Positions and theory

Julie · Positions and theory

three people and two bottles of wine later...discussion please

there are two positons, classical which is a light seat - your horse is encouraged to come up beneath you and work, and the heavy seat - you push your weight into the horse and the horse moves into pressure and comes up underneath you.

there is two types of engagement - baucherist where the flexion of the poll and lower jaw are paramount with engagement into this contact, and for arguments sake classical where the horse is ridden from behind long and low into a contact.

by this definition most people will fit into certain categories

parelli - heavy baucher
heather moffat - light baucher
mary Wanless - heavy classical
sally swift - light classical
Janice dulak - light classical

Scarlet Belle

I keep getting told by my instructor to quit sitting back so far and drop my reins...and heels down. This after I use to ride okay?

No Name

Niek

Hm interesting take on it but with the variations especially on Baucher maybe a somewhat dangerous assumption. But i still like it for discussion sake..

When we talk about seating and riding it might be worth it to define the differences between Jineta and Brida. These has to do with seating (Where the saddle is positioned) and use of reins.

My appeal is with the more brida styled riding with a long/ draped leg :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiP7nsVHizw

But i do have a rider like PK in very very high regard to. Same goes for Karen Rohlf. They are out of their horse his way. And i think thats the most important thing. being out of his way. and dont restrict his movements with the reins or your seat. I think it can be acomplished both ways. And it differs per horse what works best and what doesnt..,

Julie

was trying to reduce te number of definitions. pk is def baucherist, but have not yet seen KR

Niek

hm id Karen Rolhf is some light baucherist with classical twists ? :9

Horse Gypsy

I think it is our responsibility to be light and out of the horses way as much as possible. From what I have learned about the horses back-- pretty much the back takes a pounding no matter how hard we try not to, I think we need to do our best to be as light as possible. I like PK he is light- he speaks of lightness as a priority- and all his horses are truely round. I just can't stand a driving heavy seat- how could a horse like that and feel positive about that experience.

Julie

Think about parelli then. everythng is geared to the fluidity seat and the balnce point which means sitting far back in the saddle with weight to the rear of the horse. the horse will then come up beneath you and move into pressue to lift you.
but everything else has been geared to making horses soft and move away from pressure

Horse Gypsy

Julie, I really do not think they have thought this through correctly before they started teaching it-- it was years later that Linda started working with WAZ- they really didn't have the background in advanced riding to really know the difference between a horse who is correctly working through his back and one that is not. It is sort of a shame, they should have just stuck with what Pat did know-- Colt starting- yielding to pressure- Bareback etc-- I think it is causing a lot of people to distrust their credibility- especially horse professionals. Karen R- doesn't use most of their equipment and she is associated with them.

AlythLong

I haven't done a great deal of thinking on this subject but I have just finished a 3 day L3 clinic with 3* Jackie Chant.
She lowered my stirrups 2 holes and put my leg back so it was under my shoulder and hip (as in classical shoulder/hip/heel line) and it felt great. I was then not "on the fork" as I had been when sitting on crotch/seat bones. I have to remember to keep my shoulders back (as in over my hips not in front of them) and flex my lower back when siting in rising trot. It felt much better to me and my horse slowed right down and stopped doing the "demented shuffle" he had been doing in my old position.
So for me balance point and fluidity seem to be the way to go. We are talking tiny changes not major ones.
Alyth

Horse Gypsy

I think that the original idea of trying to get people not to grip and be tight on a horse was a good one that Linda had. The thing is that you do not need to be on your Parelli balance point not to grip, you just need to be open in your hips and centered in your own body- then you will not grip. I agree that good riding doesn't involve griping and being tight- but to tell people to adopt this un athletic position on a horse in order not to grip I just find to be flat wrong.
I think the field instructors have a little bit of leeway in what they teach.

Niek

who says they havent ?

Horse Gypsy

Niek

instructors having some leeway.

I dont agree with your observation about beeing to heavy in the back. Read Alois Pohdjasky`s the complete training for horse and rider. He talks about heaving a stiff back (as a rider) and how that creates a communication line between hands and seat. I can even show you a clip of Nuno Oliveira., hes doing a stretched out trot and its not his most flattering footage when it comes to his seating.. Yet this horse still moves like crazy

Wether or not you agree with this (or i agree with this) is a completely different story. But stating just because the horses heads are somewhat up with the nose out is just because she is seating to heavy, is nothing more than an assumption imo. There can be a million reasons why hes moving around that way.

There are not many horses out there that are moving biomechanicly correct. And that correctness can even change per region/trainer/dicipline.

Horse Gypsy

I am just completely against the balance point right now. I just see no positive thing coming out of it- That is my opinion- My back hurt my horses weren't moving well I looked like crap when I was trying to use that method.. But I have the exact opposite body type from Linda- she is short and kind of curvy- I am tall and skinny-- My sister tells me that everyone who is built like me has an easier time with certain things just because of having legs- something about my center of gravity. Like I have always found riding Bareback to be easy.
I couldn't get into any method that employed a stiff back- but I do think that we need to be collected in our body if we want our horses to be collected in theirs.

Julie

Podhasky also talks about having a light seat. i just watched the parelli saddle fitting dvd again and def puts weight in the back of the saddle!

Niek

podhasky also talks about having a braced back. I dont see the issue with weight further back in the saddle/on the horse. The whole idea is nothing new. You see it in the original spanish saddles, icelandic saddles. And a whole range of other saddles.

Horse Gypsy

I do not think it is the placement of the saddle that is the issue- I think everyone agrees you have to give the shoulders clearance and not to put the saddle so far forward. The issue for me is the putting the human weight back at the back of the saddle instead of centered in the saddle. I just think this is something that you have to experiment with yourself. In my mind we want the horse swinging up through the back- the muscles on the right side of the back contract and then the left and create a swing at the walk and trot- the canter is slightly different. So I think that we as riders need to be able to accommodate that swing in our bodies and I do not see how you can do that if you are keeping all your weight back on the balance point at all times. I can not physically do it and I am pretty athletic and flexible- but with a more upright position I can easily dip one hip down at a time with the movement of my horses back and stay out of the way of the natural swing and contraction of the back. To me this is very important- as the back muscles are not weight bearing muscles so from a biomechanical stand point we need to do everything we can to allow those long back muscles to work properly. It makes me realize how ingenious KR is with her Let Loose exercise because that exercise builts the ability for the horse to develop or strengthen that natural swing- and it is from there that we will develop contact- making sure that we can return to the free back at any time. With the contact just receiving information not setting the head.

Niek

yes i understand that. But my point is : why go at it like its a Parelli invention. I dont agree with alot of things, but i'm reading a bit to much : its bad because its parelli, now i might be wrong but thats just how i percieve some things.

As i said before the idea is nothing new, you can see similair more "back" positions in paintings from pluvinel for example:

long legs slight foreward from the rider

In the gaited world you see it all the time to. Wether or not it works for an individual rider or a saddle works for a rider is up to the horse and personal prefrance in saddle. You cant ride in the fluidity. Ive seen Karen Rolhf ride a student horse on a course last, the horse had a fluidity on she looked great as usual. Ive seen others do a good job to.

i personally couldnt sit the wb i was riding in the fluidity btw.. Bareback was a piece of cake (huge mover) the fluidity left me bouncing and my legs wanted to grip

cynthia peterson

OK, some important points here about "classical riders".
First the position the rider takes in the saddle is where the horses balance is. In Neik's last post. the picture is of the rider's balance back somewhat is because the horse's weight is back.

Nuno.... people watch Nuno and they do not understand his weight fluctuations when he rode. He had such talent, feel, and timing. He used his back as a slight clutch, he weighed his shoulders slightly to move the horse's balance (somewhat like some SRS riders do with the stirrups). He even had slight movements in his hips to change the weight and balance. This would take many years, even if you had the talent, to learn.

Pat does do somewhat of this, in a clumsy, heavy way (compared to Nuno),~ but I do believe he understands the concept in some basic way.

I want to make it very clear that when the old master's said "bracing their back", it was not to be stiff backed but as a clutch effect. Nobody did that as well as Nuno.

And I do beleive "Gypsy" is right about Linda changing her seat because of WAZ and having a WB.

Niek

Cynthia. As much as i adore Nuno

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzTxmc3W_Kc

not his best seating.. Yet the horse still moves like crazy

Yes the horse his weight is back in the picture i posted above

According to the add on this picture the horse is goinginto a shoulder in, might be collected still you see the "tilt"

and again :

Julie

Niek, this is not knocking parelli, but it is something we have been taught by parelli, which may be wrong hence a discussion on the seat and balance coming from different perspectives. I would like to be able to discuss this as I am reading things at the moment and would like some input.

If you look at most paintings and drawings, they are not actually very accurate, it may be better to look at more modern photos.

Cynthia - I agree entirely re Nuno, it is a clutch or half halt rather than a permanently braced back or momentary hesitation to rebalance.

Niek

im not saying your posts are like that, it was more directed towards Horse Gypsys post

I realize the pictures arent verry acurate, non of the paintings are . But they do reflect a sense of how riding was percieved at the time these where made. But for the sake of it

"Henry L de Bussigny"

I can point out a million things wrong. But thats not the point of my argument. Im just saying, that the whole idea didnt drop from the sky. Im not putting a value of right or wrong on it. Its deffently not my preffered seating style either. But im just trying to put some things in perspective.

Riding has evolved (as is clearly visable if youd compare these pictures to more recent riders) and to some extend for the good. But in the end. Its all up to personal prefference of both rider and horse, mostly : can the rider be out of the way from his horse. I think we can all agree on that

I have mentioned/showed my personal preference on the previous page btw

Horse Gypsy

OK- well I do not really want to be critical of Parelli in all honesty- until recently I was a devotee -- But they are the ones who say that balance point riding is the correct way to ride. And that any other way of riding is bad for the horse. I spent 4 weeks at the ISC hearing about this theory of Lindas. You are right they did not just pull it out of the sky-- If anything it is sort of an old idea, and with all our modern technology I think we have come up with better and more progressive ideas about riding. They pretty much say that their saddles are the best saddles for the horse- with a few exceptions.

From the pictures it seems like some of those horses are quite small-- because of how low the leg of the riders hangs-- so I wonder about that-- maybe having a bigger horse with bigger gates is what is causing the change. I do not know. All I know is I am glad I looked beyond Fluidity for me and my horse.
Plus I have videos and pictures of myself riding in my pre- Parelli days and my leg was underneath me-- but the videos I have of me riding after Parelli in my Fluidity saddle I can not even watch- I am just a mess- and I know I haven't always ridden that way. Getting a different saddle has really helped me- not riding on the balance point has helped me also.

Niek

Ok so its not working for you (i prefer my own thing to) this doesnt mean its bad. it just doesnt suit you and me, it apperently over the course of time suited people just as much that it didnt suit people otherwise it wouldnt have evolved.

Yet evolvement and "moderen technology and progressive ideas" gave us this :

Which baucher thought up btw

But back to the first statement of this post : It doesnt work for you or me. It did/does for others.

More ontopic

I personally believe the moment we try to force something your seating/balance will go wrong. Seating balance even is different per gender (differences in pelvis) a male rider will sit different from a female rider (Dr Bennet, has an article on this to). In an ideal world the saddle fit for the rider : the "Twist" , "cantle" etc is all designed for the rider to be in the most benificial position to himself and the horse.

Which would lead back to the original question on what would we be the prefered position: It would all depend on school. I wonder though, as a slightly different question on this topic

Does it mather how we look ? as long as the horse is able to move to the best of its ability ?. (also taking into account the clip i posted of Nuno)

Horse Gypsy

I think the modern problems have to do with a disconnection from nature. Martha Graham once said " There are only 2 things that we do naturally these days one is in the bathroom and the other in bed."
Being that I have lived sort of separate from society as a whole- not as much now- but pretty extremely in the past- I agree - we have lost our connection with the natural world- and that is showing up in Riding-- we don't instinctual know how to relate to animals possibly as our ancestors did.

You are spot on in your assessment Niek- The balance point is not natural for me- I find it impossible - but for others it works. I am fine with that - I just think that people should explore other things when one thing is not working for them. That is my criticism of Parelli. But I still give Parelli credit for other techniques like trailer loading for example that was a really useful skill that I learned directly from Parelli.
Here is a picture of me-- this is before Parelli. I can see a lot of things going wrong- but I am no pro.

Click to see full size image

Blue Flame

AlythLong

Exactly BF When Jackie changed my position after lengthening my stirrups 2 holes it made all the difference. Spider went from a demented flea to quite a reasonable horse!! And it felt so much more smooth and gave me a lot more confidence. Perhaps it works because my "normal" position is too far forward "on the fork". But I will have to work at keeping my shoulders back!!
Alyth

Horse Gypsy

Chablis

I recently did a clinic with Birger Gieske (former 5* PNH instructor) and he said to stand straight up in the stirrups then slowly and softly sit down in the saddle while leaving my legs in the same position.

He explained that in this position (legs under me) I am balanced (I have a tendency to lean forward, especially if I am nervous).

He said rising out of the saddle and sitting down softly is easy if you are in a balanced position. To check that I am still centred, every now and then to standup in the stirrups while walking or trotting and see if my legs are under me.

Julie

Linda has nw confirmed to me that there is the freestyle position which is the balance point and now the finesse position, which is the new or classical position.

i cannot however still see how one saddle can suit both!

kristie

Horse Gypsy

How can that be really what is best for the horse? If it is better to ride one way- It would be better in Freestyle and Finesse-- sounds to me like they are covering up for some mistakes. If anything I think I need to be more upright during freestyle so that the horse can come up underneath me on loose reins.
I have been giving this some thought. And the demo where Linda has some one sit on another persons rear to demonstrate that the balance point shifts the horses weight back-- is so flawed because we do not sit on the horses pelvis we sit on the middle of the back- I challenge every one to go sit on a friends mid back and see what feels better.

Julie

I have more from the horses mouth to post later, trying to absorb!

Rik

After reading this i don't know how to describe how i feel