PDA

View Full Version : GDF and info



snoopy
Nov. 1, 2007, 09:10 AM
http://www.eurodressage.com/reports/shows/2007/07gdf/pr_conclusion.html



Paragraph 3 and 4....


The term "learned helplessness" and the findings on this issue


CVB and Mr. Hinneman being "praised for their courage" to talk about their recent "photo-gate".


Okay folks lets not get into yet another heated, name calling, bitch biting, your momma, meow fest.
What I would like to know is since these "experts" are the ones who drive the sport...how do you feel about the information..or lack there of in this article?

What exactly constitutes "learned helplessness"...any thoughts?

And what of coby's "courage" in a crowd of her peers yet IMO she showed NONE when she was caught out for "inaccuracies" in her statement following THE pictures. If she indeed had the courage to defend her training methods at the forum, then why the change of face in the press release to the "unwashed masses"....that is assuming that she did indeed "defend" her actions over the weekend.

slc2
Nov. 1, 2007, 11:07 AM
that's a REAL good start at not getting all catty meow meow, LOL.

Mozart
Nov. 1, 2007, 02:59 PM
I don't like the term "learned helplessness" as it relates to the hyperflexion issue. To me an example of "learned helplessness" is the wife who takes over all domestic duties such that a husband, who could fomerly take care of himself, suddenly can't do a load of laundary or get a meal on the table. Both parties have to take their share of the blame. In a horse context, I think of the horse whose every footfall is directed such that without constant direction from the rider the horse doesn't think for himself at all. How that is supposed to relate to hyperflexion issue is unclear to me. There are those who do it for gymnastizing. I would think it has no relevance in that context. There are those who do it for the hyper spooky. Maybe it has some there, but still, the point is to get the horse to focus on something other than spooking, not to stop thinking for himself. And I also don't know why it would be important for a horse that shows in a 20x60 ring as opposed to, say, jumping cross country. That is not to say that dressage horses don't need to get out of the ring.

So that is my long winded way of saying...what exactly is that term meant to convey?

As to the courage of CVB. Whether you are for her or agin her, it is a well established tenet of diplomacy and negotiation that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar and if you want to get anywhere, you need to give people a "face saving" option.

They are in sort of a rock and hard place scenario. If they refuse to discuss it they will be pilloried. If they are prepared to discuss and say "yes, a mistake was made" it they will be seen as either making an "admission" or being defensive.

As to the briefness of the article, yes, more meat would be nice, but I gather the article was meant to be a brief synopsis type of thing.

As for Monty Roberts, the organizers must feel he is contributing something or they wouldn't keep inviting him back. That surprises me but I tend to be suspicious of self-promoting types.

sm
Nov. 1, 2007, 04:31 PM
I don't like the term "learned helplessness" as it relates to the hyperflexion issue...what exactly is that term meant to convey?

here's one explanation: http://www.hippocampus-nl.com/s2e.php?content_id=337


As for Monty Roberts, the organizers must feel he is contributing something or they wouldn't keep inviting him back. That surprises me but I tend to be suspicious of self-promoting types

In the context of the OPs article, it seems like having him on board is meant to appease cruel or abusive training accusations. In the article the forum conclusion regarding ‘learned helplessness’ was that this kind of behaviour is not evident in top dressage horses, and during a panel discussion this conclusion was supported by Monty Roberts.

Mozart
Nov. 1, 2007, 05:07 PM
So you ride a horse around and around with his chin to his chest and he can only do the rider's bidding??? Because he can't see that well and is unbalanced? I am not sure I buy that. I am no fan of the technique for other reasons but I am still skeptical of the "learned helplessness" theory.

snoopy
Nov. 1, 2007, 05:32 PM
that's a REAL good start at not getting all catty meow meow, LOL.


HA!!! Well I "tried"...:p

Kyzteke
Nov. 1, 2007, 05:32 PM
I don't like the term "learned helplessness" as it relates to the hyperflexion issue.


The term "learned helplessness" was coined by a Martin Seligman PhD in the early '60's based on an experiment he did on dogs. It was discovered (accidently, I might add) during an experiment in which the dogs were given a "mild" (his word, not mine) shocks at the sound of a tone. The idea was to "hook" the tone sound and the shock together,. But later, an interesting phenomenon occurred. The dogs were place in a double partition box (the partition was low -- easily jumped over by the dogs) and given shocks. They could easily escape the shock by jumping over the partition, but a large segment of the dogs who had been shocked repeatedly WITHOUT ANY AVENUE OF ESCAPE didn't even TRY to jump. They just lay there cowering. Even when the guys doing the experiments actually took them by the collar and DRAGGED them over the partition, gave them a break and then put them back on the shock side, the dogs still did not try to escape.

Horses can also develop "learned helplessness," which basically means you will take whatever Life dishes out, because on some fundamental level you have "learned" that NOTHING you do will make any difference anyway.

This is the idea behind the horrid old-style "cowboy" idea of pulling a horse down, hog-tying him and then beating the crap out of him. A large % of the horses will never "argue" again, because they think it won't help.

Abuse women & children -- same thing.

So the only connection would be if a horse had RK performed so often that they just no longer resisted.

For instance, the horse that bucked Anky off, obviously does NOT have a learned helplessness issue <G>!

I know this bit of info because I'm currently reading one of Seligman's books.

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 1, 2007, 07:08 PM
I was there at the forum and here is the thing:

Coby really did not defend herself. When the subject of Power and Paint came up she said that she stands by her statement that the Pony was only lunged like that for a short while (hence no sweat in pictures) and that later the side reins were made longer. The moderator then went to an official who was (I think) with the Animal Welfare organization (he was on the panel at the time) and he said that all comments are withheld until the end of the investigation. And that was it. Well, the st. Georg magazine guy said that it was "ridiculous" to think that an experienced person like Coby could have made such a mistake. Then he said he spoke to some other competitors and they supposedly/allegedly said that they have seen the pony lunged like that many times over the last 5 years. Then some other person (british rider I think) said that she has also seen the Pony over the last 5 years at competition and he has been nothing but happy, well cared for, relaxed and glad to serve all of his riders. That got a huge amount of cheering and that was pretty much the end of the discussion.
Those who say it didn't take courage from Coby because this was a crowd of "peers" - no it wasn't. There were many trainers and "locals" but really there were also many people from many different countries. So I think it did take courage from Coby to stand in front of that crowd.
About the learned helplessness - the guy said pretty much this "animals who get learned helplessness become pretty much useless, and not responding to ANY stimuli. Like absolutely nothing, nada makes them do anything. The dogs in the experiments mentioned earlier had to be euthanized as they were unable to live normal lives. He said that this is the result of constant pain or pressure that doesn't go away no matter what the animal does. So the animal can't do anything about the pain/pressure etc. So technically rollkurred horses cannot have learned helplessness because otherwise they would not respond to any stimuli = be unrideable. Later on in his lecture he somehow tried to still link rollkur and LH but his science did not really support that (as above) so I am not sure what he was trying to do later saying that despite what he had just said, the rollkurred horses get LH, just partially. ??? Earlier he said that LH either is or is not, and there is not gradient. So generally his lecture wasn't that great and didn't make much sense. Unfortunately.

Monty Roberts was there as a VIP guest and his opinion was asked repeatedly during the forum. Nobody seemed to excited about him, so I don't know why the Bartels's invited him this year and were all lovey dovey and stuff.

The coolest part was the Franke Sloothaak presentation with Kyra. I love the guy. He rode one of his horses and did some impromptu dressage moves. Then Kyra rode the horse and that was very neat to watch.

Ok, if you guys have any questions about the Forum, fire away! I was there the whole time but thank god I got discounted tickets (and was in Holland anyway so I didn't buy a plane ticket just for the Forum) because it really wasn't worth the money - it was a good experience, yes, but way overpriced.

Liz
Nov. 1, 2007, 07:44 PM
Guys.....read the article, according to the "expert" "learned helplessness" was NOT FOUND to be in dressage horses...so what does this have to do with CVB?

The OP is a troll, don't feed it. Haven't we discussed this enough.

snoopy
Nov. 1, 2007, 07:50 PM
Guys.....read the article, according to the "expert" "learned helplessness" was NOT FOUND to be in dressage horses...so what does this have to do with CVB?

The OP is a troll, don't feed it. Haven't we discussed this enough.



Well since I am the "troll", perhaps if you go back to what I posted, they were two different questions about two different topics!!!
I do not think we have discussed "the article" I was refering to.... "enough".
And Liz perhaps if you feel we have, then do not contribute to it...or better yet do not "feed the troll".

snoopy
Nov. 1, 2007, 08:09 PM
[QUOTE=CenterlineGirl2;2775710]I was there at the forum and here is the thing:

Coby really did not defend herself. When the subject of Power and Paint came up she said that she stands by her statement that the Pony was only lunged like that for a short while (hence no sweat in pictures) and that later the side reins were made longer.
QUOTE]


The very fact that she "stands by her statement" (and did so in a very high profile forum) concerning the pictures/training methods...to me...means she "defended" herself. If she believes her actions and the resulting statement are valid..than good for her to stand by her convictions.

But then us "trolls" are constantly hungry for constoversy.;)

canyonoak
Nov. 1, 2007, 08:13 PM
<<The coolest part was the Franke Sloothaak presentation with Kyra. I love the guy. He rode one of his horses and did some impromptu dressage moves. Then Kyra rode the horse and that was very neat to watch. >>


Oh yes -- way cool, CenterlineGirl !

So--what did these two excellent horsemen have to say about the similarities/differences in their training programs?

Did they both feel that the mental part of training was the hardest/most valuable?

What did Kyra K have to say about jumping (coz I know she was a jumping whizkid before she concentrated on dressage)?


Thank you for the kind offer to answer questions<g>

claire
Nov. 1, 2007, 08:17 PM
CenterlineGirl,

Thank you for taking the time to give your report on the GDF!

I would like to hear your take on Kemperman's "Dressage Needs to Change" presentation.

What exactly did he say about:
-Dressage needs more Pro's or Stars?
-Shortening the GP test to 70 seconds?
-Fewer Tournaments?

Thanks!

claire
Nov. 1, 2007, 09:06 PM
Well snoopy, I guess according to Horse&Hound CvB stuck to her original statement that it "was a one-off mistake and it was corrected" :winkgrin:

I had thought that she finally "had the courage" to stand up and say that is the way she trains and she stands behind the method of RK lungeing.

Guess not.

http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/competitionnews/388/152931.html


[quote H&H]
"Dutch Olympian Coby van Baalen has come under fire from the press and welfare groups after pictures were published of her lunging Power And Paint in short side-reins (http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/149313.html) at the European pony championships.

In her demonstration at the Global Dressage Forum, she said: "It was a mistake that the reins were so short and it was corrected after a short time, that is the truth."
The photographer who took the images claimed the pony was in short side reins for at least 10mins. The Dutch Federation have launched an investigation into the incident."

snoopy
Nov. 1, 2007, 09:50 PM
Thanks claire for passing on that info!!!!:D

claire
Nov. 1, 2007, 10:01 PM
ummm, Does that make me a troll too? :lol:

Liz
Nov. 1, 2007, 10:13 PM
yes.

that subject was gone over at length, talk about other stuff from the GDF like other posters. That is far more interesting than Coby bashing.

snoopy
Nov. 1, 2007, 10:21 PM
yes.

that subject was gone over at length, talk about other stuff from the GDF like other posters. That is far more interesting than Coby bashing.


But this "stuff" was actually a part of this year's GDF!!! And it was reported as being one of the highlights....from "trolls" in other media sources. Maybe you should concentrate your life...I mean efforts...on the publishers of those outlets.

Touchstone Farm
Nov. 1, 2007, 10:28 PM
Ahh, well, if Monty Roberts says there is no such thing as learned helplessness, it must be true. Oh, brother....I have a used car to sell too, no wheels or engine, but Monty said it's good to go!

snoopy
Nov. 1, 2007, 10:32 PM
yes the issue of learned helplessness...and to what degree...and how it pertains to the training of horses is very interesting.

The talk of "no degree" in the spectrum is perplexing. Are we to believe there is no grey area in this theory?

Forte
Nov. 1, 2007, 11:20 PM
It drives me a nuts theway the term learned helplessness is thrown around willy nilly on this forum. It's not a new idea or "theory". It's a very clearly defined term in psychology that has do with conditioning. Any first year psychology textbook will give you the definition. Animals reach a state of learned helplessness when they know that there is no way that an aversive stimulus can be avoided. In the classic example, a dog shocked by an electric collar at random intervals, nothing it does will change whether it gets the shock or not. Eventually the dog will just sit there and take the shocks. This does not apply in any way to a horse trained in rollkur. Exactly as the speaker at GDF said, if rollkur trained horses were in a stated of learned helplessness, they would not be responsive to the stimulus at all!

snoopy
Nov. 2, 2007, 08:22 AM
This does not apply in any way to a horse trained in rollkur. Exactly as the speaker at GDF said, if rollkur trained horses were in a stated of learned helplessness, they would not be responsive to the stimulus at all!


The term has not been thrown around willy nilly...it is being discussed because it was part of an article ON the GDF......AND if it does not pertain to horses...rollkur or not....WHY was it discussed at the global "DRESSAGE" forum?:confused:

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 2, 2007, 09:13 AM
<<The coolest part was the Franke Sloothaak presentation with Kyra. I love the guy. He rode one of his horses and did some impromptu dressage moves. Then Kyra rode the horse and that was very neat to watch. >>


Oh yes -- way cool, CenterlineGirl !

So--what did these two excellent horsemen have to say about the similarities/differences in their training programs?

Did they both feel that the mental part of training was the hardest/most valuable?

What did Kyra K have to say about jumping (coz I know she was a jumping whizkid before she concentrated on dressage)?


Thank you for the kind offer to answer questions<g>

Kyra started the presentation with a little biography of her own early career. She explained that in the early days she did both dressage and jumping and that the first dressage horse she had was actually supposed to be a jumper, but when she bought him she did both and felt that he was better at dressage. She stressed that crosstraining is very important for the horses's mind and general development. She said that the horse should not specialize too early. Franke continued the presentation from his horse (the horse btw stood like a rock) and talked about how he trains his jumpers to "wait" for him and always be on his seat. He then started to ride around - he showed that he rides his horses low and round and his horse was super supple and happy to be low, he has his back up and was ready for commands from the rider. Franke then went on to countercanter and then all of a sudden did a half pirouette towards the side of the arena and changed direction. Then he did a few more pirouettes and they were very very good. He explained that his horse could not come up in the neck like a dressage horse because of his conformation, but nevertheless it was extremely clear that the horse was collected. He had his weight on his haunches and Franke did all kinds of dressage moves with him. He ended on advocating riding horses low, deep and round (throughout the Forum it was also stressed that LOW DEEP AND ROUND IS NOT THE SAME AS ROLLKUR WHICH IS SHORT AND DEEP, low deep and round keeps the neck long) to stretch their back. He also talked a lot about being clear to the horse so that he always understands the work.
Later Franke and Kyra talked about being positive in the training of the horse and they continued to reiterate the need to be absolutely clear with the aids, so specific things always mean to the horse the same thing/response. That builds trust in the rider, which the horse clearly had!

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 2, 2007, 09:27 AM
CenterlineGirl,

Thank you for taking the time to give your report on the GDF!

I would like to hear your take on Kemperman's "Dressage Needs to Change" presentation.

What exactly did he say about:
-Dressage needs more Pro's or Stars?
-Shortening the GP test to 70 seconds?
-Fewer Tournaments?

Thanks!

His presentation was really good. The way I understood the Pro/Star thing is that they were two different things he was talking about. First the Stars: he said that the public needs "stars" or "celebrities" in the sport to be able to be interested in it (and that's the goal: more public interest in dressage, more money etc). So the riders need to be prepared to be stars! they have to want to do interviews, sign stuff etc. instead of hiding in their own barns. He was calling the current stars to become more "public" in what they do so people can follow their careers and become fans.
The Pro issue - what he meant is that nowadays only first two or three people at a show actually make money on the shows so that very few (read Anky and Isabel) can live off the sport - he meant make enough money competing to make a living - not by teaching, training etc but showing. This ties into the issue that wee need to better distribute prize money so that it is possible for others to also win money even if they don't place as high. He said that its not such a problem in show jumping as every day there is a different winner, but in dressage the top people are always the same. And to go further, the improved prize money situation will lead to more people wanting to win (or be 4th or 5th) so more of the current amateurs will turn professional in the sense that they will be better able to make a living off the sport as opposed to spending money to show.
His ideas are a little complicated but if you think about it it makes sense. I have to say when I read some of the reports online they don't really explain what he said. I hope I did a slightly better job.
Now also - to have more money for the better prize money he suggested that we have less shows - that way the shows are more "valuable" as everybody will try to attend (so more "stars" at shows, people will like that) and there will be more money to give out in prizes.

Oh, and the 70 second thing - he only mentioned how long a competitor is in the "ring" in other sports that are popular and dressage was the longest. He didn't really say that we have to make the GP shorter, but he put it out there. He didn't push it though too much.

Ok, I hope I was clear enough! All of his points sort of come together to make a whole concept.

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 2, 2007, 09:41 AM
Another overall note - there really wasn't much talk about rollkur/hyperflexion or the whole Coby thing. Some people tried to bring it up but most of the pro's and trainers would just sigh and move on, there was a general atmosphere of people being tired of this "modern/classical" and rolllkur thing. Instead the focus more was on showing how the Long Deep and Round method of stretching horses was good for them and how no horse should even work in and "Up" position for too long, because the back will tighten. Presenters and speakers over and over stressed how important it is to preserve and strengthen the back of the horse.
A very interesting presentation was done by Jean Bemelmans - he had two riders on two different horses, one was a very strong and big WB (Ferro line I think??) and the other was a spanish horse. He showed how both horses are warmed up round and low and then gradually brought to collected work, and then stretched again and so on. He said that doing intervals is very important. Going too long in any frame is not good. The horses looked extremely relaxed and happy and were a real pleasure to watch.
He then talked about the fact that the key to riding is controlling the speed and the frame. He said if the rider can have full control of the head and neck position and also of the horses length and tempo of stride then he will succeed. And interesting exercise Jean showed was when he had one of the riders do a half pass and then in the half pass change the length of stride from collected to medium. Also, he had his riders go on a circle and change from collection to extreme collection, then back to normal gaits with stretching.
This was probably one of the highlights for me and Jean had a lot of questions afterwards from people. One person asked him why he didn't show the horses schooling even deeper than what was shown - she said she saw him at a show with one of the horses and he had the rider ride a lot deeper than what was shown - she asked if he was afraid to show it because of the controversy? She said also that she thinks this kind of riding should be shown and not hidden behind closed doors, as it is very beneficial for the horses. He replied that he wasn't afraid of anything, it was simply because the horse was in a different place in his training and didn't require to be worked as deep as before to get his back to stretch and relax.

Overall there was a general positive attitude to Low Deep and Round but it was made clear repeatedly that this kind of work is different from Rollkur as it is not so extreme and short.

There were so many things said, I don't remember everything but if I remember anything else that was important I will definitely add it here.

siegi b.
Nov. 2, 2007, 10:21 AM
Thanks, Centerlinegirl2, for the excellent summaries! It's refreshing to hear that the sensationalism has been taken out of RK and that riding deep and low has been proven as a healthy and recommended exercise. And it was definitely time to get rid of the much hyped "learned helplessness" comment since its originators within the context of RK obviously just used it to create more controversy.

Thank you!

canyonoak
Nov. 2, 2007, 10:45 AM
ooh ooh, CenterlineGirl, thank you so much again. I know Im sucking up, but this is really great perspective.

what about the judging part re: Euro Champiosnhips?

was there agreement about the scores, let alone the placings?

was there discussion re individual judge scores that may have affected the final team placings?

claire
Nov. 2, 2007, 11:06 AM
CenterLineGirl,

Thanks for the great report. I found Kemperman's presentation on the marketing of Dressage most interesting!

Re: the 70 second tests. H&H explains Kemperman's statements saying that:
the tests should be shortened to allow for better media coverage.
And that while there will be protests at first...it should work out.

Did you interpret his statement this way?


[quote Horse&Hound/Frank Kemperman]

"The sport of dressage is unmarketable in its current state," announced Frank Kemperman at the Global Dressage Forum, Holland, 29-30 October.


Kemperman, the show director of CHIO Aachen, joined Joep Bartels, innovator of the grand prix kür, in demanding a shake up of the sport to increase public and national press interest.
"A show jumping round lasts 70 seconds, where a dressage test lasts 360 seconds, you try selling 10 dressage test to mainstream television at 360 seconds per test, it's not possible," said Kemperman. "We need heroes, too, both horses and riders. At the moment we only have two and you don't know how lucky we are that they are from different countries [Isabell Werth (GER) and Anky Van Grunsven (NED)]."
Bartels and Kemperman also argued for fewer events that guarantee the top riders in the world will turn up and compete against each other. With the World Cup filling the winter months, they want a nations cup series to run over the summer, culminating in a major championship or Europeans.
"We have CDIOs CDI***, CDI*****, it's so confusing for people, they want to know which are the best shows and that the top riders will be there," explained Kemperman.
Bartels recalled riders fighting against the introduction of the grand prix kür, but pointed out how the music has created bigger audiences. He and Kemperman expect the same opposition for these ideas.
To find out how riders felt about the idea of a 70 second grand prix test, plus debate on more topics from the Global Dressage forum, don't miss Horse&Hound 8 November issue.

sm
Nov. 2, 2007, 11:30 AM
So the only connection would be if a horse had RK performed so often that they just no longer resisted.

For instance, the horse that bucked Anky off, obviously does NOT have a learned helplessness issue...

Not according a Clinical Psychologist, Psychotherapist, Equitherapist, rider and Dressage Judge: Horses that have been made to feel insecure, high stress level, will be falsely interpreted as “high spirits.” Misbehavoir includes: chaos at the prize giving, overall high degree of tension...

See about the fourth para from the END of her article http://www.hippocampus-nl.com/s2e.php?content_id=337

sm
Nov. 2, 2007, 11:36 AM
Re: the 70 second tests. H&H explains Kemperman's statements saying that: the tests should be shortened to allow for better media coverage.
And that while there will be protests at first...it should work out.



Is this another way of saying there will be less to the test? So perhaps a GP horse will need to know less movements, therefore the schooling time (x-amount of years it takes to get to GP) can be perhaps cut to one third?

I haven't heard what **should** be in the new GP tests, does anyone know if this info has been released yet?

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 2, 2007, 11:44 AM
ooh ooh, CenterlineGirl, thank you so much again. I know Im sucking up, but this is really great perspective.

what about the judging part re: Euro Champiosnhips?

was there agreement about the scores, let alone the placings?

was there discussion re individual judge scores that may have affected the final team placings?

I am more than happy to report :)
The judging part was actually a little boring. They showed clips of individual movements and then those were discussed. But I feel like they spent too much time on them and were really repeating themselves a lot. The judge Stephen Clarke led the discussion. The audience was also asked to "score" the movements before they were discussed. There were a few instances where the scores were not appropriate and Mr. Clarke usually admitted that a mistake was made. But there was absolutely no mention of how the mistakes influenced the placings, team or individual. Not even a whisper! The discussion mainly centered around the movements themselves. First off was extended trot: one by Isabel on Satchmo and one by the swiss lady Silva Ikle. Both got judged appropriately - Isabel's trot was huge, swinging, ground covering and she appeared to take risk (it was accentuated that the amount of risk taken by the rider factors into the score). Silva Ikle's extension lacked ground cover and some suppleness, but was uphill and smooth, so she scored lower. (6.8 while Isabell got 8.6 or something like that)
Then they talked about a half pass - one was done by Imke Schellekens-Bartels and Sunrise and the other one again by Silva Ikle. Silva's half pass was stiff and irregular and the horse fell on the inside shoulder and lost regularity - she got 7 6 6 8 6 - it was discussed that the scores were too high. Sunrise on the other hand did a beautiful, flowing half pass. All agreed it was scored well.
Then there was a very interesting part of two riders doing passage - it was Jan Brink with Briar and Korelova with Balagur - both horses scored similar but for different reasons. Balagur lacked some spring and suspension, while maintaining nice expression, engagement and height. Briar had nice spring and expression but lacked engagement. Both scored equally well.
Then the discussion got a little bit more heated - the movements compared were two extended walks done by Sunrise and Imke and Korelova with Balagur. Balagur showed a short, choppy, tight backed walk. His scoresn were three 5s and two 6s. However the consensus was that a 5 was more appropriate than a 6 for that walk. Then somebody suggested that because Balagur doesn't naturally have a big walk so he should be judged according to his relative ability and for him the walk wasn't so bad. But Mr. Clarke explained that the judging must be done with respect to a standard and if the horse doesn't have the natural ability to be as close to the standard as possible then oh well, nothing can be done. But the judges must judge what they see and not what they think the horse can or cannot do. That way the judging would become too messy and subjective. Imke on the other hand showed a beautiful walk with good overstep and relaxation. However, she kept her hands wide apart to keep her horse's attention. This very much bothered Kyra Kyrklund and she was quite vocal in expressing how this should be penalized. It certainly was quite distracting. Mr. Clarke, however, said that the judge must look at the horse and not at the riders position. While it is important to keep standards as to how riders should sit the judge must look at the horse being judged. Kyra pressed on saying that keeping hands that wide should not be allowed. The topic was left at that.

The next movement started a hot discussion. It was the part when the riders walk then do piaffe at G and then proceed to passage. Both transitions in and out of the piaffe are scored together. The piaffe gets a separate score.
So the riders were Anky and Korelova. Anky had a little tension in the walk, then very good piaffe and her transition to passage was absolutely seamless, but with one problem - she went on with piaffe forward instead of true passage. When I watched it the first time around I didn't even realize she passaged! It was kid of weird. Korelova had a super transition to piaffe, but then her piaffe went forward too much, and then again a good transition to passage but not seamless. Anky got much higher scores for her transition. Judges argued that they only judge the transition, not the passage that comes afterwards, so her scores were good. But other people argued that if the movement after the piaffe was still piaffe (just moving) then there was not transition at all. The crowd was pretty divided on that issue. My own thoughts are that there must be a real transition for it to count. Its obvious that Anky knew what she was doing and didn't quite ask Salinero for a super passage, so her transition appeared seamless. But how can one compare that to somebody who doest all the required movements? Its much easier to go from piaffe to crappy passage, or from crap piaffe to passage etc. The moderator ended the discussion as we were running over the time scheduled for that part. Too bad, because it could have become quite a valuable discussion.

Overall I felt that the judges were whining a little bit. Because everybody always blames the judges, Mr. Clarke was slightly disappointed and gladly reminded everybody that judging is his hobby and he is a rider and trainer himself. He did admit to some of the mistakes made by the judges but there was a sense of tension there, when he told everybody that he is tired of everyone always blaming the judges.

And to all the posters that keep inquiring about the learned helplessness - that presentation was not really a highlight at all, I found it overall rather boring and the presenter didn't explain his points well at all.

As far as Monty, he was there. He did the opening talk. He said he was invited back by Joep Bartels as a special guest. His opinion was asked repeatedly throughout the forum, as he was an "outsider" to dressage and one of the themes of the forum was what "outsiders" think (hece Franke Sloothak, jumper rider) but he mostly rambled and didn't always make sense. He did have much so say however, when the topic of rowel spurs came up (he said that they are milder than normal spurs because you can't "jab" with them). I don't think that many people really took him too seriously, but it was nice to have somebody from a whole different "world" at the forum.

In regards to the clinic by Coby and Jo Hinneman: first they did a power point presentation and Coby read some theory stuff, it was mostly "blah blah", I didn't really listen too much I have to say. Then they did a mounted presentation of their system of schooling RIDERS (not horses!) from beginner to GP. They first had kids on ponies, one was the new rider with Power and Paint and the other was some girl on Power's half sister. They explained what the pony FEI test consist of and what the kids learn at that level. Then they had some young riders, including Angela Kroosvik (sp?), the one who previously rode Power and Paint. Then they had some other riders as well showing all kinds of levels of work and Jo explained how he approaches the teaching of the riders. It was just a general presentation that gave some insights into their approach, but there really wasn't enough time to get into many details, so it was really just a taste of what they do.

Ok, I'll add more if I remember anything, but I think I talked about most of the stuff that happened. And please, fire away if you have any more questions!

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 2, 2007, 11:48 AM
CenterLineGirl,

Thanks for the great report. I found Kemperman's presentation on the marketing of Dressage most interesting!

Re: the 70 second tests. H&H explains Kemperman's statements saying that:
the tests should be shortened to allow for better media coverage.
And that while there will be protests at first...it should work out.

Did you interpret his statement this way?



Yes, he definitely said that but I didn't feel like he pushed the issue. There really wasn't a discussion about it. He put it out there for people to digest maybe? I know that he feels that the test should be shorter but I feel like at the Forum itself, he didn't stress that part as much as he did other elements of his proposal (stars, prize money etc).

sm
Nov. 2, 2007, 11:58 AM
thanks from me too CenterlineGirl2 -- how cool to share your experience...

snoopy
Nov. 2, 2007, 12:33 PM
Thanks, Centerlinegirl2, for the excellent summaries! It's refreshing to hear that the sensationalism has been taken out of RK and that riding deep and low has been proven as a healthy and recommended exercise. And it was definitely time to get rid of the much hyped "learned helplessness" comment since its originators within the context of RK obviously just used it to create more controversy.

Thank you!


RK and LONG, DEEP and LOW are two very different things. I have a never had a problem with L,D and L...but that is NOT what RK is about. And for the record...used in context, CBV was not lunging P and P in a LDL outline...but rather up and very short.
Also for the record...I did not coin the phrase of "learned helplessness" and its relation to RK....but it must have been used in connection with RK and other training methods if it were part of the training portion/debate/discussion at the GDF. My OP was merely to discuss an article written about what was discussed over the weekend....
Hey don't shoot the messenger. I was merely asking what others felt about the artilce or what they experienced at GDF.

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 2, 2007, 01:09 PM
RK and LONG, DEEP and LOW are two very different things. I have a never had a problem with L,D and L...but that is NOT what RK is about. And for the record...used in context, CBV was not lunging P and P in a LDL outline...but rather up and very short.
Also for the record...I did not coin the phrase of "learned helplessness" and its relation to RK....but it must have been used in connection with RK and other training methods if it were part of the training portion/debate/discussion at the GDF. My OP was merely to discuss an article written about what was discussed over the weekend....
Hey don't shoot the messenger. I was merely asking what others felt about the artilce or what they experienced at GDF.

I have to say - Long Deep and Low, or Low Deep and Round that was presented at the Forum by many of the horses ridden there is not quite the "classical" forward down and out. It is still deep with the nose tucked in quite a lot. However, there is not compression of the neck and the horses still go towards the bit and accept the contact. It something in between RK and normal frame maybe??? Anyways, the exact position doesn't really matter, the issue at hand is that riding the horse always in front of the vertical and in a "proper" frame is NOT good for their back and overall development. The consensus seems to be that horses frame must be varied, up, down, long, short etc. to preserve suppleness of the whole system.

And also, the sensationalism has been taken out of RK. Nobody wanted to talk about it at the forum! Henk van Bergen said at one point during the forum that RK is ok in experienced hands but shouldn't be taught to inexperienced riders. Then somebody else went on to say that every rider should experiment and find for himself what works best and that we should encourage riders to try different things and in time they will find their own way. Then somebody else said that we are not talking about rollkur but long, deep and round and that was the end of the rollkur debate :)

Kyzteke
Nov. 2, 2007, 03:18 PM
[QUOTE=CenterlineGirl2;2775710]I was there at the forum and here is the thing:
About the learned helplessness - the guy said pretty much this "animals who get learned helplessness become pretty much useless, and not responding to ANY stimuli. Like absolutely nothing, nada makes them do anything. The dogs in the experiments mentioned earlier had to be euthanized as they were unable to live normal lives. /QUOTE]

Actually, neither of these statements are true.

According the the author who conducted the experiments, the dogs were fine in other tasks and DID have responses to other external stimuli. During my thankfully brief exposure to the two different horses who were tied down and beaten, both were extremely well-mannered for the six months that I was in contact with the "trainer." One horse was a chronic run-away -- the other was a habitual bucker. In both cases (much to my surprise, 'cause I had been trying to get this guy to do something else with the first horse), THOSE behaviors stopped. In fact the runaway became the guy's young daughter's mount.

Believe me, I was very disgusted & saddened with the whole method...but also very surprised that it actually worked.

Also, none of the dogs in the original experiment were put down (per the author) -- the whole goal of the experiment was to see if the dogs could be "rehabilitated" and re-wired (so to speak) so that they could learn to react once more and NOT be helpless.

According to Seligman, 1/3 of the dogs who were shocked without avenue of escape DID NOT develop learned helplessness. 2/3rds did. Of the 2/3rds who did 100% got over their "learned helplessness" with consistant training and handling.

Since that time many experiments using people (alas, they didn't give them shocks, which I find unfair) have been performed -- in an effort to find out why some people simply give up and some people keep trying.

What is interesting is that approximately the same % of people as dogs (about 2/3rds) develop learned helplessness in lab situations.

He wrote a whole book on Learned Helplessness (by that title), but I've gotten my info from another book of his called "Learned Optimisim."

Kyzteke
Nov. 2, 2007, 03:28 PM
Not according a Clinical Psychologist, Psychotherapist, Equitherapist, rider and Dressage Judge: Horses that have been made to feel insecure, high stress level, will be falsely interpreted as “high spirits.” Misbehavoir includes: chaos at the prize giving, overall high degree of tension...

See about the fourth para from the END of her article http://www.hippocampus-nl.com/s2e.php?content_id=337

Personally, I don't know enough about "learned helplessness" in equines to voice a solid opinion (how many times do you hear THAT on COTH ,<g>?). And unless this person has done controlled experiments to back up her theories, then they aren't "proven" -- they are simply this person's opinion. And we all know that science is based on proof.

I don't know if experiments have been done on horses in this regard -- if they haven't then all of this is pure speculation -- granted, it's speculation by experts, but "experts " are wrong ALL the time...do the names B.F. Skinner & Descartes ring any bells???

Touchstone Farm
Nov. 2, 2007, 03:43 PM
Kemperman, the show director of CHIO Aachen, joined Joep Bartels, innovator of the grand prix kür, in demanding a shake up of the sport to increase public and national press interest.
"A show jumping round lasts 70 seconds, where a dressage test lasts 360 seconds, you try selling 10 dressage test to mainstream television at 360 seconds per test, it's not possible," said Kemperman.
.............

So because he says that, it's true? How did he come to this conclusion? And if people disagree, he can just say, "Oh, there's always disagreement at first." I don't think he gives the audience enough credit. Look how dressage is growing with things as they are. Look at the crowds at the World Cup in Vegas -- out selllng jumping!!! With his logic, based on the ticket sales at the World Cup, show jumping should lengthen the time it takes so a jumping round lasts 360 seconds! His way is the dumbing down of the sport.

On the surface, the purpose of the Global Dressage Forum seems like a good idea, but what is coming out of it seems short-sided and focused on the competitive non-classical side of dressage. (Note, I said competitive non-classical because I do believe there can be such a thing as competitive classical dressage.)

claire
Nov. 2, 2007, 05:32 PM
It's refreshing to hear that the sensationalism has been taken out of RK and that riding deep and low has been proven as a healthy and recommended exercise. And it was definitely time to get rid of the much hyped "learned helplessness" comment since its originators within the context of RK obviously just used it to create more controversy.

I think one has to realize that the Global Dressage Forum did not present clinical studies. So I do not think you can be drawing the conclusion that anything was "Proven". :confused:

Different training techniques were discussed and different opinions voiced in a forum setting.

Re: "learned helplessness" in relation to rollkur comment. This term came up last year at the GDF in Andrew McClean's presentation. His point was that more research would be needed to draw any conclusion.


http://www.horsesport.org/veterinary/PDFS/Workshop_Report_Final_050306.pdf (http://www.horsesport.org/veterinary/PDFS/Workshop_Report_Final_050306.pdf)
[quote]
"Dr. Andrew McLean introduced a new term, “learned helplessness” He described it as learned pain tolerance. A horse whose nose has been forced onto its chest cannot escape that position and may learn to accept the pain involved with it.
Dr. McClean wants additional research to know how much contact is neutral, how to measure pain in the contact, and how learned helplessness manifests itself in a horse."

Point eight(2006 FEI Summary of the GDF Hyperflexion Workshop)
states:
“The Veterinary Committee should now identify what research is required to confirm unequivocally whether or not there is a welfare issue involved in training techniques using Hyperflexion.”

The FEI never required further clinical research into the subject...

However, they did find:
Point three (2006 FEI Summary of the GDF Hyperflexion Workshop)

“Hyperflexion of the neck is a technique of working/training to provide a degree of longitudinal flexion of the mid-region of the neck that cannot be self-maintained by the horse for a prolonged time without welfare implications. There must be an understanding that Hyperflexion as a training aid must be used correctly, as the technique can be an abuse when attempted by an inexperienced/unskilled rider/trainer.”

So, No PROOF. Just alot of qualified statements. :winkgrin:

I also found it interesting that Margit Crepin's statement about "riders should train in the frame they think best" came AFTER

[quote H&H]

"Spanish national coach Jean Bemelmans refrained from demonstrating hyperflexion (or rollkur) in his lecture, preferring to stretch the horses' necks with their noses out.

Afterwards he admitted: "I don't have a problem with hyperflexion, I use it at home sometimes for short moments. I'll use draw reins, too, just not everyday. It's when people exacerbate these methods that it's wrong."

More qualified statements!

But I think the most important indicator of the direction of Dressage as a sport, came from the Kemperman/Bartels statements.

claire
Nov. 2, 2007, 05:46 PM
Kyzteke,
Thank you for the explanation of the term "Learned Helplessness" and Selig's original experiments with the dogs.

Taking me back to my clinical psychology courses! :lol:

sm
Nov. 2, 2007, 05:54 PM
And unless this person has done controlled experiments to back up her theories, then they aren't "proven" -- they are simply this person's opinion. And we all know that science is based on proof.

Excellent point. She was describing (since she is a judge as well) how she recognises whether a horse has completed its dressage training mentally relaxed and balanced. So article is largely her observations and checklist on how she professionally evaluates.

Kyzteke
Nov. 2, 2007, 08:11 PM
Kyzteke,
Thank you for the explanation of the term "Learned Helplessness" and Selig's original experiments with the dogs.

Taking me back to my clinical psychology courses! :lol:

Claire -- You're welcome. What's so weird is that this thread kicked off just when I started the book by Seligman.

I suppose RK COULD cause LH -- but the whole idea of LH is that after a period of time when the subject is subjected to pain or anything uncomfortable (with people they used loud music and Bill Cosby records!) THAT THEY CANNOT CHANGE OR ESCAPE then the danger of LH developing becomes high.

It's a pretty interesting book, because discovering LH was just the first step. The second (and most important) was to study WHY some fell prey to it and other didn't, and then how do you "turn around" those with LH?

claire
Nov. 2, 2007, 08:21 PM
Kyzteke,

What is the name of the book you are reading? It sounds interesting!

Moll
Nov. 3, 2007, 03:27 AM
I agree with Kyz who said "According the the author who conducted the experiments, the dogs were fine in other tasks and DID have responses to other external stimuli."

I've seen horses that are very specifically unresponsive - using the term learned helplessness seems to be inflammatory here though. But horses who, for instance, shut down completely when confronted with a whip, or a horse trailer, or the farrier, for instance. As opposed to horses who have just habituated or "got used to" the whip until it ceases to mean much at all, the LH horses go into kind of a dazed state and have an inward look, and they're completely unresponsive to the environment as well at that moment. Horses who have habituated can look quite happy and unconcerned otherwise, just seem to have switched off the normal response to an aid - think riding school horse with a kid on its back, kicking and kicking - but LH horses are something else entirely.

They're retrainable, but it takes skill, and most of them tend to revert to the unresponsive state fairly easily if faced with rough handling again.

Some horses trained by these new western methods, where you don't let the horse have any breaks, have the same look.

sm
Nov. 3, 2007, 09:35 AM
They're retrainable, but it takes skill, and most of them tend to revert to the unresponsive state fairly easily if faced with rough handling again.

WHich reminds me of what Balkenhol said in 2005 USDF Symposium, and was written up in COTH January 6, 2006 Issue, http://www.chronofhorse.com/index.php?cat=40311030495963&z_get_Article_ID=102732323545440&search_type=Full&keywords=balkenhol&Full_Category_ID=100204042587690

Where he sees 20-30 horses wonderful young international horses in a year--but he only sees two to three still going by the time they're 7. Balkenhol blames incorrect work, see the COTH article.

Same article also mentions where Dr. Gerd Heuschmann (again at this 2005 symposium) stressed the horse cannot ever be pulled into a specific position or frame, and it's wrong to maintain one frame for all the work.

Moll
Nov. 3, 2007, 09:58 AM
Where he sees 20-30 horses wonderful young international horses in a year--but he only sees two to three still going by the time they're 7.

That is just sad. Sure, one or two may be injured normally, but 90%? Of course some are sold to amateur riders, but never that many. :(

snoopy
Nov. 3, 2007, 12:43 PM
http://www.eurodressage.com/reports/shows/2007/07gdf/index.html



More in depth info regarding different areas of discussion from the GDF...makes for interesting reading.

claire
Nov. 3, 2007, 01:15 PM
snoopy, Thanks for the link.

McClean's explanation of the term "learned helplessness" in conjunction with (horse) training methods was certainly clarified.

Also, the "Dressage Horses do not show learned helplessness" statement was from the GDF's own summary of McClean's
presentation. ;)

[quote EuroDressage]
"as the GDF sums it up in its own press release: McLean's “conclusion was that this kind of behaviour is not evident in top sport dressage horses.”


“The key to dressage training”, says McLean, “is to use minimum pressure to produce maximum results. It is not the pressure applied by legs and bit that the horse reacts to, it's the release of that pressure – that's what we call aids. Aids give the animal predictable cues what's going to happen. Predictability, consistency and clarity of response are the hallmarks of good training.” McLean said that “the joy of seeing a horse responding well is that it means that the horse is in control. Because dressage is not solely about controlling the horse; it's a two-way game.”

snoopy
Nov. 3, 2007, 01:25 PM
http://www.eurodressage.com/reports/shows/2007/07gdf/rep3.html


Yes I was very impressed by the last line in this article...."some" should think about this statement very carefully.

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 02:39 PM
From Eurodressage:

Enter Fuego, who had been walking in the arena to grease his joints during Bemelmans' introduction and started trotting with somewhat slow, not very engaged movements now, initially giving no indication what he's capable of. Bemelsmans instructed the rider to lengthen the reins and let the horse stretch towards the bit. Now, you can talk about Rollkur until your ears bleed, but after this demonstration of what happens if you ride a horse this way, the way that is called the “classical” or sometimes (derogatively?) the “German” way, no more discussion should be necessary. The horse became more engaged
immediately, and you had to be blind not to see how his hind legs started moving further under the body and his whole back started swinging.

________

So I am confused here! What the horse was showing at that time was NOT a classical way of stretching! You can see it in the pictures, it was not forward, down and out. It was round, long and deep. After the horse warmed up in this round frame and his back became supple and swinging then the rider brought him up and showed a FANTASTIC expressive trot (I mean jaw-dropping). Jean stressed that if the horse was ridden like that all the time, then his back would not take it and he'd become tense and "hectic" in his movements and most likely unsound quickly. This guy's training cannot be described as what most people understand as "classical". But, more like "Neo-classical" as Conrad Schumacher likes to say.

claire
Nov. 3, 2007, 03:56 PM
CenterlineGirl, Is this the frame you are referring to as RK?
http://www.eurodressage.com/images/2007/07gdf/munoz_21609.jpg

Because, I think this is where the confusion occurs. I think *most* would consider the above (link) frame Deep or maybe LDR?



These (links) show what *most* define as RK/Hyperflexion frame:

It is better to clarify by using photos than words, I think :)

http://www.scandinavian-dressage.com/images/Rollkur2_300.jpg

http://rhonealpes.dressage.free.fr/PHOTOS/RK.jpg

http://www.photoservice.com/phsv4_volume/volume20070710/949903_12166895/m_37405572_0.jpg

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:05 PM
I am not referring to this frame as Rollkur! I mean Low Deep and Round - but that is still not classical!
Nobody did any rollkur at the Forum, but in the presentation horses went deep, which is not classical. I just think the person who wrote the eurodressage report is being a little funny, when she says that Jean "chose to stretch the horses with their noses out" (not an exact quote, just something that stuck in my memory) where clearly their noses were not out and the whole presentation advocated riding horses deep and loose. Its all good, but its not classical. Not that I think it matters really if its classical or not, its good for the horses, but the "press" should pay a bit more attention to the details and label things properly.
OK, off the soapbox now.

claire
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:08 PM
I also thought this exchange between Laurens van Lieren and Belman was interesting.

[quote]
Laurens van Lieren, posted a question that proved with embarrassing clarity that even top athletes often don't know what they are doing.

“Is it really necessary to open the horse's frame during the extended trot?”, he asked, explaining that he finds it beautiful when the horse's neck stays up and the extension comes only from the front legs.

Jan Bemelmans' reply was clear enough: “The neck is a horse's balance pole. When the frame opens, you see that the hind legs come forward. Coming from 'down', the horse needs to stretch. Collection is activity, but in intervals, you have to let him relax and go forward. Of course with a lengthened neck comes the swinging back, and often riders don't want to open the frame because they cannot sit it,.”

This concept of intervals is, of course, how the whole Grand Prix test is designed – and why it cannot be shortened further, Mr. Kemperman.


After that, Olympic judge Bernard Maurel, ignoring what Bemelmans had just said,
single-handedly discarded the concept of “Rahmenerweiterung” (lenghtening of the frame) during an extension and said that “a little bit is enough”. :confused:

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:09 PM
ok, to clarify I am wondering why eurodressage refers to the stretching and the way of riding shown as "classical" which it clearly is not. That is all that I am confused about.

Kyzteke
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:11 PM
Kyzteke,

What is the name of the book you are reading? It sounds interesting!

Claire -- The one I'm reading is called "Learned Optimism," by Martin Seligman PhD. He also has one called "Learned Helplessness." Both were written in the late '90's I think.

sm
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:24 PM
ok, to clarify I am wondering why eurodressage refers to the stretching and the way of riding shown as "classical" which it clearly is not. That is all that I am confused about.

I am guessing because a great trot with a super supple back is achieved by classical methods without rollkur --- since increased back suppleness is the rationale of people who train/endorse rollkur. Just a guess, I really don't know what the author intended http://www.eurodressage.com/reports/shows/2007/07gdf/rep6.html

The explanation of how/why the demo works (read further in the same article) was classical: “The neck is a horse's balance pole. When the frame opens, you see that the hind legs come forward. Coming from 'down', the horse needs to stretch. Collection is activity, but in intervals, you have to let him relax and go forward. Of course with a lengthened neck comes the swinging back, and often riders don't want to open the frame because they cannot sit it,.”

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:26 PM
I also thought this exchange between Laurens van Lieren and Belman was interesting.

[quote]
Laurens van Lieren, posted a question that proved with embarrassing clarity that even top athletes often don't know what they are doing.

“Is it really necessary to open the horse's frame during the extended trot?”, he asked, explaining that he finds it beautiful when the horse's neck stays up and the extension comes only from the front legs.

Jan Bemelmans' reply was clear enough: “The neck is a horse's balance pole. When the frame opens, you see that the hind legs come forward. Coming from 'down', the horse needs to stretch. Collection is activity, but in intervals, you have to let him relax and go forward. Of course with a lengthened neck comes the swinging back, and often riders don't want to open the frame because they cannot sit it,.”

This concept of intervals is, of course, how the whole Grand Prix test is designed – and why it cannot be shortened further, Mr. Kemperman.


After that, Olympic judge Bernard Maurel, ignoring what Bemelmans had just said,
single-handedly discarded the concept of “Rahmenerweiterung” (lenghtening of the frame) during an extension and said that “a little bit is enough”. :confused:


YES that was definitely interesting!!!! I was quite surprised to hear that Laurens said that "it is more beautiful when the horse keeps the neck upright and extends only the paces". You'd expect a rider of this caliber to know the FEI rulebook... When the question was asked I was sitting right next to Laurens and I felt like asking "don't you know that the whole frame of the horse is supposed to extend?"
I felt like the judge who answered the question didn't want to make Laurens embarassed, so he settled for a politically correct answer of "its supposed to lengthen a little but its not that important" - that way he made everybody happy, because he said that its supposed to lengthen, but "just a little" so to not make Laruens embarrassed. I have to say that whole part was a little bit weird!

claire
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:30 PM
I am not referring to this frame as Rollkur! I mean Low Deep and Round - but that is still not classical!
Nobody did any rollkur at the Forum, but in the presentation horses went deep, which is not classical.

Like I said, I think we get into semantics and definitions of what is and isn't "Classical". EuroDressage obviously considers "Deep" classical. :)


I think Belman considers himself a Classical trainer, and he obviously uses deep techniques and according to this quote he also uses Hyperflexion except only for a short period...

[quote EuroDressage]
"Hyperflexion-Rollkur had raised its ugly head several times during the previous day,

Bemelmans once more made it clear that the stretching exercises he recommends to support the horse's back are ridden with a long, deep and round neck and are not to be confused with the short, round and tight neck that constitutes Hyperflexion.

“I may use Hyperflexion myself now and then, but never for more than a few moments”, said Bemelmans, who believes in flexibility and variation."

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:31 PM
I am guessing because a great trot with a super supple back is achieved by classical methods without rollkur --- since increased back suppleness is the rationale of people who train/endorse rollkur. Just a guess, I really don't know what the author intended http://www.eurodressage.com/reports/shows/2007/07gdf/rep6.html

The explanation of how it works in the article was classical: “The neck is a horse's balance pole. When the frame opens, you see that the hind legs come forward. Coming from 'down', the horse needs to stretch. Collection is activity, but in intervals, you have to let him relax and go forward. Of course with a lengthened neck comes the swinging back, and often riders don't want to open the frame because they cannot sit it,.”

yes, the explanation was classical. But like I said earlier - the reason that the horse was so expressive in a classical open frame was because his back was stretched in a deep, non-classical frame.

I can see the events could be interpreted differently: fist a horse goes deep and is not so expressive and his gaits look "normal", and then he opens the frame and becomes expressive. Therefore the classical open frame is good.

But that interpretation is wrong, because the expressiveness would not be there if there wasn't the initial stretching deep and low. It the rider went straight to "classical" and open the horse would not be so relaxed and expressive.

So I think there was a misunderstanding here. Jean meant to show that good "classical" way of riding cannot be achieved without stretching and the article portrays it like it was a presentation of two different ways of riding, one bad and one good. While in reality one cannot exist without the other.

canyonoak
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:46 PM
<< I was quite surprised to hear that Laurens said that "it is more beautiful when the horse keeps the neck upright and extends only the paces".>>

and:


<<Laurens van Lieren, posted a question that proved with embarrassing clarity that even top athletes often don't know what they are doing.

“Is it really necessary to open the horse's frame during the extended trot?”, he asked, explaining that he finds it beautiful when the horse's neck stays up and the extension comes only from the front legs.>>


So my question is: did Mr. van Lieren say 'front legs' or did he say 'paces'?

Because those are two very different concepts and I think even a COTH-proclaimed putz like Mr. van Lieren might know the difference.

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:48 PM
<< I was quite surprised to hear that Laurens said that "it is more beautiful when the horse keeps the neck upright and extends only the paces".>>

and:


<<Laurens van Lieren, posted a question that proved with embarrassing clarity that even top athletes often don't know what they are doing.

“Is it really necessary to open the horse's frame during the extended trot?”, he asked, explaining that he finds it beautiful when the horse's neck stays up and the extension comes only from the front legs.>>


So my question is: did Mr. van Lieren say 'front legs' or did he say 'paces'?

Because those are two very different concepts and I think even a COTH-proclaimed putz like Mr. van Lieren might know the difference.

he most definitely said "paces"
I remember specifically wondering how he used the term "paces" (british-ish) as opposed to "gaits" (american-ish)
so it was definitely "paces"

sm
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:49 PM
yes, the explanation was classical. But like I said earlier - the reason that the horse was so expressive in a classical open frame was because his back was stretched in a deep, non-classical frame...

But that interpretation is wrong, because the expressiveness would not be there if there wasn't the initial stretching deep and low. It the rider went straight to "classical" and open the horse would not be so relaxed and expressive.


okay, I see a difference in what we are calling "classical."

In the beginning of the article, second para, "Since the subject of Hyperflexion-Rollkur had raised its ugly head several times during the previous day, Bemelmans once more made it clear that the stretching exercises he recommends to support the horse's back are ridden with a long, deep and round neck and are not to be confused with the short, round and tight neck that constitutes Hyperflexion. "

I am seeing "classical" as the old style training methods without rollkur. The demo shows one can get the same or better result without rollkur training methods.

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 04:52 PM
okay, there is a difference in what we are calling "classical."

In the beginning of the article, second para, "Since the subject of Hyperflexion-Rollkur had raised its ugly head several times during the previous day, Bemelmans once more made it clear that the stretching exercises he recommends to support the horse's back are ridden with a long, deep and round neck and are not to be confused with the short, round and tight neck that constitutes Hyperflexion. "

I am calling "classical" the old style training methods without rollkur.

Ok, so in my book there are three!
One is classical, rigid old style
two is neo-classical, non-rollkur but with flexible frame, working up or down, deep or not etc
rollkur - very deep, short frame, no variation

From what I understand you group the fist two as "classical", where I see that there is a branch off to the "neo-classical" which uses deep frame as opposed to forward down and out frame for stretching

sm
Nov. 3, 2007, 05:00 PM
fair enough **grin**

but in the ORIGINAL CLASSICAL :) the horse was allowed to stretch however he wanted:

"The hand must be neither held so strict as to confine and make the horse uneasy, nor so loosely as not to let him feel it. The moment he obeys and answers it, yield the bridle to him; this will take off the stress and relieve his bars [bits], and is in conformity with that maxim, which should not be forgot, which is to caress and reward him for whatever he does well. The moment the rider perceives that the horse places his head, to go lightly in the hand, and with ease and pleasure to himself [the rider] should do nothing that is disagreeable, but flatter and coax, suffer him to rest a while, and do all he can to keep [the horse] in this happy temper. This will encourage and prepare him for greater undertakings." -- This was written two thousand years ago, by a man named Xenophon.

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 3, 2007, 05:08 PM
fair enough **grin**

but in the ORIGINAL CLASSICAL :) the horse was allowed to stretch however he wanted:

"The hand must be neither held so strict as to confine and make the horse uneasy, nor so loosely as not to let him feel it. The moment he obeys and answers it, yield the bridle to him; this will take off the stress and relieve his bars [bits], and is in conformity with that maxim, which should not be forgot, which is to caress and reward him for whatever he does well. The moment the rider perceives that the horse places his head, to go lightly in the hand, and with ease and pleasure to himself [the rider] should do nothing that is disagreeable, but flatter and coax, suffer him to rest a while, and do all he can to keep [the horse] in this happy temper. This will encourage and prepare him for greater undertakings." -- This was written two thousand years ago, by a man named Xenophon.


yes, that's a good quote :) It makes you wonder how "neo", neo-classical really is :)

Moll
Nov. 4, 2007, 02:32 AM
Well, we all have our own view of beauty, and obviously mine is very different from what van Lierens wants (oh how I wanted to link the original Rollkur pictures of van Lierens hauling on the reins even though his poor horse is already curled up to the max...)

But: if the judges are rewarding incorrect extensions, why would the rider even need to know what the correct ones are like?

slc2
Nov. 4, 2007, 07:09 AM
There's something very peculiar about this situation.

Rollkur and hyperflexion came from the Jumpers. In fact, it was used with jumpers for a very long time before it became widely used in dressage. And for some reason, no one charged abuse and cruelty or cried out when it was used for jumpers. It was just not an issue.

And I don't think it's because dressage riders are so much more sensitive and caring. To suggest jumper riders wholesale don't care about their horses or that they have all decided it's ok to be cruel if it leads to a scrap of ribbon - no, I don't buy that.

I can also see similar positions in people training western pleasure horses, and especially Arabians, but I can also see Saddlebreds and other horses in similar positions. I can go to any number of Arabian barns and Western Pleasure barns in my area, and see horses with their necks in exactly the same positions. Right on the chest or very close to it.

A few months ago, I was riding a horse that bolted. He evidently had not been worked on the schedule the owner claimed, and couldn't help himself. I had to stop him before he ran into another horse and rider, and I brought his head around to the side some and had a job trying to stop him, and he wound up with his neck in 'hyperflexion', hardly what I'd call ideal but at least I was able to stop him before he ran into anyone else.

A hunter rider was watching and said, 'Oh, I LOVE the position of your horse's neck, you're really suppling him!' I turned around and said, 'No, not really, I was just trying to STOP him!' and laughed.

But it suggested to me that there are ALSO hunter people who train their horses this way. AND...she proceeded to get up on HER horse and show me that yes, that was exactly how she warmed up her horse, in hyperflexion. I asked her who had taught her to warm up that way and she said, 'A jumper guy, very successful'. (She named the trainer, I don't recall the name). she further told me that if they ran into a horse they couldn't get in that position just by working the reins, they would make SURE they got the horse in that position and work it that way, by putting on a chambon, draw reins or whatever was needed.

In point of fact, I watched an Arabian trainer train his customer's horse in the exact same position as the pony trained by Coby, for over one hour yesterday; this was NOT some backyarder but a guy with several regional and further in the past, national titles from the Arabian division. Then he took another one out and did the same thing under saddle, only instead of a snaffle bridle or double bridle, he was using a curb bit with a curb chain and shanks that were three times longer than a dressage curb, and the bit had a high port, as well.

Last month, we watched videos of a Natural Horsemanship trainer at a neighbor's with the trainer bring the horse's neck around completely onto his knee and holding it there; I asked the neighbor, 'What's he doing that for?' and she answered, 'To supple the horse, of course! That makes them very supple'. The horse was held in that position, and began to run backwards and panic, and when he stopped running backwards and stood quietly with his head on the rider's knee, the crowd applauded and cheered, while the trainer held the horse's head there for the entire time he explained what he was doing, 'so the horse will understand what it means to give to the rein'.

When the horse stopped struggling, it was not called 'Learned Helplessness', it was called 'training'. In fact the NH guy said, 'NOW we're getting somewhere!' and the crowd applauded and cheered again.

I'm sure there are those who will explain that away by saying, 'But it stopped when the horse gave in, it didn't go on and on!' and my response would be no, actually, it DIDN'T stop when the horse gave in, the horse was held in a far more extreme position than rollkur for quite a long time, AFTER he 'gave in'.

And they have not been accused of abuse and cruelty, and their styles also do not include accepting poll-low positions in competition, either. And in fact, the NH trainers who bend their horses around to their knees, the "Cowboy Dressage" trainer who ties his horse's head to his tail, these are lauded by quite a few of the same people who condemn rollkur in dressage.

This is done during training and warmup, though in those divisions horses are also seen in the competition ring behind the vertical at times.

A person who was looking at the situation dispassionately, might conclude that there is some special politic going on that makes this abusive and cruel and a horror in dressage and just fine for every other riding style, or at least, those who are against it in dressage seem to be very consciously brushing off the fact that some form of this positioning is very widely used in many riding divisions, and has been for a very, very long time.

What happens next, I suppose, is that we're informed that either it IS abuse in any riding style, or that we should not criticize other riding styles, and that it's only abuse in dressage, because dressage is a better sort of horse riding sport.

claire
Nov. 4, 2007, 08:22 AM
slc, This is dressage forum. So, the RK training that occurs in other disciplines would best be discussed in one of their forums.

And, according to CenterlineGirl who attended the GDF forum, there was not much discussion about RK.

What WAS demonstrated and discussed was Deep/LDR. :cool:

As for McClean's presentation on learned helplessness, if you read the various different reports it is clear that his presentation came down to:

[quote McClean]
"The key to dressage training, is to use minimum pressure to produce maximum results."

He never said RK'd horses HAVE learned helplessness.
(and he never said he PROVED RK'd horses DON'T have LH) :confused:

snoopy
Nov. 4, 2007, 08:28 AM
slc, This is dressage forum. So, the RK training that occurs in other disciplines would be discussed in one of their forums.

And, according to CenterlineGirl who attended the GDF forum, there was not much discussion about RK.

What WAS demonstrated and discussed was Deep/LDR. :cool:

As for McClean's presentation on learned helplessness, if you read the various different reports it is clear that his presentation came down to:

[quote McClean]
"The key to dressage training,is to use minimum pressure to produce maximum results."

He never said RK'd horses HAVE learned helplessness.
(and he never said he PROVED RK horses DON'T have LH) :confused:


RE: LDL...
And WHAT different trainers/riders PERCEPTION of what this concept is to them.....

~Freedom~
Nov. 4, 2007, 10:00 AM
Rollkur and hyperflexion came from the Jumpers. In fact, it was used with jumpers for a very long time before it became widely used in dressage. And for some reason, no one charged abuse and cruelty or cried out when it was used for jumpers. It was just not an issue.


A few months ago, I was riding a horse that bolted. He evidently had not been worked on the schedule the owner claimed, and couldn't help himself. I had to stop him before he ran into another horse and rider, and I brought his head around to the side some and had a job trying to stop him, and he wound up with his neck in 'hyperflexion', hardly what I'd call ideal but at least I was able to stop him before he ran into anyone else.

A hunter rider was watching and said, 'Oh, I LOVE the position of your horse's neck, you're really suppling him!' I turned around and said, 'No, not really, I was just trying to STOP him!' and laughed.

But it suggested to me that there are ALSO hunter people who train their horses this way. AND...she proceeded to get up on HER horse and show me that yes, that was exactly how she warmed up her horse, in hyperflexion. I asked her who had taught her to warm up that way and she said, 'A jumper guy, very successful'. (She named the trainer, I don't recall the name). she further told me that if they ran into a horse they couldn't get in that position just by working the reins, they would make SURE they got the horse in that position and work it that way, by putting on a chambon, draw reins or whatever was needed.



I am not going to address the comments in the other areas you mentioned as I never comment in disciplines I have no knowledge.

As far as hunter/jumper I do have knowledge, coming from that discipline to dressage and as long as I was working in that arena NO ONE warmed up in a Rolkur position. Certainly the horse may have had their heads now and then in that position but it was neither encouraged nor desired. The riders want their horses LOOKING at the jumps and soft and quiet between fences.

But Claire is right as this belongs in the jumper section and if you chose to start a thread there I will expand...there.:)

canyonoak
Nov. 4, 2007, 10:09 AM
I asked:
-- So my question is: did Mr. van Lieren say 'front legs' or did he say 'paces'?

Because those are two very different concepts and I think even a COTH-proclaimed putz like Mr. van Lieren might know the difference. --

and CenterlineGirl 2 kindly answered:

<< he most definitely said "paces"
I remember specifically wondering how he used the term "paces" (british-ish) as opposed to "gaits" (american-ish)
so it was definitely "paces">>


And I am saying thank you--because that is NOT a small point, and I always wonder how ideas and perspectives get twisted --whether on this BB or in real life.

As for this entire head-neck discussion (excuse me while I yawn, along with most of the rest of the world), here are two quotes. (Trust me, these are vebatim. HHAHAHAHAHAH)

Jo Hinnemann: "There is only good riding and bad riding."

Wolfram Wittig: " ...In the old days we trained exercises. The quality of movement often went down.
Today, we train muscles and ligaments,not the exercises.""

slc2
Nov. 4, 2007, 11:02 AM
I suppose now Laurens will be forever more a Bad Guy Who is Ruining Dressage :)

In fact, even the great Reiner Klimke never had a horse 'extend its neck' more than a very slight amount - it was more opening up the angle at the throat than stretching the neck out horizontally. Same with the Spanish Riding School horses. They do NOT, in nfact, extend their necks in the extended trot; they change the angle of the throat, if anything.

Why would that be?

Because a horse cannot do an extended trot with his neck stretched out that much in front of him. Laurens can say 'it is more beautiful' this way, but he also can say that it is a hell of a lot better than having the horse fall on his face!

What that does is cause the horse to lose his balance. He cannot make a huge extension of stride in a collected type of balance, and keep his neck stretched out in front of him.

This was amply proven at a Charles de Kunffy clinic here some years ago. He had the riders do extended trot with their horse's necks stretched out very, very long, and every horse, no matter what type, breed or level of training or fitneess, ALL of them started to hit themselves. ALL of them. WHY? Because their balance was completely destroyed by trying to do that type of work. You can't teach a horse to be that engaged (not engaged like other types of horses, but engaged through the entire hip and pelvis) and then pitch him on his face and expect him to survive.

What horses do, say, in hunt seat road hack classes, is take a long stride, but not in a collected posture. Their necks are always stretched out, and in the road trot or extended trot they are not in the same balance as a grand prix horse, they are in a very, very horizontal posture and the hind legs are all push and no carry, like in first level or below. They stretch their necks out no more doing the horizontal or road gait, than in their normal posture (hunt seat road hack, not arabian show hack style classes).

The extended trot of a Grand Prix horse is a very collected gait, in the sense that the collection of the rest of the test is maintained - MUST be maintained, or it cannot keep its balance and perform the rest of the test, OR perform the extended trot in balance.

The extreme power of the hind legs, not just pushing but also carrying, is what frees up the shoulders and allows the forelegs to lift, so does the horse's straightness, which puts his hind legs directly behind his forelegs, and is what allows the horse to develop to the highest level, the extended trot.

They can ALSO can lift the forelegs if the extended trot is done incorrectly, with the hind legs trailing behind, in a kind of circus trick. Most people cannot understand the difference, and scream bloody murder if the forelegs are lifted at all, to any degree, whether its due to a very correct power from the hind legs or the compete opposite; where they go wrong is where everyone always goes wrong - looking at only one part of the horse.

Suffice to say, concentrating solely on the front end of the horse - the neck, the front legs - it causes a lot of confusion.

claire
Nov. 4, 2007, 11:15 AM
Laurens van Lieren:
“Is it really necessary to open the horse's frame during the extended trot?”, he asked, explaining that he finds it beautiful when the horse's neck stays up and the extension comes only from the front legs (or *PACES* or *GAITS*).

Jan Bemelmans' reply was clear enough: “The neck is a horse's balance pole. When the frame opens, you see that the hind legs come forward. Coming from 'down', the horse needs to stretch. Collection is activity, but in intervals, you have to let him relax and go forward. Of course with a lengthened neck comes the swinging back, and often riders don't want to open the frame because they cannot sit it,.”

After that, Olympic judge Bernard Maurel, ignoring what Bemelmans had just said,
single-handedly discarded the concept of “Rahmenerweiterung” (lenghtening of the frame) during an extension and said that “a little bit is enough”.


Canyonoak, Paces or Legs the point being discussed was:

Is it necessary to lengthen(open) the horse's frame during an extension.

And the opinions were:

van Lieren = *Not Necessary* to lengthen/open a horse's frame during an
extension, extension comes from the legs/paces/gaits.

Bemelmen = *Necessary* for whole frame to lengthen in an extension.

Judge Maurel = "A little bit of lengthening in the frame is enough" :confused:

FEI Rule Book = *Necessary* for whole frame to lengthen during an
extension.

I think CenterLine Girl said her understanding of Judge Maurel's statement was that he was trying not to embarass Lauren van Lieren?

canyonoak
Nov. 4, 2007, 12:13 PM
Embarass Lauren van Lieren? Because almost every judge gives him 8s and 9s on his extended trot in almost every test he does?

yeah, they are all stupid and misguided and blind as bats and prejudiced.

oh wait, maybe Im talking about the COTH BB!

that's a joke of course. A little levity to clear the air.

The FEI definition of extended trot is clear:

"The horse covers as much ground as possible."

HOW the horse covers that ground is then explained in terms of what a judge wants to see.

Like everything else in dressage, this movement is a matter of juggling various concepts--one wants the horse to cover more ground and extend the frame AND at the same time keep the balance, keep the rhythm and keep the uphill tendency, at least when discussing Grand Prix.

The FEI states that "the rider allows the horse to lenghthen the frame with a controlled poll, and to gain ground."

So how much the rider can and will ask for the frame to be lengthened is dictated by the horse and the horse alone. only the horse knows how much it can carry behind, remain impulsive and still produce transitions at either end.

So, I fully understand Laurens van Lieren asking how necessary is it to open the frame, because he is talking from the rider's perspective: the knowledge that most horses will have a tendency to fall on their face and lose their balance and get irregular if asked for max stretch. He probably wants to go for rhythm, balance, engagement and transitions, and concentrate on the hind end--which is what the FEI suggests : "...steps lenghtened as a result of great impulsion from the hindquarters."

Moll
Nov. 4, 2007, 12:20 PM
I suppose now Laurens will be forever more a Bad Guy Who is Ruining Dressage :)

I really tried not to link this, but you made me ;)

No, this recent GDF hasn't changed how I thought about this man:

http://tinypic.com/dzvy9h.jpg

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 4, 2007, 12:39 PM
Laurens van Lieren:
“Is it really necessary to open the horse's frame during the extended trot?”, he asked, explaining that he finds it beautiful when the horse's neck stays up and the extension comes only from the front legs (or *PACES* or *GAITS*).

Jan Bemelmans' reply was clear enough: “The neck is a horse's balance pole. When the frame opens, you see that the hind legs come forward. Coming from 'down', the horse needs to stretch. Collection is activity, but in intervals, you have to let him relax and go forward. Of course with a lengthened neck comes the swinging back, and often riders don't want to open the frame because they cannot sit it,.”

After that, Olympic judge Bernard Maurel, ignoring what Bemelmans had just said,
single-handedly discarded the concept of “Rahmenerweiterung” (lenghtening of the frame) during an extension and said that “a little bit is enough”.


Canyonoak, Paces or Legs the point being discussed was:

Is it necessary to lengthen(open) the horse's frame during an extension.

And the opinions were:

van Lieren = *Not Necessary* to lengthen/open a horse's frame during an
extension, extension comes from the legs/paces/gaits.

Bemelmen = *Necessary* for whole frame to lengthen in an extension.

Judge Maurel = "A little bit of lengthening in the frame is enough" :confused:

FEI Rule Book = *Necessary* for whole frame to lengthen during an
extension.

I think CenterLine Girl said her understanding of Judge Maurel's statement was that he was trying not to embarass Lauren van Lieren?

Yes, I got that impression. It could be totally wrong though!. But Maurel was actually the first one to answer Lieren's question. He said that little bit of lengthening of the frame was enough. Then Bemelmen jumped in and said his part, then some other people tried to jump in with the FEI rulebook thing and then the moderator ended the discussion.

Thomas_1
Nov. 4, 2007, 01:10 PM
A few months ago, I was riding a horse that bolted. He evidently had not been worked on the schedule the owner claimed, and couldn't help himself. I had to stop him before he ran into another horse and rider, and I brought his head around to the side some and had a job trying to stop him, and he wound up with his neck in 'hyperflexion', hardly what I'd call ideal but at least I was able to stop him before he ran into anyone else. Are you sure you mean a bolt? Are you sure you mean hyperflexion??

Then you have to understand what a "true" bolt or runaway actually is and also to understand that its REALLY REALLY rare.

There's a HUGE difference between a horse that's momentarily fearful and has taken off for a bit and a horse who's LOST ITS BRAIN. The first isn't bolting, but rather a spook and scoot. Bolting is another ballgame.

There are two kinds of bolting:
The kind where the horse completely loses its mental capabilities to 'think' AND DOES NOT REGAIN THEM FOR SOME TIME. The horse is literally in a panic and running for it's life and sometimes this horse will run itself right into obstacles immediately in its path because it does not 'see' them in the panic. No rider nor driver is ever not going to stop this horse until he runs out of steam or comes to his senses.

The second kind is the 'clever' horse that does it because he's expressing opinion that he's not content with what's going on. This is a horse that's used bolting to get rid of riders or drivers and its fully aware of what's going on.

This horse often likes to include bucking as they're hauling you with all their might. You can stop this kind if you can stay calm and aboard long enough. No rider or driver can stop this through brute strength or yanking a horse's head in though.

You also need to appreciate that the horse's fore represents the majority of its strength and it has more strength its its neck muscle alone than you have in the whole of your body and I seriously doubt you can have possible used your body strength to pull a horse's head from bolt to hyperflexion .

If you come back and tell me you were riding a small shetland and you're built like a sumo wrestler then I promise to eat my hat

Then when you talk about hyperflexion you do mean either pulled in (as in rolkur) or pulled round as in head pulled up its ar**???


A hunter rider was watching and said, 'Oh, I LOVE the position of your horse's neck, you're really suppling him!' I turned around and said, 'No, not really, I was just trying to STOP him!' and laughed. Over here others tend to stay out of your way if your horse bolts or else they're hoping like heck that the bad bolting horse isn't going to set off a domino effect. Never personally known it that they follow and chat but hey ho, I guess it takes all sorts and your experience is frequently out of the bounds of others.


But it suggested to me that there are ALSO hunter people who train their horses this way. AND...she proceeded to get up on HER horse and show me that yes, that was exactly how she warmed up her horse, in hyperflexion. I asked her who had taught her to warm up that way and she said, 'A jumper guy, very successful'. (She named the trainer, I don't recall the name). Was that Mr A Nonymous?? Or was it Dill Lusion? I've heard they both train that way ;)


she further told me that if they ran into a horse they couldn't get in that position just by working the reins, they would make SURE they got the horse in that position and work it that way, by putting on a chambon, draw reins or whatever was needed. Well if someone told you and its posted here, then I guess it just must be true!


In point of fact, I watched an Arabian trainer train his customer's horse in the exact same position as the pony trained by Coby, for over one hour yesterday; this was NOT some backyarder but a guy with several regional and further in the past, national titles from the Arabian division. Which trainer was that?

grayarabs
Nov. 4, 2007, 02:03 PM
CG2 - I like your idea of "three".
Thinking from the prospective of the horse - which of the three is he comfortable and happy - I think your "one" and "two" qualify there - whereby "three" is RK - the horse is uncomfortable (ridden very short and deep), demeaned, unhappy and probably damage is being done to his neck (and his brain). And "three" just looks revolting to the viewer - you feel sorry for the horse and just want to scream - it is so obviously wrong!

claire
Nov. 4, 2007, 02:40 PM
“Is it really necessary to open the horse's frame during the extended trot?”, he asked, explaining that he finds it beautiful when the horse's neck stays up and the extension comes only from the front legs(*Paces/Gaits*).

Complete definition:

extension/extended (walk,trot or canter)

Stretching and lengthening of the outline and stride of a horse, and in trot and canter, an increased phase of suspension.

The horse covers as much ground as possible with each stride maintaining nearly the same tempo and relitively uphill balance.

In walk, a pace which shows the maximum length of stride as well as stretch and oscillation of the neck. The hind feet touch the ground clearly in front of the forefeet.

arnika
Nov. 4, 2007, 04:25 PM
Thank you Thomas. I've ridden out one true bolt in my life and hope to never ride another one. Most "bolts" are nothing more than a learned attempt to avoid work.

Thomas_1
Nov. 4, 2007, 05:24 PM
Thank you Thomas. I've ridden out one true bolt in my life and hope to never ride another one. Most "bolts" are nothing more than a learned attempt to avoid work. Nah......... most bolts fall into another catagory:-

They're just a spook and scoot and are exagerated in the mind and recount of the rider.

Sabine
Nov. 4, 2007, 05:27 PM
Nah......... most bolts fall into another catagory:-

They're just a spook and scoot and are exagerated in the mind and recount of the rider.

Very true- that's what they are- or better they catch the rider a tad unprepared and result in a rapid dismounting...;) (as it happened to me yesterday...bad on me for not being focussed enough)

goeslikestink
Nov. 4, 2007, 06:48 PM
Nah......... most bolts fall into another catagory:-

They're just a spook and scoot and are exagerated in the mind and recount of the rider.

umph wish you could have told my arran taht then thomas

he was a clever at advading-- it wasnt until later as much much later i knew he cancer as in like 4days before his death then it al made perfect sense as to why he acted like he did

some will say yeah buts-- and i say this - not every body has the dosh to examine a horse whole body and not all cancers can be seen - as there is many forms

but anyways i bred him i kept him, when he was three i backed him by self but i thought i would like a nice eventer pony typye his mother was welch c of 14hhs whith shoes his father was a champion point to pointer of 16.3hh arran was like his mum in looks clour and temprement a nice pally - on the ground perfect manners

so i sent him away and had him professioanlly schooled as i had a young baby then
not saying i couldnt do it myself as i could but i wanted special so spent the money

she said and her words were-- he needs shooting hes dangerous
he rears but not a normal rear he leaps cat leap type with buck and twists
didnt bother me as his mum used to rear so thought nothing off it i was young
the lady is still a good freind to day and is of old school high clasical dressage

anyways - when he worked he was lovely he jumped like a stag well put together horse

but what was always difficult to ride i put it down to his age, to nappy,etc
had teeth checked. his back, his tack whatever-
so i put up with it - this boy could turn himself inside out
and bolt - with bucks which they say they cant do but he could- didnt do it all the time bolting that is-- but theres no way on this earth you could stop him when his mind had gone

as you say thomas you cant - luckly on each occasssion as there was three with him
i was in a place of a field or something all i could do was sit quiet
and ask for more leg on and ask more of him- this way i gained control
as it was my idea asking to go forwards and in time -- once he interpretated as good idea
to go faster - when ia sked for a slower pace came back sensiable

this boys bucks like his rears were vertical-- as in i was that close to thw floor i could touch it - leaps and plungie wungies used to take all my strenght and confidence to ride him
as in i wouldnt ride if i was only 97% confindent - you needed to be 100% and more with him

my mate was a good rider she wanted to take him hunting knowing his dad so i let her
he was that bad lunch time she was home - he got banned
took him to pony club with daughter when she was 9- he got banned
eeverybody who knew him knew him from his antics

then i had an idea my mate les was a good rider so years later i asked him if it was a woman thing since only woman had been on him les agreed - it was 3hours an 4 falls
before les mastered him he said hes clever becuase he tests you yo your limits

i never ever let him win i used to stay out there until i got a circle of work or what ever as
i dont beleive in horses winning- so used to get a few good rider of whome could handle him if i was doing any schooling as this was whn he was worse-- 10mins you be soaking with him
so each perdon used to do ten mins about 2 hours later you would get him listening

at that time in those days tecnical things werent available and horse nappying was bad behaviour-- but over th years vet have heaps more nowadays
i dint know he had cancer like his mum i was given the all clear as a foal--
over the years it got worse-- what it did teach me and a valid lesson
is sometimes we have to look way beyond a nap-- even after all things are checkelook deeper - but i loved the that horse and debs wouldnt be the rider she is to day nor i or my mates as he tuaght us all how to stay on a unpredicable horse


if he bolted i had no control like i said my only option was to ask for more
but you have to space for that no one rein stop would pull him up
and only the brave rode him- on his good days hes was an angel could jump the tops
of wings from a trot up-- trot trot ping-- do i feel guilty some days still but credit to him i learnt a lot from him

slc2
Nov. 4, 2007, 07:11 PM
If it looks like the horse will crash into a large solid object, like the side of the arena, I'd call it a bolt. If it looks like the horse will come up to the solid object and dodge and dump his rider, I'd call it, damn that hurt, LOL.

Actually, after being here so many years and hearing so many people call it a bolt any time the horse squirts forward a little bit, I've started using that word a little more liberally than I used to, but it is true that 'bolt' is supposed to be reserved for an extremely out of control, unstoppable run.

Yes, yes, Thomas, you are so right, one can just sit up there and ride out a bolt with one's expertise magically stopping the horse, except when one's horse is about to crash into a child on a very unsuitable horse, which Mommy puts in the ring just as horsey is bolting....there are times when one has to say, horsey, time to stop. The pulley rein is something taught to just about every rider - to stop a horse. That's what I did. This horse, when that's done, puts his chin on his chest (Taladega Nights Rollkur) and keeps running.

but this is a side discussion.

The point being made was that using various positioning of the horse is very common in other types of riding. And when the western pleasure or arabian or hunter rider uses it, they don't appear to feel they are being abusive.

hitchinmygetalong
Nov. 5, 2007, 06:32 AM
Because a horse cannot do an extended trot with his neck stretched out that much in front of him.

You mean like this? (http://www.horsemanpro.com/articles/photos/trot.jpg)

You really need to qualify your statements a little more. ;)

slc2
Nov. 5, 2007, 08:59 AM
You may want to qualify your thinking process a little bit, instead.

This is not a dressage extended trot, this is a standardbred racing trot, in which the horse balances by spreading his hind legs wide apart, and stepping around his front legs. He is not balanced in any sense of the word, in the way the upper level dressage horse needs to be, and is not collected. This is a very rapid striding gait that is done with a very stiff back and rigid neck and throat.

And if you had ever driven one of these, you'd know that you have the horse far stiffer over the back and far, far more in the hand than you could ever handle with 'just' a double bridle. These horses are not exactly collected or in self carriage. I've driven 'em, and I can tell you, they are not collected, in self carriage, yadda, yadda yadda. They are stunning athletes but they are NOT doing an 'extended trot', they are doing a racing trot. If you don't understand the difference, you don't understand dressage, sorry, but it's true.

The extended trot of the upper level horse is very, very much from a collected gait, and has many attributes of a collected gait. If you want to see how much the horse should extend its neck, look at pictures of the lipizanners at the Spanish Riding School in Vienna. There is a change in angle of the throat and a very slight extention of the neck, and that is all.

And it cannot be done with rapid strides, a rigid back and the hind legs 3 feet apart. This is a completely different gait and balance. If you think this sort of thing will score well in dressage, or is anything like even the lowest levels of dressage, let alone the upper levels, take a standardbred off the race track, unhitch the bike from him, and put a saddle on him, and take him into a dressage show. This is a totally different gait.

saje
Nov. 5, 2007, 09:01 AM
You may need to get a sense of humor.

:cool:

PS - it isn't Sunday any more


edited to add that the pic posted is WAY cool, talk about "suspension!" And since it appears to be doing just fine in a snaffle bit, with no rider up on top for leverage, I'm not sure where


far more in the hand than you could ever handle with 'just' a double bridle

comes from.

slc2
Nov. 5, 2007, 09:52 AM
We're on the international date line. IT iS sunday.:lol: Actually I have a delay and 1 more week til my schedule changes, but still not much time at all to post in the interim.

Despite all this thread, the horse still has to show SOME change in outline. That is true.

The argument comes not with that but with how much.

I hear a lot of people who seem to think the extended trot should be kind of a circus trick, in which the horse who has been very collected, now suddenly completely changes his outline, and does a road trot like a hunter hack with a completely horizontal balance and its neck stretched out like a western pleasure horse - but I also know people who can't see the change in the angle of the throat and constantly lament how that means modern dressage sucks ect etc. AND I know people who like an ultra slow, really wierd hesitant exaggerated goose step with the front legs, too, where the hind legs are going along looking like they are tied together at the hock.

Neither the really wierd, exaggerated, slow thing with the head and neck held rigidly in is right, but neither can the advanced horse suddenly hit the dirt like a road hack or hunter under saddle, either, nor should he.

Racing harness horse light in the bridle? Drive one sometime, then, if you think they're so light in a snaffle bit. Show up just before a race, and just hop in, that's my advice.

That isn't 'just a snaffle bit', it's thin, first of all, and with cheeks and with an overcheck that isn't too thick either, and you drive them by putting your feet in the stirrups on the bike, leaning back and bracing for all you are worth on the reins, and they PULL, that is how they balance. A driver can pull far harder on the horses than a rider in the saddle. He has all the muscle in his legs to pull against them, and they PULL. That is part of the racing gait. When I drove them as a fit young athletic person I could not BELIEVE how hard they pulled at speed.

Sure, sure sure, now we will hear from someone who schooled their standardbred to piaffe and passage two weeks off the track with a Teddy Ruxpin belt for a bit. Congratulations.

These horses are not light mouthed. In the least. All snaffles are not created equal. The horses also, quite often have bit burrs, which they certainly would NOT have if they were real light in the mouth or supple, AND a sidepole, to keep them running straight, because you CAN'T keep them straight with the reins, and that side pole doesn't make them any more supple, especially in the back. I love standardbreds, but to suggest that their gaits and carriage and mouth and schooling are anything like a dressage horse, to suggest the racing trot is like a GP horse's extended trot to shore up some argument about having horses stick their neck out in a dressage test, is ridiculous. People work very hard to reschool them and get some of that out of them and to supple them, but generally also they are very teachable, it's just reshaping all those set muscles.

saje
Nov. 5, 2007, 10:03 AM
Silly me, to question She Who Is Always Right And Has Done Every Horse Discipline (or at least is best buds with a BNT).

That sense of humor could still use a little work though...

:rolleyes:

Lisa Cook
Nov. 5, 2007, 10:34 AM
I'm confused. slc is now posting about her driving experience on the dressage forum, which seems a little wacky, by hey, whatever. My question is, with this driving experience under her belt, why was slc on the driving forum, asking for driving instructors in her piece of Ohio? And why was she asking about books/videos for the NOVICE driver?

slc2
Nov. 5, 2007, 10:59 AM
I wouldn't be saying a danged thing about driving if you all didn't bring it in as some spurious sort of argument.

Driving standardbreds as a worker at a stable as a teenager has very, very little to do with learning about CDI type driving 45 years later! first of all the schooling, gaits, equipment, vehicles, and goals are very, very different. there really is very little comparison.

there is a rather high percentage of people on the driving board that actually DO a lot of driving - competing and pleasure, and my experience was that with few exceptions (some are new to driving), the people there are extremely knowledgeable about rules, harness, training, selecting and competing. and most were extremely helpful!

as a result of a brief forray over there, i selected the right harness, found a buggy, an instructor, and a great deal of help, much, much more than i expected, and very quickly. not only was i sent to top class event at Metamora to learn about it, several people at the event explained alot to me and describe how it's scored, what possible issues can come up, how the horses are trained, how to deal with accidents, different breed pros and cons...and just about everything else my poor old brain could absorb - AND sat with a guy who had just bought a team of ponies and he discussed at length his experience...very, very educational and quite an experience to see how brave the drivers and horses are. it was really exciting, plus i got a lot of advice appropriate for someone starting out.

all in all, i'd say the driving board gave me a wonderful experience and anyone who followed the knowledgeable drivers there should be pointed in the direction of a very successful experience.

Although I DO know that a standardbred's racing trot is not the same as a grand prix dressage horse's extended trot and that driving them at a racing gait is not exactly a walk in the park with a light and delicate touch on the reins like a schooled saddle horse - but i would have thought anyone would realize that, just by looking at the horses and how they move and how their muscles are working.

snoopy
Nov. 5, 2007, 11:04 AM
and I thought when I started this thread it was about the global dressage forum.......:confused:

AnotherRound
Nov. 5, 2007, 11:10 AM
Where in Ohio is the international dateline?

slc2
Nov. 5, 2007, 11:15 AM
It goes right through the Waffle House in Painesville.

"That sense of humor could still use a little work though..."

declaring that everyone must find funny the same things you do, is a tad bent.

Mozart
Nov. 5, 2007, 11:25 AM
This has been a really interesting thread. I think there are two take home messages, for me at any rate

-why are we bothering with the term "classical" when it means different things to different people? It is used so differently by so many different people I don't think it has a useful meaning anymore. Now we have neoclassical? How about neo neo or maybe that would in fact be retro classical?
-there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to training horses

CenterlineGirl2
Nov. 5, 2007, 12:21 PM
Now we have neoclassical? How about neo neo or maybe that would in fact be retro classical?
-there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to training horses

I like retro-classical. :)

Thomas_1
Nov. 5, 2007, 02:23 PM
I'm confused. slc is now posting about her driving experience on the dressage forum, which seems a little wacky, by hey, whatever. My question is, with this driving experience under her belt, why was slc on the driving forum, asking for driving instructors in her piece of Ohio? And why was she asking about books/videos for the NOVICE driver? Because she knows nothing about driving though still took an immense amount of band width educating us mere mortals that might have an inkling