# The Worst Book on Riding I've Read



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

Where on earth do you find these books?? 

You have to remember that there were times when the appearance of a person of a certain class was of paramount importance. It was better to go hungry than go out without the correct outfit.

(I love the part about the "_our shiny little gaffs"!)_

I don't have a problem with the seat he recommends. It looks secure, and obviously is meant for fast riding. . . I guess he never experienced the canter! I wonder if he was very young when he wrote this book?


----------



## Cruiser (Aug 28, 2011)

I just threw out a book that was like this, it was horse care book a republished book but I forget from when. It suggested using certain toxic household cleaners and chemicals for anemia, choking, colic. I am pretty sure a lot of those treatments would have killed the horse.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I bought a copy used from Amazon. Caprilli wrote very little, but Santini was supposed to have written about what Caprilli taught. Santini has a picture of the guy trotting in that position, but the picture is small so I didn't try to scan it. However, from what I could see, both horse and rider looked unhappy in the photo!

It was interesting as a historical perspective on riding, to include women jumping horses sidesaddle. This image, however, came from the Internet. I'm guessing there isn't a huge market now for sidesaddles. :shock: Give her credit - that lady had courage!
















​


----------



## ponyboy (Jul 24, 2008)

What do you expect when you buy a 73-year old book?


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

I think the positions of the riders in Santini's book are beautiful and classic. What is different about them than the person in Chamberlin's book that you think is perfect? Can you point out the differences?

I think it was unfair to use pictures of women jumping sidesaddle over a "high jump". In most cases, a rider's position is always going to slip a little over a fence that high.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

updownrider said:


> I think the positions of the riders in Santini's book are beautiful and classic. What is different about them than the person in Chamberlin's book that you think is perfect? Can you point out the differences?


Chair seat? Horizontal thighs for GP riding? Or as Chamberlin put it with a less extreme example: "_knees too far forward and too high; weight concentrated on cantle_". Add in the piano hands. At the trot:








​ 
Draw a vertical line up from the stirrups. All of his weight is behind the stirrups. Small wonder, then, that Satini describes posting as an up and forward motion, instead of an unfolding motion like Chamberlin describes. And having tried both, I'd say Chamberlin's advice results in much better balance, a more secure seat, and a happier horse while posting. As Chamberlin describes it:








​
When I use Chamberlin's advice and seat, it works well...at least in my Aussie saddle. I cannot image riding with my thighs parallel to the ground, nor do I find it classical for anything other than a handful of specific sports. Remember, Santini was claiming he was teaching GP riding in the book.



updownrider said:


> I think it was unfair to use pictures of women jumping sidesaddle over a "high jump". In most cases, a rider's position is always going to slip a little over a fence that high.


I don't recall criticizing the lady jumping sidesaddle. In fact, I praised her.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms- The riders in Satini's halt pictures are definitely not sitting in a chair seat and if you think they are you then don't know what a chair seat truly looks like. 

Stop posting portions of text. It is not the whole book and often what you post is out of context. Don't those books and pictures have copyrights anyway?

BTW, Posting can be interpreted as an up and forward motion.


----------



## gypsygirl (Oct 15, 2009)

Up and forward vs unfolding is really the same thing in my book... I don't see anything wrong with the pictures...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

ponyboy said:


> What do you expect when you buy a 73-year old book?


73 year old advice, which may or may not be relevant, same as some books of today will be laughed at in the future. Any book should be evaluated against it's time and the beliefs that were prevalent then.

Mind you the same can be said of trying to win arguments by using old paintings, when it is well known that often subjects were enhanced to make them look better, and paintings of action scenes were done without benefit of still or stop frame motion, so were mere impressions of actions.


----------



## whisperbaby22 (Jan 25, 2013)

Interesting discussion. And I do not find any book, old or new, to "suck". Agree or disagree, you can learn from these old books. My riding style is heavily influenced by a small book I read as a kid, then forgot; a few years ago remembered, read again, and realized how much it had influenced me. And no, I will not name it, I have gotten into arguments about the book in the past and am not here to argue. Just to give my 2 cents about these old books.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

A book like "Breaking and Riding" by James Fillis, from 1890 (in the French) has some outdated portions, but it also has a lot of value for a modern reader. Note my signature is from that book, using the English translation of 1902. 112 years old, but still a good thought. VS Littauer's writings from the 50s were very good, and Chamberlin writing in the 1930s was quite good.

I think Santini's writings suck.

If the moderators want me to stop posting excerpts, they can tell me to and I'll comply. Otherwise, "fair use" allows for posting portions of copyright material for discussion. And what I posted was NOT out of context. If you think it was, feel free to buy the book and compare.

GH, you have indicated multiple times you object to my quoting books. I don't choose to learn everything from scratch. If William Steinkraus could learn from books, then the rest of us can afford to read as well. I often post these quotes with links to the books on Amazon, and have encouraged others to read them. Indeed, it was a former moderator on HF who introduced me to VS Littauer, whose thoughts on riding are, IMHO, vastly better than Santini's.

I think anyone who compares "Common Sense Horsemanship" by Littauer with "Learning to Ride" by Santini will see that Littauer had thought much more deeply and wrote about techniques more useful to a beginner than Santini. But you can find both books on Amazon here:

Learning to ride, : Piero Santini: Amazon.com: Books

Common sense horsemanship;: A distinct method of riding and schooling horses and of learning to ride, : Vladimir S Littauer: 9780668026024: Amazon.com: Books

Chamberlin's:

http://www.amazon.com/Riding-School...4&sr=8-1&keywords=riding+and+schooling+horses

BTW - I do know what a chair seat is. That is not some specialized knowledge. Chamberlin's pictures are NOT a chair seat, but Santini's are, and Chamberlin's analysis of that position is correct.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> If William Steinkraus could learn from books, then the rest of us can afford to read as well.


Bill Steinkraus learned to ride originally at summer camp, then from some of the greatest in the sport such as Gordon Wright, Cappy Smith and Bert De Nemethy. Bert is often described as his long-time coach. You are quite defensive, no one disagrees with you about reading riding books but riders should only rely on them as a supplement to training and riding.


----------



## PSNapier (Oct 23, 2012)

> "...I do not find any book, old or new, to "suck"."


I don't know, I've seen some modern riding books that are pretty cringeworthy. I've never seen horses look so horribly miserable as the poor steeds in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Photographic-...c+guide+to+schooling+your+horse+lesley+bayley
I can't bear to even flip through that book anymore, it's too painful. From an olympic trainer no less.

For the most part I've been able to 'take what I like and ignore the rest' from horsy books, especially older ones (I've garnered many a saying and idea from a 100yo military riding handbook, even though there was also talk in it about women 'not be able to ride in anything besides a sidesaddle due to their thighs' and other such nonesense).
I must admit, the particular book you've found BSMS seems particularly chock-full of such nonesense, LOL. I dunno', I'm always off put when trainers begin talking in absolutes.

EDIT: I'm not sure if mentioning the book I did is against the rules or not, apologies if it is- even if it is a silly rule in that case, haha.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Actually, some posters have told me in the past that riding is about doing and books do not help.

Those of us who have started late in life, and who do not have access to high quality instruction, can still pick the brains of great riders so that we can learn faster. I mentioned Steinkraus because in his book he discusses reading old books. He said he was amazed to find passages in books that were centuries old that described something he had learned through hard experience.

I love reading and I enjoy riding. It isn't surprising that I read as much on riding as I can find. I don't ride dressage nor do I intend to, but I have a lot of books written by dressage riders. Most of them have some good ideas that apply to my riding. I don't jump, but my two favorite authors are Littauer and Chamberlin. The former had a well-rounded approach to riding - an underlying philosophy on what made some riding good and what we, as riders, owed our horses. The latter has the best descriptions I've found anywhere on position and how position affects security, ability and motion.

I sold my 2 English saddles last month, and may never ride in an English saddle again - but I owe Littauer and Chamberlin a huge debt for what they taught me about riding and horses. James Fillis is remembered in part for the "Fillis Stirrup", but his book has been in print continuously since first published (1890). His goal was High School riding (Dressage), but many passages describe beautifully things I've experienced working with my horse on a trail.

I had high hopes for Santini, and ordered two of his books at the same time. The second one is in the mail as I type. Perhaps it will be better, but his book was the first book on riding I did not enjoy reading. Perhaps "Riding Reflections" will be better. If so, I'll cheerfully add what I find to this thread.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

bsms said:


> GH, you have indicated multiple times you object to my quoting books. I don't choose to learn everything from scratch.



Ah, I believe you kind of miss the point, this is a thread about books, knock yourself out, quote away. 

My objection is when you quote paragraphs of books, in a wall of text to try and support your point of view and give your argument more 'weight' than anyone elses in the thread.

Book learning is great, information is great, but at some time you have to go out and do it. I guess my opinion is formed from going to University to gain my degree as a mature student. The kids there straight from college tended to take all writings as gospel, whereas us older people were more likely to say "Nope, doesn't work like that in the real world" 

You have limited real life experience with horses, and that's fine, you have found things that work for you, that is great, share that, and let people decide if it may work for them. My issue is when you try and justify things by walls of text cut from others work.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> ...whereas us older people were more likely to say "Nope, doesn't work like that in the real world"
> 
> You have limited real life experience with horses, and that's fine, you have found things that work for you, that is great, share that, and let people decide if it may work for them. My issue is when you try and justify things by walls of text cut from others work.


1 - I do share my "real life experience". That real life experience is why I know some of Santini's advice would be horrible for a new rider - which was the target audience of this book.

2 - Having limited experience, I like to show my limited experience IS backed by people with enormous experience. If I say position X works, folks can take it with a huge grain of salt. If that experience is backed by Olympic champions, or by the US Cavalry, then why not point that out?

3 - I also think many people are unaware of some great writers on riding who wrote before, say, 2005. By quoting folks like Littauer, Chamberlin and Fillis, and providing links, I hope to whet folks' appetites, so that they might choose to get the book and read it and benefit from it. A western rider could benefit from reading those three riders. A dressage rider could benefit from reading Chamberlin, and a jumper from reading Fillis.

However, lots of folks have never HEARD of any of those three, or others. Littauer's works are out of print. Chamberlin's was reprinted recently...I think because the copyright expired. What Fillis wrote is still in print, but I doubt it gets much publicity.

There is a saying: Some folks have 40 years of experience, and some folks have a year of experience repeated 40 times. There are plenty of long time riders who fit in the latter category. An observant person can learn more from 5 horses than an unobservant one will learn from 50. The persistence of myths in the riding community for decades and even centuries is testimony to how riders trying to learn from experience alone can miss the mark.

But GH, if you dislike my posts...please feel free to skip them.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

PSNapier said:


> ...I dunno', I'm always off put when trainers begin talking in absolutes...


I had high hopes for Santini's books, which is why I ordered two of them! I was very surprised at how contemptuous he was of anyone who didn't ride with spurs, or who didn't want to ride in a forward seat all the time...or who neck reined, or didn't wear gloves, etc. 

I'll be interested in reading his other book when it arrives, but I'm no longer eagerly anticipating it...:? It may be that part of my reaction stems from how high my expectations were.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> If William Steinkraus could learn from books, then the rest of us can afford to read as well.





bsms said:


> I mentioned Steinkraus because in his book he discusses reading old books. He said he was amazed to find passages in books that were centuries old that described something he had learned through hard experience.


So Steinkraus did not learn from the book as you first said, Steinkraus said he learned through experience then read about it in books.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

No. The first chapter in his book "Riding in Jumping" is called "Riders and Readers". In it he writes:"_Because of the widespread preconception that you can only learn, in a sort of intuitive way, by doing, and that reading or even thinking seriously about riding is rather pointless, too many young riders are doomed to groping too long in a forest of problems solved long ago. I can recall my astonishment, when I first began to collect books on the techniques of riding, at finding, in books written two or three centuries ago, minute descriptions of "discoveries" that I had made for myself only after a long period of trial and error...Once we become interested in learning about riding, and are not content to repeat interminably the same errors, there is much that we can learn._" - Riding and Jumping, 1961. Underlining mine.​Like Littauer, I think Steinkraus thought deeply about riding. He viewed it in much broader terms than 'Put your foot here, angle it between 10-30 deg toe out, etc'. I admire them both, and found both very helpful - even though I do not jump!


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Some old books have the odd glimmer of interest or relevance, but generally I have found old riding books to be a rather limited means of research and improvement.


----------



## Beling (Nov 3, 2009)

I first learned to ride using the Forward Seat, so I'm an expert--just joking!!!

But the main thing about that seat is, it's for MOVING. Being at the halt is not what it's designed for, but still shows the position: note the ball of the foot is under the knee, and the torso is as close to the center of balance as possible.

When in motion, the torso is in balance, but it LOOKS forward, because the balance is ahead of the horse, if that makes sense.

The CHAIR seat keeps the weight in place behind the center of balance. This is not necessarily bad, it can keep you on the horse if there's a sudden bucking spree, and when the weight stays there consistently the horse seems to get used to it. The ball of the foot is usually in front of the knee. That's my understanding of the chair seat. Oh, and it's comfortable enough when just standing around.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Looking at old classics is good IF you also look at modern books and all the improvements made and only use the classics to expand the knowledge not as truth on their own.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Yogiwick said:


> Looking at old classics is good IF you also look at modern books and all the improvements made and only use the classics to expand the knowledge not as truth on their own.


And on top of that get feedback from someone on the ground on your actual riding....I know that what I THINK I look like when I ride is nothing like the actuality. This is where I am at, you can read all the books in the world, I would be shocked if you became a great rider just from that. It is a recourse, but just one of many and when it comes to riding not always the best.

Look at all the diet books out there, do it this way, do it that, more carbs, less fat, less carbs more fat, graze, eat all the time, NO eat just 3 big meals a day. Anyone can quote from these books, but it doesn't mean that the book is right, it is part of the fashion and vogue of the time. Same with riding, fashion changes, ideas evolve, I am ancient enough to have been taught to ride chair seat and low piano hands, that is how my instructor was taught, that is how she taught me. 

I have been led on a journey by a combination of reading, watching, learning, doing, and asking questions, and I know that we are all on a journey, we all have ways to get there, but things change so quickly that the relevance of the old texts, even the old masters have to be given the correct weight in importance.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

If you want to research research everything. Exactly. Otherwise you don't really have an opinion imo. At least not an educated one.

Yes an actual person is invaluable and worth far more than even the best rider in a book. I feel not only should that go without saying but was trying to focus on the book part!


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

no one can research everything. and , we HAVE TO quote books in partial amounts. we can't post the whole book here!

I appreciate reading some of the obscure stuff bsms posts, though I confess to not always having the stamina to read it all. i do plenty of "book larnin'", but it tends to be a whole 'nother spectrum. I find it interesting to hear how diverse can be the teachings on riding. but, like most of you, I have my own preferences for what I will accept and incorporate into riding.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

If you want to read old books for the general interest and comparative value then that's great but if you want to read books that are going to be truly valuable in terms of 'today' then best stick to things written in more recent years
I was once given a book published by a company called Ellimans who were mostly famed for their Embrocation and I tell you that stuff could (according to them) cure just about any ailment in horses, pigs, cattle, sheep & poultry known to man
The person who wrote the book you've found to be so useless seemed to be more focused on a seat that was going to safe and effective out hunting and if you went hunting today you'd still see a lot of riders looking much the same.
Certainly in Europe in those days horse riding was a sport for the 'better off' class and what you wore and the tack you rode in was very important to them - not that much different really to the 'Designer brands obsessed people of today though.
Sidesaddle is actually growing again in popularity and the numbers hunting that way on the increase - and include a ladies Steeplechase (racing cross country over fences) ridden sidesaddle
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9a7eU88RC0


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I don't have any "worst" books, but I did recently buy a book on horse conformation, and this was written in England. the author's opinion on 'good' conformation was based on a hunter type. that conformation would be 'bad' when viewed by a working cowboy.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I have many old books, Black's Veterinary Dictionary, 1890s, being interesting. If anyone wants to know how to remove a horse's eye, just ask!

One of my favourite books is Riding Logic, W. Museler. Still in publication dates from 1937.

Old books are fun to read, I have a pile of them - 14 old horse care books from 1910. 
There are many things that are still true today and many of the old herbal cures are better than modern medicine.

As for dated riding books again some things ring true but riding has changed a lot from as late as the 1940s to today. 

Caprilli changed the jumping seat at the turn of the last century but it took many years after his death before it became the norm. 

Times change and nothing teaches a rider better than hours and hours spent in the saddle. 

Not saying that lessons don't help because eyes on the ground do!


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

I have Black's too...it is interesting, but thank goodness many things have moved on.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

One of the best books I have on conformation goes over everything, good and bad, AS WELL as specifying what is best for different disciplines and how something that may be less than ideal for one may be perfect for another.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Just to add - jumping sidesaddle is much the same as jumping astride! 

You do need a horse with a good front to it, or at least, I do, or you feel you are going to tip over their heads. 

I was asked to do the stunt work for a BBC drama where I had to be run away with and the horse jump a gate and I had to fall. As this was set pre 1914, I was roding sidesaddle. Haha, no way could I fall off that horse! I was not prepared to fall off the right side and land on my back so it meant falling to the left. I just couldn't do it only when I removed the leaping head, which unscrews, could I do the stunt. 
I got paid a meesley £10 for the deed!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Eyes on the ground are the best - or videos if you can self critique. A friend of mine was suffering from back ache for ages, swapped her saddles no end of times, spent a fortune on chiro for her horse because she was convinced it was the horse that was 'out' and all the time the problem was her sitting 'wonky' but she'd gradually got so used to that weird position she couldn't even notice it.
I've got a Blacks Veterinary Dictionary too !!!!


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

Foxhunter said:


> Just to add - jumping sidesaddle is much the same as jumping astride!
> 
> You do need a horse with a good front to it, or at least, I do, or you feel you are going to tip over their heads.
> 
> ...



My friend has just been in Downton Abbey riding as a stunt double for one of the actresses in an xc race (?) she does a lot sidesaddle and has recently been placed with a complete team of sidesaddle riders in a team chase! I think she is mad, but she loves it and hunts regularly sideways.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Those with access to good, quality instruction and the money to pay for it are blessed. Many of us live in places where books by great riders and horsemen are a more reliable guide than the instruction available, and much cheaper.

If by old we mean prior to 1964 (50+ years), then I've found more of value in them than in more recent books. Too many of the recent books are either focused on 'bonding' or arena sports. I think it is folly to believe we are now better riders than riders of 1950, 1900 or even 1800. It is necessary to interpret what they did in light of what their environment and goals were, but many of them lived daily with horses in a way few modern people do.

I don't think Steinkraus, Littauer, Chamberlin or Fillis suffer too greatly for writing before 2000. Or before 1980. Or even before 1900. I'd bet any of them could hold their own against Parelli...or any of a number of arena riders.

Chamberlin, for example, trained for a year at the French Cavalry School, and then a year at the Italian one. He then returned to America with orders to incorporate the best of what he learned into the US Cavalry school. He competed in multiple Olympics, taught riding to thousands of riders and taught in a riding school where the officers were expected to ride over 100 horses during their training. 

I don't think anyone posting on HF has better credentials on riding than he had. Those who think they know more about riding than he did, and who feel free to poo-poo his ideas, might try a bit of humility. Just because he trained and rode in the 20s-40s doesn't mean he wasn't fully qualified to teach riding.

His book may be "old", but so what? Think about the time frame and the goals of his riding, and adjust.

With Santini, I've cited examples of what I found 'wrong' in his book. I've granted that some of that comes from the difference in our riding circumstances. I don't, for example, have a groom to hold my horse while I mount. But where I dislike his ideas, I can say WHY I dislike them and HOW I think them harmful to a beginning rider. I criticize his IDEAS, not the time frame when he wrote. I am unhappy with the book because of some of the ideas in it, not because it wasn't printed in 2011...:evil:


----------



## Clava (Nov 9, 2010)

There are plenty of modern good books with nothing to do with bonding or arena sports.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

The point is there have been advances made and things are not the same. Also books are specific to that persons experience.

I'm sure you can agree with that.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - I think you'll find that most of those things you don't like are because they don't relate to riding in the 2000's and especially to your style of western riding
I avoid books that are specifically about NH - but I'll still read articles in magazines about it because sometimes something comes up that is useful or interesting. I actually find magazines better than books for general interest because they do cover a wider range of things and also cover latest research articles. Especially better now I can download them straight onto this ipad thingy I was bought as a present last year - including some for free through a thing called ISSUU - like this for eg. which you can get onto your computer
ISSUU - Search


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I obviously do not believe you need to take everything someone writes 100%. My favorite authors are heavily weighed toward jumpers, yet I do not jump. They are all written by English riders (style, not nationality), but I ride western.

Yet there is much of value in them, from tips on position to how to train a horse. I think it would be a pity to set some cut-off date and read only modern writings. I also think it would be a shame for someone to say, "I'm a western rider, so therefor I can only learn about horses and riding from western riders". The sentence in my signature line is as true now as it was in 1890, even if Parelli and others echo it.

I can look at a drawing of foxhunting from 1810, and see things worth emulating and others that are not. I can read a modern book on dressage (and I have a number of them), and find things of value in it even though I have no desire to practice that type of riding. 

I started riding at 50. I don't have time to reject ideas written before 2005, nor time to re-invent riding on my own.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> I don't think anyone posting on HF has better credentials on riding than he had. Those who think they know more about riding than he did, and who feel free to poo-poo his ideas, might try a bit of humility. Just because he trained and rode in the 20s-40s doesn't mean he wasn't fully qualified to teach riding.


I doubt anyone on this board thinks they have better credentials than any of the masters you quote. However, many on this board know they have better credentials than you, and it is you arguing the master's points without a deep understanding of what they even mean.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I think folks who start late in life, riding I mean, are often the ones most willing to be humble and admit they don't know everything there is to know.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I never started riding later in life, I started very young. I know a lot, I have experienced a lot but one thing for sure, I still have masses to learn!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Me too
We also have to accept that even though two riders might have very different styles - showjumping is a great example - and we can admire one and think another is awful - when both are consistently successful at the high end of the sport it says something about the perfect or ideal position not always counting for everything


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Ahhhh....I read, therefore I am an expert.

All books are products of THEIR TIME...and time moves on. That does not mean there is no wisdom to be found in a dated book.

This sculpture is from the Nok culture and was considered good equitation. See, things change










Even the Chinese updated their style

before










after










You know, bashing a book that was written so long ago just because you don't agree with it is interesting. This author was a well respected and life long experienced trainer of the TIME.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Allison Finch said:


> Ahhhh....I read, therefore I am an expert...
> 
> ...You know, bashing a book that was written so long ago just because you don't agree with it is interesting. This author was a well respected and life long experienced trainer of the TIME.


Actually, I gave specific reasons for disagreeing with what the author wrote. Do you disagree with those reasons? Do you believe hands should be held with knuckles parallel to the ground? Do you believe a newbie ought to ride with spurs? Do you believe a newbie ought to ride with their thighs parallel to the horse's back, and all the weight behind the stirrups?

Do not blame these faults on the book's age. Chamberlin wrote in '34, some 7 years prior to Santini's book. The book by Benjamin Lewis, written with the support of the US Cavalry, was published in 1936 - and what it taught holds up fine today, as does Chamberlin's writings. The French Cavalry Manual (1912, IIRC) was also superior, as was Fillis (1890).

The problem wasn't what was known in 1941, but what Santini WROTE. An Italian jump saddle is NOT the best saddle for all riding activities, including dressage. Neck reining, and indirect reining, and other reining taught long before 1941 does not confuse a horse.

If you have a problem with any of my criticism of the book, please share it. What did the author write that I disagreed with, but that you think is a good approach for a new rider?

Is rational discussion - a logical review on concepts - impossible? Can you give a REASON for liking the book - and have you even READ it? 

I strongly doubt either updownrider or Golden Horse have ever read Chamberlin or Santini. They show no familiarity with anything either one wrote. Neither they nor you, Allison, have attempted to discuss anything in Santini's book and why anything in it is either good or bad - as other authors knew AT THE TIME!

And Allison, I already knew he was a respected writer. That is why I ordered TWO of his books...and that is why I've been so disappointed in the first one that arrived!



updownrider said:


> I doubt anyone on this board thinks they have better credentials than any of the masters you quote. However, many on this board know they have better credentials than you, and it is you arguing the master's points without a deep understanding of what they even mean.


I am fully aware of what Chamberlin wrote, and it is not hard to understand. That is part of the beauty of his book: It is easy for a beginner to read and understand. When working on it, he sent chapters to a new rider and asked her to try to follow what he wrote. If she had difficulty, he re-wrote the section. His book WAS written for the new rider, and he tested it on a new rider before submitting his manuscript.

If you think having all the weight of your body behind the stirrups is good riding, please explain WHY. That is how rational people discuss things - with reasons. Not name calling, and not dismissing someone, but giving reasons pro or con.

To be honest with everyone on this thread...it never occurred to me that folks would think sitting on your rump with your thighs level with the horse's back and all your weight behind the stirrups was a good approach, or that it would be good for a new rider to launch their weight to get their center of gravity over the horse's spine ASAP when mounting. Been there, done that, had the horse explode while I was over the back...never again. Not for me. But if y'all think it IS a good idea, please say WHY.

I love hearing ideas on riding, including ideas that are contrary to what I do. I have nothing but contempt, however, for those who think 6 years of riding means I know nothing at all and shouldn't post about a book I read.

My favorite authors, Littauer and Chamberlin, are not hard to understand. That is why they were so successful as writers and instructors.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

You think a guy named Santini would rather ride in a Stubben, or a Pariani?


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms - I have told you more than once that there is more than likely not a book you quote on this forum I have not read. My library is extensive and I have 40 years on you when it comes to reading riding books. I have also told you in the past that I have read Chamberlin and I am telling you now I have read Santini. I have even recommended a book for you to read, which you did.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The guy was an Italian, Caprilli who gets credit for the forward seat in jumping was an Italian - they thought the whole new world of riding style revolved around them so of course he believed that only their saddles were the best - they were the first to ride in this new way so were probably the first to develop a saddle to suit it
The western style of riding was looked down on by Europeans - hence the term 'a bunch of cowboys' came into common use. It doesn't mean they were right - it just means they knew nothing about that way of riding.
Some people have always had a tendency to knock things they don't understand
There are many books out there that are relevant to modern day riding so why not look at some of them for guidance?
If you find this book so irritating then why not just 'bin it'?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

I'm still waiting for a REASON WHY you either agree or disagree with what I wrote in reaction to Santini's book. I would LOVE to hear how you reconcile it with what Chamberlin wrote, if you think Chamberlin agreed with Santini on things like cues and riding position, or WHY they differed.

In your first post on this thread, you wrote:

"_I think the positions of the riders in Santini's book are beautiful and classic. What is different about them than the person in Chamberlin's book that you think is perfect? Can you point out the differences_?"

I pointed out the differences. I'm waiting, many posts later, for YOU to explain how you see them as being the same.

Your next post on this thread was:

"_Bsms- The riders in Satini's halt pictures are definitely not sitting in a chair seat and if you think they are you then don't know what a chair seat truly looks like. 

Stop posting portions of text. It is not the whole book and often what you post is out of context. Don't those books and pictures have copyrights anyway?_"

In what sense were the pictures I posted NOT a chair seat. And why do you belittle someone and claim they know nothing because they see this and think "Chair seat":










While we are on it, what gives you the right to attack me on HF for my style of posting comments?

And just what did I or have I posted that was out of context? Please back up what you write. In what sense were my extracts out of context? Please grab your copy and show why you believe it was out of context.

Rational discussion. What do you believe and WHY do you believe it. 

If you think Santini and Chamberlin are in agreement, then you have seriously misunderstood one or the other. But if I am wrong, then PLEASE explain WHY!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> ...If you find this book so irritating then why not just 'bin it'?


Why not review it? Why not invite discussion - discussion which I thought would center on the pros or cons of what either Santini or I wrote?

Anyone who doesn't want to read or think about older books is welcome to skip the thread. Anyone who doesn't like my style of writing is welcome to skip both my posts and my threads.

And I would LOVE for someone to explain WHY I WAS WRONG in my critique, if indeed I was wrong.

BTW - The sections of writing I've been able to find by Caprilli, I loved. I really liked what Caprilli wrote, and I think many western riders would enjoy it too.

I gave specific reasons why I did not approve of Santini's advice to new riders. Is it too much to ask for the thread I started to deal with what Santini wrote, pro or con?


----------



## deserthorsewoman (Sep 13, 2011)

I dare say the Santini seat would be the base for what is seen in the video(IF the link works that is lol).


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> "_Bsms- *The riders in Satini's halt pictures are definitely not sitting in a chair seat and if you think they are you then don't know what a chair seat truly looks like*.
> 
> 
> In what sense were the pictures I posted NOT a chair seat. And why do you belittle someone and claim they know nothing because they see this and think "Chair seat":
> ...


_

What I will address is you putting words in my mouth. That is my quote you have in your post (I put it in bold). As you can see, I never belittled you by claiming you know nothing. I never said you know nothing. Do not put words in someone's mouth._


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Italians still think all things Italian are the best. that's what I love about Italy!

bsms, I did not see your remarks as anything more than a review of a book, and throwing out some points for discussion. if people did not question what has been written in the past, at one point held as "gospel", then we would not advance.

Why WOULD anyone consider those photos correct, and why do some think that is not a chair seat? it looks like one to me. if you know better, then by all means share your knowledge. thats what forums are for.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - I find it hard to really critique this guy based on modern day riding because he was back there on the cutting edge of something which was still quite new - when Italy and then the rest of Europe were getting into the forward seat we Brits were still hanging on to our typical hunting seat - because it suited the majority better.
So what does look 'wrong' to us now was more like the evolution of a new riding position that was still adapting so I think you need to take a lot of what he said from that perspective.
My old boss was a real old fashioned hunting man and watching him go over a fence was terrifying to someone my age and yet he hunted 2 or 3 times a week all through the season, 5 bar fences and huge wide hedges with ditches, nothing stopped him and as far as I know he only ever fell off once when he misjudged the height of a low branch and got swept off the back of his saddle


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

bsms said:


> I'm still waiting for a REASON WHY you either agree or disagree with what I wrote in reaction to Santini's book. I would LOVE to hear how you reconcile it with what Chamberlin wrote, if you think Chamberlin agreed with Santini on things like cues and riding position, or WHY they differed.


Many have given up "fencing" with you. You will give opinions, but will often only argue with other people's opinions.



> In what sense were the pictures I posted NOT a chair seat. And why do you belittle someone and claim they know nothing because they see this and think "Chair seat":












The first photo is not a typical chair seat. It only appears that way because the stirrups are so short. This is a JUMPING seat. The stirrups are short for going over high jumps. There is no way to have a "classical" seat with the stirrups that short. And, it is hard to jump high jumps with the stirrups any longer.

You might say that having the stirrup "home" (off the ball of the foot) is not classical. However, it is a common way to jump when riding cross country at speed. It is VERY tiring to have the stirrup on the ball of your foot while riding many miles over a cross country course. The "home" position is less fatiguing. Again, common knowledge if you know much about jumping outside of a show ring.










If this jumper rider was sitting in the saddle at a halt, just how do you think he would look with such short stirrups?










Probably a lot like that first photo.

You do not jump. For you8 to critique a true jumping seat would be like my trying to critique a saddle seat equitation rider.....something I know nothing about.

The second photo is a very good "hunting" seat. A slightly longer stirrup for splitting time on the flat and over less high jumps. Still not a chair seat, IMO. The hunting seat differed from the jumping seat in that foxhunters spend many hours in the saddle riding all kinds of terrain and need to have a slightly longer stirrup length to be able to do both. Jumpers don't.

Strictly flat riders, like in dressage, will have stirrups that are much longer. This allows the seat to rotate more toward the pubic bone so that it won't look "chairish". But, then they don't have to have a stirrup length that will be better for uneven terrain or jumping.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

The point:

My mother and I were riding the same horse (one of ours). He was misbehaving and my mother had piano hands and very braced arms. I pointed it out.

When I rode she pointed out in that my hands weren't perfect either. In my case it was laziness/bad habit. My hands were soft and forgiving.

Makes the point that "bad riding" really may not matter. My mother was bracing (and when she stopped he actually stopped too), while my hands weren't perfect I was not bracing and he was riding very nicely. Ultimately how much do these things matter for the average rider? I was speaking with an instructor and she was saying the "allowed degrees" for things for showing (eg having a 30 degree angle to the hands is acceptable)


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

true, but if you want to improve your techinique, you need to add being able to NOT ride with piano hands to your repetoir. 

there is a reason that instructors say, "thumbs on top". it has more to do with it than looking a certain way. it has been known for a long time that keeping your thumbs down, (piano hands) means your forearm rotates, causes your elbow to drift out and can create a disconnect between your hand and your seat. it's at the root of a lot of problems, and when people post here for critiques, if you can get them to NOT do piano hands, it helps them clear up a whole host of other problems. thus, it is not so strange that the OP of this thread thought it odd that a writer would consider a photo , with the rider in a piano handed position, to be a strange image to raise as exemplary.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Don't disagree it's better to NOT have that issue. Just saying my mothers hands were parallel and braced and a negative thing. Wheras mine were maybe at 45 degrees and loose and soft.

That was more of a response to jaydee's post on her old boss. Probably should of quoted it.

So ideal no, but sometimes it works.

Of course there's "incorrect" riding then there's just bad riding LOL


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Allison Finch said:


> Many have given up "fencing" with you. You will give opinions, but will often only argue with other people's opinions.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


1 - The title of the book is "*Learning to Ride*". It includes sections on what a snaffle is, and how to get on and off a horse. That is why, in my question to you, I wrote:

"_Do you believe a newbie ought to ride with their thighs parallel to the horse's back, and all the weight behind the stirrups?_"

The book was meant to instruct someone in how to ride at the very beginner level. It was NOT a book on jumping high obstacles. If the title had been, "Learning to Jump", I would not have started this thread.

So...do you believe that is a good position to teach someone who is still learning how to get on and off a horse?

I fully understand that some purposes require different seats. A jockey will ride in a seat that is horrible for a new rider, but great for winning a race. Someone jumping obstacles will also make adjustments - although Chamberlin and the US Army said the length they showed was good for obstacles up to 4' in height.

I do not jump - as I have said repeatedly - and do not know if that advice is correct. But the seat shown is NOT a good seat for a beginner rider, riding on the flat (as the chapter those pictures came in discussed). That was the chapter that denied the canter exists...:?

2 - I ride with my feet homed. Chamberlin and Littauer both recommended it, with Chamberlin arguing it was a bad fault in riding to use the ball of the foot. I have no preference based on which is better, but I am extremely aware of what the home position means. In fact, the first thread I ever posted on HF concerned if it was or was not a good idea. I've used it personally for nearly all 6 years of my riding.

3 - At no time have I said anything about a good seat for jumping. Like Chamberlin, Littauer *AND Santini* and Caprilli, I like a forward seat for all riding. I may need to adjust somewhat for riding a western saddle with a western saddle tree...but I was discussing a forward seat, not a jump seat. THAT is an area Santini and I would have been in complete agreement on. I've spent 6 years mostly riding a forward seat. Not because I jump, but because I like what it does for my horse and I.

A book written BEFORE Santini's and completely superior to it for the purpose of teaching a new rider is "Riding" by Benjamin Lewis. Published 5 years before Santini, in 1936, and targeted to the same audience, its advice holds up well. A non-jumper like myself could and did learn a lot from it. The pictures were of high enough quality to stand alone. It is a good book on forward riding.

"_Many have given up "fencing" with you._"

I posted what I read and what I thought about it in post #1. It is not unreasonable to expect someone who disagrees with me to say why they disagree prior to 50+ posts on the thread.

If someone said, "Piano hands work great for double reins!", I would have accepted it at face value since I've never ridden with double reins. I immediately acknowledged the validity of those comments about how Santini rode and lived in a different world, where dress and expectations played a different role.

I am also fully willing to read, "You are wrong because of X" - assuming X is valid. In your case, I object to X because I've read the book and know its target audience. However, I do thank you for providing a reason for why you look at it a particular way. It is completely acceptable for someone to look at something and come to a different conclusion than I do. I respect you as a rider and admit you know far more about riding than I do or ever will. I just want any criticisms to be based on reason, not personality.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Santini's advice on hand position:










He wrote, "_The change from knuckles perpendicular to the ground to practically horizontal...automatically relaxes fingers and forearms, communicating to the horse a beneficial sense of lightness and well-being_."

But if there is a reason he is right, I'm willing to listen.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I can't tell if you accept what I wrote, or not. It doesn't sound like you agree, which is fine. All we are is the sum of our experiences. I've given my opinion. It wasn't wholly accepted (I think), and I am moving on.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

bsms said:


> Santini's advice on hand position:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It is a person's OPINION. It doesn't have to be right or wrong in your eyes. It is based on HIS experience and training. Why is it so important to "prove him wrong"? If you don't agree, don't use the techniques you disagree with. I just don't get why right or wrong, here, is so important.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

We're tuned to believe its correct to have that thumbs up elbows down but this is a guy trying to perfect a new riding position - and when you jump your arms are actually more relaxed when your elbows drift out as you go over the fence and its easier to do that when your hands turn over at more of an angle


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I have had roders ride with piano hands because it is harder for them to set their wrists against a contact. I have also had them ride with their hands the wrong way round and their index finger pointing along the rein to the horse's mouth again to improve their wrist/arm stiffness, I have also had risers cross their reins so the left rein is in the right hand and right in the left, to help stop a horse from setting against th bridle. These are not 'correct' but they can lead to correctness.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Allison Finch said:


> It is a person's OPINION. It doesn't have to be right or wrong in your eyes. It is based on HIS experience and training. Why is it so important to "prove him wrong"? If you don't agree, don't use the techniques you disagree with. I just don't get why right or wrong, here, is so important.


Golly! Isn't that what I did? I expressed my opinion on a book by an author long dead. Santini doesn't care what I wrote. I doubt he would even if he was still alive. So "Why is it so important to "prove [me] wrong"? If you don't agree, don't use the techniques you disagree with. I just don't get why right or wrong, here, is so important."

No one has to agree with my opinion of "Learning to Ride". No horse is harmed by my disagreeing with Santini. Santini isn't harmed by my disagreeing with Santini. His books are out of print, so Santini's estate is not harmed. I've pointed out my inexperience multiple times, and that I don't jump, so everyone ought to know where I'm coming from and can freely discount anything I've written. 

All I've done is express an opinion after being disappointed in a 70+ year old book about riding that I had high hopes for. It never occurred to me that anyone would take offense, attack my writing style, suggest I'm too inexperienced to hold an opinion, or even take my opinion seriously. Anyone was welcome to disagree (with reasons) or to totally ignore everything I wrote.

If HF isn't a place to discuss opinions about riding and horses, what should we discuss?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

bsms said:


> If HF isn't a place to discuss opinions about riding and horses, what should we discuss?



Well _some_ people like a discussion, but some people just want to be right, and will nit pick, and use volume of response to make sure that they get the last word, maybe thinking that they have 'won' when all that has happened is that people have thrown their hands in the air and walked away.


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

bsms said:


> Golly! Isn't that what I did? I expressed my opinion on a book by an author long dead. Santini doesn't care what I wrote. I doubt he would even if he was still alive. So "Why is it so important to "prove [me] wrong"? If you don't agree, don't use the techniques you disagree with. I just don't get why right or wrong, here, is so important."
> 
> No one has to agree with my opinion of "Learning to Ride". No horse is harmed by my disagreeing with Santini. Santini isn't harmed by my disagreeing with Santini. His books are out of print, so Santini's estate is not harmed. I've pointed out my inexperience multiple times, and that I don't jump, so everyone ought to know where I'm coming from and can freely discount anything I've written.
> 
> ...


How about politics?:wink:


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Foxhunter said:


> I have had roders ride with piano hands because it is harder for them to set their wrists against a contact. I have also had them ride with their hands the wrong way round and their index finger pointing along the rein to the horse's mouth again to improve their wrist/arm stiffness, I have also had risers cross their reins so the left rein is in the right hand and right in the left, to help stop a horse from setting against th bridle. These are not 'correct' but they can lead to correctness.


Exactly. Incorrect is not always bad. I've seen plenty of things (none come to mind instantly though ) where it's blatantly wrong but when explained why the lightbulb goes off and then later down the road seeing the rider go it right and well.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Yogiwick said:


> Exactly. Incorrect is not always bad. I've seen plenty of things (none come to mind instantly though ) where it's blatantly wrong but when explained why the lightbulb goes off and then later down the road seeing the rider go it right and well.


An example that I use all the time is rising trot diagonals. It should NEVER be considered a "rule". It is a tool. It is used to help facilitate a proper bend by lengthening the muscles along the "long" side of a turning horse.

BUT, it is a tool. An incorrect rising diagonal can be used for a distinct purpose by a rider. Uninformed people might look at this and say THEY ARE BREAKING A RULE!! And, that this is patently incorrect riding.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

*Wearing my MOD badge*
This thread has the potential to be interesting - discussing how riding techniques have changed over the years, how what might not look pretty or be technically correct can work etc
Can members please try to keep away from personal arguments and jabs at each other.
Lets try to be more tolerant of each others opinions.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

jaydee said:


> We're tuned to believe its correct to have that thumbs up elbows down but this is a guy trying to perfect a new riding position - and when you jump your arms are actually more relaxed when your elbows drift out as you go over the fence and its easier to do that when your hands turn over at more of an angle



I did not know that. See, here's a perfect example of how having some knowledge of one discipline, does not mean you know much of another, and what looks right for one is not necessarily right for another. I have no training in jumping, so this is the first I've heard that. 
now that you explain it, it makes perfect sense.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Santini's other book arrived today. It is short and filled with very good pictures. If you wished to buy a book of his, I'd strongly recommend "Riding Reflections" as the better of the two. If you don't want to read any more blocks of text, or a discussion by a non-jumper, skip this post.

Part of what makes it a better book is that it focuses on jumping, and mostly addresses those who do so as competitors or as professional riders. That doesn't mean he views the forward seat as a jump seat. He wrote:"The verb "to sit" should be eliminated from our vocabulary where riding is concerned, for the idea it conveys is intrinsically misleading. Were it not for its indecorous connotation, the word "perch" would more aptly suggest the position that the rider should assume in what is commonly described as the 'forward' seat...

...the principles of the forward seat are barely affected by the length of the leathers, and apply to all paces; in other words they constitute a distinct riding position and complete method, and not simply a convenient way of surmounting obstacles...From the knee down the position should never vary, whatever pace we may be going or whatever obstacles we may be negotiating. The same applies to going downhill, or up, or to refusals, run-outs and similar tragi-comic incidents, the principle being that the knees, forced into the saddle by the position of the feet and the flexing of the ankles, act as a _pivot_ and give natural grip...

...From the knee, which should be the _immovable_ pivot or hinge of all action, upwards, the body should follow the movements of the horse..." - Piero Santini, Riding Reflections, 1933​The italics are in the original text, and the underlining is mine. He argues the angle of the thigh is largely irrelevant since the knee is what is critical. This is one of the areas where the Italian Seat taught by their cavalry differed from the US Cavalry. If you wish to know why, Littauer gives good reasons in "Common Sense Horsemanship" (pages 57-58). He notes that he objected to the concept even when Santini's book was first published, and Chamberlin dropped it from his ideas on riding when he returned to the USA after attending a year of training with the Italians.

From a competitive jumping viewpoint, someone else can comment. Littauer argued it worked great for some horses and some riders, but was a poor option for the typical recreational rider. 

Having ridden a lot of bolts and near bolts before Mia calmed down, I will say that gripping with the knee was a great way to keep her running. The best way to stop her in a true bolt (mindless fear bolt) was to pry my knees apart and softly call her name. When an ear flicked back, it meant her mind had returned and she would stop momentarily. I agree with some other advice I read in another book - _no one stops a bolting horse. They stop a horse who has stopped bolting_.

The pictures in Riding Reflections are much better. I recognized a number of them from seeing them on various Internet sites.


----------

