J.Woffords thoughts re: Eventing Tragedies

[Regal Grace]

More grist for the mill. There are others that comment in the article as well (R.Haller, D.O'Connnor. M.Etherington Smith, etc)


On the Rail: Stemming the Tide of Eventing Tragedies
Practical Horseman talks to eventing's leaders about proposed changes to make the sport safer, after a spate of equine and human deaths.
By Nancy Jaffer
http://equisearch.com/equiwire%5Fnews/nancy%5Fjaffer/eventing%5Ftragedies%5F050208/

"Olympic medalist, commentator, author and trainer Jim Wofford, noted, "I do think it is not so much the fault of the cross-country-- because I think the cross-country tests themselves are fine--but what we are asking the horses to do in the dressage and show-jumping is requiring more discipline and domination by the rider, while the cross-country requires agility and initiative on the part of the horse.
"The riders and trainers have focused so much on the element of collection in dressage," Wofford continued. "Once you start asking that from your horse, the horse starts to surrender his body to the rider. And when he surrenders initially, he surrenders his initiative on Saturday also and then if the rider doesn't make that decision [on where to take off at a fence] for the horse, they fall."

Etherington-Smith fears the state of affairs could get even worse if a controversial proposal to make the dressage phase more difficult goes through.

"That has to be taking away from horses' ability to think for themselves, which is one of the key elements in cross-country," he said."

[TB or not TB?]

Hmm, very interesting.

I had never heard of the proposed 10 level system, has anyone else?

[ideayoda]

I am not sure that argument holds water. I know of two psg horses who were (eventing) medalists, and they did excellent collection. It is rather the domination/submisson kind of riding (hyperflexion/etc) which has been allowed to become popular in the last 30 years in which the horse is never with the poll the highest point which is more likely to be the cause.

[shea'smom]

Charisma was PSG before went to Mark Todd.
I see where Wofford is coming from, but I don't see it as a major contributor to these recent events.

[pwynnnorman]

This is the thing with the previous generation, I think -- including Lucinda's perspectives and, to a certain extent (at least as they have been expressed in print), Bruce's.--and Denny's, too, come to think of it. I don't know how to say this without being misinterpreted, but behind the scenes, from the upcoming generation (let's call it the "under 40 generation," OK?), I think I hear that respect for the old guard's views is waning, and this may be why.

NOTE: I wrote "respect for the old guard's views," NOT "respect for the old guard." There is a difference, OK?

Times have changed. What are we going to do about the changes--turning back the clock ain't gonna happen.

In terms of this subject, maybe it's more like "we can't put the genie back into the bottle." Look at the track records of Bettina Hoy and Pippa Funnell, look at the ascendency of the German team in eventing, look at how GOOD the top riders are getting at producing horses who can clean up in dressage AND be brilliant x-c. [And, YES, I know some horses like that have been less reliable x-c in the past, but nevertheless, the numbers that ARE reliable at both IS increasing.]

It's happening and it isn't going to "unhappen." Maybe riders who have NOT produced the horse that can get into the 30s or even 20s and STILL exhibit both the submissiveness AND the independence to be rock solid x-c...maybe riders who have not ridden or produced that type of horse because they did most of their riding in a different area don't GET what has arrived, making their views understandably outdated? Maybe. And, again, stated with all due respect, OK?

EDITED TO ADD: Actually, I have to take back a heck of lot of what I just wrote--but to be honest about it, I won't erase it. Having read all of what Wofford stated in that article now, I agree 100%. He examined the big picture and really articulated clearly the variety of issues being faced and how interrelated they are.

[LisaB]

I hear what he's saying. Absolutely!
Now, okay, let me explain.
Yes, Charisma was PSG.
BUT Toddy had that natural instinct to let go and I would guess he worked on Charisma's natural ability across terrain and have him think for himself.
We don't work on the distinction between dressage and x-c anymore.
When I go out on trail, I wind up just doing conditioning in a frame and very controlled. If I had a horse that wasn't brought up out in the back 40 with whatever was in the field, I would have a very dependent horse on my hands. Winston though is a tough booger and VERY horsey, not a hothouse flower.
Again, we are no longer kicking it up, going hunting, going out on trail rides for hours.
I think that's where he's coming from.

[pwynnnorman]

I agree, Lisa. That is where he is coming from.

But maybe the problem is that that is no longer where THE SPORT is coming from (or the majority of the people in it today).

[baymare]

The quoted remarks from J. Wofford deserve a lot of thought and make perfect sense to me. There is an inherent training contradiction between cross country and dressage that, while virtually non-existent in the lower levels, increases as the difficulty of both tests increases. Add this to the fact that horses are being selected and developed specifically to excel in the dressage phase and the impact becomes even greater.

Charisma was highly unusual, a fabulous athlete by any standards. Also, a small, clever, catty horse, physically more a traditional "cross country" type rather than a big powerful crossbred "dressage" type.

Food for thought.

[wabadou]

Charisma was PSG before went to Mark Todd.
I see where Wofford is coming from, but I don't see it as a major contributor to these recent events.

Having a brain-f*rt here, what is PSG?

[One Star]

Prix St. George in dressage.

[Shrapnel]

I totally agree with Mr. Wofford! :cool:

[Carol Ames]

Good article as far as it goes; but, I find i I find it nteresting that Jim has long advocated keeping a horse "between the aids on the approach to the ences CC;i all fairness he has also complained of the severe bits now being used XC;Did any riders express concern about the th the flower basket or other fences before xc?

[Tuckertoo]

Charisma was PSG before went to Mark Todd.
I see where Wofford is coming from, but I don't see it as a major contributor to these recent events.

The thing is that Charisma is one example. One horse out of thousands, which could be the exception to the rule. Time will tell.

I had brought up this point in a thread I started a while ago and people pretty much just dismissed it. I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, and I've searched through all the books I have, but I seem to remember reading SOMEWHERE that someone (again, can't remember) thought that it was counter-productive to train an event horse past a certain level in dressage because it "trained out" the ability to think for itself. I feel like it may have been a quote of the person in one of Jim Wofford's books. I don't care how great of a rider you are, at some point you are going to get into a situation that you as the rider, for whatever reason, aren't going be able to get yourself out of. You need a horse that will think for itself to hopefully solve the problem for you so you both don't end up hurt. Do you really expect a horse that has been trained in dressage to wait for the rider's every cue to totally separate the two phases and take the initiative over cross-country? I don't know if they can or not, but something tells me probably not. That's where we get in to trouble.

I don't know how I feel about the 10-level system. It could be a good thing.

This is all very interesting.:)

[Hony]

Good article as far as it goes; but, I find i I find it nteresting that Jim has long advocated keeping a horse "between the aids on the approach to the ences CC;i all fairness he has also complained of the severe bits now being used XC;Did any riders express concern about the th the flower basket or other fences before xc?
I too was curious to know if anyone had expressed concern over the flower basket then I watched the video. I honestly don't think the jump was the issue.


The thing is that Charisma is one example. One horse out of thousands, which could be the exception to the rule. Time will tell.

I had brought up this point in a thread I started a while ago and people pretty much just dismissed it. I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, and I've searched through all the books I have, but I seem to remember reading SOMEWHERE that someone (again, can't remember) thought that it was counter-productive to train an event horse past a certain level in dressage because it "trained out" the ability to think for itself. I feel like it may have been a quote of the person in one of Jim Wofford's books. I don't care how great of a rider you are, at some point you are going to get into a situation that you as the rider, for whatever reason, aren't going be able to get yourself out of. You need a horse that will think for itself to hopefully solve the problem for you so you both don't end up hurt. Do you really expect a horse that has been trained in dressage to wait for the rider's every cue to totally separate the two phases and take the initiative over cross-country? I don't know if they can or not, but something tells me probably not. That's where we get in to trouble.



Yes, I know I have read this somewhere too. It was about a guy who trained his horse to do higher level dressage movements and found that forever after the horse did not have the same ability to get out of trouble. I have heard JW and LG both say this.at clinics too. I don't know if it really applies to the most recent circumstances though. The falls that happened at rolex were gross rider error and I'm not sure any horse could have found a way out of that predicament other than to stop.

[Tux61096]

I agree, Lisa. That is where he is coming from.

But maybe the problem is that that is no longer where THE SPORT is coming from (or the majority of the people in it today).

In my mind I see today's eventing, basically as a different sport. I almost feel like it needs a new name.

[ButterflyIris]

So what is he suggesting? Placing less emphasis on dressage??
I feel very frustrated with his response because it makes the 'changes' intangible. How can you judge when or what day a horse is thinking for itself??
That seems a little ridiculous to me. If all he is suggesting is that the training is wrong then there are no changes that are going to be made.
I am so traumatized by Frodo's death and Laine's fall. I was at Rolex. I feel like his response is punishing to the victim.
Of course the people that set these courses could NEVER be wrong. I think the eventing's culture of idol-worship needs to stop and people need to continue pushing the uppers to make REAL changes to the XC courses.
I'm a nobody but I WILL NOT support eventing until changes are made to take care of the horses. (and the riders)
Do the eventing higher ups even realize that people outside the sport are HORRIFIED that horses hit these objects at high speeds and die? When I told my non-horsey friends about the design of the event and the fences their jaws dropped.
I think somehow, somewhere, eventing needs a breath of fresh air.

[Tuckertoo]

Yes, I know I have read this somewhere too. It was about a guy who trained his horse to do higher level dressage movements and found that forever after the horse did not have the same ability to get out of trouble. I have heard JW and LG both say this.at clinics too. I don't know if it really applies to the most recent circumstances though. The falls that happened at rolex were gross rider error and I'm not sure any horse could have found a way out of that predicament other than to stop.

Yeah! That was what I read. It's really frustrating that I can't remember though:lol:

That's another good point, Hony. This sounds completely against everything that we want in an XC horse, bold, brave, willing, smart, etc... BUT, maybe somehow horses have been trained to jump from any spot that they don't think that they can stop. Maybe they don't when they really should, and that's what gets people into trouble. Maybe part of being a smart XC horse is knowing when to go and when not to? Instead of the mindset, "Go no matter what." I think I'd rather have my horse stop when he honestly doesn't think he can make it than try anyway and not make it.

(Was this discussed in a previous thread?)

This is all just speculation on my part as I don't really know how ULRs train, but it seems like a possibilty.

[flyingchange]

It's very simple to tell if a horse is thinking for itself. You can do it with trot rails. Trot a horse through four trot rails and don't help him except to put him there straight and in a decent tempo. If horse misses and ends up hopscotching through them, bring him back around again, and let him try again. A horse that thinks for itself will get through the trot rails quite well on second approach. usually perfecty. Do the same thing with canter rails, set 12 feet apart. Same scenario happens - horse misses and fudges his way through. Bring him back again. Stay in the back seat - except get him there straight, in a good rhythm, etc, but don't tell him when/how to ge through the grid. Horse who gets through fine on 2nd approach is a horse that thinks for itself.

When our horses are rushing/not paying attention and generally lost in space in warm up, my trainer tells us to just let them crash through a warm up fence. Once they crash through - the ones who think for themselves will usually not hit a rail again that day.

But if you always tell your horse when to jump, how to jump, then you can't expect him to be there for you when you miss. And you are going to miss.

Also - sitting in the back seat and letting the horse do its job does not mean dropping the horse. You still have the horse between your aids - balanced, in a proper rhythm, and straight. But you don't tell the horse "go..." you leave that decision up to the horse. You don't just drop the contact and the aids and expect the horse to figure it out - that is not what is meant by this concept.

[SoEasy]

Haven't been around a real XC course in over 30 years (plenty of hunting, trail rides, training, the XC jumps in our own fields, but), BUT ...

I read that article and what I saw was a number of folks implying that the problems are related to inexperience and lower levels and amateur riders ... which is SO not the case lately. Ralph? I PC'd with Ralph in the 60s. Darren? Even Laine, young but not inexperienced or a mere amateur trying something above her skills!

[Equa]

And THAT is exactly how really good dressage is ridden. If you ALWAYS ride the horse by drilling evert step he makes, you will possibly end up with a dsiciplined, somewhat gymnasticised robot. If you gymnasticise and supple your horse using the dressage training scale and allow him to make "mistakes" and then help direct him back towards woring in his most natural rhythm, you can only end up with a stronger, more athletic horse.

Of course, there are some horses that are not brilliant in the dressage arena. There are some whose dressage work has little relation to how they travel on xc, but generally it has been proved over the past century, that better dressage = a more supple athletic, rideable horse.

I don't think that making the dressage test harder will make the sport safer, but at the same time, I totally disagree that too much dressage means that horses stop thinking. They NEED to be confident and able to listen! It takes away from the responsibility of the rider to stay totally focused and to make the right decisions about speed and rhythm and approach and line, to say that it is really up to the horse to get itself out of trouble because its innate ability has not been stifled by dressage!

This might be the case when it comes to drunken fops popping out hunting, but not in a sport where the first responsibility is the welfare of the horse.

The other side of the coin is that possibly too much dressage is detrimental to RIDERS and detracts from their ability to think at speed......maybe eventing riders should share....one specialised dressage rider does the dressage, and another specialist does xc and sj - on the same horse.

[Smufy3DE]

I think it is a very interesting point Mr. Wofford brought up. I think what even more interesting is that if you go back and watch the Rolex threads of XC you will see some of the people who couldn't get their horses to be submissive in dressage, and put in tests in the 60s-80's had some of nicest rounds. There horses really knew there job and galloped boldly to there fences.

I think we should re-evaluate putings tempi's in the four star tests.

[grayarabpony]

Hmm, I've heard that argument about advanced dressage causing a horse to lose initiative, but I don't know if I believe it. Matt Ryan did very advanced dressage with Kiboh Tic Toc in order to improve the horse's collection and the horse still performed beautifully on cross country. Perhaps initiative varies that much from horse to horse, but I don't really believe that's the problem. If these horses are truly that balanced and adjustable from correct dressage there probably wouldn't be so many crosscountry problems. It also sounds as though some of these crosscountry questions are just too close to being unrideable (ie only a small portion of horse and rider can make it through safely).

[CookiePony]

Re the ten levels: I will be curious to see a proposal on how they would break down. I have long thought that our current levels have meaningless names. The names for the first 4 levels are basically meaningless or redundant.

For example, according to my mac's dictionary, "Novice" means "a person new to or inexperienced in a field or situation." How many Novice riders have been competing for YEARS at that level? (I am raising my own hand-- in my case since 1992-- hardly new to the level, but have not felt ready to move up for various reasons, including access to an appropriate horse, work demands, etc.).

On to "Beginner": "A person just starting to learn a skill or take part in an activity." How is this any different from "Novice"? I have ridden at Beginner Novice since 1990-- almost 20 years of being "new" to the level. :lol:

"Training":n. "the action of teaching a person or animal a particular skill or type of behavior." Or, v. "teach (a person or animal) a particular skill or type of behavior through practice and instruction over a period of time." So our Training Level connotes that the participants are in the midst of this process. But aren't all of the levels part of this process?

"Preliminary" is an adjective "denoting an action or event preceding or done in preparation for something fuller or more important." Aren't all of the levels preparation for the next one, except for the four star? Are certain levels less full or important than others? I don't know about you, but if I ever go to Prelim would feel like that was the icing on my cake of eventing accomplishment. It seems a little, well, demeaning to call such an accomplishment less important. I understand that this is not the case for UL riders... but it is the case for many, many USEA members.

[BarbB]

The issue may not be that the horse is spending more time training for more advanced dressage, but that the rider is riding xc as if it is dressage; telling the horse where to put every foot until that moment when he needs the horse to take over.
The riders cited here for doing high level dressage work and running well xc (Toddy and Matt) were spectacularly successful at turning horses loose on xc and NOT micromanaging them.
I remember Matt, describing a difficult horse who's name I can't remember, saying that he had spent years schooling the horse to do it his way and now they were doing it the horse's way...it worked better.
These two are examples of HORSEMEN, who read their horses, can see things thru their horse's eyes and encourage them to be obedient or independent as the situation requires.
They could have taught their horse airs above ground and still rode around a **** course.
It's not the training, it's what you do with the training.

[lesson junkie]

I am going to date myself here-in Littauer's "Commonsense Horsemanship" he has a chapter entitled "Why Collected Gaits Have No Place in Forward Schooling". I find it very interesting that old school horsemen look to that as part of the problem.

[flyingchange]

Yeah, what is the deal with the proposed tempi changes. My god, if my horse and I were doing tempi changes (I think the proposal is fours?) then we'd probably just be doing straight dressage. Aren't flying changes enough at this level? When is it going to stop? If they implement tempi changes now, who is to say they won't implement passage and piaffe in 10 years?

[flyingchange]

The issue may not be that the horse is spending more time training for more advanced dressage, but that the rider is riding xc as if it is dressage; telling the horse where to put every foot until that moment when he needs the horse to take over.
The riders cited here for doing high level dressage work and running well xc (Toddy and Matt) were spectacularly successful at turning horses loose on xc and NOT micromanaging them.
I remember Matt, describing a difficult horse who's name I can't remember, saying that he had spent years schooling the horse to do it his way and now they were doing it the horse's way...it worked better.
These two are examples of HORSEMEN, who read their horses, can see things thru their horse's eyes and encourage them to be obedient or independent as the situation requires.
They could have taught their horse airs above ground and still rode around a **** course.
It's not the training, it's what you do with the training.

Exactly. Mark Todd and Matt Ryan are "freaks" in the sense of GP show jumpers and dressage horses being freaks. There aren't too many of them out there. They could make the proverbial saddle stand jump into the head of the lake!

[grayarabpony]

Good post BarbB. One thing I want to add is that truly correct dressage, especially the level that eventers ride at, isn't micromanagement either, not if the flow and the connection are there. Part of dressage training is about letting go, letting the horse carry himself and the energy flow from back to front. But he has to get to a certain point in his training for that to happen.

[Jumphigh83]

So the more well educated and "broke" your horse is, the more "dangerous" he will be XC?? Is this for real???? :no:

[BarbB]

Exactly. Mark Todd and Matt Ryan are "freaks" in the sense of GP show jumpers and dressage horses being freaks. There aren't too many of them out there. They could make the proverbial saddle stand jump into the head of the lake!

I would like to think that they are not 'natural freaks' in the sense that others cannot do what they did.

If you view training as a step by step process where you tell the horse what to do and he becomes ever more obedient....then you get what we have today.

If you take the time to really learn what the different phases are about, how the HORSE sees what you are asking him to do, how the amount of independence you allow or encourage affects HIS attitude toward the task, what happens when he is overwhelmed (or bored) and how to be a partner rather than a rider......then you have Toddy, Matt, Ian, Bruce.
They are horsemen, what we have competing today, for the most part, are riders....there is a difference and it is showing.

edited to add:
I am not making a distinction between taking excellent care of a horse and riding, I am making a distinction between taking excellent care & riding (rider) vs. getting inside a horse's head and really understanding what makes them tick (horseman).

[Waterwitch]

I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, and I've searched through all the books I have, but I seem to remember reading SOMEWHERE that someone (again, can't remember) thought that it was counter-productive to train an event horse past a certain level in dressage because it "trained out" the ability to think for itself.

If memory serves, Jack LeGoff said it in the old USCTA Book of Eventing (a great book I unfortunately loaned out and it was never returned). The warning was about taking away the horse's initiative with over-schooling in dressage.

He told the story of an event horse that was injured and during the down time he schooled it to quite a high level in dressage. He felt the horse was never the same after that due to the fact that he was always looking to be told what to do rather than thinking for himself. Possibly an even more dangerous situation in today's context?

[ideayoda]

WHAT is higher levels about the test people are expected to ride in upper level events today? It is at best medium level dressage. Collect short sides more on? Or some light lateral work? That straightens the horse.

What IS wrong is preciptious flexion (of the neck) at lower levels (horse held 'round' by the rider), and shortened frames (up through the levels) without proper activity behind. So many riders do something in the dressage arena which could not be taken immediately to the stadium arena, and that is incorrect.

I happen to AGREE that what is going on in the DRESSAGE arena has huge NEGATIVE impact on the jumping part. But as a dressage judge I think it is because of the same POOR schooling techniques as are (now) in the dressage arena. (For what is worth, even though MP is often ragged on here, he agrees, and that it is causing falls/stops.) That is NOT a fault of 'collectability' but of bad technique and improper understanding about how to put a horse to the bit. If they are held btv in schooling, their hindlegs will not step up to the bit properly. THe joints cannot fold equally if hh do not work correct. If I said ride a horse as in stadium, but with figures/lateral work, likely the quality of what is produced would be far better, and the horse would be honest into the bridle AND active. There is no difference. Because of poor dressage basics even things like galloping (under control without hanging on the hand), and even the character of two point, are compromised as well.

As far as Littaur, have you looked at the majority of horses which were pictured in his books? They were hunters on L.I., left to their own devices because of the old style (left behind) hunting seat, read the context he taught in. He thought better left alone than ridden onto contact (on the flat or over fences) by those with an uneducated seat. Also for the old generation, collection was really more haute ecole. Even then I would disagree, because I have seen more than a few riders do GP movements with a 3'6" course stuck between the movements.

For what it is worth Jack used to come to look at dressage come jumpers at our house. His dressage reflected his background. Horses light in the hand, but correctly active. Schooling with a purpose.

The silver medal horse in 76 was a psg/I-1 horse (and was hugely ahead in dressage there). Windfall was not only european champion in dressage, but at least psg as well. The young french horse in Athens who was so nice in dressage, is a product of three generations of Samuer guidance (in dressage). That is only off the top. Remember that Reiner Klimke was on two olympic eventing teams before he was on any dressage team.

Horses like that are not freaks of nature, they are simply methodically schooled on the flat. THey are good o.f. because they are CORRECTLY schooled. They gallop on light(er) contact which saves their energy as well. They flex their hindlegs more effectively on the flat and o.f. because of proper balance.

And least we forget, eventing used to equate to 'military riding', that also meant that the horses could do things like manuvers (aka lateral work) to help to save the troups. It is not only basic control, but straightening for the horse.

[vineyridge]

All of the Old Dead Cavalry Guys believed that dressage, as that was meant in the time of the ODCGs, was not good for horses who had to jump. Littauer, in particular, makes a point of that in his writings. They did believe strongly in flatwork and gymnastics, but not in "real" dressage--and precisely for the reasons that have been discussed here.

That's another major way the sport has changed from its roots by increasing the emphasis on "real" dressage as opposed to a test of trainability--the kind of test that horses and riders in "the old days" simply had to survive to get to the meat of eventing. :)

The thing is that Charisma is one example. One horse out of thousands, which could be the exception to the rule. Time will tell.

I had brought up this point in a thread I started a while ago and people pretty much just dismissed it. I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, and I've searched through all the books I have, but I seem to remember reading SOMEWHERE that someone (again, can't remember) thought that it was counter-productive to train an event horse past a certain level in dressage because it "trained out" the ability to think for itself. I feel like it may have been a quote of the person in one of Jim Wofford's books. I don't care how great of a rider you are, at some point you are going to get into a situation that you as the rider, for whatever reason, aren't going be able to get yourself out of. You need a horse that will think for itself to hopefully solve the problem for you so you both don't end up hurt. Do you really expect a horse that has been trained in dressage to wait for the rider's every cue to totally separate the two phases and take the initiative over cross-country? I don't know if they can or not, but something tells me probably not. That's where we get in to trouble.

I don't know how I feel about the 10-level system. It could be a good thing.

This is all very interesting.:)

[colliemom]

"Preliminary" is an adjective "denoting an action or event preceding or done in preparation for something fuller or more important." Aren't all of the levels preparation for the next one, except for the four star? Are certain levels less full or important than others?

Preliminary used to be the FIRST recognized level. Training, Novice, and Beginner Novice were added later, to accomodate the entry of more and more less experienced people/horses. So, in the original levels of the sport, the names made perfect sense : Preliminary as the "preparation for something fuller or more important", Intermediate, and then Advanced.

[seeuatx]

I wonder if the issue is between dressage and Dressage.

Little d - dressage relates to the classic gymnasticizing (is that a word? oh well, I'm using it) of the horse. Riding them from their hind end into an elastic fell, which when done correctly engages the ring of muscles and the horse will push off and bring their head onto the "vertical". This is the riding of the masters.

In bing D- Dressage - competitive- there has been a paradigm shift in the last 10 or 15 years. Horses work behind the vertical and deep to "unlock", fancy movers outscore ultimately correct horses, the toe flick is normal. None of these things are traditionally correct in the opinions of the old masters, and yet this is what is being rewarded in the ring. Draw reins, German martingales, side reins, Vienna reins, leverage bits.... all are now common in the schooling routines of "dressage" horses around the country.

It has born the question of whether or not these horses are being forced into learned helplessness.

But the other thing I have seen (or been party to) is riders being taught to make their horses "round" before they have an independent seat, much less hand.

Ideayoda: As far as Littaur, have you looked at the majority of horses which were pictured in his books? They were hunters on L.I., left to their own devices because of the old style (left behind) hunting seat, read the context he taught in. He thought better left alone than ridden onto contact (on the flat or over fences) by those with an uneducated seat.

Even George Morris says he does not teach "roundness" until a rider is at the Maclay level, as they lack the education necessary to ride a horse correctly into the contact from behind. He calls roundness in the hands of a novice a "razor blade in the hands of monkeys".

I think that in a lot of ways correct riding has been abandoned in favor of "roundness", and if a horse is being made round rather than being "gymnasticized " forward into self carriage, they lack the ability to correctly place their own feet.

[ideayoda]

I was looking at (flat/dressage) pix from Rolex. It is a small number of those horses are in a proper balance. How many have: Chest lifted, wither ups, correct with hindleg joints, pure gaits, horse correctly ifv with the poll the highest point (for that matter at straight dressage shows either) as the rules recommend? This would bother me (to ride) even at a lower level to have a horse out of balance, but at a top level it would really worry me about the effects of such riding. It indicates that the horse is behind the hand at best, and behind the leg/seat at worst, not something from which you want to jump. And worse yet, how that (improper) connection/use of the hindlegs affects the bascule over fences. And funny, that's what we are seeing. Most of the horses I have ridden xcountry were at least medium level dressage, thus greatly ahead out of dressage, and always clean x country, then it was only about keeping a speed or if there were rails in stadium. Imho, thats how it should be, dependable/progressive/horse and rider trusting each other because of methodical correct schooling (those odg were pretty logical).

The 'roundness' issue has infected EVERYTHING, it comes from the manipulative hyperflexion training at the top levels of dressage where submission trumps purity of gaits. Well, the worst we suffer is horses becoming untrusting, tense (unable to halt, etc), being crooked, bucking the riders off. But without 3day, the rider suffer falls if the horse is not in front of the leg and in balance. So many of the xcoutnry falls can be predicted 5-10 strides out because of the galloping balance of horse/rider, and certainly analyzing bascule over stadium fences, and the rider connection (crest releases).

[sm]

I was looking at (flat/dressage) pix from Rolex. It is a small number of those horses are in a proper balance....
The 'roundness' issue has infected EVERYTHING, it comes from the manipulative hyperflexion training at the top levels of dressage where submission trumps purity of gaits...
the rider suffer falls if the horse is not in front of the leg and in balance.


There may be better examples of GM saying the *same* thing, however this article he wrote always stuck with me. It's in the July 7, 2006 COTH Issue, "Where Did We Come From? Where Are We Going?" Often he is addressing other issues, but some points do apply here. To paraphrase GM, so I don't violate copyright issues:

- dressage when it's well done can be wonderful. Dressage however, can also be quite risky for those who want to gallop and jump, especially the way it's taught today with riders excessively behind the motion and horses over-collected and over-flexed. Staying with the motion or center of gravity is totally foriegn.

- while jumping, it's important to get back to the classic principles of Caprilli, Santini, Chamberlain, Saumur, Gordon Wright, Jimmy Williams, Vladimir Littauer, Jack Le Goff.

Complete article: http://www.chronofhorse.com/index.php?cat=40311030495963&z_get_Article_ID=102732503353610&search_type=Full&Full_Category_ID=23007043181806 (http://www.chronofhorse.com/index.php?cat=40311030495963&z_get_Article_ID=102732503353610&search_type=Full&Full_Category_ID=23007043181806 Often)

[CookiePony]

Preliminary used to be the FIRST recognized level. Training, Novice, and Beginner Novice were added later, to accomodate the entry of more and more less experienced people/horses. So, in the original levels of the sport, the names made perfect sense : Preliminary as the "preparation for something fuller or more important", Intermediate, and then Advanced.

I'm aware of that, and it's important history to know, but I still think that the naming system needs to work better for the present.

[glfprncs]

[QUOTE=Hony;3185687]

Yes, I know I have read this somewhere too. It was about a guy who trained his horse to do higher level dressage movements and found that forever after the horse did not have the same ability to get out of trouble. I have heard JW and LG both say this.at clinics too. QUOTE]

The "guy" who trained his event horse to do higher level dressage was Reiner Klimke. Before he was an Olympic dressage gold medalist, he was a European eventing champion. His event horse, who was on a temporary reprieve (I wish I could remember which horse it was)from jumping for whatever circumstances, was trained the grand prix dressage movements (i.e. passage, piaffe, pirouettes, changes, etc.). He stated that after that, the horse's natural instincts cross-country were diminished because it then expected a regular aid.

[sm]

The other thing Reiner Klimke said is the steeplechase phase is extremely important, without it eventers are reduced to mere arcobats on a manicured lawn.

Freaky that we literally have acrobatics out there today.

[Gnep]

The USDF Magazine had several years ago a story about Ingrid Klimke, she does not just Event but is a Grand Prix Level Dressage Rider.

She made a very interesting coment about the muscle built up that higher colection and dressage lesson produce and how those muscle reduce the horse ability to gallop and jump X-C.

If there is somebody who could get that article vom USDF would be very interesting, must have been 4 or 5 years ago

[jhodkin]

Look at the track records of Bettina Hoy, look at how GOOD the top riders are getting at producing horses who can clean up in dressage AND be brilliant x-c.

Hate to disagree, but Bettina has been notorious for being pretty awful cross country.

I've heard it muted more than once that her record xc is poor because she dominates her horses so much in the dressage that they can no longer think for themselves. When she gets it wrong xc, there's no second independent brain to get her out of it
... Just putting forward what I've heard...

[enjoytheride]

A lovely PSG stallion stayed at my barn a few weeks ago, he also shows AO hunters with his owner but doesn't often win. Mostly it's his frame at the trot and canter, but his rider says that she can never "let go" and if she gave him floaty contact or sat down he would stop or crash through a fence. She says he has simply been taught to listen to her for so many years that when she asks him tomake his own decisions or gives him more rein on course he gets confused and shuts down.

[NCRider]

I've been lurking for a while now. I'm not an eventer-I ride at a dressage barn-started riding as an adult and my seat etc. are not such that I would be comfortable trying it yet-maybe i'll never get there, but I do worry about what eventing will look like if I ever do get there.

I've read some of the posts about suggestions and I was wondering if there's been any discussion of limiting the advantage of increasingly lower dressage scores instead of making XC easier. The other two phases have a fixed point after which there is no incentive (other than safety) to be better ("clear" and "within the time") whereas the dressage score, in effect, can always be lower. You don't get any points for style or good riding on XC or stadium. At the upper levels especially, if dressage is where you can really improve your placing, maybe riders are spending too much time schooling dressage. Maybe they're also falling into the hyperlexion Catch 22 that has (as discussed in previous posts) "infected" straight Dressage. If Dressage scores are what separate the winners from the also rans, and certain things, like fancy movement achieved through hyperflexion, etc.) are rewarded in the dressage scores, then someone is going to go there (hyperflexion) with their dressage training, and once someone is doing it, others will have to to keep up.

Perhaps, illogically, we should disincentivise the pursuit of really good dressag scores. Instead, maybe there should be a minimum dressage score. In other words, as long as you score below 45? 50?, you have no dressage penalty points. You'd have to pick a score that a well-trained responsive horse without naturally flashy gates could achieve without being perfect that day.

Maybe this makes no sense at all, but the current trend seems to suggest two alternatives (1) a sport with the current severe safety crisis that still really tests XC or (2) "Dressage for Horses that can also Jump a course".

[arnika]

Gnep, I remember reading that article a few years ago.:yes:

Until 2004 and Ringwood Cockatoo, Bettina was not known for her xc skills, more for her stops. jhodkin has it right.

[sm]

If Dressage scores are what separate the winners from the also rans, and certain things, like fancy movement achieved through hyperflexion, etc.) are rewarded in the dressage scores, then someone is going to go there (hyperflexion) with their dressage training, and once someone is doing it, others will have to to keep up.

Perhaps, illogically, we should disincentivise the pursuit of really good dressag scores. Instead, maybe there should be a minimum dressage score. In other words, as long as you score below 45? 50?, you have no dressage penalty points.

It makes a lot of sense, NCRider. But that's the FEI pushing the dressage. And it's the FEI who wants all levels leading up seamlessly to international competition, meaning the same formula/emphasis on dressage in all levels of eventing.

FEI went to short format and this dressage formula (overall point system) without any study or research on the impacts...

[EventingJ]

does anyone remember the story about a horse who was doing UP stuff, rider took some time off and the horse became more of a dressage horse for a little while, and when they returned to eventing the horse was not the same at all. Cross Country was not the same, the horse who flourished in the dressage world no longer think for itself, instead waited for instructions at every fence. Maybe someone else can remember the specifics - but it seems like a common theme in the thread.

[ideayoda]

A steady diet of collection might produce a stuck horse, but a well developed horse can do both, just like a steady diet of gallop (like race horses) might the opposite effect. Remember WAZ won a GP stadium one day and a GP dressage the next. A rider who teaches the horse to be balanced can negotiate different terrains fairly easily. If there were ever light in the hand GP horses around today, they belong to Philippe Karl (teacher at Samauer/Cadre Noir), but he does both easily, daily. As he says 'balance is balance'. How many riders can easily take up the stirrups and go to easy two point or even higher and gallop a horse? Very few, yet many used to have that ease.

[Beverley]

A steady diet of collection might produce a stuck horse, but a well developed horse can do both, just like a steady diet of gallop (like race horses) might the opposite effect. Remember WAZ won a GP stadium one day and a GP dressage the next. A rider who teaches the horse to be balanced can negotiate different terrains fairly easily. If there were ever light in the hand GP horses around today, they belong to Philippe Karl (teacher at Samauer/Cadre Noir), but he does both easily, daily. As he says 'balance is balance'. How many riders can easily take up the stirrups and go to easy two point or even higher and gallop a horse? Very few, yet many used to have that ease.

I agree- I rode with a Saumur-trained instructor in France in the early 70s and when I rode his personal horse, selle francais mare, she was a delight in both dressage and jumping- did both in a double bridle. Very forward to her fences as Littauer et al would desire, but always light and balanced.

Could be the problem is that folks are schooling Dressage instead of dressage, as has been noted. The latter is simply education and training for the horse for any activity. The former has in my amateur opinion degenerated to gimmickery to get 'a look' (and an incorrect one at that)- about as far removed from real dressage as western pleasure.

Maybe part of the problem is that to master the higher demands of the dressage phase in 3-day, riders are tuning in more to what is 'good enough' instead of what is 'good' in the sense of correct training. These days, horses in a whole host of disciplines are sped to the highest levels more quickly than used to be the case- and it's just because we're in a hurry, not because we have become more brilliant at training horses. Doing it right takes time and we're an instant gratification society these days.

[J. Turner]

The quoted remarks from J. Wofford deserve a lot of thought and make perfect sense to me. There is an inherent training contradiction between cross country and dressage that, while virtually non-existent in the lower levels, increases as the difficulty of both tests increases. Add this to the fact that horses are being selected and developed specifically to excel in the dressage phase and the impact becomes even greater.

Charisma was highly unusual, a fabulous athlete by any standards. Also, a small, clever, catty horse, physically more a traditional "cross country" type rather than a big powerful crossbred "dressage" type.

Food for thought.


I saw Charisma on video, but nevver live. And I've never seen Teddy O. either. I think I mentioned something like this on another thread. I think Charisma's cattiness is what is lost in either the choice of horses or in the training of horses. Did Charisma ever have a stop on XC? I think as an owner, I'd rather have my horse stop if he knew something was terribly wrong and save himself and his rider.

PWynn - perhaps as an owner of a horse that has been both brilliant and had hiccoughs xc. Teddy seems catty, like Charisma. He seems like a horse that thinks for himself. To me he is the ultimate event horse. I think massive gaits and collection shouldn't be emphasized in dressage. The qualities that make a greatest jumping event horse should be. Dressage should be the embodiment of those qualities. Obviously Teddy's stride and power speak for themselves, so how do they express themselves in dressage?

So perhaps some of the questions we should asking ourselves is what qualities in the XC/SJ event horse do we want the dressage test to evaluate?

Adjustability?
The canter? (Should the canter have more value since we do jump from the canter? Some hunter judges argue more emphasis should be put on the canter in the hack since that's the jumping gait.)
Medium gaits?
Quality of the riders aids?
Less on expressive quality of gaits?
More on correctness of gaits?
Lateral work in regular gaits to encourage forwardness?

In education, the test evaluates standards set ahead of time - the questions we ask on test reflect what we value in the horse and rider? So what qualities do we value based on the current "test questions"? What qualities would we prefer to value/emphasize?

[Gry2Yng]

So the more well educated and "broke" your horse is, the more "dangerous" he will be XC?? Is this for real???? :no:

Yes, really. Having total control is great if you never make a mistake. I will take a pony that thinks for himself when I chuck the reins at him, get in the back seat and say "Oh, Shit!" This is EVENTING not dressage. Flame suit on!

[Equibrit]

The argument doesn't hold up when looking at those eventing in Europe. All the tragedies are just pointing up the holes in the training of horses and riders in the USA.

(Ducking)

[Gry2Yng]

The argument doesn't hold up when looking at those eventing in Europe. All the tragedies are just pointing up the holes in the training of horses and riders in the USA.

(Ducking)

Not necessarily agreeing that US riders have holes in their training, but if they do, are you saying they have holes in their dressage training or their ability to ride xc.

I think a key fact is that the countries which have historically excelled in this sport are the ones with a history of riding across country. US, GB, AUS and NZ. Cowboys and Foxhunters. Since we no longer ride the land as our job or to survive, we need to "practice" being cowboys and foxhunters. The more time we spend practicing to be DQ's or SJ's the less time we spent on the REALLY dangerous part of the sport. The less smart our horses become about doing the footwork and the less smart our riders at getting in the back seat putting their leg on and getting out of the way (or becoming a fifth leg if the circumstance requires).

I am mystified by the theory that better dressage will make a horse and rider better xc riders. Good dressage does not exclude someone from riding good xc, but you do not have to be a third level dressage rider to ride good xc.

Karen, Phillip and Becky have been around for a while. They came up in the day when their was less emphasis on dressage and show jumping. They perfected their ability to ride cross country before changes were required at the four star level.

Today's rider have to learn it all at once. They have not given themselves the luxury of learning to ride xc well before going back to tackle the other two phases.

(Not really swinging, just puzzled.)

[VicarageVee]

Ok.
Yes, I agree (or, at least I think I'm agreeing...) that dressage should be discounted and not be the defining factor at at 3-day. XC should, and should always be the only defining factor that separates the chaff from the wheat among a field of eventing horses. That said, I want to put forward a few horses and one rider who have really figured out how to strike a balance.

Pippa Funnel and Supreme Rock/Prinmore's Pride

Both horses have scored 10s, both are full TBs, both are XC machines. I think it's a matter of changing how we, as eventers, think about and approach our dressage. For Pippa its all about letting the horse really go--extend, stretch, flex, impulsion, etc. And as a result her XC is the same. Maybe we just need to rethink our dressage strategies.

[J. Turner]

I've been lurking for a while now. I'm not an eventer-I ride at a dressage barn-started riding as an adult and my seat etc. are not such that I would be comfortable trying it yet-maybe i'll never get there, but I do worry about what eventing will look like if I ever do get there.

I've read some of the posts about suggestions and I was wondering if there's been any discussion of limiting the advantage of increasingly lower dressage scores instead of making XC easier. The other two phases have a fixed point after which there is no incentive (other than safety) to be better ("clear" and "within the time") whereas the dressage score, in effect, can always be lower. You don't get any points for style or good riding on XC or stadium. At the upper levels especially, if dressage is where you can really improve your placing, maybe riders are spending too much time schooling dressage. Maybe they're also falling into the hyperlexion Catch 22 that has (as discussed in previous posts) "infected" straight Dressage. If Dressage scores are what separate the winners from the also rans, and certain things, like fancy movement achieved through hyperflexion, etc.) are rewarded in the dressage scores, then someone is going to go there (hyperflexion) with their dressage training, and once someone is doing it, others will have to to keep up.

Perhaps, illogically, we should disincentivise the pursuit of really good dressag scores. Instead, maybe there should be a minimum dressage score. In other words, as long as you score below 45? 50?, you have no dressage penalty points. You'd have to pick a score that a well-trained responsive horse without naturally flashy gates could achieve without being perfect that day.

Maybe this makes no sense at all, but the current trend seems to suggest two alternatives (1) a sport with the current severe safety crisis that still really tests XC or (2) "Dressage for Horses that can also Jump a course".

I totally agree. There's no way to improve your score in the XC or SJ phases. Dressage is the only place you have make your score better so the riders obviously train, train, train to get the advantage. Is there a numbers person who could come up with a way to improve your score?

1) -10 (or choose your number) for a clear XC round
2) -10 (ditto) for w/in 10 seconds +/- Optimum time
3) -10 (ditto) for double clear SJ

[JAGold]

I totally agree. There's no way to improve your score in the XC or SJ phases. Dressage is the only place you have make your score better so the riders obviously train, train, train to get the advantage. Is there a numbers person who could come up with a way to improve your score?

1) -10 (or choose your number) for a clear XC round
2) -10 (ditto) for w/in 10 seconds +/- Optimum time
3) -10 (ditto) for double clear SJ

You'd get the same effect on the final placings by just increasing the penalties for jumping or time faults. (Slightly more dramatic separation between those with multiple jumping faults and those with none than under a "flat rate" penalty.)

The bottom line is that when dressage is over, there is nothing else to separate those who have clean jumping rounds. So if there are 10 people in the division who are likely to jump around clean, the placings between those people will still be determined by their dressage scores even under the modification you propose.

[Gry2Yng]

You'd get the same effect on the final placings by just increasing the penalties for jumping or time faults. (Slightly more dramatic separation between those with multiple jumping faults and those with none than under a "flat rate" penalty.)

The bottom line is that when dressage is over, there is nothing else to separate those who have clean jumping rounds. So if there are 10 people in the division who are likely to jump around clean, the placings between those people will still be determined by their dressage scores even under the modification you propose.

If they are jumping around safely and finishing on their dressage score, then they have the luxury of the time to work on dressage. Maybe we need to do something in the qualifications to reward those who finish on the dressage. I still worry about the speed element as I think the current system encourages speed over safety, but making the big assumption that if you can finish on dressage you are doing something right, this should be rewarded some how.

If you want to stay at prelim forever, and you master the xc, then you spend your time improving your sj and dressage and do enough xc to maintain your skills. But I don't think we want people focused on dressage so they can "win" and relying on good luck and the good will of their horse to jump clean and fast. We all know horses at the N/
T/P level that jump clean no matter WHAT their riders do, so those riders are safe to work on dressage, because that's how you win. I don't know how we balance that situation.

[NCRider]

What about having a jump off in stadium to separate those who finished tied (i.e. dressage, XC and stadium without penalties or tied with a combination of penalties from all phases (using the "as long as you score below 45/50 you have no penalties" in dressage proposal). I know this would create issues with too many ties in the placings for those who don't end up in the jump off, but something could be figured out. As eventers, what do you think is more dangerous to XC safety, empasis on dressage or SJ?
I also think it would be interesting to see an honest poll on how much time riders spend schooling dressage (not just basic flatwork) compared to jumping, XC, general fitness, etc.) now vs. before.

[seeuatx]

I also think it would be interesting to see an honest poll on how much time riders spend schooling dressage (not just basic flatwork) compared to jumping, XC, general fitness, etc.) now vs. before.

Very interesting thought NCRider. When I had mine and was a working student in the summers, we had 2 flat days in the ring, 2 jumping (usually one sj schooling, one with some xc elements), and 2 days with interval training and hill work. Depending on the horse, flat days were sometimes turned into a plain old trailride day, and sometimes jumping days were a dressage day with only a jump or two... sometimes they got an extra day off). They all had at least 1 day a week off. This worked for the BN horses through the 2* horse.

[dq140]

I disagree with Mr. Wofford's statement. I rarely, if ever, see an event rider that shows true collection. I do see a lot of horses with inverted backs. When the horse's back is up, in any of the disciplines, there will be more athleticism regardless of who is seeing the distances to the fences! That is about the most you will ever get or want to get out of an event rider/horse; that, at least, the back is up. When the back is inverted, the horse is on the forehand and is more likely to experience losses of balance on x-country.

[Shrapnel]

Hate to disagree, but Bettina has been notorious for being pretty awful cross country.

I've heard it muted more than once that her record xc is poor because she dominates her horses so much in the dressage that they can no longer think for themselves. When she gets it wrong xc, there's no second independent brain to get her out of it
... Just putting forward what I've heard...

I agree jhodkin. I've heard the same thing about Bettina.

[J. Turner]

You'd get the same effect on the final placings by just increasing the penalties for jumping or time faults. (Slightly more dramatic separation between those with multiple jumping faults and those with none than under a "flat rate" penalty.)

The bottom line is that when dressage is over, there is nothing else to separate those who have clean jumping rounds. So if there are 10 people in the division who are likely to jump around clean, the placings between those people will still be determined by their dressage scores even under the modification you propose.

Thank you for the statistical clarification!

[mbj]

After reading these posts I have to point out that if we want a horse to think for himself, then it has to be okay for him to stop. So how do we train so that both horse and rider can distinguish between a "dirty" stop and a genuine one? The mare I had when I was a teen knew the difference. She accepted a smack if she was being a cow but would be indignant if she was unfairly punished.
Seems a difficult and narrow line we now tread between expecting a horse to trust us and "go" versus think for itself. And I personally do not like the combinations that don't let a horse see the problem. They piss me off, in fact.
I actually believe good dressage helps horses jump well. But at the upper levels, the muscling is quite different between a Grand Prix dressage horse and a three day horse. The latter may do best somewhere between the racehorse and the UL dressage horse-- able to rock back, but also able to gallop effortlessly.
And finally, I do think Steeplechase and roads and tracks really help safety-wise. These upper level event horses are fit and bold and those phases help them settle, so they can "think" better when they come to the more technical questions.Without roads and tracks and Steeplechase, speed on xc is more likely to kill.
Finally, I actually am pretty sure Darren and the other UL riders who had bad falls know and practice correct dressage, etc, etc. There is something badly wrong with eventing when good riders, training correctly on good horses risk death if they or their horse makes a mistake.

[mbj]

Clarifying the previous post. By combinations, I mean jump combinations where the first element hiides the next, etc.

[vineyridge]

If the ODCGs and Ingrid Klimke and Reiner Klimke are right, then Dressaging the dressage test is going to impact XC performance for most horses and riders, and not for the better.

Is that what is wanted? Certainly some very exceptional combinations will ace the new and subjective dressage tests as well as run safely XC, and we all know that those combinations exist (KS, Pippa Funnell, Andrew Hoy, for example), but for the rest of the horses and riders Dressage (not dressage) is counterproductive.

Just because this is the 21st century does not mean that we know more about horses and riding than the ODCGs. Horses were far more integral to their lives than they are to ours, even to professionals today.

I'd like to see the Caprilli seat used more today. I've seen an awful lot of modern day UL riders who spend most of their jumping time in the back seat, which is the old hunting seat.

[pwynnnorman]

Hate to disagree, but Bettina has been notorious for being pretty awful cross country.

I've heard it muted more than once that her record xc is poor because she dominates her horses so much in the dressage that they can no longer think for themselves. When she gets it wrong xc, there's no second independent brain to get her out of it
... Just putting forward what I've heard...

I'd say her recent results show she -- as anyone can -- has improved considerably. Definitely an impression that needs updating. She is a ton more accurate and more aggressive these days. Plus, she isn't along in her ability to produce the dressage and get around the courses. The Germans, in general, have shown that can be done. Now you'll argue they don't, like it's a blanket thing, when, just like with Bettina, it hardly is. The GErmans, like Bettina, have also improved x-c considerably--and we aren't talking perfection here. We're talking about advanced dressage and its relationship to x-c. Seems to me the point is that the top riders prove in every big event that it is more than possible. Everyone else just needs to up the bar to join them (or not).

Funnily enough, though, I'd say Badminton today did NOT provide me which any additional evidence to support this contention!


PWynn - perhaps as an owner of a horse that has been both brilliant and had hiccoughs xc. Teddy seems catty, like Charisma. He seems like a horse that thinks for himself. To me he is the ultimate event horse. I think massive gaits and collection shouldn't be emphasized in dressage. The qualities that make a greatest jumping event horse should be. Dressage should be the embodiment of those qualities. Obviously Teddy's stride and power speak for themselves, so how do they express themselves in dressage?



Jodkin, thanks, but I try not to consider Teddy at all in these discussions. I'm tickled pink that the big movers don't always get around and that a so-so dressage horse can still catch up with them in x-c and stadium, but frankly, I think the current courses favor the likes of Teddy and Poggio (and their accurate, experienced riders). The challenges of what course designers are doing today favors them, but maybe put others at risk. So I try to debate these issues from as objective a perspective as I can.

[JER]

Pippa Funnel and Supreme Rock/Prinmore's Pride

Both horses have scored 10s, both are full TBs,

Primmore's Pride has some unknowns in his pedigree. His dam was out of a mare of unknown breeding.

Supreme Rock is registered ISH, his dam was IDSH with some unknowns in her breeding as well, he's probably 7/8ths TB.

[lstevenson]

After reading these posts I have to point out that if we want a horse to think for himself, then it has to be okay for him to stop.


No it is not OK for a horse that is being allowed to think for himself to stop. Why would you think that?

Think for himself means taking care of his own footwork, not deciding whether or not to jump.

[flyracing]

What about having a jump off in stadium to separate those who finished tied (i.e. dressage, XC and stadium without penalties or tied with a combination of penalties from all phases (using the "as long as you score below 45/50 you have no penalties" in dressage proposal). I know this would create issues with too many ties in the placings for those who don't end up in the jump off, but something could be figured out. As eventers, what do you think is more dangerous to XC safety, empasis on dressage or SJ?
I also think it would be interesting to see an honest poll on how much time riders spend schooling dressage (not just basic flatwork) compared to jumping, XC, general fitness, etc.) now vs. before.


There are three phases, why pick from only two to emphasize?
To emphasize xc:
- Only way to be clean is be 5 seconds +/- optimum; otherwise, 1 min slow and 1 min fast is equally penalized!
- Add a subjective judging to the xc phase
- have two optimum time "spots" one at halfway and one at finish to encourage riders to learn equal pace throughout the course and not run at the end.

And I like this last idea for prelim and above, what do you guys think? I know this would require more jump judge training, but its not very hard to tell the diff between the two:
- make a "stop" (horse stops direclty infront of fence w/out turning) 8 penalties (same as sj stop) and a "runout" (horse runs away from fence) the traditional 20 penalties. Would this help with the jump at all cost mentality because a stop at a fence is more likely a honest/saving/rider error stop and a runout is much more of a disobedience/ outright refusal of the horse that should be penalized more heavily.

[adamsmom]

No it is not OK for a horse that is being allowed to think for himself to stop. Why would you think that?

Think for himself means taking care of his own footwork, not deciding whether or not to jump.

So.....if the rider so badly screws up that it would be dangerous for the horse to jump, he should jump anyway?

Isn't that just a bit counter-intuitive?

[flyracing]

No it is not OK for a horse that is being allowed to think for himself to stop. Why would you think that?

Think for himself means taking care of his own footwork, not deciding whether or not to jump.


I highly doubt that person ment the horses should be able to stop whenever they want, but that the horse should know that if it will not being able to clear a jump safely is should know it has the choice save its self and the rider by not jumping. GP jumping horses and riders do this rather than risk crashing a fence/injury/loss of confidence and yet you don't see those horses choosing to stop for no reason anymore than eventing horses. If anything a horse that has not crashed horribly at a fence and instead stopped will be a better jumper with more confidence.

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my horse slam on the brakes at the last second when he knows he's not going to make it than flip over a fence because he's not allowed to think for himself.

[adamsmom]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have my horse slam on the brakes at the last second when he knows he's not going to make it than flip over a fence because he's not allowed to think for himself.

Ditto - having been in that position on occasion....thank God he stopped!!

[flyracing]

One more thought: I think the no stopping no matter what thing can be a good thing when riding at BN-training (depending on the horses comparitive ability) when it can be safe to practically force a horse over a small fence. I jumped plenty of 2'7" fences on greenies from a sideways standstill, but there is a whole other reality at the upper levels. I personally feel at the upper levels there is no room for putting winning above the safety of the horse! If the rider screws up and horribly messes up the ride take the fault and comeback around again instead of sticking to the old school mentality that came from a whole other time in this sport.

[lstevenson]

So.....if the rider so badly screws up that it would be dangerous for the horse to jump, he should jump anyway?

Isn't that just a bit counter-intuitive?


If the horse can think for himself he won't let himself get put in a situation where it would be dangerous for him to jump.

If you watch carefully, you will see it happen all of the time. Some horses appear obedient most of the time, but when the rider is about to screw them up takeoff wise, they take over and take care of themselves.

[Equa]

Interesting that the German eventers are trained by Christipher Bartle - producer of GP dressage horses (esp Wilt Trout - ex steeplechaser) AND three-day horses to the highest level.

It would also be interesting to hear what HE had to say on the matter...

Also, the sort of muscling that upper-level GP dressage horses develop over many years is not what can be built on a horse that is going eventing...

[KayBee]

I can't for the life of me remember where I read this, and I've searched through all the books I have, but I seem to remember reading SOMEWHERE that someone (again, can't remember) thought that it was counter-productive to train an event horse past a certain level in dressage because it "trained out" the ability to think for itself.

In a previous thread someone mentioned Reiner Klimke, I think, and a horse (an eventer) of his who'd been injured. While recovering, he'd worked on the horse's dressage and the horse had improved tremendously/moved up a level or so. But when they went to go cross-country again, Klimke said that he could feel the horse waiting to be told what to do whereas, previously, the horse had been bolder and more of a thinker cross-country.

I believe he retired the horse from eventing.

[SandyUHC]

lstevenson, yes -- unless the horse is repeatedly and soundly beaten for stopping. Then his self-preservation becomes launching even from a bad spot. (Not that that necessarily happens at the **** level, but believe me, it happens.)

[grayarabpony]

Much of this discussion is moot anyway -- esp. posts like the above -- as event horses are not that highly trained in dressage anyway. Certainly not enough so that they'll stop thinking for themselves.

[seeuatx]

On stopping....

There is a huge difference between a "dirty" stop and a legitimate one (kind of like spooking or anything else). Dirty stops need nipped in the bud, legitimate ones I chalk up to my mistake.

I like my horses to be smart enough to get their legs out of the way, and to cover a miss. But in certain situations that would be impossible, in those... yes I want them to stop. And no, they will not be punished for it. I will take my well deserved 20 penalties, thank you.

[adamsmom]

If the horse can think for himself he won't let himself get put in a situation where it would be dangerous for him to jump.

If you watch carefully, you will see it happen all of the time. Some horses appear obedient most of the time, but when the rider is about to screw them up takeoff wise, they take over and take care of themselves.

I would agree with that last sentence, but maintain that often taking care of themselves means stopping. I would never punish a horse that stopped in his and my best interest. That would never be considered a dirty stop.
I believe even some of the great ones have stopped or run out when the situation warranted.

[fooler]

All of the Old Dead Cavalry Guys believed that dressage, as that was meant in the time of the ODCGs, was not good for horses who had to jump. Littauer, in particular, makes a point of that in his writings. They did believe strongly in flatwork and gymnastics, but not in "real" dressage--and precisely for the reasons that have been discussed here.

That's another major way the sport has changed from its roots by increasing the emphasis on "real" dressage as opposed to a test of trainability--the kind of test that horses and riders in "the old days" simply had to survive to get to the meat of eventing. :)


Another thing to remember when speaking of the ODCGs: In their mind a 'trained' or schooled horse could shorten/lengthen ( some collection/extension), do lateral work (shoulder in, haunces in, half-pass), flying changes, ride across country in a balanced frame and jump x-c & stadium.
This was just basic schooling. Read Col Podhajsky books. His 'Complete' training of the horse & rider includes everything we do in Eventing! And he was part of the Spanish Riding School!

Once a horse received good 'basic' training, see above, then the Dressage training could begin. This focused on improving the half-pass, adding side-pass, improving the collected/extended gaits, adding the multiple tempis, etc, etc. What a shock to me when auditing a Franz Rochowansky clinic (years ago) and hear him state that every trained horse should do shoulder in & haunches in. Shoulder in & haunches in is not 'Dressage'.

Today - most of us think we are 'doing' dressage when most of those ODCGs were just training the horse.

'We' should step back and remember where we came from in order to decide where we are going. Also keep this in mind when interpreting comments from some of our 'old guys'.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Another thing to remember when speaking of the ODCGs: In their mind a 'trained' or schooled horse could shorten/lengthen ( some collection/extension), do lateral work (shoulder in, haunces in, half-pass), flying changes, ride across country in a balanced frame and jump x-c & stadium.
This was just basic schooling. Read Col Podhajsky books. His 'Complete' training of the horse & rider includes everything we do in Eventing! And he was part of the Spanish Riding School!

Once a horse received good 'basic' training, see above, then the Dressage training could begin. This focused on improving the half-pass, adding side-pass, improving the collected/extended gaits, adding the multiple tempis, etc, etc. What a shock to me when auditing a Franz Rochowansky clinic (years ago) and hear him state that every trained horse should do shoulder in & haunches in. Shoulder in & haunches in is not 'Dressage'.

Today - most of us think we are 'doing' dressage when most of those ODCGs were just training the horse.

'We' should step back and remember where we came from in order to decide where we are going. Also keep this in mind when interpreting comments from some of our 'old guys'.

I think that this is also where Jimmy is coming from....

Being "trained" as in moving off and being in front of a rider's leg, straight, forward, supple and able to extend and shorten are all important for xc and jumping. But that is where it ends. The more collected movements and more advanced dressage has never had a place in eventing (or jumpers). That is not what the dressage phase was supposed to test. Dressage in eventing is NOT the same thing as straight dressage just as the goal of straight dressage is not the same as eventing dressage.

I think that as dressage scores have gotten more important perhaps riders are spending too much time inside the white box instead of honing their and their horses' xc instincts. There will always be exceptions....but the BEST show jumpers and best xc horses that I've had the pleasure to know (and a few were very well known) were not good "Dressage" horses. This doesn't mean that they were rank, standing on their hind legs (well not always) blowing off input from their riders....just that it they were not Dressage horses....and definitely had their own mind and own input when jumping.

[purplnurpl]

The level of dressage is not the issue.

It's giraffe syndrome.
That is what my friend and I call it.

So far this year after we have received our tests we look at each other and think, damn, I forgot to school for the past month in a chamboe thingy or however you spell it.

If my horse was stuck in the bridle maybe I would score better.

Think about it, how many horses do you see jumping around advanced these days that have no idea how to use their necks? More then I would like to admit.

when a leg is hung, the neck is needed.

good jumpers need to use thier neck, shoulder, back, and abbs.
The way dressage judging goes these days causes changes in training, which in turn produce horses that jump only with their butt and abbs and have a stiff back and neck.

[Jumper_Dad]

Having a great deal of personal respect for Mr. Wofford's view and his lifetime commitment to the sport of eventing, his idea has a lot of merit -- as eventing horses have become more specialized due to the increase in technicality of the dressage and SJ phases, we have 'trained' out of them, the quick thinking skills needed to 'survive' out xcntry...please ask yourselves this and take a moment to ponder it's potential impact on your event partner -- compare how many hours your horse works on dressage and SJ compared to running xcntry? At the upper levels and also at the amateur levels as well, I would imagine (as in my own personal case), the lion's share of training under saddle time is spent on dressage and SJ work...with less time spent on xcntry. Of course, there are no easy answers or simple fixes...

[pwynnnorman]

Think about it, how many horses do you see jumping around advanced these days that have no idea how to use their necks? More then I would like to admit.

when a leg is hung, the neck is needed.

good jumpers need to use thier neck, shoulder, back, and abbs.
The way dressage judging goes these days causes changes in training, which in turn produce horses that jump only with their butt and abbs and have a stiff back and neck.

That's an interesting observation. I'll admit to being quite critical of what I see as the "total submission" aspect of how so many eventers seem to ride the topline. I watched one lesson in which the rider was exhorted to have the horse's nose on (but it actually went behind) the verticle from the very first step off into the lesson. No stretching, no creating implusion, no matching engagement with the extent of flexion demanded--in other words, no connecting what the back and hind end is doing to what is being demanded of the front end.

Given that, I, too, can see how that trend might have created more horses who aren't accustomed to using their toplines and shoulders when they need to.

[snoopy]

good jumpers need to use thier neck, shoulder, back, and abbs.
The way dressage judging goes these days causes changes in training, which in turn produce horses that jump only with their butt and abbs and have a stiff back and neck.



:yes::yes::yes:

[ideayoda]

I just looked at an entire folder of lovely artistic photo of Rolex. But the equitational/balance for the majority of riders is so far from effective caprilli seats of the past (as it was in Turin). Without that easy rider balance the horses have to carry a negative weight/hanging hands/etc and that's tiring. And what is up with such long stirrups xcountry (esp at * events)? I don't get all the changes in rider's seats over the last 20 years, and do not see it as a positive thing.

[Mozart]

I would be really really interested in what those two think about all this. As for "too much dressage interferes with a horse's ability to jump" ...well, I would suggest you watch Franke Sloothak school a horse.

I really haven't seen any event horses that are in danger of too much dressage.... and by that I mean dressage, not Dressage.

ideayoda, equa and purplnurpl....well said, all of you.

oh and you too fooler.

The thinking for themselves thing is v. interesting though.... at some point you do want the horse to say "are you nuts? THIS is how we have to do this thing"

[seeuatx]

The dressage me checking in from the big white box ;).

I took several horses (all dressage horses) out to play on the hills yesterday. They all had a great time, and really came through their backs. I have always had the experience that their cadence, impulsion, and stretch all improve dramatically through hill work.... and also their work ethic.

However, I cam back to the barn after 20 minutes on horse #3, and was asked by another boarder why I was out there. She is straight dressage, and it never occurred to her that work outside the arena would be beneficial... she does trail ride at the walk occasionally, but she never thought to work out there.

I tend to live in my own little bubble sometimes, and I am curious if it seems that when schooling "dressage" people are forgetting that it can be done anywhere. Is this a symptom of the "Big D versus d dressage"? I would love to hear what you all think.

[Beverley]

On stopping....

I like my horses to be smart enough to get their legs out of the way, and to cover a miss. But in certain situations that would be impossible, in those... yes I want them to stop. And no, they will not be punished for it. I will take my well deserved 20 penalties, thank you.

Yes, that's my kind of horse, too. Example, one horse I hunted for 20 years, who stopped with me exactly once. And he was right. Idiots had put coop in a spot where there was no landing zone. We went 20 yards up the fence line and popped over the wire.

Over the years I've had horses who could 'take over' and leave long, or shuffle in an extra half stride, to negotiate tricky fences. But there are lots of different circumstances in which events conspire to prevent them from adjusting completely- and I am always happy that they have the sense to say 'nope, not this time.' In such cases I have never had one not jump the particular obstacle well on the second presentation.

[sm]

.. it never occurred to her that work outside the arena would be beneficial... she does trail ride at the walk occasionally, but she never thought to work out there.

I tend to live in my own little bubble sometimes, and I am curious if it seems that when schooling "dressage" people are forgetting that it can be done anywhere. Is this a symptom of the "Big D versus d dressage"? I would love to hear what you all think.

My TB was schooled and ridden to GP by an "R" Dressage judge and he worked out in open fields as a break from the ring. Also was cooled out often by walking around the pastures as another break. Got some hills in there without out making a big production of "time to build muscle" so that helped too.

Just to note: I always abhored heavy contact and I always encouraged him to think for himself. For instance, he didn't have big WB gaits going for him, but what he did have was pride in his work. So I built up and encouraged his own decision making so he would have that sparkle and pride in the arena. What a craftsmen he turned out to be. Regional champion against imported WBs and USDF All Breeds champion.

Like ideayoda's posts were alluding to: I don't know if it's dressage itself that's the problem, or the way we practice it today.

[dq140]

The level of dressage is not the issue.

It's giraffe syndrome.
That is what my friend and I call it.

So far this year after we have received our tests we look at each other and think, damn, I forgot to school for the past month in a chamboe thingy or however you spell it.

If my horse was stuck in the bridle maybe I would score better.

Think about it, how many horses do you see jumping around advanced these days that have no idea how to use their necks? More then I would like to admit.

when a leg is hung, the neck is needed.

good jumpers need to use thier neck, shoulder, back, and abbs.
The way dressage judging goes these days causes changes in training, which in turn produce horses that jump only with their butt and abbs and have a stiff back and neck.

Quite impossible to get even a degree of collection when the back is down and the neck is stiff!

[Maren]

Quote: That is NOT a fault of 'collectability' but of bad technique and improper understanding about how to put a horse to the bit.

Thank you ideayoda!

The right examples are all here, Ingrid Klimke at Philipe Karl at the top of my list. Especially the latter - the lightness and self carriage he gets going in his horses is just out of this world, no matter if in the sand box or jumping them out over more than respectable obstacles. His lessons are a lot about getting the horse to respond and "think" independly. And the consistency with which Ingrid can climb into any saddle and look good doing it plus train the horses up those levels should tell us something about how much initiative is left in her mounts.

It's Dressage, not dressage that is causing trouble. And sadly, not only for eventers these days.

My grand father was cavalry, and my first trainer. I have photos of him from the 30s and 40s jumping horses over obstacles you would never even THINK about jumping over - crazy times. The point is: that man had a seat and a way of training his horses that is just not out there anymore today. Or rarely. With the way Dressage is deteriorating, so is eventing. Maybe because of it, maybe not. Can't say.

On Bettina: please don't forget her best ever, Watermill Stream. That was an amazing horse - before she became a Hoy and a sorry whining "Gold" medallist.

[tlw]

The following quote from "Tuning Up With Cross Country Gymnastics" was published in the April, 1993 U S Eventing publication and written by Jimmy Wofford (Fifi Coles). I can appreciate that everyone has their own opinion on the issue but I think Jimmy has more credibility on this subject than just about anybody. Anyway, I thought it an interesting tidbit from 15 years ago.


"The concept to the horse is: When you are presented to a fence, you jump it, that’s all. Bad approach, good approach, good ride, bad ride – it matters not. You see the fence, you jump it!"

[tlw]

Lots of discussion on this post about this concept. Is there a consensus on what level (in Dressage terms) flatwork becomes dressage and dressage becomes Dressage (i.e., 2d, 3d level, 4th level, PSG,etc.)?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

The following quote from "Tuning Up With Cross Country Gymnastics" was published in the April, 1993 U S Eventing publication and written by Jimmy Wofford (Fifi Coles). I can appreciate that everyone has their own opinion on the issue but I think Jimmy has more credibility on this subject than just about anybody. Anyway, I thought it an interesting tidbit from 15 years ago.


"The concept to the horse is: When you are presented to a fence, you jump it, that’s all. Bad approach, good approach, good ride, bad ride – it matters not. You see the fence, you jump it!"


Very true...but in a recent xc schooling with him, he did say that with the more techincal questions now presented, he is not as "upset" with an occassional glance off. I think it boils down to the honesty of the horse (and how bad the ride was).....They need to give you an honest try and their thought process must be to try and jump the fence....but it is acceptable if you just really get to a fence wrong that the right choice may be to stop. At a single fence, the horse should always jump...no excuse....but in a techincal combination with related distances (and blind turns)...there is a chance that you can just get to a fence so wrong that the horse may not be able to jump out or have time to process the question.

His jumping training...as well as many good eventers that I know....is still to focus on getting the horse to think for itself...and for the rider to be correct in their balance and position to let the horse do their job.

[sabryant]

Lots of discussion on this post about this concept. Is there a consensus on what level (in Dressage terms) flatwork becomes dressage and dressage becomes Dressage (i.e., 2d, 3d level, 4th level, PSG,etc.)?

Flatwork becomes dressage when the horse develops self carriage. Self carriage cannot happen until the horse is over and through the back. Collection cannot happen until self carriage has been established. Going up the levels of dressage requires greater degrees of collection from Second Level through GP. It takes months/years to develop the amount of collection needed for FEI levels. I wonder if event riders have enough days of the week to develop collection at all.

[Beverley]

"The concept to the horse is: When you are presented to a fence, you jump it, that’s all. Bad approach, good approach, good ride, bad ride – it matters not. You see the fence, you jump it!"

I don't think anyone has disagreed with this fundamental concept. I'm not talking about the obedience/disobedience aspects, or even the boldness/chicken aspects, but rather the angle of the horse's sense of self preservation. It's been my pleasure to own and jump a number of horses who truly would and could jump anything you pointed them at. And were athletic enough to keep us vertical in cases of rider error, poor footing, what have you. I still prefer a horse that has the sense to NOT jump an obstacle if it hasn't been able to process and solve the dilemma (and if the rider is not CLEARLY conveying to the horse, let's go, I've got it solved for you).

[Bensmom]

If memory serves, Jack LeGoff said it in the old USCTA Book of Eventing (a great book I unfortunately loaned out and it was never returned). The warning was about taking away the horse's initiative with over-schooling in dressage.

He told the story of an event horse that was injured and during the down time he schooled it to quite a high level in dressage. He felt the horse was never the same after that due to the fact that he was always looking to be told what to do rather than thinking for himself. Possibly an even more dangerous situation in today's context?

:yes:

I LOVE this book. I found mine through one of the used book sites years ago, and rather than loan it out, I bought someone their own copy.

Now, since I've moved, I have no idea which box it is in! :lol:

But, I just wanted to chime in from several pages back and confirm that this is where that comment comes from :)

libby

[Mustang51]

It takes months/years to develop the amount of collection needed for FEI levels. I wonder if event riders have enough days of the week to develop collection at all.

And I really wonder if THAT isn't the issue. Dressage takes time. Higher level dressage takes even more time.

I'm skeptical that the skills required for correct higher collection actually detract from cross country ability. BUT, if trainers have to spend more and more time working on the collection required for tempis, pirroetts, or whatever they are talking about adding to the tests, when do they get to spend the time practicing ballance at speed?

Good, safe, controlled, ballanced xc requires dressage skills, yes, but practicing slow, collected, work in a deep dressage saddle only goes so far towards developing those reactions at high speed in a short 2-point. The skills are certainly related, but I don't think they are identical.

On xc, good dressage skills must be performed while at high speed... Will we have time left to practice that as the Dressage tests get harder? Will we as riders have the proper muscle fitness for 12 minutes of 2-point, if we spend 90% of our schooling in a dressage saddle?

[canyonoak]

A solid upper level event horse should have the strength and balance of a
3rd-4th level dressage horse.
BUT--the rein connection SHOULD be different--and this is where so much of
the problem comes from.

A pure dressage horse is taught to listen and react to every nuance of the
rein, because ours is a sport of artificiality, of artistry on top of
performance, in which HOW something is accomplished is as important as WHAT is
accomplished in terms of a specific movement.

Any event horse 'listening' to the bit that much is going to put a leg wrong
somewhere. Period.

Eventing is an extroverted sport--the horse looks over the terrain and stays
catty, stays within itself, confident that the rider will stay out of the
way, trusting the horse to find a leg, to find a way over everything.

The main problem I see in eventing is bad riding.
I cannot even call it bad dressage. It is just plain bad riding.

Monkey business bits to teach the horse not to 'grab' the bit.
Weird head stuff to 'control' and otherwise get the horse to 'respect' the
rider.

All crap.

Any horse worried enough about a bit to not hold on to it during cross
country--as needed--is a horse that is going to be slow to a fence, a horse that
is going to be behind the bit, a horse that is going to be out of balance, a
horse that is not going to focus.

The result in dressage: bad marks.
The result in eventing? well, we all know the results, we've seen them or
heard about them.

Blaming course design is such a cop-out!
Too many event riders want to be able to tell their DQ friends how wussy
dressage is--and yet they want their own sport to be 'safe'.

Safety comes from knowledge and experience.
And safety around horses has never had a guarantee and never will.

But the best way to be 'safe' is to have a solid foundation--and most of the
event riders I see do NOT have a solid foundation. Because a solid
foundation for real eventing requires knowledge and experience of galloping over
terrain under various conditions--such as foxhunting, point-to-point, galloping
racehorses etc. And very very few eventers have this kind of background any
more.