# This is why good training is important



## gigem88 (May 10, 2011)

Thanks for sharing! I show western pleasure and my trainer's lessons are all about the dressage! She is even getting me to show in dressage this year on top of the western classes.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

mildot said:


> I'm not posting this in the dressage forum, because most everyone who frequents it already understands this subject...Notice how the focus is on developing the musculature of the horse to make his life longer and healthier. THAT, not a pretty picture of a rider in tails and a top hat, is what dressage is really all about...


Is there any evidence that lifting the back/ further collection is effective in extending a horse's life? Is there evidence that a dressage horse lives and competes longer than a hunter, or cow horse?

A rider who rides his horse down a trail for a couple of hours a week puts almost no strain on his horse. I would expect top speeds and highest jumps would decline with age - goodness knows it has for me! - but is there evidence that dressage results in a horse living longer and healthier than other forms of riding?


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

I don't have an answer for you since I have no access to such data.

However, I think any classical dressage instructor who is knowledgeable about equine biomechanics would be happy to discuss what they know with you or me.

I, personally, find it logical that a horse that lives most of his life carrying a rider on a strong back, with a relaxed mind and supple joints should live a better life with less stress and injury than one that must do the same work with a sagging, hollow back and mental tension.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

I'd also like to see the proof that collection extends a horse's useful life. You have to keep in mind that horses that by the time a horse gets to a level where collection is needed, they are already elite athletes. They are ridden harder and more often than your average pleasure horse. It might be that collection really helps horses performing at that level, but I question whether it makes a difference for the average horse.

And the reason why I question that is because I know many horses - school horses, trail horses, gaited horses, Standardbred pacers - even some show jumpers - who were never taught to round up and were still sound and healthy into their 20's. Watch an Arabian show sometime - all the horses are quite hollow. So do Arabians break down when they're older?

Also, people often forget that it's not just a choice between being round or hollow. In between those two extremes is the neutral frame - that's how horses normally hold themselves, and it's not bad for them the way being hollow can be.


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

ponyboy said:


> I'd also like to see the proof that collection extends a horse's useful life.


Faerber is not talking about collection. He's talking about connection.





ponyboy said:


> Also, people often forget that it's not just a choice between being round or hollow. In between those two extremes is the neutral frame - that's how horses normally hold themselves, and it's not bad for them the way being hollow can be.


True. But horses naturally do not have a person on their back. Round > neutral > hollow when someone is astride.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Ok - this is about just getting a horse to use its back, to build strength and muscle along the spine and abdominal region in order to carry a rider more efficiently. NOT have the horse work in collection. There is a difference. 
Teaching a horse to round and swing the back, is the absolute basic stepping stone of dressage and the development of collection, they are not one and the same. 
One would expect a 3 year old with a few months under saddle, to be able to lift and swing the back for short bursts of work at a time. It is not something that only elite dressage horses do. 

Please, understand the difference before firing bullets.


----------



## cakemom (Jul 4, 2010)

I agree with Kayty here. My Greenie is learning to work from the rear, and she's 4, it's not a matter of one discipline or the other, it's basic mechanics. Like, life with your legs, not your back....it's a healthier way to work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The statement by mildot was:_"for those who may think that classical dressage has nothing to offer the casual/trail/non-competitive rider or horse.

Notice how the focus is on developing the musculature of the horse to make his life longer and healthier. THAT...is what dressage is really all about."_​That sure looks like a statement that dressage training would offer a trail rider a way to help his horse live longer and be healthier than other forms of riding. And while regular training may help a horse live longer or healthier, even that seems hard to prove. I'm a jogger, but horses tend to stay in better shape than sedentary humans, and a running horse is extended anyways. The common causes of horse death are 1) Old age, 2) colic, 3) accidents and 4) founder.

Horse Disease

Is there any evidence that a slightly hollow back impacts horse health?

Working from the rear helps with some things, such as an efficient tight turn. But suggesting it makes your horse live longer or healthier seems a bit of a leap.


----------



## brackenbramley (May 29, 2011)

I found that video really informative and enjoyable and to have the visual prompts with phrases and expressions we all know i think was very helpful  thanks for sharing x


----------



## cakemom (Jul 4, 2010)

I think the point the OP is making is what is learned in classical dressage is not about the competition, it's about the form and the way a classically trained dressage horse travels and works. I, by no means, desire to be a dressage rider, but every lesson I do starts with dressage, after we stretch.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Loyalty09 (Apr 23, 2011)

Loved the speaker, loved the video. Thanks for sharing!

I will be returning to it many times.


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

bsms said:


> The statement by mildot was:_"for those who may think that classical dressage has nothing to offer the casual/trail/non-competitive rider or horse.
> 
> Notice how the focus is on developing the musculature of the horse to make his life longer and healthier. THAT...is what dressage is really all about."_​That sure looks like a statement that dressage training would offer a trail rider a way to help his horse live longer and be healthier than other forms of riding. And while regular training may help a horse live longer or healthier, even that seems hard to prove. I'm a jogger, but horses tend to stay in better shape than sedentary humans, and a running horse is extended anyways. The common causes of horse death are 1) Old age, 2) colic, 3) accidents and 4) founder.
> 
> ...


This really can't be treated as an experiment as there are too many variables. Just like humans tend to live better, healthier lives when they are stronger and fitter, my hypothesis is that horses do so too.

In addition to that, I find pleasure in working my horse in a way that makes her more pleasing to me and to herself. There is a distinct and sharp change in feeling in your seat when the back comes up and lifts you. Suddenly sitting the trot is effortless and you feel about a foot taller in the saddle at the canter. Even at the walk I can tell when she's round because her hips sway side to side in a rhythmic powerful way that is not present in the weak walk that she starts out with when she's cold from being stabled all day.

Even a horse whose job in life is to just walk on down the trail will do his job better when his muscles are well developed to carry a rider and his joints are supple and flexible. Better is better, even if the degree is small.

If someone believes that the basics of classical dressage will not be of benefit, then one is free to not use them.


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

I might be a bit late here to address bsms, but....

Think of it this way. Who's going to stay flexible and fit longer: A rancher who works his butt off every day, straining his muscles and bones, or a gymnast who is stretching and flexing every day?

And just so we're clear, I'm talking more flatwork gymnast (Not up-to-date on my terminology) not the type who jumps and flips and drives their bodies into the ground for the sake of competition.

Thats why I believe this is important, anyway.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Those who wish to train or compete in dressage are welcome to do so. I'm in favor of the vast majority of equine sports, including dressage. However, I find it odd that dressage enthusiasts, unlike others, sometimes seem to believe their approach to riding horses makes horses happier, healthier and longer living than other styles of riding. When that claim is made, it seems reasonable to ask for evidence.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Bsms, I am not sure why there is anything to get snarky about? Take the video, or leave it. There are going to be benefits to having a horse with a strong back, as opposed to a horse with a weak, hollow back. 
Just like a person with strong core muscles, is going to see more benefits than a person with weak core muscles. 

Dressage or not, working a horse over the back is beneficial to the horse and to the rider. I know I feel a heck of a lot more comfortable on a horse that 'carries' me with a round back, than one that is hollowing away from my seat and thus moving with very jarring motion.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

bsms said:


> Those who wish to train or compete in dressage are welcome to do so. I'm in favor of the vast majority of equine sports, including dressage. However, I find it odd that dressage enthusiasts, unlike others, sometimes seem to believe their approach to riding horses makes horses happier, healthier and longer living than other styles of riding. When that claim is made, it seems reasonable to ask for evidence.


Ok, why the constant attacks on dressage?
As I said in my first post, this video is really nothing to do with dressage as a competitive sport, it is about getting a horse to work over its back. That isn't something that is singled out to ONLY dressage riders/horses. 
Ok, so the OP put a little spiel in there about classical dressage... SO???? :?

A horse working over its back, is seen in jumping horses, eventing horses, western horses, endurance horses...... so why the need to jump up and down and point the finger saying the dressage riders are 'forcing' you to ride dressage?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Kayty said:


> Ok, why the constant attacks on dressage?...
> A horse working over its back, is seen in jumping horses, eventing horses, western horses, endurance horses...... so why the need to jump up and down and point the finger saying the dressage riders are 'forcing' you to ride dressage?


First, I have not in any way attacked dressage. If you can find where I say dressage is harmful or bad, please point it out. I can point to sentences I've written on this thread saying dressage is good.

Second, in my time on this forum, I've never seen someone "_in jumping horses, eventing horses, western horses, endurance horses_" claim those sports make horses live longer, happier lives. It *IS* a common claim by dressage riders, as the first post of this thread demonstrates.

I have not been "snarky" about dressage. I have asked for evidence that the OP claim that dressage results in as horse living longer and happier than _"casual/trail/non-competitive"_ riding does.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Have you however, noticed that those claims, are generally made by those who are actually NOT competitive dressage riders, but those in the lower levels dabbling in dressage or wanting to start in it?
I certainly have not claimed that dressage will increase a horses life, and I know Anebel at least very frequently mentions the effort and expense required to keep a dressage horse sound, because of how much stress is placed on their joints when the higher collection work is introduced.


----------



## Mike Zimmerman (Oct 30, 2011)

SorrelHorse said:


> I might be a bit late here to address bsms, but....
> 
> Think of it this way. Who's going to stay flexible and fit longer: A rancher who works his butt off every day, straining his muscles and bones, or a gymnast who is stretching and flexing every day?


How many old gymnists do you know?

I'd like to know what school or classic trainer this came from, does anybody know?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Kayty said:


> Have you however, noticed that those claims, are generally made by those who are actually NOT competitive dressage riders, but those in the lower levels dabbling in dressage or wanting to start in it?...


Yes. Since I need 6 letters for a valid post...yes again.


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

Doesn't the video make it obvious?


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters (Feb 23, 2011)

Discipline aside, having a fit topline is beneficial for any horse. As a predominantly western rider, I enjoyed the vid. It's always good to hear, see, watch different points of view. The way it's achieved may be different across the disciplines but I can't think of any discipline where it would be beneficial to ride a hollow backed horse.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The video says that a raised back is key to the horse lasting more than a few years (4-6 years...1:12 on the video). My BLM mustang is 14, has been used for barrel racing and ranch work, as well as a lesson horse teaching new riders. How he lasted, I don't know...

He also argues the first step is to teach the horse to seek the bit (2:10). That would suggest a horse needs to be on the bit - which is not true, since many horses ridden without a bit last many years.

As an intro to dressage riding, it is fine. I think the target audience is beginning dressage riders, and it is a fine video for that. I just think the claim that recreational or trail riders need to follow this so their horses will live longer overstates the benefit of dressage.

Horses need exercise. They do better if their riders try to ride balanced and light. Dressage is a way of doing that. It is a good sport for both horse & rider. However, I think the idea that all horses should do dressage demeans the accomplishment of top dressage riders and trainers. A collected gait is far harder to achieve that a momentary shifting of weight to the horse's rear. I can get my horses to briefly shift their weight to the rear, but I don't know if I could even stay ON a horse that can perform competitive dressage.


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

bsms said:


> think the idea that all horses should do dressage demeans the accomplishment of top dressage riders and trainers. A collected gait is far harder to achieve that a momentary shifting of weight to the horse's rear.


I'm not sure why there is a need or desire to continue to confuse competitive dressage with classical dressage.

I'm also not sure why there is a need or desire to keep bringing up collection (the apex of the training pyramid) when the subject here is working round in the back (one of the beginning steps of the pyramid).

So long as people keep mixing competitive dressage with classical dressage, the message will be lost in the noise.

Finally, the aim is not to to make the horse "do dressage". The aim is to show what the gymnastics developed over centuries and codified into what we know now as classical dressage can do for the horse.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Once again I state - learn the difference between a soft, swinging and rasied back.... and collection. They are NOT the same thing. Grand Prix dressage has NOTHING to do with this video, or this conversation. It is a moot point. 

A question for you mildot - in your experience, can you tell me the difference between classical and competitive dressage?


----------



## Horsesdontlie (Mar 11, 2011)

I think the guy in the video wasn't comparing high level dressage (with a rounded back) to pleasure riders (just enjoying their ride). I think the life expectancy was comparing two horses in the same level of sport, ones that do not carry themselves properly will break down faster BECAUSE of the high intensity of things like advanced dressage movements and jumping large, compared to horses that are taught to use their back doing the same sport will last longer.

At least thats what I got from it. That and that it can be beneficial for anyone.

Back to OP, I loved the video, it says the guy is in San Diego...hmmm I may have to look into that. :wink:


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

I just have to ask.. in this video.. what is with everyone's hands? I mean that can't be comfortable for the horse's mouth with all of the pulling and jangling and roughness, right? It made me confused just trying to watch.. lol


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

mildot said:


> I'm not posting this in the dressage forum, because most everyone who frequents it already understands this subject.
> 
> I just want to leave this here, as an educational and thought provoking exercise, for those who may think that classical dressage has nothing to offer the casual/trail/non-competitive rider or horse.
> 
> ...


So the dressage horses live longer than the 29, 30 and 33 years (Tom died last year with more white hair than brown :lol that our old working horses lived? WOW I'm impressed. But unfortunately teaching these horses dressage would have required waiting until they weren't working (no time before then) and at that age would it really matter . Training them to do their job was more important and I'd say they lived long enough.

Perhaps it might be a case working your horse enough regularly and they might live longer. After all, people who eat well and get plenty of physical exercise tend to live longer. Perhaps the same holds true for equines.
Our working animals certainly lived long lives.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Skyseternalangel said:


> I just have to ask.. in this video.. what is with everyone's hands? I mean that can't be comfortable for the horse's mouth with all of the pulling and jangling and roughness, right? It made me confused just trying to watch.. lol


 I might have to actually watch the video when I get home from work to answer this!!


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Kayty said:


> I might have to actually watch the video when I get home from work to answer this!!


I'll be waiting anxiously for your answer!


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

SorrelHorse said:


> I might be a bit late here to address bsms, but....
> 
> Think of it this way. Who's going to stay flexible and fit longer: A rancher who works his butt off every day, straining his muscles and bones, or a gymnast who is stretching and flexing every day?
> 
> ...


I can't say about flexable, but I'd have to say the rancher for being physically fit. Russell (my father's 1st cousin) and James (1st cousin-in-law) are both in their 90's and still active. Last year Russel still plowed his garden with a mule and did a cane grinding in Nov.
Please tell me the gymnast who can still manage that level of activity at 93.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Hmmm...I've known more old ranchers than old gymnasts!

Still, whatever it takes to drink your tea:


----------



## SorrelHorse (Apr 9, 2009)

^ Actually, my grandmother is around the same age and quite physically fit, a gymnast in her own day. And I repeate what I previously said about the "Flatwork"? I really don't know what to say as far as a word for that is. But I certainly am not talking about a gymknast who pounds themselves into the ground anymore then I would be talking about pounding a horse into the ground.

While I am perfectly aware that there are many ranchers still physically fit (I do live in a rural community ;D) I was more using it as a reference to working your body into the ground without any sort of flexing or stretching, verses warming up, and keeping yourself from working with your body still "cold" and not flexible? Would you ask a colt to slam themselves into a sliding stop on the first ride?

I always warm my horses up with what most people on here are going to call "dressage work", but since "Dressage"/"dressur" simply means "training", I fail to see why people are so hellbent on not doing "dressage". Does this mean you don't want to do any "training"?


----------



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

I'm sorry but this is driving me nuts. The videos with this guy are getting posted all over the forum like they are a gift from above and all I see is a bunch of horses being chased around, dumped on their forehand with no contact or connection whatsoever and a bunch of noisy riders.... none of this to me is correct.
A horse correctly stretching over the back has been strengthened to do so. My horse (PSG) has been schooling long and low for 4 years straight and still cannot maintain a correct stretch on a rein as long as some of these young horses in the video are being asked to do... its absurd. Horses are not born able to stretch strongly over the back on such a long rein, they simply do not have the balance or coordination. You have to start by getting a rhythm (not chasing the horses around as seen in the video) and then in a proper length of rein for the horse's strength he will relax and develop contact and connection if the rider is riding back to front QUIETLY sitting in the saddle with quiet hands.
It's not "classical dressage", its correct basic riding.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

SorrelHorse said:


> I always warm my horses up with what most people on here are going to call "dressage work", but since "Dressage"/"dressur" simply means "training", I fail to see why people are so hellbent on not doing "dressage". Does this mean you don't want to do any "training"?


Mhm I agree with you here..


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> I'm sorry but this is driving me nuts. The videos with this guy are getting posted all over the forum like they are a gift from above and all I see is a bunch of horses being chased around, dumped on their forehand with no contact or connection whatsoever and *a bunch of noisy riders....* *none of this to me is correct.*
> A horse correctly stretching over the back has been strengthened to do so. My horse (PSG) has been schooling long and low for 4 years straight and *still cannot maintain a correct stretch on a rein as long as some of these young horses in the video are being asked to do... its absurd. Horses are not born able to stretch strongly over the back on such a long rein, they simply do not have the balance or coordination.* You have to start by getting a rhythm (not chasing the horses around as seen in the video) and then in a proper length of rein for the horse's strength he will relax and develop contact and connection *if the rider is riding back to front QUIETLY sitting in the saddle with quiet hands.*
> It's not "classical dressage",* its correct basic riding.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thank you!! Answered all of my questions in one post  I was seriously getting a headache watching some of those riders.. I don't see how the horse can ever use their back correctly when someone is banging and ruffing their mouth. That's like trying to relax in a hammock during an earth quake..

Sorry about the double post.. :/


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> I'm sorry but this is driving me nuts. The videos with this guy are getting posted all over the forum like they are a gift from above and all I see is a bunch of horses being chased around, dumped on their forehand with no contact or connection whatsoever and a bunch of noisy riders.... none of this to me is correct.
> A horse correctly stretching over the back has been strengthened to do so. My horse (PSG) has been schooling long and low for 4 years straight and still cannot maintain a correct stretch on a rein as long as some of these young horses in the video are being asked to do... its absurd. Horses are not born able to stretch strongly over the back on such a long rein, they simply do not have the balance or coordination. You have to start by getting a rhythm (not chasing the horses around as seen in the video) and then in a proper length of rein for the horse's strength he will relax and develop contact and connection if the rider is riding back to front QUIETLY sitting in the saddle with quiet hands.
> It's not "classical dressage", its correct basic riding.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Now you've got me curious, I haven't actually sat and watched the video, just read the comments on the forum and the video title, and presumed that this is promoting having a horse working over the back, and nothing to do with collection.

I think I've posted enough times now about long and low that I sound like a broken record. But long and low is NOT just dropping the reins and stretching the neck - it's **** hard to maintain active, engaged hind legs, with the neck low - a horse finds it much easier to engage behind when the neck is in a mid-high position. The muscle and balance required to maintain genuine long and low is enormous.

However, the video disregarded (still want to watch and see what its all about) - working the horse over the back, is not the same as collection - just in case anyone missed that the last 3 times.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

It emphasized a CONNECTED horse versus a disjointed stiff forced frame horse (and hollow..) but didn't mention anything about collection.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

SorrelHorse said:


> ^ Actually, my grandmother is around the same age and quite physically fit, a gymnast in her own day. And I repeate what I previously said about the "Flatwork"? I really don't know what to say as far as a word for that is. But I certainly am not talking about a gymknast who pounds themselves into the ground anymore then I would be talking about pounding a horse into the ground.
> 
> While I am perfectly aware that there are many ranchers still physically fit (I do live in a rural community ;D) I was more using it as a reference to working your body into the ground without any sort of flexing or stretching, verses warming up, and keeping yourself from working with your body still "cold" and not flexible? Would you ask a colt to slam themselves into a sliding stop on the first ride?
> 
> I always warm my horses up with what most people on here are going to call "dressage work", but since "Dressage"/"dressur" simply means "training", I fail to see why people are so hellbent on not doing "dressage". Does this mean you don't want to do any "training"?


Our poor old (old being the operative word here :lol got their stretch going from stall area to whatever pasture the cattle were in. That would be either about 100 ft for the closest to about .2 of a mile away. But they certainly got their exercise whenever there was something to be done with the cattle.
Just like the warm up the riders had was getting the horses saddled after breakfast :lol:. Now in fairness, Russell doesn't ride anymore (and hasn't since his 80's) or work cattle now, but then plowing with the mule is a lot tougher than riding :lol: ...at least it is to me (I wouldn't do it at 54....that's what they make tillers for :lol. James doesn't ride anymore either at 95, but he still keeps a couple dozen cows behind his house and manages them on foot with help from his sons when loading for market.
From my experience I think my money is safer on these old timers with the beat up bodies :lol: (hope mine is doing as well in 40 years)


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

SorrelHorse said:


> ...Would you ask a colt to slam themselves into a sliding stop on the first ride?
> 
> I always warm my horses up with what most people on here are going to call "dressage work", but since "Dressage"/"dressur" simply means "training", I fail to see why people are so hellbent on not doing "dressage". Does this mean you don't want to do any "training"?


First, I warm up a horse the same way I warm up myself for jogging - by moving thru a range of motion slowly at first. To warm up for jogging, I start jogging - at about a 10 min/mile pace. After a few minutes, I increase speed to a normal pace - about 8 min/mile for me.

As for dressage = training, it doesn't. We have a word for training: "training". When I go shooting, I'm not dressaging with a gun. When I lean forward at a canter/gallop, I'm not practicing dressage. When I teach a horse to pull a weight, it isn't dressage.

Dressage refers to a style of riding. A 'dressage seat' refers to a different position than a cutter seat, jockey seat, forward seat, chair seat, etc. If we use dressage to mean training, we have no word left for dressage. :-x


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Skyseternalangel said:


> It emphasized a CONNECTED horse versus a disjointed stiff forced frame horse (and hollow..) but didn't mention anything about collection.


Actually, it does. It teaches this a a step toward collection. If it was just stretching, he wouldn't say the horse needs to be 'on the bit', since horses can stretch that way without a bit and without any contact with the reins. That is also why it says this step takes a year, and collection takes two years.

Unless you are pounding the back by being too heavy for the horse or bouncing, all horses will raise the back a little. A horse doesn't extend with a hollow back, which is why a hollow back is wrong when you want the horse to go fast. However, the degree of lift required for efficient forward motion is much less than required for a collected gait. I can teach a horse to lift *some* and shift his weight *momentarily* to the rear with turns, and I can teach it without a bit and very little use of a bit. That is light-years away from teaching a collected gait.

My horses regularly lower their heads and stretch their backs after a few minutes of trotting. They do so with slack in the reins leading to their halters. That is NOT "classical dressage". It is not "competitive dressage". It is the horse stretching for a few moments. Calling that dressage demeans and trivializes the work and skill of those who DO practice dressage. Any idiot can get their horse to stretch. I do it all the time :wink:...but I probably couldn't even RIDE a collected gait - certainly not without ****ing off the poor horse. I can also ride a horse "off the bit" without endangering the horse's happiness or longevity.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Actually BSMS, dressage as a word, comes from the French word for training. 
So yes, dressage does in fact, = training. 
Now I am going to take a moment to sit back and watch this video, and will make comment if I see fit to do so.


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

I'm not into trainer worship at all. However, one's resume/CV is a good indication of one's level of expertise on a given topic.

Assuming Mr Farber's CV is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't), if one is to call his methods fundamentally incorrect, then one best be ready to back that up with a level of experience and accomplishment as high or higher than his.

Clinician Will Faerber


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Ok I've had a look.
I can completely agree with the concept of the video. Getting the horse to seek the contact, lift the back etc. All pretty basic stuff, nothing revolutionary in there, this training dates backs hundreds of years and... shock, horror!... is a well established part of...wait for it.... the dreaded "COMPETITIVE DRESSAGE" :O Can you believe it :O *dripping with sarcasm for those who did not pick it up*

The choice of demo riders was not great, lots of inconsistent contact, horse's running onto the forehand, riders thumping on backs etc. And the only quiet riders were those heading towards FEI - which defeats the purpose of the video I believe. 
And the indication that a rider should be putting a horse's nose on the ground to stretch and lift the back. He never actually says that you should work long and low, only that the horse should stretch the neck and seek the contact. So yes, this is correct, but the neck would not be down by the horse's knees as a green horse. The strength is just not there to sustain this position.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Kayty said:


> Actually BSMS, dressage as a word, comes from the French word for training.
> So yes, dressage does in fact, = training...


Yes. IN FRANCE.

That is their word for training. In English, it is "training". 

If it is used interchangeably, then I am doing dressage when I practice shooting my 44 Mag - yet I doubt that is what anyone on this forum is referring to when discussing 'dressage'. A 'dressage position' does not refer to where I place my feet when shooting, how I position my body, nor to my habit of cocking the revolver as I raise it to the target.

I am not riding dressage every time I get on my horse, but I am training them. That is why there is a dressage subforum on HF, along with jumping, reining, etc. And you will note that it is only some dressage dressage riders who suggest their sport encompasses ALL of riding. I've never had a jumper suggest that since all movement by a horse involves resistance to gravity, that all riding is 'jumping'.:shock:


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

Didn't you know bsms - Jumping is just dressage with speed bumps, Western is just dressage with cows, and racing is just dressage on crack...

In all seriousness, the basis of all disciplines is the same. Good horsemanship. Being pedantic about the use of a term is helping no one. Just because you yourself don't use the term, doesn't mean it is wrong.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Isn't it the same video MIE posted in "English Riding"? Looks to me at least...

I gonna say same thing I said there. Stretching _*correctly *_is tough. You don't just ask the horse out of the field to stretch. First, you should KNOW how to ask, second horse should be ABLE to do it. Dropping the nose down doesn't equal to stretch, because stretch should come through the back (and some people (not talking about this thread but in general) seem to miss that).


----------



## DuffyDuck (Sep 27, 2011)

Could this turn in to one of the debates where we find where 'flatwork' develops in to 'dressage'?


----------



## Kawonu (Apr 24, 2011)

Ugh, wish I could watch it now, but the exercise and flow that is required in dressage is what pulled me to it. It makes me mad that I was promised the chance to learn, then brushed off. Thanks for sharing this, though. I'll use it every time someone asks me why I wanna learn so badly.


----------



## thesilverspear (Aug 20, 2009)

I think bsms asked a very interesting question earlier, before everyone drifted off into pedantry-land, when he wondered whether or not training the horse to come over its back actually increases the longevity/soundness of the horse. I have certainly espoused this to people, along with the theory behind it. I also think a soft, round horse is a squillion times nicer to ride than a stiff, hollow one, but is there data beyond the anecdotal showing that horses who are ridden "on the bit" have longer working lives than ones who aren't?

At the end of the day, even if no correlations have been found or no one's bothered looking, I'll reiterate that a soft, round horse is a much nicer ride and that alone motivates me to train anything I ever ride to carry itself in that manner, even if I'm never within 100 miles of a dressage ring again. On a trail ride, say, if my horse gets spooked, our automatic reaction is to go into a frame, which gives me a lot more control than if she hollowed and braced against me.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

thesilverspear said:


> when he wondered whether or not training the horse to come over its back actually increases the longevity/soundness of the horse.


I think it does (although I don't feel like trying googling it at the moment  ). But logically you are more healthy when you are fit, can move around more, etc.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

There is a false dichotomy between 'rounded' and 'hollow'. There is also the in-between state where most horses exist. My horses rarely round their back to a significant degree, but they also rarely hollow their backs.



Chiilaa said:


> ...In all seriousness, the basis of all disciplines is the same. Good horsemanship. Being pedantic about the use of a term is helping no one. Just because you yourself don't use the term, doesn't mean it is wrong.


Umm...no. As some examples from this video alone: a horse does not need to be on the bit to be responsive and relaxed, and a horse does not need to round his back to trot and canter and walk effectively. So is significant rounding of the back by a horse on the bit 'good horsemanship', or just 'good dressage'? When someone rides an extended horse, is that person a bad horseman who is ruining his horse's health and happiness, or a good horseman who simply wants to cover more ground in less time?

The problem with saying all riding is rooted in dressage is that then a sport with somewhat narrow and artificial goals - as all equine sports involve to some degree - gets to tell everyone else what 'good horsemanship' is. That is why you will have people on this forum arguing that EVERY rider should ride with shoulder / hip / heel aligned, or that horses are healthier if they are collected (or in this case, significantly rounded and on the bit). Pandering to dressage and pretending that all riding and training is dressage creates the misperception by too many dressage riders that those who ride differently are wrong, and their horses will die earlier after living unhappy lives...


----------



## mildot (Oct 18, 2011)

bsms said:


> The problem with saying all riding is rooted in dressage is that then a sport with somewhat narrow and artificial goals - as all equine sports involve to some degree - gets to tell everyone else what 'good horsemanship' is. ...


Dressage is not solely a sport. There is competitive dressage and then there is classical/academic dressage. 

So long as that difference is not acknowledge, there will be confusion.


----------



## Shasta1981 (Nov 12, 2010)

Another forum is also griping about the demo riders. We all know that see-sawing isnt the answer and I definitely saw some of that as well. But agreed that the message about using the back is a good one. 

Another vote that yes, correct dressage work will help your horse live a longer ACTIVE life. I don't know about adding years. In fact, the whole reason I picked up dressage was to help keep my senior as healthy and active as possible (and now I'm hooked). A horse that is hollow in the back, stiff and shuffling/pounding his feet on the ground is going to produce more wear and tear than a horse who is light off of his feet and moving over his back. Does that mean that every horse that does dressage is going to outlive a horse that does not? No, horses aren't machines and we have genetics and other factors to consider. Can it help a horse to be balanced and well-muscled, decreasing strain in areas that are tough for them? Yes. 

This is my opinion, from my own experience as well as what I have read, seen and learned from others who have been doing this way longer and more in-depth than I have.

One of my trainers calls dressage "yoga for horses." I agree with that and also think of it as physical therapy for my horse.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

bsms said:


> As for dressage = training, it doesn't. We have a word for training: "training". When I go shooting, I'm not dressaging with a gun. When I lean forward at a canter/gallop, I'm not practicing dressage. When I teach a horse to pull a weight, it isn't dressage.


There are many types of training. Dressage is training a horse to be supple and light and work each area, each part of their body independently but as a whole. To me, dressage in the lower levels improves any discipline you choose to specialize your horse in. 

For me it is like deciding that you want to become a sprint athlete. That is where you want to *specialize* in. So what can you do to build up for it. Well you can start by going on walks and stretching and whatnot.. then build up to jogging, then running, and then sprinting. Well what would help you out? Going to *the gym* and doing leg presses. Using an elliptical machine, working your abs.. etc. etc. 

What you choose to specialize in, to me, is a discipline. In this scenario sprinting.
Dressage in this scenario is "the gym."

Yes you could have a horse that runs barrels like no tomorrow but they might be hollow.. they might be using their front end instead of their hind, they might be grabbing the bit and going, they might be clenching their jaw, they might be unbalanced! They could be amazing at barrels but they wouldn't be doing their absolute best. 

(FYI I am not picking on barrel racers at ALL, it was just an example that was close to the human equivalent of sprinting.)

Dressage IS training. Whether you are in France or on planet X. It's just going above and beyond what training other disciplines usually do. If that makes sense. It's like "extra credit" or the extra mile. Digging a little deeper.. improving even more. 

Least that's how I see it.





bsms said:


> Actually, it does. It teaches this a a step toward collection.


Is that your opinion or did it actually say "this is a step towards collection" ?


----------



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

I'm way too lazy to go through the whole thread and "like" every one of bsms' posts - sorry for not upping your "like" count bsms I swear I'll make it up to you hahaha.

Anyways...
Dressage is a sport. Jumping is a sport. Reining is a sport. Etc... What these things when done well have in common has absotootly NOTHING to do with dressage and absolutely EVERYTHING to do with plain old sensical good riding and training practices.

Just because the sport of dressage happens to have introductory levels in competitions does not make it "the base for all good riding" - good riding is the base for all good riding. Honestly think about it for a second... Here in NA our dressage levels are Intro, Training, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.... There actually was a point in history where intro and training levels DID NOT EXIST because at some point doing walk, trot and canter and big circles was not actually considered to be dressage... I still don't consider it to be dressage personally... getting a 70% in a training level test does not mean you are a good dressage rider with a good dressage horse, it means that you are a good rider on a horse with decent enough basics that you can ride to the letter, on an aid and not fall over - which really is a prerequisite for any horse sport, not just dressage.

And on the point that the french word for "training" being dressage... it doesn't mean "oh look I trained my horse to ride around and do a training level test".. it's about the systematic strengthening and collecting of the horse that he can perform mid to high school movements. It is not some broad all encompasing term - "dressage" is very strictly the schooling of the horse to perform collected and high school work.

However, for those of us who still like to believe that "dressage is the base for all good riding" I propose that a distinction is made. Where "little d" dressage is the kind of riding that is base where the horse does w/t/c on an aid and is quitely on the bit and "big D" Dressage is the sport. Because there is a clear distinction =)


----------



## Kawonu (Apr 24, 2011)

Coming back and seeing all the posts to this, I do have a question now that I hope someone will take the time to answer for me.

If I took lessons at a horse ranch - using the horses they provide, of course - to learn dressage, would knowing dressage help me as a rider? Such as building muscles and learning something new? And can some of the simpler moves/stretches that are used on dressage horses better my own horse's strength and flexibility as a western equine?

I've watched good dressage before and it looks amazing, but hard. I always figured that simply learning to build strength, flexibility, and knowledge was just as good as competing - I never really intended to compete. I'd get my butt kicked, I'm sure.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Personally I think it would help you as a rider. From my experience it seems that way 

But I'll hush and let the Dressage knowledgeable folks talk


----------



## Shasta1981 (Nov 12, 2010)

Stoddard said:


> Coming back and seeing all the posts to this, I do have a question now that I hope someone will take the time to answer for me.
> 
> If I took lessons at a horse ranch - using the horses they provide, of course - to learn dressage, would knowing dressage help me as a rider? Such as building muscles and learning something new? And can some of the simpler moves/stretches that are used on dressage horses better my own horse's strength and flexibility as a western equine?
> 
> I've watched good dressage before and it looks amazing, but hard. I always figured that simply learning to build strength, flexibility, and knowledge was just as good as competing - I never really intended to compete. I'd get my butt kicked, I'm sure.


I wholeheartedly believe that yes, it would help you as a rider to take lessons from a good dressage trainer (certainly has helped me). The level of detail that goes into each new building block is invaluable. It is very difficult for many reasons, but also very rewarding when you get it right. 

I don't know why it has to be this evil, condescending discipline that some make it out to be. Its a wonderful sport with a plethora of information behind it thanks to literature from grandmasters.

I stand my ground that anyone can benefit from lessons with a good dressage trainer and not because I think its "better" than other disciplines (which I don't).


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

And yet again (feeling like a broken record here) BSMS - note, for the (how many times now?) that it tends to be those who are NOT dressage riders, but aspiring dressage riders, or those who think dressage at the highest levels looks 'pretty', or those that read enough books to deem themselves an 'expert' - are those that preech the 'dressage is the basis of all riding' speach. 
Don't dump it on those that are realistic about their sport as a dressage rider.

Like Anebel, I don't consider basic, walk, trot, canter, on the bit and riding to markers as dressage. I consider that just basic good riding. Any English rider should be able to ride a preliminary dressage test (training level in US?) to a reasonable score. 

Dressage, at the higher levels, with the inclusion collection and lateral movements, is NOT the basis for ALL riding. I have never said this, and never will. 
Basic riding, getting the horse off the leg, off the forehand and sensitive to the aids however, I will happily repeat that this is valuable for any horse in any discipline. Dressage, no. Good basic riding, yes. 

Don't dump us all in the same basket time and time again please.


----------



## Chiilaa (Aug 12, 2010)

bsms said:


> There is a false dichotomy between 'rounded' and 'hollow'. There is also the in-between state where most horses exist. My horses rarely round their back to a significant degree, but they also rarely hollow their backs.
> 
> Umm...no. As some examples from this video alone: a horse does not need to be on the bit to be responsive and relaxed, and a horse does not need to round his back to trot and canter and walk effectively. So is significant rounding of the back by a horse on the bit 'good horsemanship', or just 'good dressage'? When someone rides an extended horse, is that person a bad horseman who is ruining his horse's health and happiness, or a good horseman who simply wants to cover more ground in less time?
> 
> The problem with saying all riding is rooted in dressage is that then a sport with somewhat narrow and artificial goals - as all equine sports involve to some degree - gets to tell everyone else what 'good horsemanship' is. That is why you will have people on this forum arguing that EVERY rider should ride with shoulder / hip / heel aligned, or that horses are healthier if they are collected (or in this case, significantly rounded and on the bit). Pandering to dressage and pretending that all riding and training is dressage creates the misperception by too many dressage riders that those who ride differently are wrong, and their horses will die earlier after living unhappy lives...


I didn't say that riding a horse around collected and on the bit is the basis of all disciplines, or that dressage is the root of all riding. I said that good horsemanship is the basis of all disciplines. 

All disciplines have 'artificial' goals. There is nothing natural about asking a horse to carry a human on their back. Horses don't naturally move balanced more on their hindquarters than on their fores. They don't naturally herd cows. They don't naturally keep running at a gallop in an anti-clockwise circle for 3 miles. Horses naturally slouch around, doing as little as possible to conserve energy for breeding and escaping predators. 

As for the shoulder-hip-heel line - this has been proven to be the most effective position. It doesn't mean you can't ride outside of this position - however it does mean that most disciplines seek this as the 'ideal' position for a rider. So yes, when someone comes on here and asks for a critique, people will tell them to align these three points. There is a reason why this position is universal through all the disciplines.

I feel, bsms, that you have such a negative view of dressage that you let it cloud your vision every time the word is mentioned. I don't think that is fair to those of us that wish to just discuss the merits of it. Yes, there is a dressage sub-forum. But to punish only the dressage riders for posting outside of that when there are dozens of jumping and western threads on this board also is just cruel. Usually, in every other thread, I find your advice to be logical and well thought out, but in a thread with dressage, I find myself reaching for a pinch of salt.


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

mildot said:


> True. But horses naturally do not have a person on their back. Round > neutral > hollow when someone is astride.


When I said most horses carry themselves in a neutral frame I meant with a rider too. 

Every instructor I've had since getting past the walk-trot stage has had us walk our horses on the buckle almost every lesson. The horses are quick to take the opportunity to stretch their heads down... They couldn't do that with a sore back.




SorrelHorse said:


> Think of it this way. Who's going to stay flexible and fit longer: A rancher who works his butt off every day, straining his muscles and bones, or a gymnast who is stretching and flexing every day?


Doing gymnastics at a high level is very hard on the body (maybe partially because gymnasts are usually not yet full-grown when they do it). Sports are like food; too much and too little are BOTH bad for you.

In response to other comments, I definitely agree that an engaged horse feels better to ride... But maybe that's the real reason why we want our horses to be that way.


----------



## Northernstar (Jul 23, 2011)

Very well said, brackenbramley! I thoroughly enjoyed this


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Kayty said:


> Don't dump us all in the same basket time and time again please.


I am definitely no expert.. I have just dipped my toes into the beginning of Dressage, but I do know that it has helped my horse AND myself (I have dabbed in other disciplines) tremendously and I want to learn more about it. And I know I probably don't know even 1% of what it is about, but I do know that I believe it is training and it would help in other areas. At least the little bit I have done so far. 

So I apologize if I did stick you in the same basket


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Skyseternalangel said:


> I am definitely no expert.. I have just dipped my toes into the beginning of Dressage, but I do know that it has helped my horse AND myself (I have dabbed in other disciplines) tremendously and I want to learn more about it. And I know I probably don't know even 1% of what it is about, but I do know that I believe it is training and it would help in other areas. At least the little bit I have done so far.
> 
> So I apologize if I did stick you in the same basket


Exactly what I was getting at - the very basic, building blocks, are helpful in other discplines. Am I correct to assume that are them moment you are working on walk, trot and canter, on the aids, starting to get the horse a little round and maybe doing a touch of leg yield, maybe some shoulder fore?

Basics, general good riding. Not necessarily dressage. This is the development of a solid foundation in just abut any discipline.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Kayty said:


> Exactly what I was getting at - the very basic, building blocks, are helpful in other discplines. Am I correct to assume that are them moment you are working on walk, trot and canter, on the aids, starting to get the horse a little round and maybe doing a touch of leg yield, maybe some shoulder fore?
> 
> Basics, general good riding. Not necessarily dressage. This is the development of a solid foundation in just abut any discipline.


Yep, deep seat riding.

That's the thing, of all my instructors (I've had over 5, in 3 different disciplines).. I never learned any of this stuff. There was no form of communication going on.. which is why I thought it was the start of dressage (not necessarily the whole enchilada) that was helping me become a better rider and my horse, a better horse. 

Does that make sense?

Now I know better


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Skyseternalangel said:


> ...Dressage IS training. Whether you are in France or on planet X. It's just going above and beyond what training other disciplines usually do. If that makes sense. It's like "extra credit" or the extra mile. Digging a little deeper.. improving even more...


I would hope you can understand why someone who spends their life in another discipline would find it condescending and rude to suggest that they - be they cutting, reining, jumpers or polo players - need to go outside their discipline and practice dressage. How often does a dressage fan suggest that those practicing dressage should learn jumping and cutting cattle to 'dig a little deeper..improving even more'?

Yet that is what happens when you tell someone that ALL training is dressage. It demeans the sport of dressage & the skill and effort it takes, and it leads to this:



Chiilaa said:


> ...As for the shoulder-hip-heel line - this has been proven to be the most effective position. It doesn't mean you can't ride outside of this position - however it does mean that most disciplines seek this as the 'ideal' position for a rider. So yes, when someone comes on here and asks for a critique, people will tell them to align these three points. There is a reason why this position is universal through all the disciplines...


It is NOT universal in all disciplines, nor should it be. It is great for riding a collected gait in an arena, or for the slow gaits of WP. It isn't often seen in folks working stock - in the US or Australia. It isn't used much in polo or steeplechase. It may or may not happen riding a forward seat, depending on what they need at the time (see my signature). It is not the most effective, or the ideal, or universal. It is a way of riding that works extremely well for some things, and not so good for others.

BTW - I sometimes want shoulder / hip / heel aligned vertically, and sometimes I do not. To be clear - it is NOT bad for riding. It is also not the end-all. There are times that alignment is essential to getting the job done well, and times it is not.

When "all training" = "dressage", then inevitably "dressage" = "proper training". But REAL dressage - and I see no reason to distinguish between 'classical' and 'sport' dressage - has a goal of riding a collected gait in an arena. It is spectacular riding, IMHO, but it has demands that are counterproductive in some other forms of riding. Those other forms are counterproductive to dressage. They are not interchangeable styles.



Chiilaa said:


> ...I feel, bsms, that you have such a negative view of dressage that you let it cloud your vision every time the word is mentioned. I don't think that is fair to those of us that wish to just discuss the merits of it. Yes, there is a dressage sub-forum. But to punish only the dressage riders for posting outside of that when there are dozens of jumping and western threads on this board also is just cruel. Usually, in every other thread, I find your advice to be logical and well thought out, but in a thread with dressage, I find myself reaching for a pinch of salt.


May I suggest you read my posts on this thread again? Where have I attacked dressage? Where have I said anything negative about it, other than my belief that it does not determine what is good riding for other sports, and that it is not a requirement for a horse to live long and happy?

I periodically do a search for "anebel" to see what she has had to say recently. And a couple of weeks ago, Spyder posted some advice from a dressage perspective that I found very useful for my gelding. I do normally avoid the dressage subforum for posting, because I'm like a dog watching TV when I watch dressage. I know if I like something or not, but not if it is good dressage or not. 

I have also never said that dressage riders have nothing to contribute to general purpose riders. My objection in this thread started when we were told, in the first post, that raising the back would result in horses living longer and happier. While I do not approve of hollow backs, there are more options besides "Hollow or lifted". The neutral position, where most horses spend most of their lives, probably doesn't result in horses dying, living in pain, or being unhappy. If it did, someone would have posted the evidence by now.



Kayty said:


> And yet again (feeling like a broken record here) BSMS - note, for the (how many times now?) that it tends to be those who are NOT dressage riders, but aspiring dressage riders, or those who think dressage at the highest levels looks 'pretty', or those that read enough books to deem themselves an 'expert' - are those that preech the 'dressage is the basis of all riding' speach...
> 
> Don't dump it on those that are realistic about their sport as a dressage rider...Don't dump us all in the same basket time and time again please.


I haven't. Please see post #21:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/why-good-training-important-109754/page2/#post1313278


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

bsms said:


> I would hope you can understand why someone who spends their life in another discipline would find it condescending and rude to suggest that they - be they cutting, reining, jumpers or polo players - need to go outside their discipline and practice dressage. How often does a dressage fan suggest that those practicing dressage should learn jumping and cutting cattle to 'dig a little deeper..improving even more'?


That is not at all what I meant... 

And I actually plan on introducing my horse to other kinds of disciplines and maybe a cattle sort of two. 

So if that's what you got out of it, that I was telling someone that they aren't going to be the best without doing dressage.. that's, excuse me, a crock of crap. 

I can see where you'd think that, but that's not what I meant.

And if you read Kayty and my talk, on this very thread, you would have known that instead of jumping the gun and making me look like some sort of snob. 

So I think that the rudeness isn't coming from me.

I also want to add that all disciplines help a horse become their best. I was just thinking that good riding, what Kayty said in a nutshell, was the start of dressage because through my entire life, no one had taught me those basics. Now I know better. Good riding basics are the building blocks of any discipline, not dressage. Though I do love deep seat riding.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

BSMS - we do advise that members seeking dressage training specifically, also 'cross train'. I put my horses over small jumps, gymnastic exercises, hacking out, going to the beach to swim or go for a good gallop on the sand. Not drilling arena work 7 days/week  

I apologize for maybe coming across quite snarkily. It just gets up me quite a lot, when we get dumped all together in the same basket because some beginners have run around preaching the book phrase of 'dressage is the basis of all disciplines'. We're not all like that, I promise!!! And I can tell you that my horses (when they are not bloomin' injured in the paddock!!) certainly don't live the life of the stereotypical dressage horse, stabled 24/7, drilled 6 days/week etc. They live out in the paddock, in a herd environment, and go frequently out on trails. We're not all crazy fist shaking oldies screaming YOU MUST DO DRESSAGE OR YOU ARE NOTHING


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Kayty said:


> And I can tell you that my horses (when they are not bloomin' injured in the paddock!!) certainly don't live the life of the stereotypical dressage horse, stabled 24/7, drilled 6 days/week etc. They live out in the paddock, in a herd environment, and go frequently out on trails. We're not all crazy fist shaking oldies screaming YOU MUST DO DRESSAGE OR YOU ARE NOTHING


*hides torch* oh.... right... :wink:

But no seriously my horse lives outside in a herd of geldings.. I ride him 3 times a week, we go on trail rides, we play around with barrels and on the ground little jumps. One day we'll get near some cows and give it a go and I'll get him his own western saddle.

I might be crazy, but I don't believe I am old nor screaming nor claiming that everyone that doesn't do dressage is (insert negative adjective here.) 

I'm new at this, definitely no expert.


----------



## its lbs not miles (Sep 1, 2011)

Don't feel bad. All our horses (dead and still living) have never lived inside. (Don't have to deal with bits or shoes either) There are stalls and run-ins available and open, but they almost never went in them except for food. Todate they've all live 25+ years. None of them ever did Dressage or even had any European style saddle on them (I started riding with a US Dressage instructor in Germany at 11-13 and I think only we call them "English" saddles). 
So it really boils down to if your horses have the proper diet, exercised well and have good health care (ours were working horses, so one day a week off) then they will tend to live long lives. No riding style is going to increase their life span. A life style usually does that.
I started out with Dressage, but have no desire to ever to it again (to me it's rather boring, but to each their own). Will never understand why so many think it's the end all )
The only thing I learned from Dressage that I took with me is something I could have learned outside of Dressage (and as has already been said on here, a great many people have). Balance and confidence. Taught it to my children and grandchildren. None of whom have ever taken Dressage, but enjoy being on a horse.
No style of riding is going to appeal to everyone, so just accept that. For the old cattle guy who just enjoys long distance riding none of the traditional "styles" are likely to be appealing (although I do like a good cross country course and a cattle drive, while not a "style" of riding is nothing to scoff at....try moving cattle sometime )


----------



## Spyder (Jul 27, 2008)

bsms said:


> How often does a dressage fan suggest that those practicing dressage should learn jumping and cutting cattle to 'dig a little deeper..improving even more'?



Yup happened and I took up their dare simply because I wanted to make my own decision.

Took my FEI dressage horse and did barrels and other games as well as western pleasure.

I had all the veteran barrel racers scratching their heads wondering how I got my horse* in *the ring quietly and walking* out* quietly after.

Oh and he won or placed in all events.

And to answer Kayty's question earlier in the thread..there is a huge difference between classical and competitive dressage.

What you see in the ring and most pictures posted are of the competitive side.

Classical can be defined by this statement.

Dressage done for the purpose of enhancing the inner strengths of any given horse that in so doing minimizes the negative effects of its inborn weaknesses and allows the rider to utilize the best that horse can give in performance to the rider.

This simply means that a horse not conformed to the ideal conformation will be ridden and strengthened to give the best it can without any thought that it must win to prove itself.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Spyder - I know the difference, I was curious to know if the poster I was responding to knew the difference, as it's another statement that tends to be preached.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

Spyder said:


> Yup happened and I took up their dare simply because I wanted to make my own decision.
> 
> Took my FEI dressage horse and did barrels and other games as well as western pleasure.
> 
> ...


You go girl! (With all due respect in that fist pump, of course.) The bold is my most favourite part. No horse is perfect but that is a goal I have for my horse Sky.. that he can be the best that he can be with what he's got. And so far, that's how it has been. He's just getting better and better and more confident and able. 

Thanks Spyder


----------



## Spyder (Jul 27, 2008)

Kayty said:


> Spyder - I know the difference, I was curious to know if the poster I was responding to knew the difference, as it's another statement that tends to be preached.



I knew you did but no one really answered your question. Seemed to have gotten lost and it is a point people should know...for future debates.


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

Thanks Spyder, I'm glad that you clarrified it then. I had forgotten that I'd even posed that question! Lets hope the 'masses' put the information in their tool box so they've got a bit of knowledge for the next interesting classical vs. modern debate


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

Skyseternalangel said:


> Yep, deep seat riding.
> 
> That's the thing, of all my instructors (I've had over 5, in 3 different disciplines).. I never learned any of this stuff. There was no form of communication going on.. which is why I thought it was the start of dressage (not necessarily the whole enchilada) that was helping me become a better rider and my horse, a better horse.
> 
> ...


I took English riding lessons during the late 80s and early 90s. The word dressage was almost never spoken around our barn, but that's exactly what we learned – all those "basics" you talk about. That's what people mean when they say dressage at the lower levels is just good riding. Today we have an instant gratification culture where people want to get to the fun part (jumping) as quickly as possible. As a result some schools aren't teaching the basics like they should. It's not so much that dressage makes you better as learning to ride properly makes you better.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

ponyboy said:


> I took English riding lessons during the late 80s and early 90s. The word dressage was almost never spoken around our barn, but that's exactly what we learned – all those "basics" you talk about. That's what people mean when they say dressage at the lower levels is just good riding. Today we have an instant gratification culture where people want to get to the fun part (jumping) as quickly as possible. As a result some schools aren't teaching the basics like they should. It's not so much that dressage makes you better as learning to ride properly makes you better.


Very much agree  It's a shame people don't take the time to ride properly.. they just want to rush to the adrenaline


----------

