# Difference: Parelli Circling game, lunging?



## camcam78910 (Jun 15, 2015)

This question has been bugging me for a few days now. I have some friends who use Parelli methods, and keep saying how different the Parelli Circling game is from regular lunging. But they never give a reason for it's difference other than Parelli using a regular lead rope. What is the difference?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saranda (Apr 14, 2011)

With the Parelli method it's not a "regular" lead rope that's used, but a 12 foot line, and this is their official explanation of the circling game - Develop Responsibility with the Circling Game - Parelli Natural Horsemanship - Horse Training


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

In effect, maybe nothing. Depends how you teach/do 'circling game' or lunging. <img src="images/smilies/icon_wink.gif" border="0" alt="" title="Wink" smilieid="36" class="inlineimg" /> 

In philosophy/principle (from being into parelli 20 yrs ago), difference is parelli doesnt believe in endless, mindless circles, eg lunging for exercise or to wear horse down before riding. It is purely a training exercise. Doesnt believe in cuing horse repeatedly/endlessly while its going round, but allowing horse to do/maintain what is asked, until a correction needed or change is requested. Parelli doesnt believe in having the line taut & having to continually turn to keep facing the horse.<br />
<font size="1"><i>Posted via Mobile Device</i></font>

I call it lunging, as do many 'normal'(as opposed to 'natural') horsepeople, but agree with most/all of the above principles... the last is mainly cos i get dizzy if i dont!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Sounds no different then using lougeing correctly. Pat has a way of making it sound like he invented certain principles, when he just repackages them under a different label!
But then, the entire NH thing , relies on this subliminal conditioning, right from that word 'natural' JMO


----------



## camcam78910 (Jun 15, 2015)

Ok that's what I thought! I was just wondering if there was a bigger difference. I really don't think Parelli is so great...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't think we've had Parelli bashing thread for a few months now. we must be falling down on the job!


in any case, . . I find the idea of the 'circling game' odd. odd becuase if I stand still, I want my horse to stand still, too. if I want him to circle, I will circle , too. if I bring up energy in my body, he should too. if I bring it down to a halt, he should too.

I want to be looking at him, while he looks at me (with his inside eye and ear), so he can "match" me, as if I were in the saddle, expecting him to match my seat cues.

so, having the horse circleing around behind me, while I am frozen in the center is odd. I don't want the hrose operating on rote. I want him operating in tandem with me.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

When I can do a tenth of what Parelli does, maybe I'll bash him. Meanwhile, I like the way he does it better than the way I don't.


----------



## ShirtHotTeez (Sep 23, 2014)

subbing


----------



## camcam78910 (Jun 15, 2015)

I don't necessarily hate Parelli! In fact, nearly everybody near where I live uses him, thus it is the easiest for me to learn. I have seen my friends horses who have had years of training in Parelli, and compared to my horse (whom I clicker train) they are beasts! They are mouthy, pushy, and rude. And if not handled in a very specific "Parelli" fashion, are known to kick, buck, and bite... 

I have only had my horse for a year and he is the most gentle horse my friends have ever met and I never use force or try to "act like a horse" if I can help it, I just ask, and use a different energy from myself. He is not pushy or rude and has NEVER attempted to bite me, or anybody, he even lets my 1 and a half year old brother touch his face and poke him.

For these reasons, I tend to steer clear of Parelli, although I'm sure people have luck with it, in my experience, it is a waste of time. While I am also sure Parelli has well behaved horses, the people who use Parelli (that I know of) do not have such nice horses...


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Smilie said:


> Pat has a way of making it sound like he invented certain principles, when he just repackages them under a different label!


Not at all disagreeing there's nothing 'subliminal' there too, & marketing is HUGE in these type 'programs'. And also not at all talking about how much Parelli has changed in that manner in the last decades - I've... veered way clear of them in last decade+, a lot because I suspect... but I don't *know*, so I won't go there.

But the above quote, from knowing what he himself used to say in his early days, is not how it was _then_ at least. 

He was very particular about saying that he never invented any of the principles or ways of working a horse, it was just something he was very excited about & wanted to teach others. 

It was absolutely the... mindset reasons, for want of a better term, that caused him to want to 'repackage' things with names like 'carrot stick' & 'circling game', because he DIDN'T want the differences to be just subliminal, unconscious, but he wanted the names to remind people of why/how they did/used something & why they didn't do it in another way.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

camcam78910 said:


> I have seen my friends horses who have had years of training in Parelli, and compared to my horse (whom I clicker train) they are beasts! They are mouthy, pushy, and rude. And if not handled in a very specific "Parelli" fashion, are known to kick, buck, and bite...


You have just told me a lot about your friends and nothing about Parelli. I've heard similar things about the followers of Buck Brannaman, Clinton Anderson, and others, (including clicker trained horses, so congratulations on doing it right). All of which just proves that it's easier to buy a video than it is to train a horse.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

tinyliny said:


> I don't think we've had Parelli bashing thread for a few months now. we must be falling down on the job!


& no need to start now! :wink: I reckon we do a pretty good job of *discussing* stuff/people/philosophies here, without 'bashing'. That's why I'm still here on this forum, where I've quit so many others - we can usually be civil & respectful, even when we agree to disagree. I really like & value that about our 'community' here.



> in any case, . . I find the idea of the 'circling game' odd. odd becuase if I stand still, I want my horse to stand still, too. if I want him to circle, I will circle , too. if I bring up energy in my body, he should too. if I bring it down to a halt, he should too.


Yeah I think the first bit - whether you spin round in the centre, keep facing the horse is a 'to each his own' thing personally, as well as a stage of training - you don't start there, regardless. Re 'energy up' or down, yes, that is a big part of his principles too. You can't just stand there like a sack of lard & expect the horse to put in the effort, it's still your bodylanguage/energy that's telling him to keep going or quit, whether you're facing him or not.



> I don't want the hrose operating on rote. I want him operating in tandem with me.


Ditto. But at the same time, I do want the horse to learn to continue what I ask & not quit just because I... get distracted or such, & that's what is behind the principle of not HAVING to be watching them like a hawk, not having to 'micromanage' the whole time.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Then we have his 'horsenality', which is pure bunk!
Parelli will be at the Mane Event in Red Deer again this year, just so any fans out there can be sure not miss miss him and Linda.
I will be busy attending other events!


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

Have you actually looked into it Smilie? I thought it sounded like... codswallop too, but thought I'd have a look at the philosophy of it before dismissing it. That was also a fair few years back, whenever it was new, so going off (not so great) memory... The impression that I got...

I found that far from 'boxing up' horses, as many Parelli fans AND knockers seem to take it as, it was just about behavioural psychology & understanding the different 'quadrants' of your horse's attitudes, how to better understand their motivations/actions & how to respond to them. While many of us might find a lot of what they say on it obvious, and I don't recall I agreed 100% on everything(can't think of anything much, Parelli or otherwise I do...), I wouldn't say it was all 'bunk' by far.

For eg. some horses(or situations for certain horses) are innately more flighty, fearful, reactive, and the Parelli's take is that those horses are more 'right brained extroverted' and to 'come on strong' or to try to force or punish a horse in that 'mindset' will cause it to become worse, more reactive or 'shut down', whereas calm, confident and patient leadership will help them over their fears. And then there are the easygoing 'make my day' type horses(or the same horse in a different situation), who aren't frightened, but know they're bigger & uglier than you, and if you handle _them_ with the kid gloves needed of a fearful horse, they will get worse, walk all over you... or just refuse to 'play the game'. Instead, they want to know what's in it for them... or whether consequences are worth avoiding - you might well have to get 'big', in one way or the other, to be effective with that sort. 

To understand the bodylanguage, the looks, behaviour that go along with different motivations/emotions/actions/reactions will help people 'read' the situation/horse & what is required better. That was basically all I got out of the horsanality stuff. As with lots of it, marketed at beginners or people without much experience.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie said:


> Then we have his 'horsenality', which is pure bunk!


I don't know if it's pure bunk, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me, and I think it's too confusing to be practical, even if it were reality based. Where they really lost me was when they started selling bits to match the horsenality, but I think even Linda realized they had crossed the line into shyster territory on that one.

When people talk about old Parellii vs. new Parelli, I don't really think Pat has changed much. But when he divorced Karen and married Linda, Parelli Inc. changed a lot. (The curse of the clinicians -- Clinton Anderson, Mark Rashid, even John Lyons have blown up their first marriages on the clinic circuit.) Parelli has a big enterprise now and I suspect he'd rather stay with the horses and let the MBA types take care of the business. I've seen him live several times and never heard him talk about horsenalities. That's more in their written material.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Yes, I have looked into 'horsenality", after hearing linda P. talk on it, at the Mane Event a year or so ago.
It was actually Linda that came up with the concept, one night, and told how she woke up and gushed her revelations to Pat
Being me, I then looked up to find any actual scientific indenpendant data to support it, and found the contrary. No time to look now, as I have to get toa Doctor's appt.
I have had Parelli trained horses, in acolt clinic I gave, at the local all breed level. Had to ask the person to elave., as he was adanger to the rset of the young horses. That horse was supposed to become one of his kid's horse-not the way it was going in that Parelli halter!
Then I hav eseen ads like the following, or have heard people talk of their horse playing all seven games, after ayear or so, and yet to be ridden
Here is that ad, from memory:
Wanted, horse anyone can ride, and have a Parelli trained horse, plays all seven games, for trade'.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

Smilie said:


> Wanted, horse anyone can ride, and have a Parelli trained horse, plays all seven games, for trade'.


This is so sad.

Anybody with any training capability at all can teach a horse the seven games in a week. Most of you could do it in a day. Then the work starts. If somebody buys a level one kit and actually follows it, they will end up with a horse that is better trained than 90% of the horses out there. I know, not saying much, but still.

The problem is most people don't buy the kit, so all they know is what they saw on Youtube, and if they did buy the kit, they found out training is a lot of work and never got past the first lesson.

To me a Parelli trained horse is one that Pat Parelli trained. When most people talk about a Parelli trained horse they are talking about a horse that really has never had any training.

I think the clinician kits are the best thing to ever happen to horse people who are motivated. For many, the money would have been better spent on a trainer.


----------



## evilamc (Sep 22, 2011)

I actually did a little Parelli clinic a few months after buying Jax. Now I've never really studied Parelli...I was always more a Clinton Anderson fangirl...but I figured why not it could be fun...Also the instructor helped me get over my trailer loading issues with Jax. So I already knew her and liked her.

The clinic? I did not like so much. We went over a few of the games, the circling game being one, rather then circling with the horse per-say while lunging, you stood still and passed the rope behind your back? It just felt really awkward and I didn't like it. Some of the riding exercises were fun...but she kept trying to make me make Jax..my twh...TROT not gait. So that I was not impressed with either.

At the end of the day I still had fun and it wasn't that expensive.


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

camcam78910 said:


> This question has been bugging me for a few days now. I have some friends who use Parelli methods, and keep saying how different the Parelli Circling game is from regular lunging. But they never give a reason for it's difference other than Parelli using a regular lead rope. What is the difference?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 After reading the link describing "the circle game" I don't see it as anything but lunging only focusing more on certain aspects and done slightly different. It isn't very different from what I do and call lunging. What I disagree with is the implication that lunging engages the horse only physically. Well, perhaps if you don't know how to lunge correctly and no one has explained all the things that can be taught on a lunge line. I have never lunged a horse before riding to "get the kinks out" or tire him out. I might do it especially with green horses or horses that have not been worked in awhile to get them to focus and engage mentally.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I wanted to see what Parelli was about, at least originally, so I bought a used copy of his first book. No mention of the circling game. No mention of 7 games, although he made lists of just about everything.

It isn't an awful book, but I'm sure glad I read it after spending a few years riding first. In discussing how to use the reins, for example, he ditches the names of the standard rein effects used for a few hundred years and gives them his own name - casual rein, controlled rein and concentrated rein. Ie, slack reins, one rein stop, and contact. That is way too simplistic. No simple discussion of direct reining, a leading rein, coordination with the leg, neck reining - even very simple neck reining. Almost any standard book on riding would be better. 

He's big on pulling the horse's head around - before you get on, then after you get on (but not moving), then at a walk. I guess lots of folks like doing that, but his target audience is obviously people with zero experience around horses - and the seeds for the reputation Parelli horses have of horses you nag on the ground and rarely if ever ride are all present - in 1994...back when Karen Parelli was taking the pictures.

I'm a huge fan of trying to find ways to make things enjoyable for the horse, but I suspect more horses have been ruined by "games" than by "work". You can fool a horse for a time, but eventually they will see through you - hence the old term "horse sense" for a practical and hard to fool person. *I think horses understand work better than they do games.*

And some of what he wrote is bogus. He describes any bit with a shank over 7.5" as a "torture device", which could only be said by someone who has no idea how curb bits work. If someone has never used a western curb bit before, they would be better off learning with a well designed bit with 7-8 inch shanks than with a cute little bit. I'm experimenting with a little Tom Thumb bit on Bandit right now, and while it is not the horrible bit some claim, it isn't a beginner's bit either!

Now, for the OP's question...from the link Saranda provided:

"_In that clinic with Pat, I learned about what he called the “Circling Game,” and how different it is from longeing. Yes, your horse still circles around you but he has to THINK. Why? Because he has to maintain gait and maintain direction without any reminding or coaxing from you...When longeing, you have to keep your horse moving forwards, preventing him from slowing down or turning, which involves a degree of micromanagement because it assigns no trust or responsibility to the horse._"

Ummm...I've longed my horses. Not often, just for a week or two for a specific training purpose. It wasn't a game for either of us. More like hard work. And what he is describing as "longeing" is a caricature of the real thing. He sets up a straw man - a description of longeing that no decent trainer would tolerate - and then says his way is better. But his way is, as tinyliny pointed out, arguably WORSE than real longeing.

"_If you are too particular too soon, that’s more like training (vs. warm-up) and can result in your horse getting tense, dull, disinterested or disconnected. Think about how you can make the Circling Game more interesting.._."

I'd as soon be emasculated as longe a horse before every ride. About a year or so after I last longed Mia, I thought I'd try it again to see if it would help her. After about 2 minutes, she stopped and looked at me, and I'd swear I could hear her say, "_Why are you DOING this to me? Lets knock off this nonsense and go ride somewhere..._" So we did. She had her problems, but she was often more sensible than I was. It didn't hurt anything to follow her advice.

So I'd summarize the difference as this:

The Circling Game is something played by people who can't read their horse and who don't mind harassing it. Its primary effect is to annoy the horse.

Lungeing is something a trainer does for a specific purpose and goal, to teach the horse something from the ground before asking it to respond under saddle. It has a reason and a goal, and when the horse achieves the goal, you go on to teaching it under saddle.

Lungeing teaches the horse certain commands, ways of moving, balance or emotional self-control. Then you move on, because it isn't fair to the horse to repeat a lesson ad nauseum. The Circling Game teaches the horse that humans are stupid, unfeeling, and incapable of understanding them.

OK, all just IMHO.

But from the Parelli article:

"_Think of it from your horse’s point of view: “How can I keep my human quiet and relaxed there in the center?_”

IOW, "_How can I get this jerk to leave me alone?_" Not quite the lesson I want to teach, or attitude I want my horses to have...:icon_rolleyes:


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

bsms said:


> Lungeing is something a trainer does for a specific purpose and goal, to teach the horse something from the ground before asking it to respond under saddle. It has a reason and a goal, and when the horse achieves the goal, you go on to teaching it under saddle.


Well, at least it's not Parelli who is telling his students to lunge their horses for five hours a day.

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-health/how-long-lounge-688426/


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

In the end, all of these NH gerus try to train people to train horses, way more then they train horses themselves
I don't really consider them horse trainers, but people that try to market an ABC approach to training, causing people to get lost in the forest of carrot sticks, endo tapping, special halters (Nerve line in disguise, when it comes to the Parelli 'Be Nice Halter) tie rings and several other spin offs
Horse trainers that I respect, are those out there quietly turning out good horses, horses that say sound in mind and body


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

> "The Circling Game is something played by people who can't read their horse and who don't mind harassing it. Its primary effect is to annoy the horse.
> 
> Lungeing is something a trainer does for a specific purpose and goal, to teach the horse something from the ground before asking it to respond under saddle. It has a reason and a goal, and when the horse achieves the goal, you go on to teaching it under saddle.
> 
> Lungeing teaches the horse certain commands, ways of moving, balance or emotional self-control. Then you move on, because it isn't fair to the horse to repeat a lesson ad nauseum. The Circling Game teaches the horse that humans are stupid, unfeeling, and incapable of understanding them."


Its interesting, that based on my experiences of seeing many, many people lunge horses, you first paragraph and last sentence above is exactly how id have described 'normal' lunging, and the middle is how i learned to do it through parelli. I thought of it exactly opposite to you, before i came to see there is just good lunging and bad lunging, just as there is good and bad horsemanship, regardless of lables & beginners doing stuff badly.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

They have different bits for horsanalities now?? That sounds utterly ridiculous. What happened to the principle of least/lightest equipment possible?? Guess thats long out the window. And yeah well, my perceptions of it not being about putting horses in boxes... but bit them up as if... most of their original principles seem sensible to me at least, but seems they got lost in transit...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

loosie said:


> They have different bits for horsanalities now??


Yeah, it's a long way from when Linda first got excited about Pat because she saw him doing sliding stops without a bridle.

https://shop.parelli.com/catalog/product/15346-89p563000


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Last mane Event, where the Parellis were present, there was a show 'special' where you could plug in info on your horse and have it's horsenality done at half price
I bought a new saddle pad instead!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

From Joel's link:

"_If you are studying Level 2 and no longer have daily control issues, you are ready to go to the Cradle, so you can begin working on more precision. For best results, you should complete a Horsenality Profile to know which Cradle to choose._

_ If you have a Left Brain horse, you will need the maximum tongue release of the C3._

_ The Left Brain Introvert is not a very forward-going horse and tends to feel trapped when the bit applies pressure to their tongue..._"​Wow! No worries about mouth shape, or thickness of tongue, or a rider preferring constant contact vs minimal contact, or teaching the rider a good release or good seat...just enter your thoughts about a horse's personality (which I suspect says more about the RIDER's personality), and you will know which bit to use!

I've been looking at my horse's mouth and lips:










when I ought to pay Linda to tell me my horse's personality, instead! Would Bandit's horsenality allow me to ignore how fleshy his lips are, or how low the corners hang? Would it tell me that if I position a French link snaffle in the same spot as a Billy Allen snaffle, the french link will droop and bang his teeth? Would it relieve me of needing to know the difference between a chain curb strap and a leather one, or needing to know how to adjust the curb bit for proper functioning?

Oh well. Folks can call it longeing or The Circle Game, but the horse will respond to someone who understands his body language, and pressure and release - or not. I disliked Pat's 1993 edition book, and I think his stuff has gone downhill since. But it seems to me someone could look at that link on bits and "horsenality", and realize Parelli is no longer in it for the horse, if he ever was.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I can totally agree with you on this one, BSMS!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I didn't really know NH existed until I moved to the US nearly 10 years ago, I've seen a few clinics now done by the various well known names and they didn't do anything that horrified me (though one female was a very poor rider when sat on the type of horse she obviously wasn't used too) and on the whole they came over as very capable horse people
The reason so many Parelli trained horses are failures is more about the people who own them than it is about Parelli - they're people who are clutching at anything they can grab hold of to stay afloat and they still drown because they're out of their depth with the sort of horse they've gone out and bought
Re. this lunging (British terminology) method. I actually prefer that to one that involves racing a horse around and around until its too exhausted to move and then thinking you've achieved something amazing
I use verbal cues when I lunge, the only time I use body language as a cue is in the very early stages to establish where I want the horse to be and to establish the verbal cues, once that's done I can just stand still in the middle and pass the lunge line around my body if I want too - beats getting dizzy - but if I'm lungeing over poles or small jumps I'll usually walk around to give the horse more room to approach them 'straight'
I don't exactly understand all his horseanility stuff but at least its going somewhere towards educating people that no two horses are ever the same and what works with one might not work with another so I actually prefer that approach to the Cookie Cooker mentality which I hate


----------



## Textan49 (Feb 13, 2015)

camcam78910 said:


> This question has been bugging me for a few days now. I have some friends who use Parelli methods, and keep saying how different the Parelli Circling game is from regular lunging. But they never give a reason for it's difference other than Parelli using a regular lead rope. What is the difference?
> _Posted via Mobile Devic_


 Let's think about this. Here you have someone asking a very legitimate question to people who use Parelli and can't get an answer. Probably because although they swear by his methods, these people don't know themselves. The OP is looking for information to make a comparison, but Parelli just says that his method is better and his followers seem to agree because he says so.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Okay, to answer the OP, correct lounging incorporates having the horse work and respond tot hat human's aids, just like he would be expected to do under saddle.
Mindless lounging , to try and wear a horse down, is incorrect, no matter what label you apply
I read NH stuff, as I read all horse related stuff that I come across. Basic principles/methods have merit, but I raised, trained horses for many years, and never took one NH clinic, nor followed any training manuals/videos they put out there
Instead, I took clinics by many successful trainers, in any discipline i was interested in.
What really bothers me, is when the discussion of trainers comes up, all the trainers discussed, mentioned are these self promoted NH types, with so many entry level people being completely oblivious to so many, many great trainers, that just don't have that NH label attached!
They seem to limit their perception of trainers to those highly self promoted NH trainers, out there flogging their methods and trying to sell the spin offs


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Maybe try looking at the various methods instead of focusing on individual trainers
I'm not going to 'bash' Trainer A just because he happens to be 'famous' and support Trainer B because he isn't if both are using methods that work.
And realistically unless the person following that trainer is any good around horses and hasn't taken on a horse that's too challenging for them they won't succeed anyway

And please - The accepted British word (BHS & ABRS) is Lungeing also often spelt Lunging and the accepted word from the French roots is Longeing (pronounced Lungeing)


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

No one is bashing Parelli for being famous. The bashing is for giving bad advice, such as 'pay me to tell you what horsenality your horse has, and I'll sell you the right bit'. And while it is a common practice, I think lungeing, longeing or lunging a horse before every ride teaches both horse and rider a bad habit. It is NOT a good way to "preflight" your horse - the term Parelli repeatedly used in his book.

Of course, a lot of NH trainers disagree with me, and they are welcome to do so. But my horses disagree with them, too.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

There is also a huge difference between famous, and well known , due to self promotion and marketing!
Horsemen know and respect many trainers, who are their peers, who have achieved way more then some of these NH trainers, who are equally, and in fact , better known by experienced horse people then these NH trainers, but unfortunately, the audience that NH trainers mostly attract, remain unaware of, until they become more involved in the horse community and industry
My negative impressions towards Parelli have nothing to do with him being 'famous', but rather along a similar process that has me reject quasi science, like homeopathy and the like.


----------



## Joel Reiter (Feb 9, 2015)

bsms said:


> I think lunging a horse before every ride teaches both horse and rider a bad habit.


Really? Can you elaborate?

One of the reasons I lunge my horse before every ride is that I don't like to cut him in half when I first put the saddle on. I find that about three circles at a trot in each direction allows the saddle to settle so that I can snug up the cinch and it will be good for all day.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

At first I believed that Parelli's Circling was better than Normal Lunging.

Slowly I became aware that what Parelli called Normal Lunging was not properly done lunging at all. And recognized that the definition of 'Normal Lunging' was just mindlessly forcing a horse to go around and around, teaching nothing and accomplishing no good at all. 

So I still firmly believe that properly done, the Parelli Circling is better than that.

However; I firmly believe that properly done, the Parelli Circling is NOT better than properly done lunging.

I see that properly done lunging accomplishes many things, and is far above my skill level. 

What Parelli called Normal Lunging, can be compared to the newer terminology of 'Roundpenning'. Which I see as being done on or off line in a roundpen, or even online outside of a roundpen, but serving no purpose. I don't like it and don't do it.

I see properly done Circling as a good thing.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

that means that a definition of "lunging" might be appropriate.

I see there being two kinds of lunging:


Traditional = More concerned with working out pent up energy, exersizing a horse, building topline, improving gait quality. 

horse is on a LONG line which is either attached to a lunge caveson, or is run up through the inside bit ring, over the poll and attached to the outside. horse is worked in one direction, at varying gaits, for some time. the focus is keeping an even, large circle to allow the hrose to establish even, balanced gaits, and the horse gets plenty of time at each gait to get there. when the horse is stopped and expected to stay out on the circle, handler changes dirceiton (which can entail resetting the whole line attachment ) and works in the opposite direction.
the goal is for the horse to move through each gait enough that he relaxes and starts to reach forward and down a bit, stretching over the back. the handler looks for even gaits, a very slight bend (if possible. can be better achieved by lunging in this manner with an addition outside rein), and good rythm and regularity. voice commands are often used . 

Cowboy/Natural horsemanship lunging:

main concern is assessing horse's mental state, bringing it focused on handler, and quickening responsiveness.

horse is "worked" on a leadline, the lead that is normally attached to the halter. is often a 12 to 15 rope leadline. this is about getting the horse to move with a good bend in his body, stepping under with his inside hind, keeping a very alert focus on the handler, and being ready to stop, step under and turn to the other direction more quickly (hopefully encouraging the hrose to roll back on his hind some). the handler looks for the hrose to be ready and willing to follow a changing feel on the leadline, which can say foreward, back, turn all in a very short period of time. the handler uses many moves to focus the horse's mind , quicken their responses, and encourage them to step under the body and rock back on teh haunches. if the horse is already mentally present, then little or nothing of this needs doing. getting good , rythmic gaits will happen undersaddle.


where Parelli's game fits in there, I don't really see. neither is he concerned with building the quality of the gait, nor is he building the horse's ability to follow the feel of the rope.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Joel Reiter said:


> Really? Can you elaborate?
> 
> One of the reasons I lunge my horse before every ride is that I don't like to cut him in half when I first put the saddle on. I find that about three circles at a trot in each direction allows the saddle to settle so that I can snug up the cinch and it will be good for all day.


You can also do this, by placing the western saddle back enough, so it can find the 'pocket', then do cinch up loose, walk the horse a bit, and that saddle will find the ;pocket'
Too many people place a western saddle too far forward, because it seems to look 'right;, then compound that problem by locking it there , using a breast collar
I very,very seldom lounge a broke horse before riding, including after they have been tied up all night, trail riding out west
Not saying it is necessarily wrong, but just that one should not 'need' to lunge a broke horse before riding.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

anndankev said:


> At first I believed that Parelli's Circling was better than Normal Lunging.
> 
> Slowly I became aware that what Parelli called Normal Lunging was not properly done lunging at all. And recognized that the definition of 'Normal Lunging' was just mindlessly forcing a horse to go around and around, teaching nothing and accomplishing no good at all.
> 
> ...


If you have been using 'normal lunging to mindlessly circle a horse, that is your fault, and not as to how it should be done correctlY!
I don't think any trainer, using lunging, lougeing , or whatever, advocates using it to try and wear a horse down, letting that horse do whatever he pleases, in whatever frame he wants, going at any gait the horse chooses, and then just having that horse go around mindlessly
I have started horses for many years, without ever lounging them first. Many working cowhorse trainers still don't lunge horses, as part of training.
Go to a reining or working cowhorse show, and I would be very, very surprised if any of those trainers were lunging a horse for warmup-that remains the domain of western pl and HUS riders
If you lunged, lounged or whatever term you want to apply, to a horse, out west in a staging area, 'might as well stick dude or city slicker on your forehead!
You don't need to lunge a horse to build top line. That is better done riding, doing suppling exercises.
It does have some application, bitting a horse up gradually


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> that means that a definition of "lunging" might be appropriate.
> 
> I see there being two kinds of lunging:
> 
> ...


Been watching too many colt starter challenge riders and NH trainers, Tiny!
Ever observed as to how lounging is used , in a western pl training program for instance? Might be surprises as to how 'traditional ' it is!


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

"traditional lunging" isn't limited to English riding. if Western Pleaseure uses this, that's fine. I named the other so-called type of lunging "cowboy/NH" only because I couldn't think of a better name for it.

and, I haven't watched ENOUGH colt starting videos, actually.


----------



## palogal (May 30, 2008)

The 'circling game' was made by an idiot to treat a horse like a puppy and have the horse run mindlessly in circles with expensive ropes, accomplishing nothing but irritating the horse.

Lunging is actual exercise with a real purpose. You can get a lot done with lunging for a lot of different purposes. Lunging is a big girl technique.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Joel Reiter said:


> Really? Can you elaborate?
> 
> One of the reasons I lunge my horse before every ride is that I don't like to cut him in half when I first put the saddle on. I find that about three circles at a trot in each direction allows the saddle to settle so that I can snug up the cinch and it will be good for all day.


Sure!

When I lead a horse out and tack him up, and groom him, etc, I'm getting a feel for how he is doing today. If he is nervous, or jumpy, or acting distracted or bothered...I'll know. I don't need to lunge him to find out.

When I put the saddle on, I walk him in a couple of figure 8s before I drop the cinch and bring it under his body. A couple of figure 8s with a totally loose saddle shifts it behind the shoulders sufficiently. No need to cut him in half. I know from past riding how tight it will need to be, but the big thing is to let it settle on his back. With both Mia & Bandit, a couple of figure 8s will suffice to do that. I do find I put the western saddle further back than a lot of folks say to put it, but since I ride the same 3 horses (and usually 2 since Trooper and I are not pals)...I know.

Why do I think it is a bad habit? Well, I think a part of getting a horse to trust you is done by being reasonable. I suppose a lot of horses get used to it, but I don't see anything reasonable - from the horse's perspective - about me making him trot or canter in circles, often with me using a whip (or carrot stick) to enforce my dominance.

Maybe it is my horses. Mia would do a figure 8, from the saddle, just fine. Maybe a second one. If I asked her to do 3 in a row, she's literally turn her head and stare at me as if to ask, "_Are YOU lost? Do you need a MAP? Do you think you are stuck on a round-about, doing circles until you figure out which exit to take?_"

Bandit isn't quite that way, but he starts hardening his trot and maybe giving a headshake if we do a pattern too many times. Give him 100 feet of straight motion, then he'll do a turn for a figure 8 willingly. He seems to accept things better if I teach him in the open instead of an arena. And a horse learns better, IMHO, if it makes sense to him.

I know a lot of horsemen, including many with excellent records of achievement vastly superior to anything I can imagine - who say it doesn't matter. The horse should just do it because you say so. But if I'm not a natural horseman who plays games with his horses, my personal philosophy of riding says what I ask should have a purpose behind it, and if the horse can understand that purpose, all the better. 

Parelli wrote:

"_How long should you laterally longe a horse is a different question. You should laterally longe a horse until he shows you respect and you are satisfied that his disposition and energy levels are something you can handle when you get on his back....So my suggestion is to laterally longe your horse until you feel your horse's respect system is adequate._"

He also wrote:

"_Lateral longing techniques are the surest and quickest ways to get your horse to understand you, respect you, and respond to you as he would to one of his own kind._"

I think that is bogus. I don't think a horse learns "respect" by longeing or by round pens. I think it learns the human is dominant at best, and psycho at the worst.

And if my horse's "respect system" isn't in place BEFORE I saddle, I've really screwed up! Heck, we work on that every time I set foot in the corral, or lead him anywhere, or clean his feet or groom him or put a bit in his mouth or...from the moment we can see each other, we are working on...well, not respect. I don't know if horses really "respect" things. But from the moment we meet for the day, even if we are not going to ride, we are working on what is mutually acceptable behavior.

There are ways I like him to behave. There are ways he likes me to behave. We both need to learn to work within the limits the other imposes. There are exceptions. If a car is coming fast toward us, then his views don't count until we are out of danger. But because I only do that when I feel it is really important, he seems to understand it.

THAT is how I've seen my horses behave with each other. When I first go to feed them, Bandit really feels he ought to get first dibs - and he'll fight to get it. But 5 minutes later, either of the other two horses can walk up and he'll let them take the food. And they both seem to accept it, and let him take the first few minutes at HIS pile, and only THEN show dominance by making him move. Bandit is the low guy on the totem pole, but even the low guy has SOME rights. With other horses. And I think that principle applies to humans, and makes the humans reasonable and trust-worthy to the horse.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

If I had to lunge any one of my broke horses, every time before I rode him/her, I have not successfully trained that horse
For me, lunging is something you use to start a horse under saddle, to varying amounts, from just a few times, to perhaps the first month of training, if bitting him up, using lunging. It is also useful for the first few times, taking a green horse to a show, having him get used to that show scene, without needing to get into his mouth
After that, I sure can get a heck more done, just riding him, doing suppling exercises, being able to use legs also, then I ever can, standing on the ground, with that horse just going in circles , no matter how responsive to voice commands, it is still just circles , JMO


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

what is "laterally lunging"?


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> that means that a definition of "lunging" might be appropriate.
> 
> I see there being two kinds of lunging:
> 
> ...



Parelli's Circle game, as I understand it, fits into your definitions as a component of the second 'kind' Cowboy/NH. 

The concept I took away from the 7 games is that the first 3 were the building blocks, which when combined with purpose and inflections were used in the remaining 4. And beyond.

Then going forward, using all of them in a fluid and flowing manner creating a total picture. 

I did not feel at the time so long ago, nor do I today, that the intention of the 3 or the 7 was to be carried out in any kind of sequential order, or separated mechanically. Not to: do this one, stop, do that one, stop...

I apologize for my inability to say things in a way that gets my meaning across. Evidently I am no good at it, as others seem to think I said I send a horse in endless, mindless circles.

Here is another post of mine that describes my saddling technique:



> ... I do not lunge. I doubt if I ever have circled a horse around me more than 2x without some sort of change, as in direction-gait-or moving along (such as circling through a line of cones for example).
> 
> When I do ride, my saddling and tightening the cinch routine is to fasten the cinch only snug enough not to roll, then doing maybe 10 minutes of short line work. Moving around at a trot once or twice, tighten, other way-tighten. Move HQ and FH over, tighten if needed, a few steps sideways, turn them around...
> 
> By then the saddle is comfortably seated and tightened, and the horse and I are on the same mental wavelength as well.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> what is "laterally lunging"?


According to Parelli's book (1993), it is non-predatory lunging. "Normal lunging" is running a horse in circles until it is exhausted. Parelli's 'lateral lunging', which may be what he called it before calling it The Circle Game, is "_based on the horse's natural movements, things horses in a herd would do to get other horses to respect them and respond to them_". NOt sure if it includes biting and kicking...:think:

What does "respect" mean? 

"*A respectful horse is alert to his handler's every movement and knows his place in the pecking order. You first; him second....Let's assume by now that your horse no longer considers you a predator. Now, how do you get him to not think of you as a gunsel, somebody to laugh at?*"

Thus the purpose of "lateral lunging" is to make your horse stop laughing at you. It is to teach him who the Boss is.

IOW, establishing dominance. But SAYING "I'll show you how to dominate your horse" wouldn't sell tickets, so he (and many other 'natural horsemen') call it "respect".

I don't believe in being a woosie around horses. Nor do I believe horses are naturally inclined to "laugh at" a reasonably competent rider. I believe in mutually acceptable courses of action.

For example, I want to go right past a scary thing. My horse wants to turn and run. The first isn't acceptable to him - that flapping thing with strange smells is SCARY. But running away isn't acceptable to ME. So rather than provoke a fight, we might stand there for a minute or two. When it doesn't do anything threatening, the horse may be ready to walk past. Or we may make a 50' detour on slack reins. Or we may TROT past. Everyone knows it is harder for a scary trash can to chase down a horse who starts from a trot! If it is truly hideous - someone spraying bug spray, trying to poison poor horses - we may back up 50 feet, or turn and WALK back 100 feet. When far enough away to dismount safely, I may do so - then lead him, step by step, until he accepts it is not scary. That builds a track record of successful decisions, which is the real basis of trust.

I want my horse's trust. Parelli wants his horse's submission. Bandit arrived here submissive enough, but still afraid of a lot of things. He's getting calmer - or perhaps, more confident in himself and his rider's judgment. My approach would not work well on a ranch, but then, I'm not on a ranch. Nor am I a 20 year old cowboy, nor someone who grew up on horseback. As Littauer wrote, *it is important for a rider to understand his own limitations*. And I have plenty of limitations!

I also have a tiny arena, more a glorified round pen, so most of my schooling needs to come in the open, on paved roads or trails. I think it is reasonable to be more cautious about provoking a fight when on a paved road.

My objections to Parelli are two fold: One, he is teaching dominance and calling it respect. And two, the people hearing him are hearing 'respect' and thus not learning the dominance. So they end up forever hung between, neither establishing dominance (which works fine with horses, at least most of them) nor genuine trust (because they are going about it the wrong way).

Add in the marketing, and giving things a different name so he can pretend they are new - carrot stick instead of short whip, for example - and I think he does more harm than good. I also resent his describing something well established - working a horse on a lunge line - as merely running the horse in circles, so Pat can save the day by making it meaningful.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

How is this thread about people having to lunge their horses before they ride them?
Many top riders have a groom lunge their horse to warm it up before they get on it to do the more intensive schooling/training work - it has nothing to do with wearing the horse out, they don't want the horse worn out, its about collective time spent working rather than standing in a stable or in a paddock
There's a lot more to riding than hitting the trails.


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

In respect to horses, SUBMISSION and RESPECT are very closely related. So DOMINANCE and RESPECT are also closely intertwined.

MANY trainers, in the early stages, use FEAR to begin their training. (I mean, fear in the horse, not in the trainer!) The horse fears, then learns from that, or through it, that the trainer somehow has "what it takes" to survive.

The Circling Game is nothing more than a test (to me) to see whether your horse will keep a command (to keep walking) for a short time, or whether, the moment you've turned your back, he tunes you out. 

As for the famous Carrot Stick: when it first came out, I think everyone thought it was stupid, but it made you laugh, and that was the point. The whip was no longer a thing to fear, or to punish with, but a tool, with good intentions. So much horsemanship is limited to confrontation, even warlike ("win" and "lose") when, at least after the initial training, there are many other ways to relate to your horses.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Why does the word dominate have such a bad vibe to some people?

We have do 'dominate' football players for their position. Whenever ESPN talks about JJ Watt, he is a dominate player. He is not considered a dirty player, but he is dominate at his position. He is highly successful, yes?

My mother raising two teenage boys and a teenage girl was dominate in every aspect of the word. She also managed to raise three children who became successful in life. She took no **** from us, and we all respected her for it. And we respected her to her dying day. By making us tow the line we didn't get into stupid life changing crapola.

I guess people would claim, in a derogatory way, that I am dominate over my Arab. But he has turned into a **** fine mount. When he wants to shy or spook at something, am I being 'dominate' when I communicate back to him that we are going forward, or am I giving him a reason in the long term to trust my judgement? I may be dominate for the moment, but it is to build trust for the long term.

I have set the bar high for him (and me) and make him 'tow the line' because I will not settle mediocrity.

So being dominate isn't a bad thing if done in a humane way.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Those who wish to dominate their horse can do so. It obviously gets results. But dominance and respect have little to do with each other.

I spent 25 years in the military. I had a lot of commanders, but few leaders. That is the difference between dominance and respect. 

I can teach a horse I'm dominant in a round pen. I cannot teach him to respect me or to have confidence in my judgment and good intentions. Seems to me a lot of folks settle for being dominant, and then they hope trust and confidence will follow.

A person can dominate a horse and get him to obey without ever getting the horse's "buy-in". That is how Bandit was ridden. His previous rider was successful with a philosophy of "just force him past things". But just being forced past things did not make Bandit confident, only submissive. Submissive, yet still scared. I want confident, not submissive. And I want eager, not willing. And I think the round pen / lunge line dominance training gets in the way of teaching confident and eager.

I'm a nobody, so folks will have to do things as they wish and as they think will work best. But I think Parelli and the NH trainers screw up and either do not know the difference between dominance and respect, or else they DO know the difference and are lying to get sales.

Lunge work for specific training goals, teaching commands or teaching a way of moving, makes sense - but it doesn't need to go on forever. Parelli teaches to use it every time you ride, to both evaluate and reinforce your dominance over your horse - who will laugh at you behind your back if you don't.

Seems odd, though, that someone would THINK their horses laugh at them. It is all rooted in a theory of winner/loser, of master/servant. It is a feudal approach to riding. Parelli claims to avoid thinking like a predator, then he immediately does so. I think he misses the point. And if I cannot figure out a different approach, then I'll quit riding horses and go back to dirt bikes.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Well, one didn't have to spend 25 in the military to know what leadership is. Just work for 25 years anywhere and one will find good leaders and bad leaders.

But the boss, or leader, still has to be the King Kahuna and make the decisions. There were many aspects of many jobs I held over the years I didn't like. But I didn't balk at those duties. If, after awhile I figured out a better way to do some task I would take it up with a higher up

Same with horses. When my horse does his job (going by new objects) and then one day balks at something, he is telling me something and I listen because he has done a great job thus far.

So, my horse will go by mail boxes, trash cans, balloons, babies in strollers and people with umbrellas. Would he prefer at times not to? Sure, but if he went past all these things on a Monday, **** sure he is going by them on Tuesday even if he wants to play the , "I have never seen THAT BEFORE" card. Which is his personal favorite game. I know it is his favorite game, and I am not playing it.

We are dominate over them when we throw saddles on our horses. Unless you have special powers and can communicate to a horse in such a way as to ask him if he wants ridden on any particular day, you are being dominate, because you are giving him no choice.

We are dominate even feeding horses....when and how much feed/hay they get and when they get it.

So what is so wrong about the word 'dominate'?

As I stated in my last post, one can be dominate yet fair which is a far cry from being a dominate jackass.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

We do not dominate our horses by feeding them X amount. Not unless you feed them a lot, then force them away when the food is half gone, so you can show them who the boss is. You simply make the decisions that belong to you.

What I've argued for is MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE behavior. If my horse wants to turn around and run, we're going to fight. If I want to kick him and just make him go up to something scary, we're going to fight. But if I play my cards right, I'll get him past the scary thing on slack reins and with no explosion.

When I first got Mia, I was told to whip her butt really hard if she refused to go forward. I tried it, and the harder I whipped - and I'm not a weakling - the faster we went. Backwards. You see, she could make decisions too, and she had four feet on the ground and I had zero. It took YEARS before I discovered that when she really didn't want to go forward, I could get her to go forward...by involving her in the decision making process.

"_But the boss, or leader, still has to be the King Kahuna and make the decisions._"

I've watched many a squadron commander think so, then wonder why things didn't work out the way he wanted. That was because the people on the bottom have a vote too, even in the military. When they don't trust "KING KAHUNA" to make the right decisions, they sabotage his decisions and often implement their own. They "balk". They "fuss". And often, in the end, King Kahuna is hung out to dry. Or is replaced as the commander, because HIS commander realizes the King doesn't get the results.

Folks can ride their own horses any way they want. Some take a very dominant approach and are happy with the results. They are welcome to enjoy their life and their riding. I have to ride within MY limitations AND MY philosophy of riding. And since I'm happy with the results I'm seeing in my horses, folks ought to be happy for me.

But for Parelli - he SELLS his product based on it being about "respect", which he then defines the same as dominance. He claims to be using "lateral thinking", but his method is firmly rooted in direct-line approaches. I find him dishonest. That, or guilty of fuzzy thinking.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

jaydee said:


> How is this thread about people having to lunge their horses before they ride them?
> Many top riders have a groom lunge their horse to warm it up before they get on it to do the more intensive schooling/training work - it has nothing to do with wearing the horse out, they don't want the horse worn out, its about collective time spent working rather than standing in a stable or in a paddock.


LOL, for me it has nothing to do with trying to wear a horse out, anyone who has owned Arabs knows that is a stupid idea from the get go. I never did get lunging before you ride, until I bought Fergie, then suddenly it became clear, you lunge her until you saw the brain engage, and once that happened, time to get on and ride. Now we know each other well enough that most times I do not need to lunge her first. It's all about knowing the horse you are working with, and finding the best and safest way of getting to where you want to be.





jaydee said:


> There's a lot more to riding than hitting the trails.


That's for sure, great for those who want to do that, but so many other ways to enjoy horses, each needing different skill sets, understanding, tack.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Beling said:


> In respect to horses, SUBMISSION and RESPECT are very closely related. So DOMINANCE and RESPECT are also closely intertwined.
> 
> MANY trainers, in the early stages, use FEAR to begin their training. (I mean, fear in the horse, not in the trainer!) The horse fears, then learns from that, or through it, that the trainer somehow has "what it takes" to survive.
> 
> ...


And, many trainers, esp working cowhorse and reiners have an assistant warm the horse up under saddle, before they get on an do serious schooling.
Inf act, my son had this type of job one summer, while going to University, warming up colts for the trainer. Some of these trainers 
are riding 10 to 15 horses a day, so no way they can warm all these colts up under saddle and cool them down themselves
Using round pen work correctly,achieves same thing as that circling game
Not saying there is anything wrong with using lunging, as I use it myself, at various times.
However, if you HAVE to lunge a horse each and every time before you get on, not just to hit trails, or rider at a show, or school in an arena, then I do think your training program is stuck in one spot
Please don't insinuate that anyone who does not lunge horses, plays circling games, ect, has horse working out of fear, ort with holes-that is simply not true
Some of the best horses that I turned out, in my younger days, never learned to lunge, never were round penned, yet I could ride them anywhere, won numerous awards with them, turned them into youth and non pro horses, had those horses working out of trust, and becoming 'family'
There is more than one way to train a horse, and some revolve on never relying on pre ride lunging, esp after that horse is going well under saddle
I prefer to have ahorse any day, that I can saddle up and ride, whether at a show, out on he trails or down the road, versus one I 'HAVE to ,lunge before I/m comfortable getting on


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> LOL, for me it has nothing to do with trying to wear a horse out, anyone who has owned Arabs knows that is a stupid idea from the get go. I never did get lunging before you ride, until I bought Fergie, then suddenly it became clear, you lunge her until you saw the brain engage, and once that happened, time to get on and ride. Now we know each other well enough that most times I do not need to lunge her first. It's all about knowing the horse you are working with, and finding the best and safest way of getting to where you want to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And, not all of us either just hit the trails, or just show.
No, I have not gone to World shows, but have put quite a few ROMs and superiors on horses, in various events, and also have trail ridden many,, many mountain miles
Thus, the idea that if you don't do lots of lounging, circling, ect, you are just somehow 'cowboying it, with those horses never having any high degree of schooling or finesse, is insulting.
I trial rode Smilie and Einstein a lot. I also have superiors, year end hi pt performance buckles , ROMs, ect on those same horses.
Smilie had lunging used more, esp showing her as a two year old
Einstein never was taught to Lunge, yet earned Supreme Member of the Breed, Has ApHCC Superiors in western pl, western riding , trail, HUS, and won the high pt performance buckle for our regional ApHC club, all of his three years as a jr horse. I can also guarantee that as being referred to as my third and favorite son, by my two human sons, he was never trained using fear or intimidation!


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Whipping a horse to go forward is being a dominate jackass. I am sorry you had to try that on Mia. I haven't had to resort to whipping. I have never seen it work well and it tends to leave a hole or two in a horse's training.

I am not a fan of the trainer in question, so wether he is a dominate jackass or a dominate leader I could not tell you. 

So I will ask again, what is wrong with being dominate and fair?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Smilie said:


> And, not all of us either just hit the trails, or just show.
> No, I have not gone to World shows, but have put quite a few ROMs and superiors on horses, in various events, and also have trail ridden many,, many mountain miles
> Thus, the idea that if you don't do lots of lounging, circling, ect, you are just somehow 'cowboying it, with those horses never having any high degree of schooling or finesse, is insulting.
> I trial rode Smilie and Einstein a lot. I also have superiors, year end hi pt performance buckles , ROMs, ect on those same horses.
> ...


I'm sorry I have no idea how this is relevant to my post that you quoted.....

I pointed out my experience and how it changed my view, and then agreed that there are many ways of enjoying our horses.

You seem to be attacking a view that I did not share


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

We have been round and round before, using the verb to dominant, it all it's oppressive connotation, versus being the dominant or alpha entity in your relationship with your horse.
Yes, herd dynamics change, as new herd members are added, horses age, ect, but that has no real application to you and your horse, as you are not part of that herd, with changing dynamics, but have to remain a constant fair , clear and firm leader
If you don't lead, the horse will-it is his very nature as a herd animal.
To be dominant to your horse, does not mean that you gain that position using fear or force, but that when your horse 'asks', " are you still the leader?" He gets a clear 'yes' in reply.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> I'm sorry I have no idea how this is relevant to my post that you quoted.....
> 
> I pointed out my experience and how it changed my view, and then agreed that there are many ways of enjoying our horses.
> 
> You seem to be attacking a view that I did not share


Sorry, it has been along day, rode another drill team ride with CHarlie, then had the family for supper, so might have hit the wrong post , for a quote, just skimming along!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Nothing wrong with being dominant and fair. Works very well for a lot of people.

Pretending one does NOT use a dominant approach, so one can sell stuff to other people, is dishonest. I think Parelli is dishonest in his approach.

I think a lot of his marketing is oriented to people I can fully understand - folks who got into horses in middle age, not sure how to go about it, maybe having been hurt before (I got hurt at the end of a bolt on Mia a couple of months after I started), overhorsed...and he markets his approach to horses as the answer for them. And me, because I was EXACTLY the sort of person he sells to. Folks who have lived around horses their entire lives, or who started off when young and fearless, aren't his target audience. The ones without experience who are overwhelmed and struggling to get their head above water - WE are the ones who are ripe for the picking.

Heck, I spent the first 3 years insisting on riding bitless, because....bits are CRUEL! Of course, I'm now fond of curb bits, and hope to try a new one with Bandit tomorrow...but I had a lot of learning to do, and Parelli's program would have dug my hole deeper.

Mia did not need daily lunging. She did benefit from a few weeks of it, by a pro (who was also teaching me), for a specific purpose.

With a lot of help from a good Australian saddle, I survived a lot of dumb things on Mia. A couple of years ago, after reading Tom Robert's books, based on his experiences starting with the British Cavalry before WW One, I began to experiment with getting my horse involved in some of the decision making. I found Mia responded much better when I included her, and tried to guide her thinking rather than substitute my own. 

When I got a chance to switch her for Bandit, I took it. I'd be overhorsed with Mia if I rode her tomorrow. She's now a broodmare, and when she isn't too pregnant, will be ridden by experienced riders in open county - a much better solution for her! And me, too.

What I'm discovering with Bandit (I think, final results are not in) is that a marginal rider, with uncertainty and plagued with doubt, can feel more comfortable and trusting by taking what George Morris referred to as 'the back door' - giving my horse freedom within certain boundaries, and keeping his mind engaged by insisting he use it. If he always has an alternative that is acceptable to me and him both, then we don't have explosions. Maybe a short hop at times, but none of the spinning through someone's yard like we had at the beginning.

My guess is that a lot of older and less confident riders, including others with minimal riding skills (like me), might benefit from choosing a less dominant approach. I don't remember the book, but there is a theory of raising kids that says you get less explosions if you give kids a choice between alternatives you can live with, and let them choose which one. I think that might work as a safer but very RIDING oriented approach for folks like me - and I'm in the heart of the audience Parelli markets to.

But there is nothing wrong with being dominant AND FAIR with a horse. It probably takes more skill than I have, but it works well for a lot of people. And horses. I'm just not up to it.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

There's another kind of lunging too, one that horses don't seem to mind. I occasionally lunge horses just to exercise them. It's like putting them on a treadmill. Say we've done two conditioning rides this week and I don't have time to do a third, but I'd really like to keep building on the fitness level I've worked up to. So instead of going out and riding for an hour, I can lunge them on a very big circle for a half hour, doing lots of trotting and cantering. I've not had horses resent this. They're not working mentally, and they seem to understand this is just about exercise. This is not a stressful thing, they usually just relax and require very little incentive to keep working. But of course they already have a good level of fitness and this is more of a "tempo" workout. 

I've never found this type of mindless lunging to "undo" any training, or to upset the horses. Lunging in small circles on a regular basis can be harmful to joints, but an occasional big-circle lunge workout on a well-conditioned horse that has already built up strong tendons and bones does no harm. This is the most common type of lunging I do once we've progressed past the initial training of a horse. 

When starting a horse, I also use lunging to get the horse used to saddle and bridle. But I want every horse I work with to know how to lunge. That's because sometimes when I take a horse out, I have a suspicion they are slightly "off" somewhere. Many times I don't have another person available to trot a horse out for me, so lunging is the best way I can evaluate a horse for lameness. 

I don't find that lunging has anything to do with respect or how a horse responds to a person under saddle. Some of the best lungers and round penners I know are not very responsive under saddle. I've observed some horses that were calm and lovely on a lunge "evaluation" go out and buck off the rider or bolt. 

I agree that dominance and having a horse tuned into you do not necessarily go hand in hand. Dominant may not be a "bad" word, but many people turn it into one. Seeing how horses respond to people whose primary focus is being dominant has given me a bad taste for it. Most often, dominant is synonymous with unfair. Many people with a focus on being dominant or remaining dominant will react to horse behavior without knowing why the horse did something. Such as the horse tripped and landed on their foot, so the horse must be punished. But horses resent unfairness just as we would resent it if we tripped and stepped on someone and they punched us in the face. I believe horses tend to mistrust people who treat them unfairly, even if they obey them.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I read this last night, and maybe it was because I was thinking about this thread at the time, but it seems to me it applies. If so, then Baucher in the 1800s was using an idea I've been struggling to figure out over the last couple of years:"Therefore, everywhere - out-of-doors or in the haute ecole - success with horses is to him who applies this maxim of Baucher...

*'Let him think that he is our master, then he is our slave.' There dwells an eternal equestrian truth!*

'_The horse is the sole master of his forces; even with all of our vigor, by himself, the rider is powerless to increase the horse's forces. Therefor, it is for the horse to employ his forces in his own way, for himself to determine the manner of that employment so as to best fulfill the demands of his riders. If the rider tries to do it all, the horse may permit him to do so, but the horse merely drifts, and limits his efforts to those which the rider demands. On the contrary, if the horse knows that he must rely on himself, he uses himself completely, with all of his energy.'_" - 5 May 1922

-- Horse Training Outdoors and High School, Etienne Beudant (1931)​There are things my horse may want to do that are unacceptable to me, and I should oppose those with any force needed - ducking & turning & running away, bucking, bolting, etc. But I need to understand that there are things I may want to do - things that seem simple enough to me - that my horse considers unacceptable. But we are rarely confronted with situations where only two options exist, so finding a third and fourth, and deciding together with my horse which to take, prevents explosions. My horse learns to talk with me, because he knows I'll listen and take him seriously. I'm learning Bandit is a sensible fellow at heart, and doesn't view our rides as a competition between us. It would never occur to Bandit to laugh at me or denigrate me. Not unless I first provoke a spirit of animosity and grow it inside him.

It seems to me true horsemanship is working WITH the horse, not ON the horse. There are a lot of specific things that the horse needs to be trained on HOW to do, before he can willingly do them FOR the rider. Those are legitimate teaching and riding goals. Using a round pen or a lunge line to teach specific things is entirely fair, as is using one with a bad mannered horse who needs to learn humans are formidable if provoked. There are riders who bully horses, but there are horses who bully their rider. A horse who is used to bullying his rider needs to first learn that the rider sets limits and has wishes that need to be respected.

But unlike Parelli, I don't see that as a suitable lesson to continue for life. Horses have great memories. Once they learn it, move on, and teach them something else - that it is possible to work WITH their rider, together. And maybe even *'Let him think that he is our master, then he is our slave.' *If we are not capable of out-thinking our horse, we shouldn't try riding...

Just to add a comment on gottatrot's comment: Dominant AND FAIR works very well for many horses. It is the unfair part that ruins a horse.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

It seems to go back to disliking a term because some people have used it out of context
Horse's like humans actually need a leader, it gives them a sense of security to know they have a horse or a human they can rely on and trust to do the right thing. 
The leader is always going to be the dominant party but that has nothing to do with beating to poop out of your horse or your human team - a horse like a human chooses to follow the true dominant person but will avoid the one they fear if they can
I found PP's method to establish 'respect' in his circling game too confrontational for my taste but a horse that understands why it has to go where its asked to go is much easier to deal with than one that's always questioning the human


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Just to add a comment on gottatrot's comment: Dominant AND FAIR works very well for many horses. It is the unfair part that ruins a horse.
^^^^^
This I completely agree with.
Horses understand, and in fact, feel secure in firm, but fair boundaries and clear leadership.
They do not understand inconsistencies and exceptions, nor do they understand the idea of harbouring a grudge, a person using anger in correction, yelling, ect
Pick on a stallion, in particular, versus just correcting him once, firmly, and then going on as if nothing happened, creates a resentful horse


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

FWIW, I like to think in terms of "fair boundaries". I think horses do best when allowed choices within firm & fair boundaries. If you need to go toe-to-hoof to set those boundaries, then by all means, do so. But I also believe "_If the rider tries to do it all, the horse may permit him to do so, but the horse merely drifts, and limits his efforts to those which the rider demands._" And my experience with Mia was that a horse who is mentally drifting is far more dangerous to the rider than one who is mentally engaged and supporting the rider's goals!

I think the essence of western riding is setting firm boundaries, acceptable to the rider, which the horse is then free to work within. But it seems Baucher, in France in the 1800s, believed the same thing - so maybe it isn't western riding, but "good" riding anywhere? I honestly believe horses are much smarter than many give them credit for being. In some ways, smarter than their riders, or at least, THIS rider!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

bsms said:


> FWIW, I like to think in terms of "fair boundaries". I think horses do best when allowed choices within firm & fair boundaries. If you need to go toe-to-hoof to set those boundaries, then by all means, do so. But I also believe "_If the rider tries to do it all, the horse may permit him to do so, but the horse merely drifts, and limits his efforts to those which the rider demands._" And my experience with Mia was that a horse who is mentally drifting is far more dangerous to the rider than one who is mentally engaged and supporting the rider's goals!
> 
> I think the essence of western riding is setting firm boundaries, acceptable to the rider, which the horse is then free to work within. But it seems Baucher, in France in the 1800s, believed the same thing - so maybe it isn't western riding, but "good" riding anywhere? I honestly believe horses are much smarter than many give them credit for being. In some ways, smarter than their riders, or at least, THIS rider!


Well, it all goes back to making the right thing easy and the wrong thing hard-a cornerstone in horse training principles
Horses aren't born knowing what is 'correct behavior' far as interaction with either their herd peers or with humans
They are simply creatures of habit, and learn by consistent repetition , which includes fair and clear boundaries

It is for the human to make the right choice both easy, clear and to have the simple clear reward of release from pressure, when the horse makes an attempt to comply
You also make the wrong choice hard.
The horse then has the choice to do the right thing (providing he understands that request ), or, chose to do the wrong thing, and thus find that choice has negative consequences.


----------

