trainer/instructor

[Eq3nStar]

Just here in the middle of the night, pondering life... Do you guys think it's possible to be a good/effective instructor for riders but not necessarily for horses? (Also a good rider.)
Are there some people who are better at one and not as good at the other? :confused:

[J-Lu]

Nope. It goes together, imo. I've known trainers who focus on the horses and through this, make the rider better. But I haven't met many (any?) trainers who focus on the rider and thus, make the horse better. IMO.

[Sabine]

I have met fantastic trainers that knew and could talk to a horse in its own language but really did nothing for the equitation or the rider per se- as far as how to use your body in the appropriate way to produce results.
If you are really good a teaching people how to ride- make sure they all have good school masters to ride on or good school horses. I think teaching REALLY solid and meaningful riding of dressage must include complete and deep knowledge of how to train a horse- otherwise- it would be utterly useless to me....it must combine the knowledge of the rider's body and its function and contribution - as well as immediately seeing the horses body and it's evasion/shortcoming/natural challenge etc.

Seeing good straightness is a big thing- knowing an arsenal of exercises on how to improve shortcomings is another bonus for me. Mostly I think there are different audiences of riders that need different things in their stage of skill. What you are talking about is very valid and valuable for a certain stage of riding- but should be fully disclosed as just that...dressage equitation education.

[J-Lu]

Good post, Sabine! :D

[slc2]

I don't feel that it's a matter of 'some people are good at this, some people are good at that' so much as just not having enough experience, guidance or training oneself, to move to the next step in being an instructor.

[egontoast]

There are fantastic trainers of horses with great feel and intuition who just do not communicate so well with riders . I wouldn't say, they are "not having enough experience, guidance or training oneself, to move to the next step in being an instructor." They just have a different skill set.

But I think the OP was asking the other question originally. Yes, I think there are people who can teach at the lower levels and , for example, teachpeople to post and do seat lessons on the lunge, for example, without necessarilly being horse trainers. At the more advanced levels, the instructor must understand the process of training the horse . Definitely.

[San Miranda]

When I first started teaching, I would teach as if I was riding the horse. I would walk behind the horse and be in position of shoulder in myself :winkgrin:and then as I made the aids and corrections I would then teach the rider. I have miles of videos of this. I also got on the horses and had a feel so I then could understand what the rider was feeling and that also helped. Also if I taught the horse, say shoulder in first and then taught the rider, success happen sooner.

It was not the way I was taught, :no:but this is just my style and it works for both myself and my students. :yes:

[kip]

In my opinion I really think that you have to have both skills. So much about riding is based on feel and then timing if you have never "felt" before I would think that it would be nearly impossible to teach it.

[Velvet]

Just here in the middle of the night, pondering life... Do you guys think it's possible to be a good/effective instructor for riders but not necessarily for horses? (Also a good rider.)
Are there some people who are better at one and not as good at the other? :confused:


Are you speaking of those who are naturals in the saddle and can do amazing things with horses, and often rise quickly to the top of the sport and stay there forever? Or are you talking about basic trainer skills? Often those who are natural riders are awful instructors. They do things intuitively and can't explain it well enough.

Then there are those who have struggled to learn and thus can teach a myriad of people because they know what it takes.

You have to ride it to teach it, but you don't have to ride it like a natural to teach it! :)

[EqTrainer]

Nope. It goes together, imo. I've known trainers who focus on the horses and through this, make the rider better. But I haven't met many (any?) trainers who focus on the rider and thus, make the horse better. IMO.

Italics are mine.

I am really shocked at this... I don't believe you can make the horse better without making the rider better. A bad rider brings down even the best horse. Example: Put a beginner on a GP horse and watch the shit hit the fan.

Everything that happens to the horse is a direct product of what the rider does. The rider is riding the horse, not the opposite. How can you focus on the horse only and make the rider better? Makes no sense to me. Hope you can explain more!

[egontoast]

I am really shocked at this... I don't believe you can make the horse better without making the rider better

You can if you, the trainer, are the rider.;)

I think some of us are talking about different things here. Do you need to be a good teacher of riders , to be a good teacher of riders? Um, yeah.

Can you be a good trainer of horses without being a good teacher of riders? Yeah. (trainer is the rider in other words. No other rider if that's not clear enough) That was what I was referring to.

Can you teach beginner riders to post the trot without being a fabulous horse trainer? probably.

Can you teach a rider to train/school/ride her horse if you don't know how to train a horse. NO.

Different things.

[Suzier]

I dunno. A good riding instructor needs a superb eye, extensive knowledge of training procedures applicable based on what they see, and the ability to communicate to the pupil both what to do and why they are doing it.

I think being a top-notch rider involves more of a superb feel than a superb eye, an intuitive muscle-memory-based knowledge of training procedures so that you can react instantly without thought so that your aids/rewards aren't constantly a beat behind where they should be, and the ability to make your body do what you tell it to do.

Ultimately I think it is two different, though very related, skill sets.

I agree that you've got to be really strong as a rider/trainer to be a good instructor, especially to speak from a position of credibility and authority, and I think that an extensive knowledge of training procedures has to be achieved at least in large part through experiece. But I can see how one could be significantly stronger at instructing than at training.

[Eq3nStar]

I think you hit it on the head, Velvet. All good posts- very insightful- thanks!

[InsideLeg2OutsideRein]

I think a prety high-level proficiency at both is necessary for good instructors, but I know people who are definitely better instructors than riders, and the other way around, too.

[EqTrainer]

I do see everyones points but there is a fine line here, that I think requires some definition..

as a rider AND a trainer AND a teacher, I can tell you that when I am training my OWN horses, I look to myself to become a better rider to make a better horse. If my half pass is crooked, I look to myself first for the cure, my horse second. I address my own issues first and in the process his issues are mostly taken care off. But I have to add, that I see it like this - if he's not bringing his inside hind up enough, it's because I am not asking him to, clearly, consistently and emphatically. I am not MAKING him do it. I tend to fix most things directly thru better riding, not thru exercises (which IMO just usually force people to ride better or more clearly or teach the rider how to be more effective, not the horse). I feel like this methodology creates a rider who can ride most horses to their potential pretty quickly. It might be the subtle difference between showing a horse how to do something (taking the horse along with you) versus training him to do it. This is such a tricky subject and I am just now, at 40, starting to be sure I see a difference and that there really are indeed two methodologies.

Maybe by the time I am fifty I will be able to articulate it better!

[kansasgal]

I do see everyones points but there is a fine line here, that I think requires some definition..

as a rider AND a trainer AND a teacher, I can tell you that when I am training my OWN horses, I look to myself to become a better rider to make a better horse. ........

It might be the subtle difference between showing a horse how to do something (taking the horse along with you) versus training him to do it. This is such a tricky subject and I am just now, at 40, starting to be sure I see a difference and that there really are indeed two methodologies.

Maybe by the time I am fifty I will be able to articulate it better!

I love that idea. I have been pondering posting on a similar subject, but wasn't sure how to articulate it either.....

A good instructor should be able to do all of the things you mention. But the best possible situation would be an instructor who is capable of schooling/ training the horse and an owner/ student who understands the benefit of it. (I know that gets expensive.)
All 3 skills are important, (ability to ride, ability to train, ability to instruct) but it is better/easier for the horse, and the student, if the instructor/ trainer can practice these skills separately, by schooling/ training the horse outside of lessons. It's more expensive, and requires mutual trust, but IMO that's the best way to go.....

Yes, in my limited experience with dressage instructors, I think that it is more typical to see someone who has the ability to teach the rider to "take the horse along". So horse isn't ever really trained..... Position IS important. VERY important. But there is more to it. Training the horse is important too.... trying to do both at the same time is an advanced version of the "green horse/ green rider....bad combo... idea....

Maybe I've got it wrong, but in the hunter world, where I come from, it's much more common to have your horse schooled by your trainer/ instructor, and it isn't seen as "cheating" or "hand holding" or whatever.

I think that the most brilliant instructors have the ability to practice all the skills you mention simultaneously, but an instructor can still be very effective and successful if she has the skills but uses them at different times. Hope I'm making some sense?

Thanks and best wishes from Kansas.

[BaroquePony]

I don't think an instructor can be really good if they haven't done it themselves. Also think that an instructor won't be very good if they haven't at least had enough instruction themselves to understand basic terminology (in case they are a natural and they didn't have to have all of the basics drilled into them before they got good) and are able to convey that to a student with the goals in mind. Not all naturals make good instructors.

[Petstorejunkie]

i think they have to go hand in hand. Even if i can make you the purdiest rider in the show ring, if all your purdiness is ineffective in getting your horse to move properly, well then you aren't all that purdy are ya?
Effective equitation works with horse and rider, there is usually a reason for everything, and that reason effects both parties.