PDA

View Full Version : What is Classical DressageTraining?



Kcisawesome
Nov. 28, 2007, 07:25 PM
This may seem like a really stupid question, but it stumps me every time someone says "This horse is classically trained" or This is a very classical rider"

All searches I have done on "classical dressage training" have turned out very vague results.

So I guess my question is, what exactly IS the definition of classical dressage training and what would a classical dressage training program look like?

LexInVA
Nov. 28, 2007, 07:41 PM
This may seem like a really stupid question, but it stumps me every time someone says "This horse is classically trained" or This is a very classical rider"

All searches I have done on "classical dressage training" have turned out very vague results.

So I guess my question is, what exactly IS the definition of classical dressage training and what would a classical dressage training program look like?

A "classically trained" rider/horse is one that practices the methods and styles taught at the older schools in Europe. Inherently different from the stuff you see on a day to day basis in the Olympics and at the local dressage shows. Classical dressage takes a VERY long time to learn since it is very specific which is why it's not what you see today.

Shiaway
Nov. 28, 2007, 08:08 PM
As someone once posted on here, classical dressage is old, dead guys riding on fat white ponies. :D

purplnurpl
Nov. 29, 2007, 10:08 AM
Great question, I've always wondered that also.

All searches I have done on "classical dressage training" have turned out very vague results

LexINVA - Nicely put. Laughing. I think that explanation was even more vague then what we get from the website searches. Please elaborate.

LexInVA
Nov. 29, 2007, 10:31 AM
Great question, I've always wondered that also.

All searches I have done on "classical dressage training" have turned out very vague results

LexINVA - Nicely put. Laughing. I think that explanation was even more vague then what we get from the website searches. Please elaborate.

I wish I could. I've never really seen it myself and I think few people really have outside of Europe. I just kinda researched it one day it when I was dating a DQ and that's about all I found but I think you REALLY have to see it for yourself to understand it because it's not widely practiced at least not in the legitimate sense. From what little I know the difference is that competitive focuses more on the specific movements whereas classical is something of an ambiguous "Use The Force" type dressage. Even those who claim to practice it won't put it into words other than directly saying what competitive dressage does differently and not what the contrasting differences are between the two types of dressage. It's either supposed to be a mysterious secret much like Chinese martial arts were at one point or it's just something that people know of but don't actually know themselves. I suppose one could compare it to the concepts of God, magic, natural horsemanship, and "Buy one get one free" in that it can be defined but not really understood without a great deal of time, money, and effort.

Reiter
Nov. 29, 2007, 10:52 AM
To me classical dressage means following the training scale and teaching the horse with it's well being coming first. No cutting corners to get quick results. I think you can still do competitive dressage with a classically trained horse, but the emphasis is not on getting quick results in the shortest time. But that may just be my own muddled opinion to fit myself! ;)

merrygoround
Nov. 29, 2007, 11:01 AM
To me classical dressage means following the training scale and teaching the horse with it's well being coming first. No cutting corners to get quick results. I think you can still do competitive dressage with a classically trained horse, but the emphasis is not on getting quick results in the shortest time. But that may just be my own muddled opinion to fit myself! ;)


Well said!!!! It is everyday common sense riding and training. :) :) :)

Anselcat
Nov. 29, 2007, 11:07 AM
I think it is also sometimes used as a code phrase for "this horse was not trained using Rolkur or excessive use of draw reins, or otherwise forced into a frame, or using an accelerated training program based only on the rider's competitive goals".

NOMIOMI1
Nov. 29, 2007, 11:33 AM
A lady helped me a couple of weeks ago that has trained classically in Europe. The focus was on the rear of the horse and where the horse was stepping behind. Allot of focus on the body and weight distribution. I must admit I was exhausted at the end of our session but I learned so much. I knew most of it from before but had never isolated certain problems and really focused on them before. I think it was a much more disciplined lesson. Does that make sense?

purplnurpl
Nov. 29, 2007, 11:54 AM
To me classical dressage means following the training scale and teaching the horse with it's well being coming first. No cutting corners to get quick results.


that sounds more like 'plain ol good training' to me.

So we have classical, and ?new age? dressage.
Which means that people who make the 'classical training' comment are referring to modern day dressage as shit.
I don't think that is very accurate.

this is why I have never understood the difference.

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Nov. 29, 2007, 02:27 PM
From a novice: with past trainers, we did the movements for the tests. With my current, "classical thinking" trainer, the movements are the training in and of themselves. So we do lateral work not because we have leg yields in First Two. We do lateral work because it is what strengthens him, straightens him, balances him.Kind of "it's the journey, not the destination."

I would like to add that if you are classically trained you have never EVER done any Parelli.Nor will you be seduced by the dark side of that force.

J-Lu
Nov. 29, 2007, 02:41 PM
A "classically trained" rider/horse is one that practices the methods and styles taught at the older schools in Europe. Inherently different from the stuff you see on a day to day basis in the Olympics and at the local dressage shows. Classical dressage takes a VERY long time to learn since it is very specific which is why it's not what you see today.

Personally, I think this is the answer to the question. When I think of "classically trained", I think of a highly disciplined approach that is specific to a certain school of riding (having its own philosophy about horse/rider development) that has been honed for a very long time. For example, the spanish school, the portuguese school, the old-time German masters' school, etc. Discipline, adherance to specific standards, and a long-term approach to training horse and rider are the hallmarks of classical training, IMO. Of course, it's worth noting that many schools rode horses bred specifically for that type of training, which can make broad application of "classical training" a bit tricky.

But I think alot of people refer to adherance to the Training Scale when they say "classically trained".

So I guess it's always worth asking "what do you mean by 'classically trained'"? :)

J.

PS. Geek, you are tooooooo funny!

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Nov. 29, 2007, 02:51 PM
I am working very hard at not working on my book chapter.

purplnurpl
Nov. 29, 2007, 03:19 PM
what? what is done differently?
that still has not been answered.

the movements are the training in and of themselves. So we do lateral work not because we have leg yields in First Two. We do lateral work because it is what strengthens him,

this again is another statement that is true to modern day dressage...no any different from classical.

lstevenson
Nov. 29, 2007, 03:22 PM
I think it is also sometimes used as a code phrase for "this horse was not trained using Rolkur or excessive use of draw reins, or otherwise forced into a frame, or using an accelerated training program based only on the rider's competitive goals".



Exactly.;)

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Nov. 29, 2007, 04:18 PM
what? what is done differently?
that still has not been answered.

the movements are the training in and of themselves. So we do lateral work not because we have leg yields in First Two. We do lateral work because it is what strengthens him,

this again is another statement that is true to modern day dressage...no any different from classical.

Not where I come from. There are trainers who have you do leg yields because that's what's next in the tests, not because they do something for the horse.

InsideLeg2OutsideRein
Nov. 29, 2007, 04:30 PM
Agree with what Reiter said. :yes: A recent issue of "St. Georg" (the FN magazine in Germany) just had a major article on the subject. (quite interesting to see this debate in my native Germany going on with such verocity. Their publications lack the pc-ness of the US, say Dressage Today, etc. They'll publish pics of Anky warming up in Rollkur and her horse doing changes croup high etc. at the European championships and Isabell nice "tactful" -- long and low). I heard the the Bartels in the Netherlands published a book on the "new dutch training methods" -- which I *assume* would be non-classical.
A good look at bringing classical and competition under one roof would be in the new Klaus Balkenhol book:

http://www.amazon.com/Klaus-Balkenhol-Man-Training-Methods/dp/157076378X

To me classical also means putting the wellbeing of the horse first, in all aspects. :)

Equibrit
Nov. 29, 2007, 04:53 PM
Classical = the exercises are a means to an end.
Competitive = the exercises are the end product.

class
Nov. 29, 2007, 05:55 PM
Not where I come from. There are trainers who have you do leg yields because that's what's next in the tests, not because they do something for the horse.

how does that make any difference to the horse or the riding though? does the horse not gain strength or responsiveness from leg yields if you are riding it because that's what's next in the tests?

Equibrit
Nov. 29, 2007, 07:57 PM
Classical - you are using the leg yield to enhance your horse's athletic ability, help him carry you more effectively and ultimately improve your interaction with him.

Competitive - you are performing a leg yield for a score.

Your goals WILL affect the way you approach the task.

class
Nov. 29, 2007, 08:03 PM
how does your horse and/or his body know whether you are doing it to enhance his athletic ability or whether you are doing it for a score? how does the leg yield look any differently or affect the horse any differently depending on the goal? or in other words, give me an example of the way the goals affect the approach, specifically with regards to leg yield.

Lambie Boat
Nov. 29, 2007, 08:20 PM
I know that many lateral movements are ridden in front of a judge with more < than "classically called for", based on what the judge can see (ie: shoulder-in is sometimes shown on 4 tracks.....yes, I know then it's really a leg yeild but...)

angel
Nov. 29, 2007, 08:34 PM
well, class...the best example of which I can think, is the perception of the tempo of the movments. So many movements that are done competitively are way too fast. When done in this fashion, most judges seem please and equate what is demonstrated with "forward." However, from a classical perspective, the tempo is too fast to allow the horse to properly use its hocks so that the movement is demonstrated, but with a fairly straight leg behind. This pretty much negates the gymnastic value, but it does gain points!

As to the leg yield, it is supposed to show that the horse will flex its jaw no matter which is the dominant rein, and step across with its inside hind leg to produce travel in the direction of the outside shoulder. As a rule, because the rider is trying to ride with stirrups too long, not enough weight goes into the left stirrup on the leg yield left, so it does not look as supple as the leg yield right in which the horse is actually not honestly in the right rein. Leg yield is demonstrated in First Level, and its purpose is also to show that the horse is adjustable enough through its diagonals to allow the beginning of thrust and collection. When the leg yield is this different in one direction from the other, it points to problems in Second with the collection and extension abilities.

atr
Nov. 29, 2007, 09:15 PM
And if you follow the tests in sequence, do they not take you through the training scale?

I think the issue for many lower level riders is whether they actually understand that there is a logical sequence to follow and why they should do it.

And the only person I've ever seen advocating a "shoulder in" on 4 tracks was a so-called Classical Master. I think it would have garnered a "4" in a test situation. He was teaching it to a whole sucession of people (who don't show because it isn't classical) at a clinic.

stecia
Nov. 29, 2007, 09:24 PM
I am no DQ, in fact, consider myself blessed to be a pleasure rider. But we're talking about a philosophy to life here. At minimum, concentration on the process, not the means, is art....where intent blooms into beauty. It is like the difference between two performances of the same christman song...one by Nat King Cole and the synthesized, but technically perfect version heard on the elevator.
But back to riding. There is a pretty good discussion of this on a website devoted to classical dressage. Here is an excerpt:
"If someone treats a movement as an end in itself and teaches it to the horse without the necessary preparation and without any analysis of its effect on the horse’s posture and gait under saddle, then the movement becomes a mere circus trick that has no value for the horse’s physical and mental development. The old German and Austrian riders used to refer to this contemptuously as “Pudeldressur” – poodle dressage, a “stupid pet trick”, so to speak."
http://www.classicaldressage.com/articles/means.html

merrygoround
Nov. 29, 2007, 09:52 PM
You do "leg yields" to sensitise the horse to the drawn back leg. Yes, it is asked for at First Level, but it does not truly gymnastize the horse. Now S/I, is a whole nother discussion. From a good S/I the other exercises flow!!!! :yes:

~Freedom~
Nov. 29, 2007, 10:09 PM
what? what is done differently?
that still has not been answered.

the movements are the training in and of themselves. So we do lateral work not because we have leg yields in First Two. We do lateral work because it is what strengthens him,

this again is another statement that is true to modern day dressage...no any different from classical.

I consider myself as more of a classical rider/trainer. What difference do you say.

Posted by Reiter
To me classical dressage means following the training scale and teaching the horse with it's well being coming first. No cutting corners to get quick results. I think you can still do competitive dressage with a classically trained horse, but the emphasis is not on getting quick results in the shortest time. But that may just be my own muddled opinion to fit myself!

The above is very true and the main difference is that as I train I am not concerned just how long it takes to achieve the best my horse can produce and therein is the main difference. I recognize that there are limitations on the horse based on his conformation and natural abilities and through exercises I create a "window or position" were the horse can execute what is desired. Should the exercise fail it is my job to re position him and try again. No force via external devices etc to accomplish this outside the normal saddle/bridle should be used.

While I may compete it is NOT the aim, but rather to put the horse through exercises to enhance the natural ability that each horse possess and make it more beautiful within itself.

Fixerupper
Nov. 29, 2007, 10:55 PM
Stecia...Bingo ;)

GallopGal
Nov. 29, 2007, 11:04 PM
Does anyone have a video of classical dressage movements to post?

Wellspotted
Nov. 29, 2007, 11:07 PM
I kinda like LexInVA's second explanation. From it I get the impression that classical dressage is something like music played by a true musician. A lot of people can read music and pick out the notes on an instrument, but not play music. By the same token, I guess a lot of people can sit on a horse, get it to do leg yields and come onto the bit and move off its back end (or whatever the expression is: being forward?), and do renvers and travers, but not necessarily be doing "dressage."
It's not quite like a tone deaf person trying to play music, more like watching someone learning to post who has no sense of rhythm. Not that it's a bad thing to have no sense of rhythm, only if you can't feel the rhythm that must make it harder. And maybe if you can't feel with your horse then that must make dressage harder or even impossible.
So I'm getting the impression that classical dressage is dressage done by people who have an innate ability to ride, and that the other kind is done by the rest. Doesn't make classical better than the other, just maybe makes it on a completely different plane.

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Sabine
Nov. 29, 2007, 11:34 PM
I consider myself as more of a classical rider/trainer. What difference do you say.

Posted by Reiter
To me classical dressage means following the training scale and teaching the horse with it's well being coming first. No cutting corners to get quick results. I think you can still do competitive dressage with a classically trained horse, but the emphasis is not on getting quick results in the shortest time. But that may just be my own muddled opinion to fit myself!

The above is very true and the main difference is that as I train I am not concerned just how long it takes to achieve the best my horse can produce and therein is the main difference. I recognize that there are limitations on the horse based on his conformation and natural abilities and through exercises I create a "window or position" were the horse can execute what is desired. Should the exercise fail it is my job to re position him and try again. No force via external devices etc to accomplish this outside the normal saddle/bridle should be used.

While I may compete it is NOT the aim, but rather to put the horse through exercises to enhance the natural ability that each horse possess and make it more beautiful within itself.


True to all the above...mostly the basics of classical dressage can be read in a bunch of very good books and don't need to be rehashed here- as they are a complex web of the training scale, methods to teach the horse (assuming the rider is competent) and methods to work with special challenges (and every horse has those).
Classical dressage in many ways reminds of creative software development- we all know the SDLC but there are many ways to develop code in efficient and creative formats that produce outstanding results (Agile/Scrum etc.)
As in this- in classical dressage there are many definitions of how to get there and where to place the value and emphasis of the training.
Classical dressage- opposed to modern dressage- does take time as a not so important factor and focusses more on the gentle teaching...which might in many cases be it's biggest downfall.

Rusty Stirrup
Nov. 30, 2007, 07:38 AM
Classical = the exercises are a means to an end.
Competitive = the exercises are the end product.

To say it another way: Do you ride to test the training or train to ride the test?

To me it's all in the attitude and goals of the trainer. Results asap? or long term? As WAZ says: "Never over the limit".

Lambie Boat
Nov. 30, 2007, 04:47 PM
I also think the classicists love theory, study and the tradition behind it all. Like the bookworms of the dressage world. The eggheads. The introverts. They like riding quietly by themselves or with their clinician or trainer.

The modern show folks are more social, more competitive with others, in more of a hurry. Pushed much harder and with a lot more heart and courage and they might be cross country riders! :D

this is a gross over-simplification of course.

petitefilly
Nov. 30, 2007, 06:31 PM
Theoretically La Gueriniere in “Ecole de Cavalerie" wrote down the principles of Classical Dressage. The Germans and the French made their own applications to the different schools through the practices written down in this book. It is the basis of the work done at the SRS and for all purposes it is the "Bible" of Classical Dressage today.

So, someone who practices the protocol written in this book is practicing Classical dressage. In 1921 the founding of the FEI brought along rules to compete in the Olympics and thus began the rules for competition. In the long run both things are suppose to follow each other. Two of the founding fathers were Gustav Rau and General Decarpendry, both brought a slightly differing view to dressage and the two melded together to make these rules. Are all the rules Classical? The training pyramid tries to honor the tests by making tests progressive to the ideals. The tests are goals for making your way up the pyramid.

When you say someone is UN_classical you are stating the opinion that they do not follow the rules of order according to the principles of La Gueriniere, and the rules of dressage written at the FEI council. What does a rebel look like? Well, they use many various gimmicks, drugs, and fast/quick training methods to hasten the work to go into a show, and make the horse an animal that is either held together or rushed past specific principles so they can compete.

Rolkur, draw reins, weights, electrical devices, yank and crank riding are all indicators of people who want fast results for competition results, and are not interested in the welfare of the horse. They want results: TODAY, and do not take no for an answer. Then there are various degrees within the structure, the worst case scenario is rarely met; the insidious sly person who takes little fast tricks is usually the person your see and meet. This person is usually someone who takes horses up the ladder quickly and then the horse breaks down as quickly as he came upon the dressage world. Here today, gone tomorrow. :)

I hope this makes more sense to some of you struggling over the tenants of correct work in dressage.

dressagediosa
Nov. 30, 2007, 07:25 PM
So much of this thread is about classical VERSUS competitive. I don't believe in the distinction, but if there must be one: Why are they mutually exclusive? Isn't it possible for a rider to train a horse softly and tactfully from the beginning, to produce an elite athlete who succeeds in competition? Of course there are bad apples in the sport, like in any field, but just because you find success in the showring doesn't mean the masters would frown on how you got there.

InsideLeg2OutsideRein
Nov. 30, 2007, 07:33 PM
how does your horse and/or his body know whether you are doing it to enhance his athletic ability or whether you are doing it for a score? how does the leg yield look any differently or affect the horse any differently depending on the goal? or in other words, give me an example of the way the goals affect the approach, specifically with regards to leg yield.

Intent guides everything. ::yes: That's one of the guiding priniciples of the universe :winkgrin: But whether you believe in that principle of the universe or not, just think about how goals and intent drive your actions and the actions of the people around you. If someone befriends you because they like you or someone befriends you because they want something from you: You'd feel the difference, wouldn't you? You'd likely not appriciate the latter as much. Same with training/being with horses. If you're practicing movements solely to compete, you will act differently than if your intent is to bring the horse along in the best possible way, and the horse will likely notice it, too. If my intent is to show the horse who is boss and submit 100%, I'll ride differently than if I'm trying to motivate my partner to put out for me. Etc, etc. The legyield itself is a preparation for lateral work, teaches the horse obedience off the leg, and is a helpful tool for example, to get good canter transitions form a young horse etc. If you don't know any of that and just "execute" a leg yield (often ad nauseum), many of the other benefits are missed (though some may by default unconsiously be achieved)

But in all I think classical dressage can and does produce very competitve and succesful mounts, so the demarcation line for me is classical vs. non-classical, not classical-vs. competitive dressage : )

Wellspotted
Nov. 30, 2007, 08:54 PM
I was just looking at the SRS Web site, and doing so reminded me of this thread. There was something there about classical equitation and books written on it, and just the little bit I read made me think of the posts here.

I think one difference is that classical dressage is not about competition. It seems to be about making it easier and more pleasant for the horse to carry the rider. It seems to be about the horse, not about the score, not even about the movements themselves. It's about the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

That is the impression I got, too, from Franz Mairinger's book Horses Are Made to Be Horses.

Dressage isn't about the arena. It's about the horse-and-rider. Its goal could just as well be a happy hack, or a hunt, or a trail drive, as a score and a ribbon. Twenty something years ago, during lessons at a jumper barn, I got to thinking about the whole and all the component parts. A symphony is a whole, but if any player plays a wrong note ...

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Nov. 30, 2007, 11:55 PM
I love to compete (I am, after all, A Ribbon 'Ho). I am competitive by nature. I would also venture to say that Ted likes it as well - even if there was no one watching, if it was just me and the judge and the scribe, he'd leave the warm up to enter the ring and he knew. And it wasn't him just feeding off me, because I can't tell you how many times I had a good warmup, shot my wad, was happy with the ride and went into the test thinking, "Well, I already accomplsihed what I wanted, too bad we have to go and do this test now." I think he enjoys the excitement of a show, the other horses, the activity, the change of routine. As do I.

That being said...I used to ride and practice test movements. And never had a trainer that could explain to me why you did certain movements, what they were to achieve, how you could get to achieve it. Until now - and I ride very differently at this point. We are now seriously doing lateral work, and I am learning to do it in hand, which is also helping me with the concept of having him between my aids, having us both balanced and forward. I've mentioned we've done some piaffe - are we truly schooling those upper level movements? Of course not. They are being done to help him achieve balance and strength in his hind end.

When my schedule permits (and assuming gas doesn't escalate so badly that I can't afford it, and assuming Ted and I keep our shoes on) I would love to show again. But I want to ride the tests the way I now feel they should be done - not from this movement to that movement, but riding each stride, and testing ourselves to see if we can make it flow.

At least in my area, I have seen too many people jump ahead to the next level - they can score 50s at Training, then score 50s at First, and so on. Their horses break down, there doesn't seem to be any sense of doing something to extend the life and health and soundness of the horse.

But then, I would go to shows and always make a point of taking my horse out for walks and for grazing, and make it as pleasant and fun an experience as possible, and that's not what it was about for them either.

Let's just say that there are people I know in my area who are riding fourth level or above, and I wouldn't ever consider letting them get on my horse.

LMH
Dec. 1, 2007, 07:09 AM
Pudeldressur is my new favorite word.

That is the best word in the world.

ideayoda
Dec. 1, 2007, 09:46 AM
Imho there is a difference between traditional training, and classical (haute ecole) per se. Both follow the guidelines/ideas set out by de la guerinere towards the end of high collection. Haute ecole continues on to the airs. Time was that many competitive horses got to levade, and definately folded the hindleg joints more effectively. The movements were used as aspirins to develop each horse as individuals, and the quality of equitation was everything. Most riders today do movements because they are in a test, but not for a clear purpose within the training of the horse. How many even ride and effectual half halt, but rather worry about the quality of flexion longitudinally above all.....

angel
Dec. 1, 2007, 09:53 AM
Oh, dressage geek, did I love your post!!!! Especially that last line!:winkgrin:

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Dec. 1, 2007, 10:21 AM
Thank you!

And the funny thing...as Ted begins to understand what is being asked, and as I do...he holds me to higher standards. Really, they are fabulous teachers. He doesn't let me get away with much.

angel
Dec. 1, 2007, 10:55 AM
None of them do if we understand what we are feeling!:D

Thomas_1
Dec. 1, 2007, 11:09 AM
Its the real thing. Using only the traditional methods of schooling that were founded in the Royal Courts such as the Spanish Riding School and during the Baroque period.

Basically its all about the training and accepting that the horse progresses over time and taking time. Never forced. Its about using empathy and working with the horse in partnership and using correct seat and with emphasis on the training being of high quality.

Its not considered a means to an end, but rather the art and objective is in the doing.

Wellspotted
Dec. 1, 2007, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"--

I've mentioned we've done some piaffe - are we truly schooling those upper level movements? Of course not. They are being done to help him achieve balance and strength in his hind end.

...

I want to ride the tests the way I now feel they should be done - not from this movement to that movement, but riding each stride, and testing ourselves to see if we can make it flow.

...

I would go to shows and always make a point of taking my horse out for walks and for grazing, and make it as pleasant and fun an experience as possible, and that's not what it was about for them either.

Let's just say that there are people I know in my area who are riding fourth level or above, and I wouldn't ever consider letting them get on my horse.


No wonder he likes going to shows!

And I think you've got the difference in a nutshell--the difference between classical and competitive dressage.

My first dressage instructor told me that one good thing about dressage was that you could do it and never have to compete; that it was about you and your horse and that that could be enough if you didn't want to show. Some time after that I repeated that to an upper-level dressage rider I knew, and felt really stupid and ignorant when he seemed surprised and did not seem to agree.
Then I read what you wrote about fourth-level-and-above riders, and that made me rethink feeling stupid and ignorant for repeating what my first-or-second-level instructor told me.

Your description of how you want to ride the tests expresses what I posted about dressage being like music, or about any other art.

And BTW, every time I type in your name to quote you, I type "DressageGreek" and have to correct the typo. I couldn't figure out why I kept doing the same thing over and over again. Now, having read your post, I think it's because somehow something of Xenophon was coming through in your posts! :D :yes:

Bluey
Dec. 1, 2007, 03:47 PM
From a novice: with past trainers, we did the movements for the tests. With my current, "classical thinking" trainer, the movements are the training in and of themselves. So we do lateral work not because we have leg yields in First Two. We do lateral work because it is what strengthens him, straightens him, balances him.Kind of "it's the journey, not the destination."

I would like to add that if you are classically trained you have never EVER done any Parelli.Nor will you be seduced by the dark side of that force.

You get it the way I learned classical is supposed to be, training so the horse under you can learn to move the best it may for it's ability, be it later jumping, dressage shows, whatever will call on the horse's best athletic might.

The last paragraph is maybe not quite logical, as some can come or go from one kind of riding or training to another, be it racing, NH, polo, whatever without "losing" what they know from classical training.:yes:
They will adapt what they know to the situation in hand, as much as possible.
A classically trained rider will have that knowledge of a classically trained seat, leg and hand and apply it any time it rides.

DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"
Dec. 2, 2007, 12:03 AM
Oh, the last part was just my feeble attempt at injecting some humor!

But I am glad I seem to be on the "right page." I know so many women in my area who do dressage that seem to just trade in for a different horse every few years. There doesn't seem to be an appreciation, on their part, for the quality and depth of a long term partnership; more, they feel that they can take a younger horse and go back into Intro, Training, First, do well, and repeat the cycle.

Maybe we'll never show Second Level. But I continue to learn from my horse, on the ground, in the saddle. It appals me, sometimes, to realize how much more quality I could get in the walk, in the halt, never mind a higher gait! And I would love to be able to take Ted into the ring, at 20 years of age, and do a beautiful test at whatever level. Because the partnership continues to blossom, the more we work together, and the further down this road we travel. And I count myself so very fortunate to be in this situation...even on those days when I can't believe how poorly I can ride.

Atheta21
Dec. 2, 2007, 01:25 AM
[QUOTE=Rusty Stirrup;2836359]To say it another way: Do you ride to test the training or train to ride the test?

As dressagediosa said it should not be classical VS competitive.

I believe you HAVE to mix both of these to be a successful competitor. You ride the test to see if your training is going the way you think it is AND you train so that you can perform the test well (this does not mean you ride the movements in the test over and over).

There is an element of horse showing that is testing your progress and
there is an element of horse showing that is learning how to horse show.

Sabine
Dec. 2, 2007, 01:59 AM
There is an element of horse showing that is testing your progress and
there is an element of horse showing that is learning how to horse show.


A- you need to just use the "QUOTE" button and you will quote the poster you are wanting to quote...just a friendly FYI...

I think training a horse- is the underlying necessity before showing enters into your thoughts. You should ride the horse to produce the required and desired reactions- that is really all- it's like the Pavlov dog- you do the sign- he does the trick..except it has more facets to it. It should be done gentle and patiently and once you know how to ride you should look for people that have trained horses to go the way you'd like yours to go-- that's usually a good sign. If you find that behind the curtain your trainer does not use the methods you are comfy with- that's ok- then find another one. Usually - if you have a clear picture of what you Love your horse to look like- you will find the trainer that can do that and will give you a chance to assimilate into that mindset. Training really well means you know all the details of the trainingscale and how to do it and how to ride the exercises and what choices of exercises make sense in each case- but ultimately it's the icing if you find someone that has such a great eye to guide you while you ride- and then it's just about executing properly - rather than thinking 'what next'...that's really the ultimate training scenario...normally when this harmony happens- the horse is happy- the rider is happy and there is a good feeling all around..

This is really important... I have found that if my horses react positively after- they are usually totally with the program and proud to contribute. Make sure the horse has a say and gives you signs after the ride and before the next ride that he/she is on board with it.

Signs are simple. They are : come to the front of the stall and greet you and smile...don't walk away when I come with the saddle- reach down into the bit when I bridle, prick the ears forward and almost make them floppy when happy!

everything else means something is not right- not clicking or too much to handle...


JMO.

Atheta21
Dec. 2, 2007, 02:07 AM
[QUOTE=Sabine;2840090]A- you need to just use the "QUOTE" button and you will quote the poster you are wanting to quote...just a friendly FYI...

I think that's what I'm doing, but I guess not :no:

I sent you a PM too.

It did it again grrrr.

~Freedom~
Dec. 2, 2007, 11:45 AM
[quote=Sabine;2840090]A- you need to just use the "QUOTE" button and you will quote the poster you are wanting to quote...just a friendly FYI...

I think that's what I'm doing, but I guess not :no:

I sent you a PM too.

It did it again grrrr.


What you are missing is the second quote tag. This one---->[**/quote] Just take out the stars in the brackets.

:):):):)

Wellspotted
Dec. 2, 2007, 04:42 PM
This is how I put a quote in quotes:

I copy-and-paste the phrase I want to quote into the "Reply to Thread" field. I also type in the name of the person who originally posted the phrase I'm quoting. Then I click on and highlight that entire section, and then click on the "quote" icon at the top of the field (next to the # icon). That formats the whole phrase I quoted as a quote, and I don't have to worry about beginning or end quotes.

(All of which goes to show that, in posting on a BB, as in dressage, practice is prerequisite to performance; i.e., practice in formatting helps when you want your posts to look the way you want them to look.) :D

Tonja
Dec. 9, 2007, 01:12 PM
Kcisawesome wrote:

What is Classical Dressage Training?
The classical schools have described the defining principle of true Classical Training:

Egon Von Neindorff:
“I believe that Classical Horsemanship means nature oriented training, adapted to each individual horse.”

“Harmony expressed in the natural way a horse behaves and moves.”

“The classical approach to training in particular attaches supreme importance, right from the start, to the principle paces. The young horse should present himself rhythmically pure; energetic but not hurried.”

The Spanish Riding School:
“Its [Classical Riding’s] most important principle is not to call on the horse to do anything which is contrary to its nature.”

Max Honegger (Spelling?) (Swiss international rider, judge and long time board member of the Society of Friends of the Spanish Riding School in Vienna):
“Classical riding means natural riding – without coercion – with a great deal of feeling and patience.”

petitefilly
Dec. 9, 2007, 07:47 PM
Kcisawesome wrote:

Max Honegger (Spelling?) (Swiss international rider, judge and long time board member of the Society of Friends of the Spanish Riding School in Vienna):
“Classical riding means natural riding – without coercion – with a great deal of feeling and patience.”


I think I like this quote a great deal. :) Yes! But, firmly! :):):):):):):)

goeslikestink
Dec. 11, 2007, 07:09 PM
I think it is also sometimes used as a code phrase for "this horse was not trained using Rolkur or excessive use of draw reins, or otherwise forced into a frame, or using an accelerated training program based only on the rider's competitive goals".

correct

goeslikestink
Dec. 11, 2007, 08:44 PM
i always calss it as a dance llike a ballerina as i used to do ballet and parentage is of the thertha if you ride its in the beat of the time of the movement
1234 12 or 123 beats and if you ride from an independant seat as in say sitting tort think f it as cheek to cheek in time and in rythem of the horse graceful light and soft