# Opinions on this style of riding?



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkY7yeb0Dlg


----------



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

Grr >.< it doesn't want to show the video, you will have to click on the link.


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

That is saddle seat (three gaits) equitation at a morgan show. Interesting that so many are ridden with very hollow backs, that represents a big change from many years ago, as does the very high posture. (Notice she is the only entry as well?) Doesn't float my boat (but then dressage has gone the opposite way...over flexed, and the western has gone to slow/dead, and reining to low/on the forehand). Seems that work for purpose has been replaced by work for ribbons.


----------



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

I was watching this years Arabian invitational in Scottsdale on HRTV and the horse representing this was just like this. The irritating thing was the judges comments. He LOVED the exaggerated, but almost painful looking movements. 

What about their back? Saddles are supposed to be further forward so it lays on the correct bones. If its further back like this, doesn't it hurt the horse, or after a while, even cause swayback?


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

It's the #$$& judges who have CAUSED ALL THE DISCIPLINES to DERAIL.

ss saddles have always been flat/further back. But the sway back is the too high head and the training. They need to be longer and slightly lower...and ridden with clearer principles. The modern ss is painful (and I do not care for the longer feet of five gaited either)...jhmo


----------



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

equitate said:


> It's the #$$& judges who have CAUSED ALL THE DISCIPLINES to DERAIL.
> 
> ss saddles have always been flat/further back. But the sway back is the too high head and the training. They need to be longer and slightly lower...and ridden with clearer principles. The modern ss is painful (and I do not care for the longer feet of five gaited either)...jhmo


I'd have to agree with that. A perfect example is in halter classes; the HYPP Quarter horses and toothpick Arabians. They are both beautiful breeds, why must they be ruined? 

Also, in Dressage, I don't see why double bridles are a requirement. If a horse could perform just as well in a snaffle, I know I would find that more impressive than the requirement. I've seen people in mid-level dressage who managed to train their horse to do the same thing bridleless. Don't tell me that is less impressive than a harsh bit.


----------



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

Also, Dressage people say they just use the harsh bit for competition, and softer things for training and practice. It may be just me, but I'd want to keep something soft the whole time. You would think using something harsher would feel like 'punishment', and teach the horse to loathe showing. Of course, a bit's harshness depends on the rider, but with a harsher bit, a slight mistake with your hands (that anyone can make) will be more noticeable to the horse. That's the way I see it at least.


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

Double bridles are only a requirement for FEI internationally. Why are they are requirement....it certainly should NOT be to be harsh, or to hold the shanks horizontal as we often see de jour. THAT is a RESULT of JUDGES giving high scores to common technique.

The two bits have totally different uses (the snaffle to halt halt, to lift/open the throatlatch/mobilize the jaw, and the curb/weymouth to lower/close with the lightest of touches). It is one thing to ride bridleless (as kids, or with a fully trained horse), and to train with purpose and tact.

That said, years ago only trainers rode in snaffles and on green horses, and the little kids/etc rode in a straight bit (or full bridle) on (more) trained horses so they would be allowed to have whispers of aids.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

equitate said:


> It's the #$$& judges who have CAUSED ALL THE DISCIPLINES to DERAIL.


Actually it's the nature of showing itself. Just look at dog shows, they have the same kinds of problems. 

I'm not a fan of showing - any kind, for any reason.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I used to really, really dislike saddleseat riding. But, I hung out at a saddlebred stable in SC and learned some things and figured out some others.

The saddle is further back allowing the horse's shoulders to move more freely. The horses are trained and exercised in a way that has them in shape for that style of movement. The right muscles have been developed.

I compare it to a gymnast or perhaps a ballroom dancer. Those people have focused on specific muscles to get the movement they need for their activity.

The rider is placed further back than say someone riding a forward seat saddle, but they still bear much weight through their legs and feet. They are not so far back to be on a sensitive part of the anatomy and generally aren't thumping around back there like a sack of flour. 

While that style doesn't work in my world, I do give good saddleseat horsemen respect for training well and caring well for their horses.


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

> Can someone please explain to me what this is exactly?


The Saddleseat Discipline
Saddle Seat Myths and Misconceptions
Inercollegiate Saddle Seat Riding Association, Inc. (ISSRA)
Bob Jensen Stables: English Saddle Seat Riding | Twin Cities Minnesota Horse Riding Lessons




> I don't understand the purpose of it (hell, I've heard at least three different names for it).


See links above. 



> I don't really like how it looks;


I don't like the way a lot of other equestrian disciplines look. That is why I ride what I like. 



> the reins look too tight,


Our horses like and seek contact. In a good rider, there will never be any pulling or hanging on a horse's mouth. A great rider was taught on the ground, using tissue paper reins how to stay light in a horse's mouth. Some do abuse the reins and abuse the contact, but that is prevalent in any and all riding styles. 



> the head looks too high,


If it were any other discipline, you would be correct. As it is, this is saddleseat, and that chess piece head carriage is bred for. So is the high motion. 







































> and the saddle looks too far back. What is the purpose of that?


As stated above, to free up the movement of the shoulder. Any interference with the movement of the shoulder will negatively affect the horse's comfort and motion. 



> Do the riders have a way to avoid hurting the horse in that position?


Yes, it is called posting. It is the art of moving with the horse with a rising a falling motion so that the jarring gait of the trot is more comfortable for both horse and rider. I


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

A couple of thoughts. Placing the saddle behind the shoulder slightly is for all saddles (esp the more modern extended padding dressage types). That said, the horse has NO collarbone, so only a sling of muscles keep the chest and withers lfited. The (excessively) high/short carriage is what often causes the chest/withers/back to drop (as in the morgan pix early on in the post)...the horse must be kept slightly longer. This causes atrophy of the back muscles (esp when the horse 'parks out' (hindlegs way behind the croup in halt). It is a negative of poor methods.


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

equitate said:


> It's the #$$& judges who have CAUSED ALL THE DISCIPLINES to DERAIL.
> 
> ss saddles have always been flat/further back. But the sway back is the too high head and the training. They need to be longer and slightly lower...and ridden with clearer principles. The modern ss is painful (and I do not care for the longer feet of five gaited either)...jhmo


No, swayback is a conformational flaw known as Lordosis. It is seen in saddleseat breeds(mostly saddlebreds, though I have seen a few others), but it is most definitely NOT bred for. We work with it when it happens, but it is neither desirable, nor sought after. If you would like, I can get you some research papers detailing the genetic cause of lordosis. Funny thing is, some horses can have the gene and not show it. Some are situational caused early in development due to some trauma, though those are rare. 

A lot of times, if a horse is going to have lordosis, you can tell LONG before you ever lay a saddle on it. 

The high head and high motion and placement of the saddle does not cause it. If so, every single saddleseat saddlebred would retire with lordosis.


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

Agreed, there are (genetically) swayback horses from birth, and there are swayed (dropped) backs from training methods which hollow the back (ie the pix at the beginning). Both can be influenced by getting the horse to seek the hand/carry properly with the top line. 

When the horse is sustained TOO high (or too low) and compressed it will change how the hind leg work, ie they only push the load. That drops the chest. I deal with those two rider induced actions all over the US when teaching. And the placement of the saddle (too far forward or back DOES affect the back muscles), just as the rider leaning forward or back does also. So many ss/parkseat morgans/arabs I see have virtually no muscle development behind the shoulder blade (which keeps the saddle in position) as well as no development from the shoulder forward which are part of self carriage. This is a (lack of physical) development which has become endemic in the last 40+ years.

For what it is worth I think all young foals tend to show this freedom as youngsters, which makes the riding of western pleasure horses all the more disgusting (I yes I showed all the seats nationally....its the riding against the nature of the horses that makes me #*$(&$ )


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

Which is why you have a balanced training program. A great deal of saddlebred's at home training is not constant up up up, squish, compact and up some more. I can't say much for morgans or arabs, but I do know saddlebreds. Believe it or not, most successful Saddleseat Show barns do know a bit or two about proper muscling and conditioning for the task required of them. Not to mention, our horses are conformationally different from most other breeds. If I ever sought to make a TB or QH carry himself like Imperator, I can only envision pain and failure on both sides. Heck, if I tried to make a Saddlebred born with a lower head carriage carry himself in a way he was not capable of, yes I can see how he would be hurt. 

How far back do you believe our saddles are positioned? In my experience our saddles are not placed any different, but built to better accommodate the horse's motion as well as the required rider position. I often see western riders weight placed farther back in a lot of situations than saddleseat. When I ride, I am not a foot back from the horse's neck. 

I keep waiting for my show horses as well as those of my many friends to develop any of these maladies outsiders believe are common.


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

LadyD, I do like traditional ss/saddlebred training (ie Helen Crabtree) and my mom even rode a top horse back in the day (Sweetheart's on Parade!). And it is where I started (as did many of my generation...ie Bill Steinkraus/Wofford/etc).

That said, I have rarely seen anything but 'trussing them up' in the last years, often with overchecks, draw reins (esp at arab shows) and marionette straps. That makes me sick. Look at the video, imho that is horrid muscling and full of tensions.

A higher open outline comes over time from riding iFv/actively with good half halts. The carriage of the horse has some to do with where the neck is set in, but it has a lot to do with training/engagement/etc. I have never met a horse which cannot piaffe, and for that it is necessary for the horse to function as they do in nature (like the foal pix). 

Certainly ALL horses can seek the hand forward/down/out as they do in dressage tests. It simply takes more time/tact with horses with thin throatlatches (ie arabs/saddlebreds/friesans/some tbs) as they offer precipitous flexion (close their throat latches) too easily.

Interestingly enough there is little difference in the alignment of the different seats (if the rider is riding according to the rules). And there was even a rider in the 60s who won 2 of the 4 medal classes, and was second in one of the others.


----------



## jumanji321 (Dec 1, 2010)

All right, where are the experienced SS members here. I know we have some on here and they know exactly how to train properly. I feel like you two are making some assumptions without knowing how it truly works. That rider is actually quite good especially in comparison to some country pleasure riders I've seen.



> Also, Dressage people say they just use the harsh bit for competition, and softer things for training and practice. It may be just me, but I'd want to keep something soft the whole time. You would think using something harsher would feel like 'punishment', and teach the horse to loathe showing. Of course, a bit's harshness depends on the rider, but with a harsher bit, a slight mistake with your hands (that anyone can make) will be more noticeable to the horse. That's the way I see it at least


The double bridle is for finesse so they don't have to make an exaggerated cue with a softer bit. Yes some riders abuse the weymouth, but that is why it is only supposed to be used at high level competition where only the best of riders and horses will excel. I'm sure the many dressage riders on this forum will be able to give you even more information as several of them are competing at mid to upper level dressage or at least aiming for it.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

boots said:


> The saddle is further back allowing the horse's shoulders to move more freely.


No horse needs to use their shoulders more than a jumper, and the saddles they wear are very forward. High-stepping is the result of the shape of the horse's shoulder and forearm, not the placement of the saddle. Saddleseat riders sit further back because it makes the horse bring their hind legs further under them but without raising their backs like they would in dressage. Is it good for the horse? No, but then all disciplines put strain on the horse in some way. 

I don't find sadddleseat to be an attractive form of riding but then I would say the same about Western pleasure. Again the problem is showing in general.


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

A horse going over a fence DOES need shoulder freedom in order to have a nice bascule (lift the forearms/closed the angles), and the saddles are NOT more forward but rather have a stepper angle (because the stirrups are shorter in order to have much shorter stirrups and be able to stay over the center of gravity which is further forward with the increased pace (canter/gallop). 

Often times the higher stepping is weighted shoes/long feet the weight of which CAUSE higher mechanical actions. Saddlebreds ridden as dressage horses do not show the mechanical movement. 

Horse is piaffe/passage show this same height of movement, but it is because of the shortened base of support and COMPRESSION of the hindleg joints being released into energy.

SS riders really do not sit further back per se, they rather are in a different balance (than light seat of hunter riders/etc).

The hindlegs really do not bring the legs any further under per se. Always look to the 'fall line' from the flank to the ground. Does the horse step beyond this? How? Over tempo or swinging back?

A horses can raise the back in two ways: 1 stay up and open and active and over time compress the hindlegs because they take hh/etc in which shortens the base of support/lifts the chest/ raises the withers/lowers the croup (_which used to be traditional for ALL types of horses_) or 2 be leveraged into over flexion in which case the chest is loft but the belly is tensioned and the lumbar back is lifted (which is forced submission).


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

......


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

equitate said:


> A horse going over a fence DOES need shoulder freedom in order to have a nice bascule (lift the forearms/closed the angles), and the saddles are NOT more forward but rather have a stepper angle (because the stirrups are shorter in order to have much shorter stirrups and be able to stay over the center of gravity which is further forward with the increased pace (canter/gallop).


That's exactly what I'm saying. If any saddle would "interfere with shoulder movement" a jumping saddle would but they do not. 



> Often times the higher stepping is weighted shoes/long feet the weight of which CAUSE higher mechanical actions. Saddlebreds ridden as dressage horses do not show the mechanical movement.


There's a picture in this very thread of a foal showing it.


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

> There's a picture in this very thread of a foal showing it.


 And many youngsters (wb/etc) trotting freely show the same thing....different thing with rider on. i.e. an example of a wb : Record Price At German Elite Foal Auction for Oldenburg Colt |


----------



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

equitate said:


> And many youngsters (wb/etc) trotting freely show the same thing....different thing with rider on. i.e. an example of a wb : Record Price At German Elite Foal Auction for Oldenburg Colt*|*


Exactly. I've seen draft foals doing it. Just prancing around is what I assumed.


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

And look where that WBs neck is compared to the young saddlebred. They are bred and made for two different things. To ask that WB foal to set up like a saddleseat horse would be...wrong. You would not get a good result. At all. He could pick his knees up to the stars, but his overall conformation makes him unsuitable as a saddleseat horse. Lucky for him, he will shine elsewhere. 

Likewise a saddlebred foal that is born with all the motion in the world that is born "forward headed" like that, will never make a saddleseat horse. Or all neck, no motion. We had a colt here that could stick his ears in your mouth when you were on him. Plus he was super refined, was a good sized horse, and exquisitely beautiful. He would have tripped over a broom handle. Most quarter horses lifted their feet higher. He was not a saddleseat horse. We cannot force them to pick their feet up if they arent made for it. They have to be built correctly to do the job. Same with jumpers. Same with dressage. Same with reiners. Same with working drafts. 

If you were to compare videos of those foals, you would see would see two totally different things. Which is why one is suited for one thing, and the other another. 

You can also compare the saddles. Cutback saddles are made to remove as much interference as possible. Thy are light, they are thin, and they allow for as much freedom of movement as possible. We don't use a lot of leg cues, but we do need to stay out of our horse's way. They are made to help the horse do his thing. They are made to help the rider do his thing too. Jumping saddles are made to help the horse and rider while jumping, same with dressage, hunt, and western saddles. They are all made for a purpose.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I would just like to say that that rider in the first video was a dandy good rider. she posted as light as a feather, he posture was lovely, her lower leg steady and quiet and though the rein was short, it was very steady, something the horse really appreciates.

I've briefly ridden SS and let me tell you, it's REALLY hard to do. My hat's off to that rider.


----------



## uflrh9y (Jun 29, 2012)

Just wondering, but isn't this a video of a Senior class? Could that be why the horse is not the best conformation wise?


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

Here's a 2 yo dutch...


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

Arabian 
Arabian stallion HD Sampson - YouTube

Saddlebred
Ro & Me's Out Of The Ashes, American Saddlebred, 2-year old gelding, - YouTube

Hackney
Sold Black Hackney Stallion - YouTube

Morgan
JW Out Of The Blue (HVK Bell Flaire x Noble Airess) - YouTube

Various drafts
FREX 2012 Ultimate Supreme - YouTube

I don't know about you, but I see vast differences between the lot of them. In their structure and how thy carry themselves, as well as movement in general. I see differences in attitude, and in truth, that does play a big role in a horse's success. I see what makes them suited for what they are or will be asked to do. 

That WB is a world apart from a saddlebred show horse, which, arguably is the epitome of SS horses. If they were not, the other common SS breeds wouldn't keep trying to make their horses like them. He is a pretty horse for sure, and a good mover, but not built the best for a SS horse. I don't like the slope of his shoulder or how his neck ties into it. He has something funky going on around the withers that would very likely inhibit him from comfortably raising up, carrying a rider, and moving with high motion all together. That horse is going to be much more comfortable going with a lower head and neck. This one could possibly be faked into it for a while, but he wouldn't last long. As he matured and developed, I would put money on his neck getting lower and lower, and putting him in lower and lower divisions. Which is sad. That horse does not seem to deserve being a pleasure horse. Not bashing pleasure horses, it is just if you are going to make a point with something, go big. Like Harry Callahan with dressage. Or Wing Tempo with CTR. 

If I were going to cross him with something to make a SS horse, I would look into a nice hackney. Jr. Exhibitor "pony" classes do not need to be full anything. I would never cross him with a saddlebred, because there are much better full saddlebred stallions, and the half market is not good. Plus there are plenty of better choices in breeds to make a SS horse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CessBee (Dec 6, 2008)

*sigh* Once again people who seem to be of the "it's different from what I do, so it must be wrong" mindset

Look at some pictures of a saddlebred standing still









And compare with that of a QH









Look at how differently they are put together. To say that one should move like the other is silly, they physically cannot.

This saddlebred is gorgeous Ro & Me's Out Of The Ashes, American Saddlebred, 2-year old gelding, - YouTube his movement you can clearly see is natural for him.

And now look at this QH at 1 minute or indeed any in this video 



 all are moving in ways that are natural to them. And it is clear that because of their build that they are suited to different tasks. The QH couldn't get his head up that hard if he tried! You can see how high they can get their head up when they are all excited and that is barely even close to that of the saddlebreds resting height.

You wouldn't expect a professional wrestler to be built and move like an Olympic sprinter would you?


----------



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

CessBee said:


> *sigh* Once again people who seem to be of the "it's different from what I do, so it must be wrong" mindset
> 
> Look at some pictures of a saddlebred standing still
> 
> ...


Never said it was wrong, just stating what it looks like. I was looking for people to prove me wrong.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LadyDreamer (Jan 25, 2008)

You never wanted to be "proved wrong". You had your mind made up about the discipline before you even knew the name of it. Your first posts in this thread proved as much. 

I will say again, as I said in post #12 of this thread. "I don't like the way a lot of other equestrian disciplines look. That is why I ride what I like." If there was only supposed to be one style of riding, then there would only be one. In most disciplines that I detest, it is the people involved that ruin the style for me, not the seat itself. Again that is why I ride what I like.


----------



## equitate (Dec 14, 2012)

Nevertheless the alignment of the rider should be roughly the same (ear/shoulder/hip/heel in alignment, straightline from elbow to horse's mouth, upper arm vertical) in ALL the seats. And this is shown in the USEF directives.


----------



## Jalter (Oct 5, 2012)

LadyDreamer said:


> You never wanted to be "proved wrong". You had your mind made up about the discipline before you even knew the name of it. Your first posts in this thread proved as much.
> 
> I will say again, as I said in post #12 of this thread. "I don't like the way a lot of other equestrian disciplines look. is why I ride what I like." If there was only supposed to be one style of riding, then there would only be one. In most disciplines that I detest, it is the people involved that ruin the style for me, not the seat itself. Again that is why I ride what I like.


How do you know what I wanted? If I was set on my opinion, I wouldn't have posted it on people to argue with me. I was just asking for people to prove me wrong. I was saying the neck looks cranked up too high (which that part was explained, and I accept that) and the reins look to tight (also explained pedfectly to me). 

I also think that the saddle is too far back. That was halfway explained; because of the neckset, it can't be further forward. But I'm still wondering, just because the neck is built differently, doesn't mean the back is. Doesn't the weight on that part of the horses back hurt? Every sound horse I know of (I don't know any saddlebreds) would be sore if someone sat that far back, because the bones just behind their withers are stronger, and better at supporting a rider. 

And if that wasn't clear enough to you, I am not dissing the sport. I want someone to tell me "It doesn't hurt the horse because...".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## honeyluv (Aug 19, 2012)

A resemblance of marry poppins on the carousel! Poor horse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## CessBee (Dec 6, 2008)

I am not a saddleseat rider myself, but I have an open mind to look at all the facts and hear from people in the "business" first before I cement my opinions.

Here are some pictures of a saddleseat saddle on the horses back to compare with a western saddle. (these have been hard to find btw and may not be as accurate a comparison as I would like so if someone in saddleseat would be able to post a pic of just the saddle on the horse girthed up from the same angle as one western one that would be great)


















Not how both seems to go very far back on the horses back.

The lady in the OPs link has a VERY solid seat, her legs barely move whilst she posts and her hands are very independent of her seat as a constant contact is maintained.
Yes her hands are high, but so is the headset of the horse, if her hands were lower she would have broken the straight line from elbow to bit, as shown in these photos.


















I believe the second picture also shows the saddle placement more, if it was further forward it would be impeding the horses shoulder action quite dramatically.
These horses really know how to use their shoulders and they do, having the seat further back than what you would see an english rider doing allows the horse to show off his full ability, which is what showing, in essence should boil down to, showing off the horses natural talent. These are horses which have been bred for the flamboyant movement and do so naturally, as shown by the video of the 2 year old gelding.

(thank you google for the images)


----------



## jumanji321 (Dec 1, 2010)

It's also nice to see that neither of them are engaging the weymouth on their double bridles as much as the bridoons.


----------



## verona1016 (Jul 3, 2011)

CessBee said:


> This saddlebred is gorgeous Ro & Me's Out Of The Ashes, American Saddlebred, 2-year old gelding, - YouTube his movement you can clearly see is natural for him.


Honest question here... this horse appears to have straps on his back feet. Aren't those used to alter a horse's natural gait and encourage them to pick up their feet more?


----------



## Horsecents1997 (Jan 20, 2013)

Jalter said:


> I'd have to agree with that. A perfect example is in halter classes; the HYPP Quarter horses and toothpick Arabians. They are both beautiful breeds, why must they be ruined?
> 
> Also, in Dressage, I don't see why double bridles are a requirement. If a horse could perform just as well in a snaffle, I know I would find that more impressive than the requirement. I've seen people in mid-level dressage who managed to train their horse to do the same thing bridleless. Don't tell me that is less impressive than a harsh bit.


"harsh" bits are only "harsh" in the wrong hands. Many of those riders are exceptional, and since you can't see their cues, are being pretty light in the mouth. A double bridle is for communicating more detailed cues to your horse, cues that are muddled in a regular snaffle bridle.


----------

