It's About The Horse

Niek · Member Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 1065

I agree on the choise of rider/horse. There are far better riders in his school. It is still an achievement considering the horse. And i guess its one of his pet peeves.

Who do you mean with CH ? Christoph Hess ?, and how do you mean you think more of him ?.

And yes from an historic POV, PK is not completely classical. In an interview with horsesforlive.com he also points this out how he doesnt consider him self that. He considers him self a schooler of all types of horses.

His BTV standpoint conflicts with that of Baucher (Especially the first manuscripts). Yet the flexions of the jaw are (and imo as it should be) at the core of his programn. Its the level 1 so to say. I wonder how you feel about Nuno than ?

your generalisation is correct. Altough this is not so much about classical vs dressage. Dressage is Dressage , yet i believe and see that competition focussed dressage brings out the worst in people, and makes them grab to shortcuts such as tie downs (and yes i realise classical schools are prone to these as well, ive read Podhjasky

) Force the horse into a frame. And at 7 there is a "GP" horse. I do not see the benefit for the horse in this scenario.
Another example is the increase in Doping cases over the last year.. And yes i also realise the 0 tollerance standpoint from the FEI is partly the cause of this.

Ive actually seen the discussion you see on the DVD unfold live..
During this years horsemans rendevouz Organised by Birger Gieseke (ex *5) .

2 of the clinicians where dressage oriented. One was Birgit Beck-Broichsitter (www.reiten-bbb.de) a lisenced PK instructor and of a big name dressage family.

The other was Ralf Isselhorst (http://www.dressurtrainer.de/index.html) a student of Reiner Klimke.

Brigit rode her self. Ralf had a student come. I compliment him on comming to a NH event with an extremely critical audiance.. He made one error though. After he got an half our full of extremely critical questions after his demo he decided to attack Brigit on her riding in an attempt to make his point to the audiance that cleraly didnt agree with what they saw.

What he was saying made sense (just as Cristoph Hess had valid points) Yet the rider showed something completely different. The horse was not relaxed, not cadenced and the rider had to franticly pull to keep the horse together and with her.

Brigits horse was calm and relaxed and showed some wonderfull qualitys.

When Ralf tried to make his point he came to say how training a competition horse is different from what Brigit showed with her horse. And he even whent as far as using it as an excuse to stable a horse. He also made statements quite similair to Christoph Hess, about him feeling the horse of Brigit was not collected enough , how that ment the piaffe wasnt good , and how it was more circus etc. (interestingly Baucher performed in the circus).

brigit silenced him by saying how her horse was still able to be a horse. and not a being used for egotistical goals of competition. How he was her companion even though he was being trained to the highest level.

Ofcourse the audiance applouded and chose her side.

Point of all this : These 2 riders clearly feel there is a distinct difference. They even say so in words. The audiance felt so. So while in theory and if we look at it under the microscope classical might not be what people mean with it, it does provide us with a way to make a wordly distinction between two things that are verry much the same yet completely different.

Julie · Member Joined: 07 Feb 2009 Posts: 1297

I may e being simplistic here ut surely this argument is getting too comlicated now.

Dressage is just flatwork at given markers for marks at competition.

Flatwork is any method of schooling, classical is one method of many.

Within classical there are also many methods, but they appear to be baucherist or otherwise, but mainly hand without leg, leg without hand, establishing a soft contact and building muscle through gymnastic work. The horse is taught from the original in hand work to balance, and forward follows as and when the muscle develops and the horse can sustain its own balance.

Non classical flatwork tends to be leg into hand, taking a contact and pushing into this, using forward and rhythm to eventually allow balance, based on the scales of training.
The emphasis is on forward and looseness with half halts to rebalance added at a later stage, so the horse goes on the forehand and is then taught to rebalance, which can then be difficult and require the use of draw reins as a short cut. Very little in hand work is used until it is required at competition levels.

The Classical dressage competitions I have competed in have been very different - still with markers but all transitions are between markers allowing you to choose where you make the transition, and the tests flow well. Marks are very different as well, only for the overall paces, not individual movements with the emphasis on harmony and the riders aids also marked in detail.

edited to add
http://www.classicalriding.co.uk/...task=view&id=21&Itemid=40
_________________
[IMG]

[IMG]

Rik · Guest

In the DVD there are certainly two approaches, I think you could simplify it to PK likes to work in the walk and use his hands a lot and Christoph Hess to work the horse forward in canter to encourage the horse to move into the contact and round it’s back with a view that the hands should do little.

I don’t see that as a difference between working with the horse and using the horse with little consideration for it, that depends on what a person does with each of those approaches.

My personal view is that there is nothing wrong with either approach and that both should be available to use based on what’s best for a specific horse, to quote Nuno.

“The true Ecuyer is not limited by any system or any rules. He knows that different roads lead to Rome”

If you just take the DVD you could say PK is one who has little consideration for the horse only his own agenda.

After the PK students demo, CH commented that the horse was not happy with flatwork (Which it was not, the horse was not with/in harmony with the rider) and was happy with the jumping section (There is much that could be said of this demo), that part of horsemanship is recognising and using the horse for things it likes not forcing it to do things it does not enjoy.

PK sort of shrugs and says it was the only horse there that never once went BTV, that answer/comment dropped him in my estimations and annoys me every time I see it or think about it.

Later on CH is teaching, after seeing the horse work on both reins says that he will work on one side of the horse as due to the short time available in the demo he will be able to show a greater change by working with the horses best side rather than making the change harder for the horse working it’s bad side. At the end PK goes on a rant about how can you possibly improve the bad side by working the good side.
(I think it’s worth noting that CH got as good change with a less able horse and rider without getting on the horse).

I don’t recall PK ever complementing CH on anything only criticising (I haven’t seen it for awhile so this could be wrong), CH was always very polite and if you agreed with what he said or not it made sense, he conducted himself very well and complimented PK when he agreed with him or what he did.

If people need to find another way to describer putting ambitions above the welfare of the horse (and I really don’t think there is a need) create a new word don’t usurp an existing word that does not mean that, the same goes for working in harmony with the horse and putting it first.

It seems to me the concept that some people are more interested in themselves with little regard for the horse or others and that it has nothing to do with the discipline they follow is pretty straight forward.

I can’t see the need to differentiate with the terms Classical and Competition Dressage unless there is another agenda.

Jack · Member Joined: 22 Oct 2009 Posts: 269

PasoBaby_CarolU · Site Admin Joined: 31 Jan 2009 Posts: 9037

Jack, you can get there, but you do have to ride with contact first. After the horse learns the leg aids you can ride with them, but I honestly don't think you get all the way there without contact on the reins.

In Parelli you do both, Finesse (riding with contact) and Freestyle (riding on a loose or no rein). There are some things you will get to carry over but not others, or at least not the degree of collection that you see in dressage. In the Hackamore horse tradition, you do "Finesse" in the two hand phase of training. Again, I think a lot carries over once the horse knows leg and weight aids, but think you still loose some when you change to loose rein from contact. I think this depends on the level of the horseman doing the training. I see Pat ride Magic with no reins, and Karen Rohlf do Dressage without a bit, so you can get 'most' of it. But I have never seen a video where it is ALL there without contact.
_________________
Carol Nudell
Corazon de Oro Paso Finos

"The path to your horse's heart lies through your own."

Rumors are carried by haters, spread by fools, and accepted by idiots. - Words of Wisdom - Mhar

‎"Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss activities; Small minds discuss people." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Niek · Member Joined: 01 Feb 2009 Posts: 1065

to respond quickly to rik (wasnt near a pc enough to respond)

I do not agree that PK has no consideration for the horse . And the same can be said for CH and what he is talking about, his story certainly has consideration.

PK could surely have responded better to CH`s comment. Than again he could have brought a better horse/rider (i could point out several more appealing combinations) But that would have defeated the purpose of his "agenda". they both where there with the agenda to defend their own respective oppinions.

I dont agree with your observations on the rider/horse combo. While the rider and horse CH had where less "able" and had less experience in this case its a "pro" it makes it a bit easier for the rider to addept to what is said at that moment.

PK`s horse had far more tension and displaced behavoir. The reason he gave for getting on the horse is a valid one. Its unfair to expect the rider to drop years and years of experience and do something that is the complete opposite of what the rider has done for years.

As to PK rant after CH`s lesson : Here we go to agendas again. Apperently CH chose to work the easy side, showing what happens with his system. While completely valid considering the objective of the lesson we could argue that PK would have opted for less optical results but for helping the horse on its difficult side and achieve a good change their, that overal is far more benificiary (sp ?) to the horse on the longer term.
So who chooses "personal agendas" over "horsey agendas" ? I guess it depends on observation.

On the rest i think we will have to agree to disagree, cause i doubt we will see eye to eye on that one.

On an other note.. as a final present for my birthday (it was in back order) i also recieved twisted truths of modern dressage. Extremely good sofar (ofcourse my glasses are somewhat colord) offers lots of extra insight next to the dvd series

Blue Flame · Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:19 am Post subject:

I managed to find a copy of "If Horses Could Talk" at a 2nd hand saddlery that rents out DVDs. I think it is the companion to the "Tug of War" book - which I have not read.

I must say it was quite enlightening - the 3D computer animations are fantastic but I just wish it went into more detail.

3 main things I got from the DVD . . .

1. Lateral movement of the horse's back is the basis for all when it comes to purity of gait in walk and trot. The DVD goes into anatomy and function of various muscle groups and how the dorsal fascia ties both the forehand and the hindquarters to the long back muscle.

2. I feel I can more easily see now if a horse is tight and where it might be tight. example: today i saw Blue Flame trotting a circle and he was not tracking up as much on the inside as on the outside - conclusion . . . ribs/barrel slightly stuck to the inside. As it turned out, he has given himself a couple of over-reach wounds on the inside fore over the last few days so I think he may have been trying to be careful of overtracking on that side. A smaller circle and inside leg to outside rein timed with inside hind footfalls provided an easy fix.

3. Very good consideration is given to the subject of head and neck position and 'the relationship of the ligament and muscle systems and how they tie in to help support the back. The explanations given will leave you in no doubt as to why forced head sets can do much more harm than good.

Several example clips are provided showing good and bad movement.

I couldn't help but notice the prevalence of bar shoes on horses . . . . . .

My only complaint is that the DVD leaves you wanting more . . . more detail, more visuals, more about how to encourage the good stuff.

Julie · Member Joined: 07 Feb 2009 Posts: 1297

jack - I am no expert on western riding, my sole experience is with m friend who competes over here on an appaloosa quarter horse. She competes at classical dressage and wins every time on a loose rein, beautifully balanced and collected and so supple. I have watched her training for years and she never has a contact, its all about the feel of the horses back apparently, but I have no proper details, I just know that it can be done, though the head carriage is quite low?
_________________
[IMG]

[IMG]

Rik · Guest

Niek I didn’t say/mean PK has no consideration for the horse, only you could if you just looked at the DVD come away with the impression he sometimes puts his agenda before the horse.

I didn’t think the DVD was about either of them defending their chosen way but a platform for them to show what there system had to offer, after watching it I still think that’s what CH did but I think PK attempted to use it for another purpose as well.

I think PK was right to bring a horse and rider of the type he did, showing that Dressage is not just for big moving warmbloods was the right thing to do. The problem with it was as I see it, the horse and rider had been training personally with PK when ever he was not away teaching (it must be said this was a few years ago iirc), this is somewhat unrivalled access yet the horse came out like it was having a lesson with him for the first time, the horse and rider were clearly capable as they accomplished everything thing required of them eventually.

It maybe because as CH observed the horse was not happy and it was initially resistant, but for PK to bring a horse like that to represent him is beyond me, did he not understand until CH pointed it out? Did he think it was not important as could be deduced from his answer to CH’s observation or one of many other possible explanations most of which don’t reflect well on PK.

I can only comment on what PK did, not what he could have done, I could ride like Bartabas, but I don’t.

I’ll have to watch it again but as I recall it, both the lesson horses made similar sized changes although they were different changes as the horses had different issues.
PK got on his lesson horse and made the change then gave the changed horse back to the rider, I don’t see how that helped the horse or rider, CH got the rider to make the change, to me that’s a chance of making a difference to the horse and rider, PK’s change did nothing lasting for the horse and rider but did show his skill.

If the rider in CH’s lesson was a professional one, she wasn’t a very good one, the fact there was talk of having it put to sleep for it’s small issues and her preference to trot over canter suggests she was an amateur to me, one who was a little afraid of her horse.

I got the DVD to listen to what PK had to say and see him in action, sadly I think it didn’t show him in a good light other than his own personal ability, I think it was a great shame, a wasted opportunity and possibly gives a clue why he was never going to progress at the Cadre Noir but I do wear Nolan and Fillis tinted glasses.

Rik · Guest

Meant to post this ages ago 1932 Olympic Dressage, Men only and iirc all Military, It might be of interest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDgxcysHv68

Sorry if it’s been posted before didn’t have time to check.