.

"..._and no-one should be constantly cueing the horse with their heels?_"

Did I say that? I thought not. I said many riders do not need it, and I'm one of those many - because it doesn't match my goals or philosophy of riding.


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

Jaydee....you made my point for me/us....dressage and /or "classical" riding isn't the base for a "good" rider or rider position...unless you want to do dressage....


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

and, the point of the jockey postion I made was this---the purpose of racing to to win, to win you have to have the horse run as fast as it can, to do this, he must be on the forehand with his neck stretched out and NOT collected...


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

Also about collection and stopping or being able to turn better...I would argue that the best "turners" in equine sports are the reiners -- a reining horse will turn fast and make a hole in the ground without being the least bit collected... also, all of my horses, and most western horses stop better without being collected, it allows them to move their hind ends under them WHILE keeping their heads forward and slightly down, which helps maintain balance -- again, the best "stoppers" in the equine sports are probably reiners and heel horses, both stop without collection with their hind ends under them and their heads out and slightly down...


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> Anyone who says toes need to be pointed forward for either the horse or rider to be balanced is simply ignoring the evidence of millions of horses and riders who use a different style. Anyone who says the shoulders, hip and heel all need to be in a vertical line for a balanced rider is ignoring all the balanced riders who reject that approach..


Not just about balance it is about the effectiveness of your seat, change the direction of your toes and your seat changes and the way your muscles engage.




> Fundamentally, the "classical riding defines good riding" approach ignores reality. There simply is no need for a horse to be "on the bit" to be balanced, responsive or under control. The FEI definition of "on the bit", with a near vertical headset, is contrary to the principle of horse initiative and active participation because it robs the horse of its best vision.


It doesn't ignore reality and horses will choose to move in that way






> A collected horse is not a balanced horse compared to an uncollected one. Balance varies with goals, so a style of riding that, as Barry put it, "believes that from collection all else flows" is a style that doesn't meet many riders goals.


Yes it is, it has to be, it is poised, balanced and ready to move in any direction (which was the point of Jaydee's video which you failed to grasp). An unbalanced horse could slip, fall and trip.





bsms said:


> You cannot separate position from goals. The classical riding style is meant to achieve a limited style of riding. It is not universal, nor is it the foundation that all other riding rests upon - because it is BAD riding, when used at the wrong time or with the wrong horse.
> 
> "..._and no-one should be constantly cueing the horse with their heels?_"
> 
> Did I say that? I thought not. I said many riders do not need it, and I'm one of those many - because it doesn't match my goals or philosophy of riding.


My point one no-one needs it so I'm not sure why you mentioned it in particular?


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

ropinbiker said:


> Also about collection and stopping or being able to turn better...I would argue that the best "turners" in equine sports are the reiners -- a reining horse will turn fast and make a hole in the ground without being the least bit collected... also, all of my horses, and most western horses stop better without being collected, it allows them to move their hind ends under them WHILE keeping their heads forward and slightly down, which helps maintain balance -- again, the best "stoppers" in the equine sports are probably reiners and heel horses, both stop without collection with their hind ends under them and their heads out and slightly down...


To be collected doesn't mean a certain position of head and neck. It does mean getting the hindend under itself to be light in the front to change direction, "dig a hole in the ground" or stop without breaking with the frontlegs. Where head and neck are in a collected position depends on the build of the horse. A rather low set neck, often seen in the stockhorse breeds, would have trouble getting and remaining in an upright position like an andalusian is basically born with.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Ropin:
"Fastest turners???"

Have you ever watched English Pony Club games?
Have you ever watch a polo match?
Have you ever watched a bull fight in Portugal?

I have every respect for a working Western cowboy and his trusty steed but "fastest" turner, well that got to be proven.

I'd put my money on a 10 year old pony mad girl mounted on a Welsh Section C or maybe B , any day.

BG


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

ropinbiker said:


> Jaydee....you made my point for me/us....dressage and /or "classical" riding isn't the base for a "good" rider or rider position...unless you want to do dressage....


 I think you're making the same mistake as many others - you don't understand that dressage at low level is just basic riding and in Europe its how all properly taught people begin
In my lifetime of riding I've done some dressage, showjumping, hunting, cross country, gymkhana, ridden point to pointers on the gallops, exercised polo ponies and even managed a bit of western riding - and the skill sets for all come from the way I was taught initially with just a few minor adjustments - what we see as basic low level dressage which gave me the good foundation for everything else I need to do to ride a horse in any discipline.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Clava said:


> Not just about balance it is about the effectiveness of your seat, change the direction of your toes and your seat changes and the way your muscles engage.
> 
> *Odd. I can sit in a saddle, keep my thigh and knee steady, and move my foot back and forth sideays - and I'm a 55 year old, stiff moving guy! What Chamberlin wrote was that you want the ankle to provide a shock-absorbing joint, and you also want comfort, so you position it with your thigh on the flat of the muscle, knee touching but not gripping, side of calves on horse...and ankle loose. For the men he taught, that worked out to 20-45 deg.
> 
> ...


The failure of the 'dressage is the foundation' crowd is to understand that "FOR WHAT" is a critical question in riding. Until you know what you want to do, there is no such thing as good balance, position, etc. Good balance and good seat requires one to define good for what, and 'ballet in an arena" is not a universal answer.

The foundations of good riding are principles: keep the horse between you and the ground. Don't use the reins for balance. Move with the horse. Adopt a position that allows you safety and control in what you are doing.

Those universal principles are then shaped into specific positions and systems of control when applied to our goals.

I would argue a humane and caring basic principle is: Interfere the least with the horse that you can while achieving your purpose. For a collected gait, that might well mean putting the horse on the bit. For trail rides in southern Arizona, that might mean do NOT put your horse on the bit.

Universal principles finding various expressions according to the rider's needs. Variety. Dare I say...diversity? What a concept!

"_you don't understand that dressage at low level is just basic riding_"

*A* form of basic riding. The judges would throw their scorecards and rush me in the arena if they saw my *******ized forward seat, western curb and neck reining. Why? Because those things would set me up for failure in dressage. But they work fine for keeping my horse between me & the ground, keeping off her back, staying out of her mouth, etc.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms said:


> But they work fine for keeping my horse between me & the ground, keeping off her back, staying out of her mouth, etc.


 If that's working for you and its all you want out of riding then you should 'go for it'
But many of us want to do a lot more than that.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> The failure of the 'dressage is the foundation' crowd is to understand that "FOR WHAT" is a critical question in riding. Until you know what you want to do, there is no such thing as good balance, position, etc. Good balance and good seat requires one to define good for what, and 'ballet in an arena" is not a universal answer.
> 
> .


No, good balance is universal. From a balanced seat and with a balanced horse they can do almost any thing , so "for what" is an odd thing to ask. I'm not sure how many times I've said that you can go on to jump, hunt, polo, certainly not just ballet in an arena. You can add the forward to help with fast canters and gallops and jumping, but the same themes of balance and control remain.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

And you are welcome to ride any way you want. I have never criticized anyone for wanting to ride dressage. I merely have pointed out that it is hard for it to be the basis of all good riding when the Mongols and Plains Indians were both famous for their riding skills.

Oh...and "more"? Staying out of my horse's mouth and letting her see are not "less" in riding. They may be different than what you want, but they are not inferior for being easy to learn and forgiving to the horse. The 'natural horsemanship' part of me says that he rides best who rides least, in the sense that the best riding interferes the least with the horse, consistent with what you want to do. Neck reining is NOT a "lower" or "lesser" style of reining - just different, based on different goals.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

HOW you balance depends on what the horse is doing WHILE you balance. Thus what is a good position for balance in a collected gait is a bad one for covering as much ground as possible with the least effort.

And since horses use their head and neck for balance, an ideal fundamental of good riding ought to be to let them use their balance, unless we have some overriding goal that requires us to restrict their balance.

Ever heard of 'giving a horse its head'? Ever wonder why?


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Thread just keeps cooking.

BSMS, you can ride your horse however you like. People are saying why they do what they do and believe what they believe. I personally like a horse that softens in their jaw when I take contact (and this is not just an "English" riding thing - reiners and vaquero bridle horses also work in an outline). I also don't think it's that comfortable to ride a horse who is hollowing their back. So I train them not to. That said, they are not always in dressage outline.

Hand galloping up a muddy track:



Between jumps:



Ah, yes. A bit of dressage:



Barry, I suppose no one will ever know why DiDi got ulcers or if the competitive lifestyle contributed to that. For all you knew, she could have had them when you bought her. If I remember correctly, she was always stressy and high strung and the reason you started having dressage people work with her was that you were finding her too hot and spooky to safely hack on the roads. Is that right? 

A lot of horses top out at Elementary (or Second-ish Level for you Yanks) due to the increased athletic requirements of the levels beyond that. So do a lot of riders, in fairness (this includes me), due to the increased athletic requirements and ability and work needed. Your posts when DiDi was showing always hinted at some level of concern with where she was at and where she was going, whether or not she was progressing, where she was progressing to. There is no doubt that is a very big boat and dressage shows are full of people worrying about just that, but there are plenty of other people at shows simply enjoying their horse for who they are and where they are, knowing it will always be a Novice/First Level horse.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

In above dressage pic, note the wellies (not to mention my crap equitation). That's what all dresssaaaage, as Anebel put it, people ride in, right?


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> In above dressage pic, note the wellies (not to mention my crap equitation). That's what all dresssaaaage, as Anebel put it, people ride in, right?


That's so funny, I just put together 4 photos (one dressage, one jumping, one hacking and one polo) and then lost it all so decided not to do it again, but you did the same (almost), brilliant 

Good balance is universal regardless of the goal.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

LOL, Clava.

And so no one thinks that my horse and I have no experience of rocky, mountainous terrain:



(this picture doesn't fully capture how steep and rocky this ride is, but it's the best one I have)


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

Barry, as for reiners being the fastest turners, I should have said "spinners"...as for fastest turners I would probably go with a cutting horse...I've done the polo thing, and chasing a cow is much quicker than polo, in polo you do have quick changes of direction, but it is based mostly on where the old ball in going....so, we see it and know we are going that way(the horse, unless a seasoned polo mount has to be sent the new direction)...whereas a cow pony is moving on its own and therefore, in my estimation, is a much quicker, "cattier" if you will, turn.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Silver, I'll always wonder if the stress of competition hastened her end. I put erratic behaviour down to her being a mare or spring grass or ???? whatever. 

The very rare EHV5 virus had masked her ulcer symptoms which only an Xray would have shown.

But the fact was that once the EHV5 virus had been located, she was doomed.
I know that, but there will always be doubts in my mind

But I don't like to watch a horse being put under stress whilst training or during competition for the vanity or ignorance of the rider.

Barry


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> ...But I don't like to watch a horse being put under stress whilst training or during competition for the vanity or ignorance of the rider. Barry


At the upper levels of competition, you always run the risk that the competitiveness of the human will outweigh concern for the horse. I don't attend horse sports...not many near me, and my evenings have classes. If truth be told, I ought to be writing a paper right now. :? So perhaps I'm just idealistic, but I think most riders who love a sport also care for their horse. The horses I see who look somewhat abused here in Arizona are the ones in a small corral, looking listless and never ridden.

There is bad riding everywhere. I like western riding, but I'd have to be blind not to know there are people who ride like a sack of rocks, yanking around a shanked bit harder than I ever have with a snaffle, let alone a shanked one. There are riders in every style of riding who blame their horse first, ignore pinned ears and who trust the forgiving nature of horses to keep them from being killed.

BTW - I saw an excerpt yesterday from a court case from around 1850. This isn't a direct quote, but it is close: "The court can ill-afford to ignore the testimony of a man with over 50 years of experience with mules, who says the tendency of a mule to kick an abusive man is so certain as to rise to the level of a habit of mules..." I don't know what the original case was about, but I found myself cheering for the long-dead mule.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Every now and again, a thread attracts a massive response. This is one such article which brings the wise and experienced out of their hidey holes and they put finger to keyboard. In this way the pros and cons of an issue are highlighted and debated.

Such debates are good for us all - they make us think about our own attitude towards the subject in question. And if the newcomers to the forum take the time to read the posts then they will perhaps get the training which many of them never get at the time they need it the most. 

Thank you all for taking part. I for one enjoyed the debate immensely.

Barry G


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

Yes, hindsight being 20/20, the ulcers may have been controllable with diet and management (they usually are), but it sounded as though the EHV was pure bad luck.  Not down to competition dressage or anything else.

I always appreciate a good discussion at any rate.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> Ropin:
> "Fastest turners???"
> 
> Have you ever watched English Pony Club games?
> ...


Here is some impressive turning ...with amazing control and balance...and collection, it could move in any direction at any moment.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Clava


Clava
Magnificent, those Spaniards certainly know how to ride.

Personally I'd like to see events on these lines of this display become part of the Olympic Games.

Barry


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

Clava said:


> Here is some impressive turning ...with amazing control and balance...and collection, it could move in any direction at any moment.
> Pedro Torres pt4 - YouTube


Oh my, and horse doesn't fall flat on it's face even tho it's collected WITH headset....;-)
Oh yeah, and part of this competition is not only this speed test, but also cow work and....tataaaaa... dressage....in the classical way.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

deserthorsewoman said:


> Oh my, and horse doesn't fall flat on it's face even tho it's collected WITH headset....;-)
> Oh yeah, and part of this competition is not only this speed test, but also cow work and....tataaaaa... dressage....in the classical way.


I think it was developed for working cattle and the bull ring, but it is a real pleasure to watch ....working dressage:wink:


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Clava,

It was a dream of mine to go to Iberia and buy either an Andalucian or Lusitano gelding and to take it back to the UK. I used to go to Andalucia on riding holidays and I would have the pleasure of riding one for a week.
See Los Alamos Riding Centre.

I often wondered what a foal might look like from DiDi my Irish Draught mare
crossed with a Lusitano stallion - dreams, dreams, dreams. But I'd have to learn in Spain how to ride it.

I and my brother, did once spend a week with Lord Loch, just before his death, when we rode his stallions which he had shipped back from Portugal
Magical moments.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

It's actually called Working Equitation. Emphasis on "Working". Open to all breeds. I believe the Californian vaquero could keep up with the spaniards


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> Clava,
> 
> It was a dream of mine to go to Iberia and buy either an Andalucian or Lusitano gelding and to take it back to the UK. I used to go to Andalucia on riding holidays and I would have the pleasure of riding one for a week.
> See Los Alamos Riding Centre.
> ...


My sister imported an Andalucian stallion from Spain in the 1980s, he was amazing to ride.


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

Anulucians are pretty indeed! And, for a large horse, that grey is a good mover. However, any barrel racer/pole bending pony in your average playday here can turn around the poles or barrels better than that horse(and the poles are MUVH closer than those),and on a loose rein...and none of these riders are pros or well-known for showing horses.

Here is good example of a good QH cow horse doing their job. This is not from a large national show, this is from our local arena here in San Angelo.





 
I am not lessening the beauty of the grey or the skill of it's rider, I am simply pointing out, as BSMS has tried, that dressage/classical riding is NOT the base for "good riding" or for a start on a "good horse"...


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

And, as the video shows, you can have a horse line out, on a loose rein, and with a rider leaning forward be as or more athletic than a "correctly collected" horse.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

ropinbiker said:


> And, as the video shows, you can have a horse line out, on a loose rein, and with a rider leaning forward be as or more athletic than a "correctly collected" horse.


 
It is interesting, the lack of neck muscle make horses schooled on a loose rein look so much weaker than one schooled on the bit which has developed a good topline (and I don't just mean the shape of the andalucian). I guess it is just what I'm used to looking at.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

This would be a more old world equivalent to the NRCHA champ.
Hope it plays....


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

deserthorsewoman said:


> YouTube
> This would be a more old world equivalent to the NRCHA champ.
> Hope it plays....


 
It says it doesn't exist :-(


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

Oh darn....new phone is driving me insane......
I'll try again.mom.


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

RIDING and TRAINING are interwoven, a knot of infinite variation, depending on who-what-where --- I've been thinking about it, and come to think "Classical" merely means "old." (Hey, old is good!)

What is perhaps more serious is the third leg of total horsemanship: breeding. Different breeds have been mentioned. They have an enormous influence on Riding-Training.

I'm not so happy with the direction Dressage is taking, with the high-steppers. I think, in fact, that the goal of lightening the forehand has gone far enough --- maybe too far. The way Quarter Horses were once bred to be thicker and more and more muscled--- I think that fashion has finally died out, performance and athleticism being the standard now.

But how we ride, what we aim for, often guides breeding; and the horse itself allows or limits our goals, sometimes to its own advantage, and sometimes not.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

ropinbiker said:


> I am not lessening the beauty of the grey or the skill of it's rider, I am simply pointing out, as BSMS has tried, that dressage/classical riding is NOT the base for "good riding" or for a start on a "good horse"...


 Do you not realize that the rider in your video is using exactly the same cues/aids to that horse to ask it to perform those maneuvers as a dressage rider uses to ask for the same moves from his horse? They may look more elevated when they come from a warmblood or Iberian horse but they are exactly the same
Eitan Beth-Halachmy one time champion freestyle reiner was originally a trained classical dressage rider!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cux32KeuQTA


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

Not all the cues were the same, the rider in my video wasn't in the horses mouth the entire time, he used his body posture(forward body=faster, sit on your pockets with your feet forward=stop) to cue the horse(the other rider didn't, since his posture didn't change...), they did used the same leg cues. 
The rider I posted used a loose rein.....the horse was not "on the bit" ... the rider is not in the "classic" riding position....but, I think you can see, that the horse and rider did the job, well, with finesse, power and quickness. And, in my opinion, the horse is in a much more natural position.

Again, I would argue, I can get alot more done, and with a much calmer horse, on a loose rein and using whatever body position I needed to in order to help the horse achieve it's most natural movement to complete the task.

And, yes dressage riders can be reiners, or cow horse folks...and vice versa...which is why we get a little upset when we are told the "basis" for correct riding or training is dressage or classical style.


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

deserthorsewoman -- what you showed is closer to what is done in the ranch horse versatility competitions, where you have to do some reining and then follow/rate the cow, and then rope and hold the cow. This is actually closer to what I do most of the time...we do usually have cows that are running about 3 times faster; and my corrientes won't stand still for us to spin under the rope....well, we usually try to keep one around that is slow and will just trot out of the box -- easier to train the horse that way. 

Nice video and it does show a well trained horse working off of a loose rein with a relaxed head set and body.


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

ropinbiker said:


> deserthorsewoman -- what you showed is closer to what is done in the ranch horse versatility competitions, where you have to do some reining and then follow/rate the cow, and then rope and hold the cow. This is actually closer to what I do most of the time...we do usually have cows that are running about 3 times faster; and my corrientes won't stand still for us to spin under the rope....well, we usually try to keep one around that is slow and will just trot out of the box -- easier to train the horse that way.
> 
> Nice video and it does show a well trained horse working off of a loose rein with a relaxed head set and body.


Mrs. Cow was obviously instructed lol.

What I was trying to point out is how related the vaquero style here is with what the portuguese guy showed in Clava's video. I dare say the principle is the same, since it comes from the same origin. I just wish folks would stop seeing dressage as what you see in the olympics. It might be the goal, but I think the way there is what counts. A horse that can be controlled easily, can work comfortably and with joy because the rider helps with clear aids and a good seat. I personally have high respect for a reiner, cutter, and so on. My personal taste goes more towards a more collected horse, but without force, so the vaquero, american or spanish is what I really like. But, to go back to the OP....it all goes back to the classical masters, from where it branched out in the different disciplines, which were all, at one time, with a purpose.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'd like to insert 3 passages from Littauer's "Commonsense Horsemanship" to help explain my thoughts.

Someone who wished to advance in jumping, cutting, dressage or any other approach should obviously do so. But many of us are recreational riders. I probably average about 4 hours/week. It seems reasonable to me that a recreational rider, like myself, should approach the art of riding with some humility, for the reasons Littauer discusses:




























The end of the last sentence, on another page, reads "collect him without knowing how".

While schooling towards reining, cutting, barrel racing and dressage, jumping and polo all qualify as more advanced, and vary with the needs of the sport, it seems reasonable to me for someone like myself to say, "I know I'm not going to put in the hours or hire someone to train my horse to a high level in XXXXX. Therefor, the highest (in the sense of noblest, or most admirable) thing I can do is accept an approach that achieves my ends with gentleness to the horse."

In England, that may involve enough lessons in dressage to become competent at an elementary level, including lunge line lessons to develop one's seat. In Arizona, that may mean borrowing a good ranch horse and spending the hours in the saddle to instinctively balance in a manner your horse accepts willingly.

Dirty Harry said a man needs to know his limitations. A rider should as well, and adapt ANY style of riding they initially learn to keep it within their physical ability and desire to train. If the riding bug hits them hard, then they can choose an area and specialize.

When my youngest daughter rides, her position drives me nuts. The only saddle she will use is a too big western saddle that forces her into a severe chair seat. I sometimes find it almost painful to watch her ride. However, combined with Trooper - the only horse she wants to ride - it seems to work.

A few days ago, she went cantering off down a desert trail while Mia & I walked. She disappeared for a while, and came cantering back. Trooper, as usual, moved from side to side on the trail to avoid little gullies and rocks. I motioned her to stop as she got near us.

I then pointed out her cinch had come loose, was hanging 8 inches below Trooper's belly, and was slapping against his legs with every stride. She slid out of her saddle, cursed the cinch for coming undone as if cinches were sentient beings, then got back on and off we went.

No matter how unbalanced and awkward she looks to me, there was no sign either horse or rider knew that saddle was perched on top with no cinch holding it below. She also rides without stirrups more often than with. Since her goals in riding seem limited to 'run around the desert with Trooper', and since Trooper seems to think she is a near deity...maybe Dad should keep his mouth shut and let them enjoy each other?

And can anyone on this forum imagine me keeping my mouth shut? :shock:


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Knowing your limits to me just sounds like an excuse for not wanting to learn more or striving to be better. Just settling for a limited knowledge and staying within that may not achieve "gentleness for the horse" as you may unwittingly be causing problems. Ignorance is not bliss when related to horses. Out hacking (as your example gives) I firmly believe that simple control is never enough as the unexpected obstacles that may crop up may be far beyond that and lead to exceptionally dangerous outcomes.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I attempt to give people skills beyond "elementary control" for precisely that reason. Elementary control is fine so long as you and your horse are pootling along happily, but when things go pear-shaped (not uncommon when out hacking as there is all sorts of scary stuff out there), you may need those extra controls a little bit of schoolwork can give. 

In fact, this is usually why people contact me about lessons in the first place. Most people who email me aren't saying, "I really want to improve dressage so I can show Elementary next summer" (those people tend to contact trainers with more of a dressage record). Most emails I get are along the lines of, "I am just a 'happy hacker' but my horse does X, Y, and Z on the trail and I don't know what to do. I think we both need some lessons so I can improve my riding and figure out what's going on with my horse, etc. etc." They are pretty novicey pleasure riders who realise their elementary skills are inadequate when the horse gets spooked or balky on a hack.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

In Paris during the era of the so called horse masters, riders such as Baucher , were giving shows to the rich and aristocratic gentry. The visitors went to watch what a horse master could do with a horse. In the days before radio, TV or film the horse riders went out to the circuses to watch a performance for entertainment. It was not necessarily expected that they themselves would be able to repeat the performances which they had watched.

These rich folks paid 'servants' to look after the horses on which the master of the house and maybe his children would ride in the Bois de Boulogne in order to show off and meet other riders.

Boucher, was essentially a circus showman

A horse was a means of transport 



Baucher selected for his staff, riders who showed ability to ride.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> In Paris during the era of the so called horse masters, riders such as Baucher , were giving shows to the rich and aristocratic gentry. The visitors went to watch what a horse master could do with a horse. In the days before radio, TV or film the horse riders went out to the circuses to watch a performance for entertainment. It was not necessarily expected that they themselves would be able to repeat the performances which they had watched.
> 
> These rich folks paid 'servants' to look after the horses on which the master of the house and maybe his children would ride in the Bois de Boulogne in order to show off and meet other riders.
> 
> ...


I'm not sure what your point is?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I think you have both missed the point of Littauer's comments. 



Clava said:


> Knowing your limits to me just sounds like an excuse for not wanting to learn more or striving to be better.
> *
> Riding is not as hard as folks make it seem. Riding like a top dressage rider or a top jumper or a top reiner, however, DOES require extensive training of both horse and rider. While that is fine for those who wish it, it is NOT in any way a requirement for safe, gentle riding! If it was, we would all need to practice 6-8 hours a day to be safe or gentle riders, which defies the reality of almost every recreational rider!*
> 
> ...


There is, for example, no requirement to put a horse "on the bit" to ride better. Here I depart from Littauer, who was raised in the tradition of European riding. If you teach the horse self-carriage, self-control and self-confidence, there is nothing OTHER THAN COLLECTED GAITS that requires a near vertical headset and a horse 'on the bit' per the FEI.

Littauer did not try western riding. He didn't experiment with a western curb combined with loose reins, one hand, and the 'soft contact' that comes with the weight of the reins amplified by the leverage of the shanks. Western riders regularly place a horse in a precise location or control him during swift changes in direction without ever putting him on the bit.

Learning how to ride a la the dead Europeans of 1750 does not impart more control or better balance. If it did, western riders would adopt the techniques of classical riding while barrel racing, reining and cutting cattle. 

The cowboys of the 1800s and early 1900s, riding alone and many miles from help, using green horses, needed balance and control to stay alive in a way no arena rider ever faces. The riders on my friend's ranch are normally working 50-75 miles from help, in rough country, in temperatures that can drop to -35 F. Take a fall then, or lose control, or have a horse throw you, and there is a good chance of dying.

Yet the style adopted by these riders, many of whom are coming from South America without ever having ridden a horse before, is not the style of classical riding. 

What is easier, teaching a horse to neck rein or teaching a horse to go 'on the bit'? Anyone who rides can watch a 5 minute video on teaching neck reining and then go teach their horse both gently and successfully. That is not true of putting a horse on the bit, or even riding with 'soft contact'. Littauer and Gen Chamberlin, after watching thousands learn to ride, concluded that few riders, even with riding much more often than the average recreational rider and with much more instruction, will actually ride with soft contact, let alone figure out how to put a horse on the bit.

"_Elementary control is fine so long as you and your horse are pootling along happily, but when things go pear-shaped (not uncommon when out hacking as there is all sorts of scary stuff out there), you may need those extra controls a little bit of schoolwork can give."
_
Sorry, but I've learned to ride on a mare given to spooking, spinning, and bolting. Staying on a horse like that, if you adopt the old west style of wrapping yourself around the horse's center of gravity, isn't that hard. And teaching her to listen to her rider was taught fastest and most effectively using a western curb and self-carriage and a western approach to using reins.

Again, a ranch rider's life can depend on staying on a green horse. If you take a fall when it is -35 and the next closest person is 50 miles away, a crack in your helmet (which you do not have) is the least of your worries!

Elementary control does NOT mean poor control. It just means you don't believe control comes via the bit in the mouth, nor from holding the horse's head in a position that robs the horse of its best vision. It means using cues OUTSIDE the mouth to achieve most of what the 1750's European riders tried to achieve INSIDE the mouth. Pressure on the poll, and cues from the weight of the reins and its placement against the neck replace applying more pressure inside the horse's mouth. 

One of the things I've noticed since trying split leather reins is that moving my hand sideways doesn't only affect the bit or the rein against the neck, but rubs the outside dangling rein against the horse's shoulder, giving a very clear cue. Neck reining is a simplified and gentle approach to cueing a horse, yet it is also highly effective - watch some cutters and reiners! In this area, classical riding is inferior to western riding - UNLESS your goal is a collected gait.

As much as I like Littauer's writings, the smug sense of superiority that is often found with classical European riding doesn't stand up to use or reason. Easier turns out to be both gentler AND equally effective - and more effective, if the horse's balance and ability to see are a factor. 

Take a look at the old picture below. Are you trying to tell me he doesn't have control of his horse, or balance?










I think the modern trend towards 'dressage for everyone' has resulted in poorer riding. It has led to Perpetual Students being watched by Perpetual Instructors watching Perpetual Circles in an arena, when what both the horse and rider would benefit from is getting their butts shoved OUTSIDE the arena and told to just do it. But of course, that would also REQUIRE a simplified method of control and a riding position designed to value staying on the horse more than it values a collected gait. A student who learns to hack successfully with slack in the reins might then question the need for endless lessons to remove the slack. Someone who learns it isn't that hard to stay on a horse and control it might question the need to spend $40/week for years to learn...what?

Well, to learn a specialized approach to riding, which is not bad at all if that is your goal. If I ever wanted to take up barrel racing or reining, you can bet I'd take lessons. But no, riding is not as hard as many classical riding enthusiasts make it sound.

Work smarter, not harder. Simple can be more effective. And I return to advocating what I believe is a basic principle of good riding - *do not interfere with your horse any more than needed to achieve your goals*...:evil:


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Barry Godden said:


> ...It was not necessarily expected that they themselves would be able to repeat the performances which they had watched...


Exactly! While I like much of forward riding, I do not ride in a way that allows me to get way out of my saddle. Why? Because i don't need to get OUT of my saddle. For my purposes, staying IN my saddle is critical. Nor do I have the hours to spend toughening up my legs by riding daily without stirrups, or preparing myself physically for the demands of riding a horse over a jump. Heck, in southern Arizona, in the wild, jumping even a couple of feet is likely to kill you and your horse.

Riding like a top dressage rider is hard. Kind of like baseball - 'It is supposed to be hard, If it wasn't everyone would do it!'. It takes a lot of training for BOTH the horse and rider to get there, and someone who lacks the time, skill and desire to train like that should not expect to be able to ride like that.

One might as well ask me why I don't do gymnastics. Let me take a guess - because I can't? And because gymnasts spend their lives learning to move like that, and I have a life outside of gymnastics? And because I don't need to do triple back somersaults to get from the bedroom to the kitchen? :shock:


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

bsms said:


> I think you have both missed the point of Littauer's comments.....
> 
> 
> Work smarter, not harder. Simple can be more effective. And I return to advocating what I believe is a basic principle of good riding - *do not interfere with your horse any more than needed to achieve your goals*...:evil:


 
Not missed the point at all, just don't agree with them or his analysis of the person jumping the unbalanced horse.



> *Ignorance IS bliss for the horse compared to the unhelpful riding of someone adopting a demanding style without spending the time and effort to achieve the physical demands of the style and a horse who understands that style. I've seen student riders trying to put a horse 'on the bit' in dressage, and it is as scary as it is unneeded for most riding.*


Ignorance is never bliss, the horse with the severe bit, the ill fitting saddle or the too big a rider or too unbalanced a rider is never bliss. The horse with the rider who holds on with his hands is never bliss, or the one who uses spurs unknowingly, or the one who asks for inappropriate transitions or work that is simply too much for the horse. Ignorance is never bliss, and you can only know if you are being ignorant by becoming more educated and more understanding. education is everything. I know you will say that I have mis-understood your post and that you were saying ignorance is only bliss when compared to the "unhelpful riding of someone adopting a demanding style", but I would say that the person adopting that style is ignorant so you have created a kind of tautology.

Minimal riding obviously is your thing, and that is up to you, but that doesn't mean it is how everyone should ride or is going to be viewed as good by everyone, including the horses. I have seen minimal riding (albeit videos) in the form of pleasure horse classes and for me it is never going to be a good way of riding for a horse or rider.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I don't teach "collection" (no one I work with at the moment is advanced enough) and I usually don't ask for it myself when out hacking (did you actually look at the pictures I posted? Does the horse look collected in all the pictures that are not dressage? In fact, she wasn't very collected in the dressage pic either as that was taken during our warm up). Getting the horse soft and responsive to the aids and able to give to the bridle may lead to collection as the horse advances in its training, but it is most certainly not, in and of itself, collection. I use the school figures to teach people and horses how to move off leg aids, both forward and laterally, how to do smooth, responsive transitions, and work on exercises which improve softness for both horse and rider. I show them how to use the half-halt to balance the horse, which is handy if you are riding down a hill. Why would you want to do all those silly leg yields and side-passes anyway? Well, it's pretty handy for gates or for moving horses out of the way of traffic, among other things. 

Yes, this means teaching people to ride on direct contact rather than neck reining in a curb bit because everyone around here has English saddles and bridles and snaffle bits (it's the UK -- who would have thought). When you are teaching people to ride on a contact, you have to help them find the soft, elastic connection, as being stiff, bracing, unyielding against the horse doesn't do anyone any good. You should teach them to steer with seat and leg aids so they're not pulling the horse around by its face (which puts the horse off balance and isn't very pleasant). And sure, they may usually ride on a loose rein (please see pic of me on a trail ride in the mountains: is there contact? Yes or no?), but if the horse gets spooky or silly, you can bet dollars to donuts that most people will take up the reins. Surely it is better that they learn how to take up the reins while maintaining elasticity rather than holding the horse's face in an unyielding death grip. It is better yet when the horse is also trained to give to the contact, so when the rider does feel the need to take the reins, the horse, no matter how spooky, softens to his or her hand. But no horse, no matter how well-trained, will soften to a heavy, braced hand.

You may not feel as though you need to or could be bothered learning all this stuff. But you should be less judgmental about people who do or who think they will feel safer riding (on roads especially) if they have that increased control over their horse's body.


----------



## ropinbiker (Aug 3, 2012)

silverspear...I do all you said...except ride a horse with contact; I have to ride one handed(roping, sorting cattle, driving cattle, etc), open and close gates, move my horse at FULL speed with my legs and body position, etc. All of which requires sidepassing, change leads on command, change speed off of my "feel", moving off the leg, but it also requires moving off of body position....when one of my ponies spooks I will pick up the contact on the bit(this is done to get their attention back on me) and then I will turn them or move them laterally in order to "refocus" them...I do not want the horse to stay on the bit, I want them to soften to the point that I can release the pressure. I am by no means an expert, or an accomplished rider, and yet I can move my horses with ease, slowness, softness, suppleness, quickness, and at full speed...get off and put my grandkids on their backs and not be worried about them....

I don't think BSMS is saying he doesn't want to know how to do all of that. As a matter of fact, he is doing most, if not all of that...however, he, I, and most of us "unclassically trained" folks do it without a perfect(as defined in dressage/classical training) position, and without a "collected" horse.


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

ropinbiker said:


> I don't think BSMS is saying he doesn't want to know how to do all of that. As a matter of fact, he is doing most, if not all of that...however, he, I, and most of us "unclassically trained" folks do it without a perfect(as defined in dressage/classical training) position, and without a "collected" horse.


 
Actually he is telling everyone else how to ride...


> Work smarter, not harder. Simple can be more effective. And I return to advocating what I believe is a basic principle of good riding - *do not interfere with your horse any more than needed to achieve your goals*...:evil:


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

thesilverspear said:


> ...You may not feel as though you need to or could be bothered learning all this stuff. But you should be less judgmental about people who do or who think they will feel safer riding (on roads especially) if they have that increased control over their horse's body.


Ummm...I'm not the one saying my approach to riding is the basis of all good riding, and that those who want to advance should follow my example.

How you FEEL while riding depends on what you are used to. I feel awkward if I take the stirrups up a hole, yet I use a longer leg than the vast majority of riders so shortening it a hole cannot be too horrible. It just FEELS that way because I'm not used to it. What makes a rider feel safe may have nothing to do with what actually makes him safe.

As for safety on the trail or near a road - yes, we have roads here. Fewer roads, wider roads, and less traffic. But a garbage truck or a stock trailer going 50-60 mph can panic a horse and kill you just as easily as a lorry. All the trails I ride are shared with motorcycles and ATVs. In fact, they were all MADE by motorcycles and ATVs. And when a dirt bike comes, there isn't room to move away. The moment you go off the trail, you are in cactus. So learning about dirt bikes is pretty important, and whatever 'control' you have is still not done by putting the horse 'on the bit'. You move aside as best you can, keep a little slack in the reins, channel your horse with your legs and calm her as best you can until the dirt bike passes. Eventually, a horse will learn to ignore dirt bikes.

Elementary control does not mean you do not control your horse's position or pace. The bad gaits Littauer mentioned were certainly no worse than what I've had to work Mia thru in cantering. Since she had lived her life in a corral, she knew how to walk or trot balanced. Her cantering was scary and dangerous. I watched her fall while cantering freely because she just wasn't balanced. And yes, we worked on "self-carriage" and balance using the western curb and slack reins. I did not need to ride her with constant contact to improve her balance at a canter or gallop.

In fact, I started that work with a snaffle, but made much better progress with a curb. My goal was for HER to balance, not for me to balance her with the bit. She made more rapid progress after we switched out of a snaffle.

All of this is an example of my basic point - "classical European riding" is NOT the foundation of all riding. How I work with Mia to improve her balance and to calm her mind has nothing to do with the principles taught by the "classic masters of riding" because the classic masters of riding were not interested in my goal.

But my approach is pretty common in western riding, which is why I identify myself as a "western rider" even while using a saddle based on an English design.

"_Surely it is better that they learn how to take up the reins while maintaining elasticity rather than holding the horse's face in an unyielding death grip._"

Yes, the rider should learn not to grab the reins with a death grip. That is a fundamental. Western riding takes a somewhat different approach, because it wants the horse to be controlled and listening to the rider with some slack still in the reins. When Mia gets nervous, I take enough slack out of the reins so that a hard pull would convey "NO!" very clearly. But I do not start pulling on the reins or doing anything really with her mouth. She knows I've taken slack out, and she knows I have the option of engaging the bit in the mouth, applying poll pressure and engaging the curb strap. But I do none of those things unless she refuses to hold her ground.

This is not classical European riding. It is not even really what Littauer had in mind for elementary control. It works well, though. It is easy to teach the horse and easy to use as a rider. It would make it tough to teach a collected gait, although there is a subset of western riding that does it.

It did not come from Spain. The Spanish tradition entered the US via California, and lives on there. This style comes from Texas around the time of the Civil War. It seems to have been the result of having lots of wild horses available to anyone who could catch one, and the need for unlettered young men to ride & stay on & control their horse in rough country without taking lessons. It is the practical result of mixing untrained men and untrained horses, and letting the cards fall where they may. It has stayed popular in the west for the same reason it sprang into being - it is easy to learn, easy to teach a horse, and it works.

As riding becomes more and more arena based, and folks worry less about staying on and staying alive and more about how they look when riding, it is losing popularity. This is particularly true near cities, where people who have never ridden a spooked horse look down on rural rubes who use their horses for transportation and work. 

It is not inferior to the classical European style, just different. It is very well suited for the environment it developed in. It may not survive the increasingly urbanized America horses live in, except for ranches.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Clava said:


> Actually he is telling everyone else how to ride...


Actually, I am not. :evil: I advocate a principle that seems humane, yet also allows someone to choose to ride dressage at any level: *"do not interfere with your horse any more than needed to achieve your goals*..."

If your goal is a collected gait, you will need to train your horse differently than I do. If your goal is jumping, or any variation of "classical European riding", then you will need to take a different route.

I do not tell anyone what their goal should be. I do think that if you want to analyze two styles to see which is better for *your purpose*, then the principle bolded above is reasonable. It gives one a basis for deciding how to best meet your goals.

Since I have frequently said I admire dressage and enjoy watching it (in video, I don't know of any live competitions near me), I can hardly be accused of telling people not to ride in that tradition.


----------



## onuilmar (Feb 8, 2013)

I feel like the argument is going in circles and it kind of reminds me of the old lady-young lady optical illusion. (See below) It depends on how one puts the lines together in one's head.

I certainly see the basic dressage in all the videos presented as argument both for and against "dressage is the basis of all riding." I also see what those who (vehemently) deny it.

But I think it all has to do with one's willingness to shift perspective.

http://brainden.com/face-illusions.htm#prettyPhoto


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

Ropin, I watched your video of the cowboy performing an impressive display of horsemanship accompanied by a display of working a young steer. As an English rider I found the display interesting to watch and certainly I accepted that none of my horse could have performed in a similar manner.

I have always believed the a QH's ability to 'haze' a steer was an innate ability which the rider just sat and watched. Whereas my own nimble mare would probably have run away from any cow which stood its ground - let alone moved towards her.

The reason behind my mare's lack of performance is/was due to the fact that horses are not used in most West European countries to work steers - be they milkers or meat. England is pretty much fenced all over except for the national park areas where any loose cow would soon be rounded up and moved to a pen. Most English horses never meet with steers, they are scared stiff of pigs, one goat could block the passage of a dozen horses and as for sheep - well they are worked with collie dogs. Then donkeys, well, even my cussed Joe was terrified of them - one honk and he was off in the opposite direction.

Up the road from my place there is the occasional breeder of QHs. I rode one of his once out of curiosity and thought the animal to be similar in 'feel' to a light Thorobred. A quarter horse is to be found for sale in the UK but like most other horses, it will have been bought for leisure riding and not work.

So to me, your cowboy's demo will be of interest to us Brits as a matter of curiosity but it will be the Spanish exhibition which will catch our eye the most - because there is a good possibility that our native breeds could perform, after special training, in similar fashion to the Spanish rider and his talented Andalusian horse.

As for sliding stops - well there are few English riders who would see that to be safe practice - we'd be thinking - "no feet, no horse"

However my Joe was pretty good at ignoring, buses, lorries, tractors, helicopters, chain saws, hedge trimmers, learner drivers, traffic lights, grass cutters, mums with prams holding a dog on a lead rope, kids playing football and cars going past at 50 miles per hour. Mind you Joe was a mongrel of no declared breeding - like most of the horses in Britain - no one knows what who Joe was bred from. Apparently he turned up one day in a Gypsy's horse wagon and was sold, unbacked, unpapered, unknown, for the best price of the day, cash in hand. No questions asked.

But I do know Joe would not have done one of those fast turns on his hind quarters and I'd never would have suggested he ought to learn how - as it was he could get me off his back anytime he put his mind to it.

It all comes back to horses for courses, Western or English, work or leisure.


----------



## xxBarry Godden (Jul 17, 2009)

A few years ago, when I was in my mid '60s, I started to take riding holidays.
I'd turn up after making a booking and giving a modest description of my riding experience. Often I'd be presented with a tacked up horse - whereas I'd always prefer to groom and tack up myself. But when in Rome I'd have to follow Roman rules. 
I'd prefer always to mount up unaided but off a mounting block. That way I'd learn if the horse would stand whilst I cocked my leg over the saddle. 

Then I'd let myself down onto the horse's back very gently. That was the first moment of truth. If the horse stood still during the process, then I'd give it a stroke and I;d say hello.
Then there would be a question of stirrup leather lengths. If a wall was nearby I;d walk the horse over and to stand the animal facing it whilst I adjusted the leathers to a comfortable length.

Then I would ask permission to walk the horse around the yard - if there was room. I'd then run through a series of simple aids. I'd take up the reins and take a soft contact, I'd push a calf into a flank very gently, I'd lean one way and then the other. I'd ask for a short walk; I'd ask for a halt and a stand. I might even ask for a back up. By the time I had finished I'd have said 'hello', and the horse would have given me some indication of how it had been schooled.

I wanted to know which language the horse used for communication. I wasn't so concerned as to what system the horse had been trained by, rather I wanted to know which system. After all what I needed to know was whether the horse would walk in a straight line for me and whether it would stop when I asked it to.

I can honestly say that no one horse ever dumped me. A couple gave me a fast ride though,

It was always for me to adapt to the way the horse had been schooled and ridden - it was for me to adjust my riding to match its training and not the other way round.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Tom Dorrance always said,_* first you get with the horse, then you get him with you. *_always true, whether you know the horse or he's a "foreigner".


----------

