USEA Blog - Great Jim Wofford Article!

[GreyDun]

Check out the latest and greatest from Jim - Equisearch posted a wonderful article (http://useventing.com/blog/?p=214) by him and it really hits the nail on the head. The end was quite good... I about teared up! Don't miss this one... :)

[RAyers]

Excellent article! He echoes my feelings exactly.

Reed

[SmallHerd]

Wonderful article! Thanks for the post.

[LAD]

No one could have said it better!

[J Swan]

Thank you so much for posting that. Jimmy Wofford is my hero - good man.

[Regal Grace]

and the heartbreaking point of the article is that they won't.

Quote J.Wofford..."It is clear in my mind: We now have an event that was designed by humans for humans rather than by humans for horses. Because of this, we have forced riders to cross the line between discipline and domination. It is sad to say, but all the changes our sport has recently endured have, each and every one, failed to produce the benefits that were predicted. I see no way back to the classic format, because the FEI is often in error but never in doubt, and the FEI makes the rules. In addition, our present bureaucracy is deeply and emotionally invested in the mistaken belief that there is some magic rule change, if only they can write it. For them to make a massive change in their mindset is too much to expect. I only wish legendary event horses like Charisma or Kilkenny had a voice in those committees to say, "Have you really thought about what you are asking us to do?"

Thank you Mr. Wofford.

[GreyDun]

Thought you guys would like it... how sad is the last part about:

"Due to the recent increased importance of dressage and show jumping to the competitive outcome, I have stopped telling people to find a horse with the "look of eagles." Horses who are successful in competition these days are extraordinary movers and powerful, careful show jumpers. But finding one who combines all this with the look of eagles is nearly impossible."

P.S. Reed - your horse has the look of eagles :D

[hookedoneventing]

This is a fabulous read, but in a sense sad because he hits the nail on the head and the way we are going is there any turning back?? makes me sad to think that the FEI will never listen....heck the new dressage tests coming out for FEI are even more technical...

[seeuatx]

Jimmy Wofford is my hero.

On the look of Eagles....

Horses who are successful in competition these days are extraordinary movers and powerful, careful show jumpers. But finding one who combines all this with the look of eagles is nearly impossible. Thus when we compromise, we must compromise on the horse's movement, not on his agility. I now recognize that more than ever these are the qualities we need, qualities of the horse's spirit. Certainly we need great movers and powerful jumpers, but above all we need a partner, not a slave. We need horses who are supremely courageous, fiercely independent and phenomenally agile. Find such a horse and treasure him. Teach him that you will trust him with your life. Give him the education he will need, and then sit quietly while he does the job you have very skillfully and very patiently taught him. He won't let you down. We owe all this and more to our horses. As Jackson Browne says, "There are lives in the balance."

[tle]

Wow! Awesome article.

... scampering off now to repost... :-)

[bambam]

wonderful article
but it makes me sad because how do you fix that? I am not sure we can since the FEI and the rest of the world do not seem to agree

[Regal Grace]

on this year's Rolex webcast the commentators (K.Millken and Boyd Martin I think) were saying that the current Dressage test would be changed again to make it more difficult. In other words moving it closer to Grand Prix. Neither seemed to be in favor of the change but it seems ULR's seem to have no sway with the FEI. Which is excactly what J.Wofford was saying.

I am not an Eventer just someone who loved watching the sport for the reasons summed by this quote of Jimmy in his article.

"but above all we need a partner, not a slave. We need horses who are supremely courageous, fiercely independent and phenomenally agile."

That was the beauty of it for me and I feel that organizations like FEI are killing it.

[Fence2Fence]

Wow. Just plain...wow!

[Saskatoonian]

Brilliant as always. Many, many thanks for posting. A copy will immediately be tucked into my copy of Training the Three Day Horse and Rider.

[pixie]

I have read EVERY blog, article, opinion and commentary posted on this BB as well as others. Mr. Wofford's article is the ONLY thing written thus far about these tradgedies that has made any sense to me. What an amazing viewpoint and very logically written.

[Hidden]

You don't "Fix it" with just rules and regs.. we bubble up from the bottom and fix the expectations. We can take this sport back and make it right and fun and fast and have that wonderful exhileration of the best ride ever again. Each of us has to do what we think best, and when we do, it will bubble up and "things" will start to be right again.

[hbm]

Here is the link straight to the story

http://equisearch.com/horses%5Friding%5Ftraining/english/eventing/wofford%5Feventing%5Flives%5F051408/

[wlrottge]

I enjoyed the quote a/b the FEI

"I see no way back to the classic format, because the FEI is often in error but never in doubt, and the FEI makes the rules. In addition, our present bureaucracy is deeply and emotionally invested in the mistaken belief that there is some magic rule change, if only they can write it. For them to make a massive change in their mindset is too much to expect. I only wish legendary event horses like Charisma or Kilkenny had a voice in those committees to say, "Have you really thought about what you are asking us to do?"

[riderboy]

That is a bit above me. I loved the quote about feeling good after a round is better than a ribbon. I see lower level riders pounding their horses show after show on concrete -like ground, poorly conditioned, ridden endlessly on the flat in draw reins for "points" or a ribbon. It's push to win even at low levels, not push to learn. I get his point, but how do we change?

[tlw]

Amen, brother Jim. Combine Jim's comments with Denny's in his "Recreational vs. Professional Eventing" post and I think we see the true big picture. Well said both of you gentlemen.

[pwynnnorman]

I really appreciated how clearly he seems to explain the state of the sport. The way he puts it, everything makes sense (regardless of whether the "thing" is good, bad or otherwise). I found myself thinking, "Oh, that's why..." a lot. And I loved how he brought in other sports to help explain things even further.

I have to admit I was also pleased to read him articulate what I argued a while back: that riding a distance IS important the higher up the levels you go. Now, whether is should be seems to be a very, very important distinction Wofford is making--a distinction that, I hope, course designers will put a lot of thought to. I'd be curious to listen in on discussions about that.

In fact, that gets me to the one thing I'd ask Wofford to clarify. I appreciate what he said about how horses will not fall if given a chance to figure things out for themselves, but I continue to mull over the problem of horses not walking the course and course designers building related distances that require control (that "stadium jumping" ride Wofford writes about). The horse can't avoid the fall if he doesn't know what's coming--or can he? (How the heck DO horses manage Bleecher's Brook at Aintree?). Isn't that an important difference between x-c and racing over timber: related distances? The timber horse, it seems to me, is a one-frame, one-stride ride, basically--isn't it? What impact on the horse's ability to save himself does having to be ridden in multiple states of speed and carriage have? I'd like to know Wofford's thoughts on what to do about course segments that do require riding off your eye.

And not just related distances (or whatever is a good way to describe them--not sure that's the best term). What about when the horse simply doesn't have time to think for itself (like blind turns or drops with jumps immediately after)? Is this something course designers should avoid? Or is this not really important at all because the horse can simply run out if it is unprepared to jump safely? These seems to me to be questions involving how course designers (or "the sport" itself) balance rider vs. horse challenges. I wonder what suggestions Wofford would have for doing that.

[RunForIt]

Its the kind of article, that you know without a shred of a doubt,...if Jimmy had said every word that he wrote, in person, to a packed house - there would be a silence heard round the world when he finished.

Truth speaks volumes.

[wlrottge]

Everything he puts out is well written, succinct and not over dramatized. Just the right length and worded to help guide the reader along his thought process based on his years of experience.

A TRUE asset to the HEART of the sport.

[TB or not TB?]

I got goosebumps reading that. I whole heartedly agree with every single word.

[Stay Gold]

What a great read...

I especially thought the section on

""Steeplechasing" Over Solid Jumps"

pointed out some good issues that I hadn't thought about - likely because I never participated in a long format event... How horses used to be able to have a miss during steeplechase over a "soft, forgiving brush fence" which would sharpen them up before going XC... And how horses no longer have that luxury.

I wish I knew a solution to this... Perhaps offer brush fences in warm up for XC in addition to solid fences?

[gully's pilot]

Wow. There's a reason this man is among my heroes.

[Long Shadow Farm]

I loffed the article.

And I totally agree that we as eventers should strive for a horse that is independent in his/her thinking and takes care of themselves. Then, with proper training and time, they are an asset to take care of you! I spend lots of time in the grids and over little cross country fences teaching my young horses to learn how to handle themselves and get over the fences themselves. My job is to get them to the fence in the best balance possible, but their job is to figure out how to safely get over it. I think we are losing some of this independent thinking in the upper level horses. Lots of jumping on loose rein allows them to figure it out for themselves.

Kudos to Wofford............

Bobbi

[luveventing]

THAT is why he is one of the great. Just simply amazing in his insight, research and knowledge. Too bad he is on his way to retiring just when we need him the most.... if only those in charge would actually listen.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

The best as always.

[Gry2Yng]

Every word is true. Now what?

[lstevenson]

Too bad he is on his way to retiring just when we need him the most.... if only those in charge would actually listen.



:yes: If only.

[Kementari]

Amen, Jimmy.

Now how do we FIX it?

[Fence2Fence]

I know Pwyn will tar and feather me for this ;) but it's time to bring back the long format.


Not to diverge too off topic, but are there any 'long formats' left in Britain or Europe?

[RunForIt]

Amen, Jimmy.

Now how do we FIX it?

I'll suggest something someone we admire recently wrote:

"We don’t have to change the sport. We have to change way the sport is being played by the players." - Danny Warrington

[bornfreenowexpensive]

For any one interested. Jim has written more on his web site.

http://jimwofford.blogspot.com/

And to watch the link of the Grand National is incredible. You don't see a single one of the loose horses take a flyer (or long spot).....kinda makes you go ummmm.

[RAyers]

I also like the fact Wofford called us "experts." ;) Wait until he hears more of our data.

Reed

[Kementari]

I'll suggest something someone we admire recently wrote:

"We don’t have to change the sport. We have to change way the sport is being played by the players." - Danny Warrington

But HOW? I agree that's a lovely sentiment, but just shaking our fingers at people isn't going to accomplish anything. :no:

[annikak]

Wow...just wow.

So much of what he said was...amazing. True. To the point. And I think...i think he may have been talking about more the the FEI.

There are so many things to say...so many. But he always says it better. and I still awed.

Thank You-

[mbarrett]

That was the most incredible piece of writing I have read in a long time.

Now, can that be forwarded to the FEI?

[tarheelmd07]

Beautiful article...

[LynLyn]

I admire this man more than I can say. I did watch part of the steeplechase and the first thing that went through my mind was that the two riderless horses were doing quite a good job of staying in the lead. I hope he will be at the USEA meeting in June.

""....because the FEI is often in error but never in doubt..."

SNORT!

[blackwly]

Fabulous, fabulous article. I am going to go out, set up some grids, and stick my hands on the withers and let my horse figure it out.

[J Swan]

A couple of people have asked - what can we do?

Well - speaking as an outsider - I can tell you what Jimmy has told us (foxhunters). He's written articles on what each sport can learn from the other.

And perhaps, for all of us (from every discipline) a good thing to do might be to look beyond our sport to what is going on in the others - and learn from them.

We've become so specialized - and eventing is a sport that does not (at least until recently) reward the specialist. It was supposed to be an all around test.

So for Jane Doe eventer and Dobbin toodling about - at any level - is there something to be learned from endurance riders about conditioning and veterinary care? Is there something to be learned from the foxhunters ability to travel over (and jump) over incredibly difficult terrain with nary a misstep - for hours?

Those are my thoughts. Last season I commented that what I really needed was a few lessons on the longe. (you don't hear that type of comment out foxhunting - trust me). Anyway - some folks think that if they need help with their riding - it's got to come from within their sport.

Personally - I don't mind looking outside my sport for solutions and help - and education. So I like to keep an eye out for things my fellow horsemen are doing - that works for them and their horses.

Jimmy Wofford says the same thing so I can't be too far off the mark!

[LisaB]

Why the feck isn't he our coach???
I keep shaking my head on that one.

[SLW]

Great points JSwan. He hit the ball out of the park sharing those observations.

Meanwhile, as I read it the voice that was narrating the article was Charlton Heston's voice as Moses in "The Ten Commandments". ;) (Ought to add, I've never heard Mr. Wofford own voice.)

[denny]

Beautifully written, as always, but I found Jim`s analysis ultimately depressing, especially the part about the FEI being too obdurate to admit they (it?) made a mistake.
Sure, get a great horse, foxhunt, trailride over bad ground, teach him to be self reliant, then trust him to the tender mercies of the FEI? As they make dressage more technical, show jumping ditto, and still retain the cluster effect of jumps on xc?
The solutions, it strikes me, are in the hands of others.
Don`t say Jim didn`t warn you a few years ago, URLs. You didn`t listen then, and I highly doubt you`ll listen now.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Why the feck isn't he our coach???
I keep shaking my head on that one.

He's far too smart for that, I'd say...

[silver pine]

I have to agree with Denny, while I loved evey inch of Jim's article the end result was "you need to be commited" level depression. It seems from his view point there is not much we can do until the ULR's decide their lives are worth more than their livelihoods and out up a fight with the FEI. Surley other countries have similar occurances. Id Jim so ahead of the curve that his counterparts in England, NZ, Australia, Ireland, Brazil ect have not noticed the same problems? Too much collection = not enough independant thought from the horse. Are they schooling differently accross the pond to prevent the same dependance? Is it all a lost cause? Say it aint so or we will all be off to the Doctor's for a prozac prescription :-(

[Elghund2]

It seems that one option would be to have US eventing withdraw from the FEI. I keep hearing how the Olympics are not the highest level of competition, so why stay? If the US pulled out of the FEI would other countries follow suit? Would other majoe events?

[denny]

The sport of eventing has become the business of eventing for several hundred riders, worldwide, who derive income proportionate to the number of horses they ride, the numbers of "owners" they have----their favorite word, "owner"---, the number of "clients" they take to events---2nd favorite word----, the number of horses they sell, all the pieces which make a sport into an industry.
This has been the description of the hunter-jumper industry forever, but only for about the past 15-20 years has eventing gone strongly down that slippery otter slide.
And, to quote Bruce Springsteen, "It ain`t coming back---"
Not for Jim Wofford, not for anyone.
That`s why I see this sport splitting more and more in two, the business piece, and the sport piece.
Would it could go back to Jim`s and my time, but I don`t see it.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

It seems from his view point there is not much we can do until the ULR's decide their lives are worth more than their livelihoods and out up a fight with the FEI. [snip]

Too much collection = not enough independant thought from the horse. Are they schooling differently accross the pond to prevent the same dependance? Is it all a lost cause? Say it aint so or we will all be off to the Doctor's for a prozac prescription :-(

Now, I am a "glass half full" gal to the point of craziness sometimes, BUT the glimmer of hope I saw was - there is something key we can each do in the training of our horses -Don't fall into the trap! The very trap many (some?) on this board advocate of "don't move up until you break X score dressge, don't move up if you have rails SJ. Train train train. Get more control!"

Instead, like he said, do grids on a loopy rein - teach the horse to figure out the footwork on his own. Teach him to lengthen his body to get over the low wide oxer, and to compress it himself to fit in the bounce asked by the next elements. Sure, first time through he may send rails flying, but better there than oevr solid stuff. And if he sends the rails flying the same way the second time - he may not be smart and catty enough to be an event horse - find him another job or another person.

Be progressive in our training - but don't confuse perfect control with perfect training. Winning the dressage ain't worth beans if you don't live through the competition - so train the ability to lengthen and shorten frame and stride, and to change bend fluidly, but keep the absolute focus on the self carriage in dressage. Only do what is sustainable for that horse with that strength - don't hold him up. Set up and allow.

Continue that thought in the jumping, and really get to know your horse - how much can he compress and extend, and how comfortable is he with various questions, and how quickly can he process a sea of rails?

Progressively practice all that, and progressively increase the amount he needs to sit to clear the jump (aka, raise the jumps appropriately) and progressively increase your confidence in your eye, and understanding at what height your horse needs your help - needs you to be unfailingly accurate to clear the fence - and for me at least, probably avaid jumping solid obstacles that are that height. Stick to Prelim if my horse needs my help to clear 3'9".

Narrows the pool for my **** horses, but increases our longevity, no matter what the FEI gnomes devise....

[IFG]

Great article. It explains a lot. So basically, we are all better riders, but we have managed to dis-empower our horses in the process.

[Stewie]

What a great article.
The Grand National is fascinating, and those jockeys are amazing. It really is eye opening that they have such balance with their horses, and don't interfere with their rhythm by sitting and driving.
There's a movie called 'Champions' (Netflix has it, for sure) that's the story of a Grand National jockey and his horse. The camera work shows just how stupidly massive those jumps and ditches are. Jump jockeys must be the epitome of "athletic and brave".

[saje]

I posted this on another board, but I'll add it here too, FWIW:

The Wofford piece is great, and it gives me hope that I am on the right track. I do tend to ride on a looser rein, and have always let K do much of the figuring out of things in his training. So far so good:D At AECs I did the Darren/Karen coursewalk, which was interesting. Karen was sporting a newly broken collarbone, thanks to a young horse in training at home totally getting his feet tangled in a tiny X (at least it was something like that, young horse making a hash of a small fence at any rate). In the midst of the walk they'd been of course discussing approaches and speeds and what the horse sees, and I took the opportunity to ask Karen her thoughts on teaching the horse to think for itself out on course. I'd been going to add something about how much responsibility for the jump should be the horse's vs the rider's, but I never got the chance because she cut me off saying "well, this is what happens when they are left to themselves!"And pointed at her sling. She kinda made me feel like an idiot, really.

But I've always thought (and she didn't much change my mind), that there is only so much we can teach or tell a horse via the aids. There is *no way* we can completely understand what it takes for a horse to clear a given fence, so how can we expect to be completely in control up there? The horse knows far better than any human how to keep itself out of trouble if it is allowed to learn that as it goes - at least the smart ones do. Survival of the fittest? Remember that particular instinct? Out in the wild the ones that make mistakes and live had better learn or they won't get a second chance at it. In a riding horse we obviously don't want to kill the slow thinking, needy ones by putting them in danger over and over. But we as the "intelligent" part of the equation need to take along hard look at the horses in training, and take the slow learners and the ones that need immense amounts of help OUT of the more dangerous sports. A horse may have all the heart and speed and scope in the world, but if it can't jump without being told what to do every step of the way perhaps it belongs in a different discipline.

Questions: Does collection automatically = submission and therefore permanent lack of initiative? What about "self carriage"? Does that not equal "personal responsibility" (the horse's) for its way of going? Is it not possible to teach a horse that "in this small enclosed space, I need you to listen to me absolutely, but out there over the big fences I'll tell you where to go and try to warn you of what's coming, but you have to make decisions too" ?

I have no real basis for this, but I think that if the powers that be want to increase collection in the dressage tests, (ie:more rider influenced) they ought to make XC more straightforward, gallopy and less rider influenced. Show the obedience in dressage, the initiative and bravery on XC, and the partnership of both in the Stadium ring where miscommunication won't kill anyone.

[Mudroom]

An incredible article. IMHO, the best analysis and description of the problem I have seen. If Jimmy is at the safety meeting we ought to give him a standing ovation!

I think I will skip my dressage lesson next week and go do another hunter pace!

[Jealoushe]

I wish more people with his knowledge and experience would have their say as well...

brilliant to hear his thoughts..

[monstrpony]

Another "WOW" added to the bunch.

Really, really good.

[asterix]

I think Pwynn's question would be a great one to pose to JW in a follow-up.

Does current course design allow for a partnership most of the time? I know in my lowly experience as my horse (and I) get more confirmed at a level, I have to do less work (and make fewer mistakes anyway) to get him to understand the question. Coming into a complex, I try to rebalance and find the line I know from my course walk that I need. He listens, accepts the direction, and looks forward to understand what he then needs to do. When all that goes right, HE is the one figuring out the complex, but _I_ was the one that set it up.

In my experience in Area II there are lots of examples at T and P that allow for this partnership to develop. Is that lost up the levels?

And as for steeplechase jumps -- MCTA in Area II recently used a steeplechase fence as fence 3 or so on T-A (I believe) -- such a nice thing to get you rolling and establish a pace and rhythm. I would LOVE for the first couple of fences to be like that on most courses -- why not?

[Kementari]

J Swan - I totally agree with what you are saying. :yes: And I think I do a good job of it personally (at my little Smurf-y level ;)).

Though I have never hunted (more's the pity, and something I mean to rectify!), I do not, shall we say, restrict myself to eventing. My horses and I (at the lower levels - just like our eventing) do hunters, jumpers, dressage, western, gaming, and showmanship/halter - and that's just at shows. We also spend lots of time on trails of various descriptions, and dabble in driving (though I don't have a cart, so can't take the ultimate step, so to speak), and once or twice I did a bit of reining and a bit of vaulting. I know something about endurance (the baby was actually bred for it) and competitive trail, though I've not actually done them (I nearly had the chance to do endurance, under the guidance of someone very experienced, but he ended up getting injured and cut out that season, and then I moved :(). I was one of those 4-H kids who grew up riding anything with four good legs (brain optional... :eek:) and doing whichever activity happened to be going on at the time...

It is certainly valuable to see the connections between all of those, and I use each of them to better the others (eventing being my favorite - though not always primary - focus). I think people who have a single discipline (even if it's one made up of three disciplines ;)) really miss out on what horses have to offer, and deny themselves the chance to be better horse(wo)men.

But still, my question is, how do we get people to do this? It's clearly not acceptable for people to be crashing and burning on xc, but all the good advice in the world isn't going to stop some people (actually, a lot of people, I'd wager) from doing it the way they're doing it now, so long as the sport permits it and they're winning (or placing well) a good chunk of the time.

I think we need to either make it so the sport DOESN'T permit it (somehow), or make it so that those people aren't doing well (or both, really). I'm just not sure how we go about that...

[pwynnnorman]

I know Pwyn will tar and feather me for this ;) but it's time to bring back the long format.

No tar and feathering from this quarter, Fence2Fence. I had an epiphany a while back and have totally changed my stance on the value of the format.

However, I remain resigned to the fact that it cannot return due to the economics of it--and to the change in participants and their resources.

[LLDM]

While JW is always an entertaining read, and usually quite insightful - I am often depressed after I read him. I think it is his wistful looks at the past along with his assurance that we need it look quick and appreciate the tail end of perfection. Yeah. Bummer.

The good news is that he points out important pieces.

I think we take his advice at our own peril. Maybe we should school our horses to be more independent. But if the courses are not designed to test an independent horse, are we not doing them a disservice? Maybe we should have a long chat with the jumpers and the dressage folks. Maybe we are missing something from their worlds. Maybe they don't want as much "submission" as we think. Maybe they like a real partner too. Have we really asked?

I DO think he is right in that our three pieces/phases don't fit together anymore. But that can be fixed. In a variety of ways (which is the source of all the current confusion, no?). I think that roads and tracks and steeplechase used to provide a transition between the precision of dressage and the exuberance of XC. Maybe what we are missing is just that - a transition that our horses can recognize and get a little comfortable with before being faced with huge technical questions. I think horses do know the difference, but at the upper levels, it's a big mental and physical change to make in short time with no real help. I certainly don't know, but I think there are people who do.

So who will emerge as the visionary that can put eventing back together in a way that fits the realities of the future AND stays true to the ideal, if not the gruesome realities, of the past?

I don't know who it is - but I bet I can describe him/her. Someone who is NOT afraid of the truth of the current situation and is unwilling to protect ANY group or individual. And yet - will not forget any group either, so as not to overly burden one segment of our integrated little eventing world. Someone who has a real sense of all three phases and can see how they can work in concert (well!) in multiple ways, AND can find the one way which makes the most sense for all concerned. One who knows that the horse must come first as the primary athlete of the sport. One who understands that the sport requires cooperation and good will to survive and flourish. One who understands the limitations of the modern world, yet is creative enough to keep the ideal of eventing alive in it.

I have said elsewhere that I think the "good old days" of eventing is a VERY BAD place to go. We had some good runs, but *Yikes* there was carnage. Nope, Churchill was right, "When you are going through Hell, keep going!"

SCFarm

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Training horses to be independent doesn't mean spending life up there fat dumb and happy - it's just knowing we will have our moments of same, and giving the horses the tools to carry on.

It also means coming into complexes with a plan for the kind of canter needed and the line needed, and the experience to revise the plan and ride out if the horse jumps in weak or wobbles right, but above all staying in the middle of the horse so if he has a different plan, we can revise together, rather than on diverging arcs...

[WW_Queen]

I have mixed feelings about what he wrote in addition to where the sport is going. I agree with him on many points….but claiming that collection dissolves a horse’s initiative? I’m not so sure about that. Of course, I agree that emphasis needs to be returned to jumping and galloping in eventing. I guess I need clarification on what he defines as initiative. For the horse to take control of the situation (ie, galloping cross-country) and have independent decision-making when it comes to a jump? That seems like a pretty broad statement. What I took away from that is you can’t expect dressage or jumper types to be able to perform the demands of two other disciplines, which I agree with.

It also make me nervous when riders try to emulate ULR’s. There is an amazing wealth of knowledge and various schools of thought on horse training, however it can take years of mounted experience to be able to apply those techniques at an appropriate time in a controlled manner. I am not surprised whatsoever with the poster’s story regarding Karen and the X. Teaching a young horse to jump doesn’t involve just pointing and shooting (granted, some horses are easier than others), sometimes you DO need to support them and plug them into the right spot to help build confidence. As time progresses, you gradually take those training wheels off and encourage them to problem-solve on their own. That includes experienced horses, it’s no good to either horse or rider if you literally drop everything and expect them to figure it out if they have no experience in decision-making or you as a rider are not able to stay quiet and unobtrusive (even if they botch it).

Hindsight is 20/20. I think when we lost the long-format we started on the path of losing our sport. With an out-of-touch governing body, ULR’s that are set on keeping the status quo in the pursuit of sponsorships and big wins and everybody else pointing fingers it’s only a matter of time before we lose eventing.

Obviously I hope that is not the case….but we are literally a few more accidents away from some serious public repercussions.

[colliemom]

It also make me nervous when riders try to emulate ULR’s. There is an amazing wealth of knowledge and various schools of thought on horse training, however it can take years of mounted experience to be able to apply those techniques at an appropriate time in a controlled manner.


Read John Madden's Between The Rounds in the same issue -- he speaks to this very subject. Copying versus Observing (I think those were the words he used) and how blindly copying with little or no knowledge of the reasons behind techniques or how to actually DO something leads to the stylized forms so common today.

All in all, this was a bang-up issue -- thanks COTH!

[RSEventer]

Wow- he's got it all right, IMO- and it's pretty scary- his conclusions- ie, eventing committees will not admit they are wrong and change things. If I was an upper level rider, I would switch sports immediately or at the very least, listen carefully to his advice. Since I ride at Novice, I will continue to event: we try to be safe at every point and I loved his technical points in the article about speed and scope.
I do not want to see horses and people die- so I will probably quit volunteering. (I am not trying to punish anyone or be immature here- I have tremendous respect for all of the people involved in eventing and they are the best- but I cannot take part in something like this- it's turned into a gladiator sport at the upper levels.)
Case in point: My friend took his two children to volunteer as crossing guards at Red Hills- his 13 yr old is in the local Pony Club. The drama that unfolded- not appropriate for children to witness in my opinion.

[J Swan]

I have said elsewhere that I think the "good old days" of eventing is a VERY BAD place to go. We had some good runs, but *Yikes* there was carnage. Nope, Churchill was right, "When you are going through Hell, keep going!"

SCFarm


I agree - I think there were some very good things about the "good old days about eventing". And some very bad things.

What I would like to see (and this is across the disciplines) is taking what was GOOD about the past - and use it now.


Another poster mentioned folks wanting to emulate ULR's. This is another thing that bugs me. When I was eventing - and I'm talking BN and Novice for crying out loud - my friends kept saying - you simply MUST have a watch! And a heart monitor! And the boots! And matching colors! And this accoutrement and that gee gaw.

Why? Why in God's name do I need a watch at Novice? Or Beginner Novice on a young horse? Am I really qualified to be on a cross country course if I cannot FEEL and determine the pace at the lowest level of the sport????

This is beginner stuff - and instead of focusing on PREPARATION - the skills - the ability - folks were pushing all the geegaws that the ULR's wear because it was really cool looking (and it was)

At a certain level the watch is part of the turnout. I'm not knocking it - or any other aspect of turnout or tack. But across the disciplines - riders are becoming more insistent upon things formerly reserved for the upper levels - those who had EARNED the right to wear them.

So now - even at the lowest levels of sport we see -

Shadbellies and tall boots on children
Top hats
Watches
Crystal (bling)
Complicated tack/bits
Horribly expensive tack
Focus on "fashion"
Spurs on unsteady legs

And we also see:
Sore horses at a young age
Horrible riding
Sour horses

We even had someone pop into the hunting forum asking how long it would take for them to be allowed to wear "the red coat" - because they saw that coat on the show jumping team and it looked cool. I didn't even know where to start in answering that question. Too much wrong with it!


Now my friends - how does one overcome that? Because today's Novice rider is tomorrow's Advanced rider. Folks seems to concentrating on the upper levels (which is understandable) but we have to look at ALL levels of the sport and figure out how to get our nations riders to become all around good horsemen again.

Is our system of instruction in this country fatally flawed? I live in a part of the country that is FULL of some of the best instructors in the country - and even here - there are scads of them that are incompetent. So how is a rider in Nowhere Indiana supposed to become a good horseman?

[Hannahsmom]

Thank you Jimmy for that article. It was the first thing I read that made sense all the way through.

(As another note, I also appreciate and treasure the several clinics I rode in with him. I learned more from his exercises and the patient building and educating of my horse in those clinics than from any other clinic I attended.)

[mcorbett]

I posted this on another board, but I'll add it here too, FWIW:

The Wofford piece is great, and it gives me hope that I am on the right track. I do tend to ride on a looser rein, and have always let K do much of the figuring out of things in his training. So far so good:D At AECs I did the Darren/Karen coursewalk, which was interesting. Karen was sporting a newly broken collarbone, thanks to a young horse in training at home totally getting his feet tangled in a tiny X (at least it was something like that, young horse making a hash of a small fence at any rate). In the midst of the walk they'd been of course discussing approaches and speeds and what the horse sees, and I took the opportunity to ask Karen her thoughts on teaching the horse to think for itself out on course. I'd been going to add something about how much responsibility for the jump should be the horse's vs the rider's, but I never got the chance because she cut me off saying "well, this is what happens when they are left to themselves!"And pointed at her sling. She kinda made me feel like an idiot, really.

But I've always thought (and she didn't much change my mind), that there is only so much we can teach or tell a horse via the aids. There is *no way* we can completely understand what it takes for a horse to clear a given fence, so how can we expect to be completely in control up there? The horse knows far better than any human how to keep itself out of trouble if it is allowed to learn that as it goes - at least the smart ones do. Survival of the fittest? Remember that particular instinct? Out in the wild the ones that make mistakes and live had better learn or they won't get a second chance at it. In a riding horse we obviously don't want to kill the slow thinking, needy ones by putting them in danger over and over. But we as the "intelligent" part of the equation need to take along hard look at the horses in training, and take the slow learners and the ones that need immense amounts of help OUT of the more dangerous sports. A horse may have all the heart and speed and scope in the world, but if it can't jump without being told what to do every step of the way perhaps it belongs in a different discipline.

Questions: Does collection automatically = submission and therefore permanent lack of initiative? What about "self carriage"? Does that not equal "personal responsibility" (the horse's) for its way of going? Is it not possible to teach a horse that "in this small enclosed space, I need you to listen to me absolutely, but out there over the big fences I'll tell you where to go and try to warn you of what's coming, but you have to make decisions too" ?

I have no real basis for this, but I think that if the powers that be want to increase collection in the dressage tests, (ie:more rider influenced) they ought to make XC more straightforward, gallopy and less rider influenced. Show the obedience in dressage, the initiative and bravery on XC, and the partnership of both in the Stadium ring where miscommunication won't kill anyone.

OMG, my husband and I were talking about this very thing today at lunch. He is a cowboy who has recently worked with some cutting horse trainers. He was saying how horses that come to be trained that already have a lot of basic training are hard to put on the flag (flag that moves back and forth on a line to simulate cattle). Young horses that have only been broke to stop and steer make a better connection with what they have been bred to do. There are more in tune with their instincts because the rider hasn't demanded much control over them yet. Later, a cutting horse knows that he can cut the cattle without a rider telling him how to do it when the rider's hand is on his whithers. When the rider's hand lifts, he is to submit to the control of the rider. There is a clear distinction there.

At first I was wondering why eventing horses couldn't compartmentalize in the same way. I think they CAN but we need to have a cross country course where they are able to remain in their scope (JW) and perform according to their fitness and natural skill and ability. This creates a balance between the responsibility that is shared between horse and rider. Otherwise our sport is becoming like motocross or nascar or whatever. It becomes more about the driver and less about the horse.

The horse and rider combinations that are most beautiful to watch going cross country are the pairs that seem to be equally matched (I was impressed by Jennifer Wooten and The Good Witch and Wylon Roberts and Paleface in XC at Rolex). These riders are true partners and let their horses SHINE. Isn't that what a horse show is? A place to SHOW OFF our horse? It's about training them in the way they should go, and then enjoying the ride!

There needs to be more BALANCE in eventing! Balance = success in so many areas of horsemanship!

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Training horses to be independent doesn't mean spending life up there fat dumb and happy - it's just knowing we will have our moments of same, and giving the horses the tools to carry on.



Bingo....and the initiative Jimmy is talking about is a horse that is listening to its rider...after all we have walked the course and know what is coming....but is looking at the question and deciding on how best to answer what he sees and what his rider is telling him. And to hopefully have the skill and initiative to know when the rider is ALL WRONG, ignore said rider and to save that rider's ass.

You do not want initiative in an UL dressage horse. You want them to WAIT for you to tell them what to do. The ring doesn't change, the ground is level....there is no question for them to answer other than to do what the rider asks them to do....they are waiting on thier rider to tell them to piaffe, counter canter, flying lead change. For xc you want them to listen to you but they need to be able to think for themselves and save themselves and rider if necessary....and make those decisions very fast.

I have a lovely mare....super jumper and fab mover. NOT the best xc horse since she is very indecisive. She wants the rider to tell her when to take off...she got better with training that involved me telling her to make a choice and rewarding her correct choices. Her sister is the opposite. Super xc horse. You come to the sunken road or coffin...and several strides out I can feel her say..I got it. And I know exactly when she is going to leave the ground...she has made that decision...but I've set up her balance, gave her a clue as to what sort of question we are jumping into and then try hard to stay the heck out of her way.

[Vuma]

I have mixed feelings about what he wrote in addition to where the sport is going. I agree with him on many points….but claiming that collection dissolves a horse’s initiative? I’m not so sure about that.

Teaching a young horse to jump doesn’t involve just pointing and shooting (granted, some horses are easier than others), sometimes you DO need to support them and plug them into the right spot to help build confidence. As time progresses, you gradually take those training wheels off and encourage them to problem-solve on their own. That includes experienced horses, it’s no good to either horse or rider if you literally drop everything and expect them to figure it out if they have no experience in decision-making or you as a rider are not able to stay quiet and unobtrusive (even if they botch it).


I am so glad someone is speaking up about this or at the very least questioning the logic. Dressage is "training" and "collection" is simply a higher form of that training. Anyone, J. Wofford or not, who proposes that the better trained a horse is the less "initiative" he has is .....well, right to some degree. (But not the degree to which he is implying.) This could be true to the degree that the more my horse is focused on collection and self carriage, the less initiative he has to ___________ fill in the blank (eat grass, swat a fly, stare at the sky, run through my hands, evade my leg ......).

If 9 of the 11 rider deaths over the past 18 months have happened at galloping fences placed independently in the middle of a field, as quoted by MP, I would venture to say that most of these riders were galloping headlong into these fences at speed. And while that is not incorrect, how many horses were seriously unbalanced at take-off. Quite a few by my count. Now, how does a horse learn to re-balance from a gallop.....through his rider balancing his own (human) body, adding weight to the haunches and off the forehand, thereby increasing impulsion from the engine and freeing up the forehand for that last initial push for flight. Oh, but wait.....that's collection….. in its simplest form!

Lest we forget, timber racing has the distinct advantage of brush, not solid, tops. It is certainly much easier to let a horse gallop, even unbalanced, into a fence that is visually more imposing (which back the horses off) and one in which horses, after their first brush through, understand that they have significant leeway if they don’t clear the top of the fence. As for the cutting analogy posted here, I road cutters for a summer. The goal is to get the shoulder as close the vertical and horizontal plane of the cow as possible…to mirror their movement. That means the goal is to get the shoulder “low”, not “high” as in jumping a fence. I wouldn’t want to drop the reins and jump from that position.

Why is it that the fences off a turn, even in xc, seem to ride so well? The turn itself requires collection from the horse whether the rider asks for it or not.

Collection, simply a higher level of training, is just that….a higher level of training. How is it that Jan Brink’s horses can put in a flawless Freestyle, then go out on his gallop track once a week for a serious “breezing” and free jump the moon once a week? Training!
Does training take away initiative? Only the negative initiative of a poorly schooled horse.

I fear for those who now claim they want to go out and gallop at fences with a loop in their reins as a result of this article. It is not the initiative of your horse to go gallop at solid fences. It is your initiative and you should take it very seriously. Horses need support from the rider. Through proper training, you can give that horse support. If you haven’t put in your time in the Dressage ring “and experienced the results of collection to some degree”, well, then maybe you should loop your reins and let your horse figure it out; by that time it’s too late and your attempts to rebalance then will only lead to a fight and a potentially bad fence.

Did anyone see Becky Holder at the sunken road this year? She came through the turn leading to the first element and with a MINIMAL half halt put her VERY responsive horse into an impulsive coffin canter. No fighting, head throwing and gnashing of teeth just a simple, “hey, remember that collection you showed so brilliantly in Dressage yesterday….I need it now to set you up for what’s coming.” Granted, Courageous Comet did get a tad bit slow through the last out element, (which only proves the point to a higher degree), but because he was collected he had impulsion….and I would venture to say he could have even trotted out of that scenario with ease. (Ever seen a Grand Prix jumper sail over a sizeable fence from a trot in the warm-up…..it’s called collection!) Certainly a sunken road type fence begs for collection and the sunken road has been around for eons. It’s not going anywhere, nor should it. So I propose we not look at Dressage and collection as the enemy, but the ignorance of both as the culprit.

Of the horses that have crashed this year, I would be SO interested to know how many were truly put in a bad spot by their rider….one in which they ignored their own survival instincts and allowed the rider to make the lift-off choice to their own detriment…..and how many were simply so unbalanced by the rider doing NOTHING that they didn’t have the balance or impulsion to get their front feet out of the way to negotiate the fence safely.

I come away from this article very saddened. I do not buy the idea that the more Dressage or training a horse receives, the less his survival instinct and initiative will be. Do I want to see tempi changes in Evening? No. But I certainly don’t want to dumb down the expectations of “TWO” of the three phases of the sport. In my mind, if you find the Dressage and Stadium tests of a particular level too difficult for you, you simply do not belong at that level.

[frugalannie]

About how to go back to the best of long format while staying within the parameters of short format. (Am I paraphrasing correctly?)

Someone very smart on this BB (and I wish I could remember who it was) suggested that courses be designed with a loop at the beginning consisting of a few steeplechase style fences. The loop might be gone around once or twice at the beginning of the XC course. It wouldn't take much space, would be spectator friendly, and would start the horses off with the "sharpening" JW mentions.

IIRC, Tamarack Hill used to have a couple of steeplechase fences on its XC course. Anyone remember the course designer for that?;)

[lstevenson]

I am so glad someone is speaking up about this or at the very least questioning the logic. Dressage is "training" and "collection" is simply a higher form of that training. Anyone, J. Wofford or not, who proposes that the better trained a horse is the less "initiative" he has is .....well, right to some degree. (But not the degree to which he is implying.) This could be true to the degree that the more my horse is focused on collection and self carriage, the less initiative he has to ___________ fill in the blank (eat grass, swat a fly, stare at the sky, run through my hands, evade my leg ......).

If 9 of the 11 rider deaths over the past 18 months have happened at galloping fences placed independently in the middle of a field, as quoted by MP, I would venture to say that most of these riders were galloping headlong into these fences at speed. And while that is not incorrect, how many horses were seriously unbalanced at take-off. Quite a few by my count. Now, how does a horse learn to re-balance from a gallop.....through his rider balancing his own (human) body, adding weight to the haunches and off the forehand, thereby increasing impulsion from the engine and freeing up the forehand for that last initial push for flight. Oh, but wait.....that's collection….. in its simplest form!

Lest we forget, timber racing has the distinct advantage of brush, not solid, tops.



Vuma, you can belive whatever you like. But many riders who have ridden at the top levels have noticed the difference in their horses when the dressage goes past a certain point. Yes, the horse's responses are better and quicker. But as bornfreenowexpensive said, they start to WAIT for the rider to tell them what to do. They almost become TOO submissive. And while it can be a good thing if the rider is good enough to ALWAYS put the horse at the right spot, if the rider misses (and almost everyone misses once and a while) the horse who is TOO submissive may not TAKE OVER and get himself and his rider out of trouble. He is waiting for the rider to help him! To tell him exactly what to do! The problem from too much collection/submission is mental, not physical. Upper level dressage definitely supresses the horses initiative to some degree. He becomes so obedient that he just waits for orders. As Jimmy says, he "surrenders himself to you".

I have ridden at the top levels, and I can tell you that I for one like to ride horses who have enough initiative left over to take over when I screw up. ;)

And btw timber racing is NOT brush. Timber jumps are solid, steeplechase are brush.

[LisaB]

Yeah, gotta disagree with you too, Vuma.
In the smallest form but my personal experience. When I was learning to do the steeplechase, it took quite a few tries to 'let go'. I was preparing for the T3DE and knew that we didn't know how to gallop a fly fence. I had a lesson just in steeplechase so my instructor could yell at me to not sit up, not take a tug. Let tell you, it was hard to not do anything at 600 MPM!
The first few tries, we lock onto the jump and my horse is flicking back at me like 'ah, ma, you're supposed to tell me what I supposed to do with this jump'. I tried my hardest to just keep kicking.
Now, we see a steeplechase (especially the one at MCTA) and he locks on and I just gallop up to it. I have seen in the corner of my eye, some observers watching because I'm not setting him up. But he's got it and he flies over it.
At Waredaca T3DE, the time was set for 550 for the steeplechase. The turns were kinda tight and there was a slick end. But you know what? My horse clocked around it at 650 and was in the best balance I have ever felt from him. He knew the jumps, he knew the terrain and ate it up.
I don't place him at jumps! He can leave long, short, 1/2, 1/4 stride, it doesn't matter, I'm right there for him and he feels comfortable doing what he knows best. Does our dressage kinda suck. Well, yeah, we do have a bit of a tug of war and I get low marks on submission. You can't tell him any different whether I'm riding or on the ground. If it's in his best interest, he'll tell you (like trying to get a fly sheet on him in the morning! nope, don't need it, save your money)
The really good riders train for this. They are not going to be there all the time to place the horse. The horse has to fend for itself first and foremost. This extra submission they are heaping on the dr tests will reflect on the jumping. We just have to train for that compartmentalization better!

[Pixie Dust]

Vuma, as I understood the article, the point was that the courses are more technical now and *have* to be ridden like show jumping, rather than like XC. (Did I get that wrong?) And that asking the horses to think for themselves on the courses we have now is asking too much. ??

Also, I thought timber racing was over solid fences and steeplechase was over brush. (Did I get that wrong too?)

[J Swan]

I was just thinking that a lot of folks questions about this type of jump and the riding required can be answered in the racing forum. There are a lot of chasers that post there.

And also - a lot of the folks in the foxhunting forum either know how to gallop those types of fences, or used to race over fences. I know of at least one poster that was a jockey.

The fences with brush are referred to as hurdles. They are taken at extraordinary speed, and in company. If lower level eventers wanted to take a look at those types of fences, and maybe even school over some of them, they might want to try some hunter paces. Some are set up with brush type jumps - some even have a few timber fences. I think a solid Novice (ready to move up to Training) or higher rider could do well at one of those events.

It's kinda hard to find that sort of course to school over - but hunter paces might be an option (plus they are fun and very low-key - very positive for both horse and rider)

Just throwing that out in case anyone is interested. :) Usually the footing is decent - but it's a bit more "natural" than what you see on a proper xc schooling course. If anyone has some problems with balance, or half halt, or maybe the horse lacks some independence, such an event might be useful for both.

Vuma, you can belive whatever you like. But many riders who have ridden at the top levels have noticed the difference in their horses when the dressage goes past a certain point. Yes, the horse's responses are better and quicker. But as bornfreenowexpensive said, they start to WAIT for the rider to tell them what to do. They almost become TOO submissive. And while it can be a good thing if the rider is good enough to ALWAYS put the horse at the right spot, if the rider misses (and almost everyone misses once and a while) the horse who is TOO submissive may not TAKE OVER and get himself and his rider out of trouble. He is waiting for the rider to help him! To tell him exactly what to do! The problem from too much collection/submission is mental, not physical. Upper level dressage definitely supresses the horses initiative to some degree. He becomes so obedient that he just waits for orders. As Jimmy says, he "surrenders himself to you".

I have ridden at the top levels, and I can tell you that I for one like to ride horses who have enough initiative left over to take over when I screw up. ;)

And btw timber racing is NOT brush. Timber jumps are solid, steeplechase are brush.

[KSevnter]

Did anyone see Becky Holder at the sunken road this year? She came through the turn leading to the first element and with a MINIMAL half halt put her VERY responsive horse into an impulsive coffin canter. No fighting, head throwing and gnashing of teeth just a simple, “hey, remember that collection you showed so brilliantly in Dressage yesterday….I need it now to set you up for what’s coming.”

I didn't see any of rolex this year, and I am sure that Becky had a great ride through the coffin and elsewhere, as she is a great rider, but you are missing Jimmy's point, Becky turned the corner, gave the correct aids and her horse immediately responded. Those are not the times, Jimmy is referring to, he is talking about the times when the rider does "miss" be it an attempt to over-collect at a coffin or gallop to flat at a square spread. He wants the horse to have enough initiative to say "Nope, you are wrong. This is where we need to be."

Unless you have felt it, I don't know that you can understand it. I remember riding down to an intermediate coffin at the bottom of a hill going a bit too fast and my horse could see it was a coffin and started to back himself up (up, not off). We had a great ride through there because he "overrode" my decision. And I remember thinking afterwards, what a wonderful horse I have.

For most of my years competing, I rode with a Grand Prix dressage rider. She was a very patient person who understood that a lesson after a gallop or event was going to be tough but she said, that part of an event horse's personality was necessary for him to do his job.

Some level of collection is necessary, but enough to do truly correct tempis, I don't think so. Where on earth on an x-c course would a horse need those?

[bosox]

JW is probably right about the upper level dressage. My daughter has started working 1st level on a wonderful pony. The mistakes that she was allowed to have with her other horse or a few months ago as she was learning this pony...are no longer acceptable.

I can hear her instructor now. "HE must wait for you. He must stay with you. He doesn't go until you tell him to go. Every step, Every move he stays with you."

Can you tell me if the horses that have gotten themselves into trouble these past 18+ monts--did well in the dressage phase?

[europa]

I have the answer:

RIDE WARMBLOODS

Mine overrides my decisions constantly ;)

[Jealoushe]

I was actually thinking the complete opposite, ride THOROUGHBREDS. Quicker brains, quicker feet, stamina and the ability to still jump out of their skin when they are tired...just my opinion

[VicarageVee]

Oh to go back to the long format *sigh*...I so miss the 10 minute box

Honestly, I think Jimmy's right. Let your self make mistakes! Get the wrong line, get the wrong spot, the partnership you build with a horse through these experiences will be your life line on an P/I/A cross country course. Your horse will know that sometimes, your decision is wrong or he'll tell you to screw yourself and make the decision for the both of you! ;)

This is what I think the YR in America has mastered. Partnership with the horse, but not yet a mature enough professional to always make the right decision. As a result, you see alot of fabulous pairs safely negotiating their obstacles, and horses often overriding their riders. Smart going from horse AND rider!

[flutie1]

"... today's Novice rider is tomorrow's Advanced rider."

Assuming they stay with the sport that long .......

[Fence2Fence]

JW is probably right about the upper level dressage. My daughter has started working 1st level on a wonderful pony. The mistakes that she was allowed to have with her other horse or a few months ago as she was learning this pony...are no longer acceptable.

I can hear her instructor now. "HE must wait for you. He must stay with you. He doesn't go until you tell him to go. Every step, Every move he stays with you."

Can you tell me if the horses that have gotten themselves into trouble these past 18+ monts--did well in the dressage phase?

As for the two unfortunate ladies at Rolex, no, they didn't--compared to the leaders. One had a 66.7 and 62. Rather middle of the pack scores.

I understand what JW is saying about the collection taking away iniative. But, that logic means our dressage winners would be crashing and burning in cross country, and that just ain't so. My guess is they know how to train for the dressage while preserving their horse's iniative for cross country jumping.

[RAyers]

If folks think dressage is so important (and up to a point it is), realize that at Badminton only 3 of the top 20 dressage scores finished in the overall top 20. Again, Murray et al found the possible correlation that the lower the dressage score the great risk of a fall on XC. I think all of this goes a way to providing actual data to prove what Wofford, LeGoff, and others have known all along.

I am a firm believer from my own experiences that high level dressage ruins the horse for XC.

Reed

[Pixie Dust]

As for the two unfortunate ladies at Rolex, no, they didn't--compared to the leaders. One had a 66.7 and 62. Rather middle of the pack scores.

I understand what JW is saying about the collection taking away iniative. But, that logic means our dressage winners would be crashing and burning in cross country, and that just ain't so. My guess is they know how to train for the dressage while preserving their horse's iniative for cross country jumping.


I don't think so. I think it means that the riders made no mistakes (a mistake would require them to let their horses to think for themselves.)

[lstevenson]

I understand what JW is saying about the collection taking away iniative. But, that logic means our dressage winners would be crashing and burning in cross country, and that just ain't so.


No, what it means is that maybe our dressage winners haven't taken a bad "miss" yet.

[Vuma]

My apologizes re: timber racing....it was late and the lighting was coming off my fingers as I type faster than I think. Please know "steeplechase" is what I was referring to.

It’s amazing how many PM's I have received supporting my concern with this article. (Some from UL riders.) I understand folks not wanting to publicly take a stance on this, but feel some reason should prevail.

I'm sure some very fortunate few of you have sat on the type of naturally balanced horse where you literally do "not much" to present them to a fence safely. I can assure you there are plenty of other horses who need a pilot to "assist" in plotting a course safely. Make no mistake, I am not referring to the need for a rider to get in the horses face and totally rip it's base of support out from under it to make the "right spot" decision and would maintain that if you are having that scenario then you should do some more Dressage schooling for a bit more "submission”. I've seen enough of face ripping, even from some of our pros on different horses at different courses.....I can only assume this is their style of riding (which is sad) and there are serious holes in the horses' training. Possibly “this” is what J.W. is referring to and if so, I hope he would see Dressage or technical stadium courses are not the problem here. I agree with Danny W. idea that it’s the way the sport is being played by the players.

What I am referring to is having a horse that is correctly "submissive" so that you can balance him before the jump with minimal effort then allow him to judge the distance and take off from this balanced self carriage.

I cannot agree that, if using the scenario above, a horse would willingly plow head long into a solid fence.....even if he was schooled in the "Haute Ecole!"

We haven't even begun to discuss the exercise physiology that accompanies a horse who is well schooled in Dressage. Not only is the musculature of the engine more developed, but the muscle memory remembers that engagement of the joints produces explosive power...even when things aren't going as planned; from a deep spot, from a long spot...horses aren't 100% perfect in their assessment of the correct distance to take off at every fence either. How much better that they have a wellspring of power to draw from and know that they can.

Let's also not forget the improved musculature of the "sling" muscles of the forehand that collection in Dressage produces. The same muscles a horse uses in that last moment of takeoff - the push up and back motion from the shoulders - is what allows horses to get their feet up quickly and out of the way.

In regards to J. W.’s reasoning on show jumping becoming more technical resulting in bad xc riding, I just don’t see that either. More technical courses “create” more chances for mistakes from both horse and rider. If you’re either training or competing with more technical courses the law of averages would surely make for more rider mistakes re: take-off inevitable. Wouldn’t this enable horses to begin to think for themselves and draw from their self-preservation in a scenario where the poles come down? If you always have an easy show jump course, how will your horse know how to negotiate an obstacle when things aren’t so easy?

I LOVED the article J.W. wrote back around the first of the year (I think) in which he begged for riders to be more “SOFT”. I loved that he used the example of the Hunters as this is where you learn to ride fences softly. But make no mistake, as a former Hunter Eq. rider, while it may look like the rider is just up there sitting pretty they are making ever decision regarding that horse’s stride, so that at the jump face the horse can be given soft reins and negotiate a perfect basculed jump. They are doing this through rhythm and the ability to take a half halt on a submissive, yes submissive, horse.

Many on this board have voiced their opinion of “backward riding” again blaming Dressage for the mistakes on xc. True Dressage training has at its very basis “forward, forward, forward.” Even before relaxation of the pole, even before suppleness, self-carriage, even before collection. You can have none of the above without the forward! You may look at a horse in piaffe thinking it has lost its forward energy, but I can assure you it wouldn’t be able to piaffe without plenty of forward energy. The forward energy is converted to elevated/vertical energy with every step/half step, but without the forward it wouldn’t be possible.

I think this is where the confusion is coming in. I maintain that a well schooled horse in Dressage who has been schooled in the varying degrees of collected work necessary for it’s age/level of training are the same horses that make it look like their rider is doing nothing coming into a cross country fence. The aids can be nearly invisible; can be “SOFT” making it look as though the rider is allowing the horse to completely think for itself.

Please don’t start throwing the reins away at solid jump faces. There is a balance here between hard, unforgiving hands and no hands at all. Your Dressage work will show you where that is.

[Hilary]

On this same topic, the first time I clinic-ed with Lucinda Green she said right off the bat: We are asking our horses to do 2 opposing things. Listen to the rider AND think for themselves.

No, we don't want our eventers to wait wait wait until I give you every single aid, but nor do we want them taking on the whole show. They need to listen to us AND remain independent.

This is why upper level horses are so rare and precious. And why upper level riders need to have such a good connection with thier horse.

I will go out on a limb and say the rider needs to know when to give input and know when their horse is correct in his own initiative - a previous posted said she remembered her horse taking over at a XC combination and getting it right. This is the BEST feeling, when your horse sees the challenge and says "yup, I'm on it". However, it is the rider's job to get the horse to that point - both in training (Long term) and the strides before the fence leading up to the point where the horse can take over.

There's always talk about a horse being "ridable". To me, this means that the horse will take the rider's suggestions seriously. If you ask for a halfhalt, you get it, not a big argument about it. By being 'ridable' the horse allows the rider to prepare him, and then the rider needs to know when to allow the horse his own initiative. It's not that the best horses and riders are blasting around course on a long rein letting the horse do the work, it's that they are in tune with one another and BOTH brains are working. You let that balance tip in either direction and you get into trouble.

My prelim gelding maxed out at Prelim because he was not as ridable as he needed to be. He always argued. We didn't achieve the balance of "let me prepare you and then you do your job" because he always thought he was right and blew me off.

[lstevenson]

What I am referring to is having a horse that is correctly "submissive" so that you can balance him before the jump with minimal effort then allow him to judge the distance and take off from this balanced self carriage.


If this is what you are saying then I agree with you fully.

But the point here is that upper level dressage pushes the horse's submission to an even further level, where even in dangerous circumstances (like a miss on x-c) he waits for his rider's instructions instead of thinking for himself.

[Vuma]

On this same topic, the first time I clinic-ed with Lucinda Green she said right off the bat: We are asking our horses to do 2 opposing things. Listen to the rider AND think for themselves.

No, we don't want our eventers to wait wait wait until I give you every single aid, but nor do we want them taking on the whole show. They need to listen to us AND remain independent.

This is why upper level horses are so rare and precious. And why upper level riders need to have such a good connection with thier horse.

I will go out on a limb and say the rider needs to know when to give input and know when their horse is correct in his own initiative - a previous posted said she remembered her horse taking over at a XC combination and getting it right. This is the BEST feeling, when your horse sees the challenge and says "yup, I'm on it". However, it is the rider's job to get the horse to that point - both in training (Long term) and the strides before the fence leading up to the point where the horse can take over.

There's always talk about a horse being "ridable". To me, this means that the horse will take the rider's suggestions seriously. If you ask for a halfhalt, you get it, not a big argument about it. By being 'ridable' the horse allows the rider to prepare him, and then the rider needs to know when to allow the horse his own initiative. It's not that the best horses and riders are blasting around course on a long rein letting the horse do the work, it's that they are in tune with one another and BOTH brains are working. You let that balance tip in either direction and you get into trouble.

My prelim gelding maxed out at Prelim because he was not as ridable as he needed to be. He always argued. We didn't achieve the balance of "let me prepare you and then you do your job" because he always thought he was right and blew me off.

Hillary - We need more of you! Folks who realize when a horse is overfaced and stops "the pursuit of the scary"!

Another Lucinda Green quote I have heard, twice now; "When coming to the fence I like to feel as though I have 75% of the horse in front of me". (I'm sure the quote has been bastardized from it's inception, but hopefully I'm getting the point across as she implied it.) That "feeling" is COLLECTION.

[Vuma]

If this is what you are saying then I agree with you fully.

But the point here is that upper level dressage pushes the horse's submission to an even further level, where even in dangerous circumstances (like a miss on x-c) he waits for his rider's instructions instead of thinking for himself.


I should have put the next sentence in bold as well in my original quote, but I'll post it again as my answer to this.

I cannot agree that, if using the scenario above, a horse would willingly plow head long into a solid fence.....even if he was schooled in the "Haute Ecole!"

Are you truly saying you disagree with that statement?

[lstevenson]

I should have put the next sentence in bold as well in my original quote, but I'll post it again as my answer to this.

I cannot agree that, if using the scenario above, a horse would willingly plow head long into a solid fence.....even if he was schooled in the "Haute Ecole!"

Are you truly saying you disagree with that statement?


The odds of it happening would be greater, yes.

And you have to look at it from the horse's view. Usually when the rider misses at a big x-c jump, they haven't been sitting there doing nothing. They have been telling the horse what to do all of the way up to that jump, and he's been listening. But then they missed, so in effect they have lied to their horse. But the horse, who has given himself to his rider fully, just keeps waiting for further instructions and makes no effort to save the situation.

[KSevnter]

[QUOTE=Vuma;3216667] I maintain that a well schooled horse in Dressage who has been schooled in the varying degrees of collected work necessary for it’s age/level of training are the same horses that make it look like their rider is doing nothing coming into a cross country fence. The aids can be nearly invisible; can be “SOFT” making it look as though the rider is allowing the horse to completely think for itself. [QUOTE]

I am still firmly in the camp of not wanting the horses to "look as though they are thinking for themselves" but rather thinking for themselves!

Hillary's post hits it dead on with the quote from Lucinda regarding asking them to do two opposing things. It isn't that we want the "appearance" of the horse thinking for itself, we actually need it to think for itself. I am all for a pretty round, but the better round is the one where the pair has a bad fence or distance, and bounce back at the next so by the time the course is over he is breathing fire. We don't want it looking like a hunter round out there, because that level of perfection is too hard to maintain for years on end at high speed.

I submit that the best partnerships between horse/rider at the upper level are those in which the horse was brought through the levels by the rider, the longer the relationship the more likelyhood for mistakes and from the mistakes the trust grows.

[DizzyMagic]

I should have put the next sentence in bold as well in my original quote, but I'll post it again as my answer to this.

I cannot agree that, if using the scenario above, a horse would willingly plow head long into a solid fence.....even if he was schooled in the "Haute Ecole!"

Are you truly saying you disagree with that statement?

Well, I think I disagree... I've been fortunate to sit on two upper level dressage horses. They were fabulously responsive - I could cause a tempi change by taking a deep breath (which apparently caused me to weight one seatbone), and I could accidentally perform a canter-pirouette (never did figure out how that happened). I could also leg yield them smack into a wall, and they would just do it, respond to the aid I gave no matter whether it made sense or not. Leg yield, half-pass, haunches-in, any lateral movement that caused one or both of us to scrape painfully along the side of the wall, and to get them off the wall, I had to figure out how to release the aid.

My upper level event horse, on the other hand? He was just as experienced in his area of expertise as the dressage horses were at theirs, and he was a very, very good at dressage. Yet, from the very start, there were just things he wouldn't do - I might get inadvertent extended trots, flying changes, or half-passes, but he wouldn't run into a wall no matter what idiot thing I was doing on his back. He was amazingly well-schooled, loved his work, and loved to try his best for me, but there were times when he just said "Ummm, no. This is stupid, and we're not doing it."

All these horses were amazing, brilliant, loved their work, and being in a state of semi-retirement, loved passing on their knowledge. But the dressage horses were very different in their minds from the eventer, and I was left with the impression that somewhere along the line, submission becomes somewhat more absolute for the high level dressage horse.

Emily

[J Swan]

DizzyMagic and Vuma -

Perhaps another way of saying it is that there is a difference between 'submission' and 'surrender'.

I think what some folks may be talking about is that at some point, there may be horses surrendering to the rider - and while that may be the current fashion in the upper levels of dressage; it's something that is should not be seen in the event horse.

Is that maybe closer to what folks are discussing?

[subk]

If folks think dressage is so important (and up to a point it is), realize that at Badminton only 3 of the top 20 dressage scores finished in the overall top 20. Again, Murray et al found the possible correlation that the lower the dressage score the great risk of a fall on XC. I think all of this goes a way to providing actual data to prove what Wofford, LeGoff, and others have known all along.

I am a firm believer from my own experiences that high level dressage ruins the horse for XC.

Reed
Could you clarify: "Lower dressage score" meaning the "better" the score the greater the risk?

[seeuatx]

It all comes down to submission.... or at least the amount of submission that is wanted.

I took a clinic about two or so years ago where my very willing to please and ultra sensitive TB put his head up and took a tight jig stride due to my conflicting aids (totally my fault, I deserved it). The trainer (who has ridden to GP) said (ok, shouted) "Insubordination is Unacceptable!!!". I think that is a belief that would eventually make it impossible for a horse to think for himself.

I loved Hilary's comment:
This is the BEST feeling, when your horse sees the challenge and says "yup, I'm on it"

And maybe I watch too much Law&Order... but that "Yup I'm On It" makes me think that I am not truly a teammate with my horse, but a partner. The difference in my mind is that a teammate should work with each other but there is always a captain who makes the decisions. Partners on the other hand generally bring the idea of equality... and they MUST rely on each other. Continuing with my L&O theme, If one partner relies too heavily on the other for instruction it will spell disaster for one, if not both of them. Each must be able to give an instruction that will carry weight with the other, and each must have the wherewithal to say "I got it".

[Regal Grace]

If folks think dressage is so important (and up to a point it is), realize that at Badminton only 3 of the top 20 dressage scores finished in the overall top 20. Again, Murray et al found the possible correlation that the lower the dressage score the great risk of a fall on XC. I think all of this goes a way to providing actual data to prove what Wofford, LeGoff, and others have known all along.

I am a firm believer from my own experiences that high level dressage ruins the horse for XC.

Reed

Great example. Then how can you get the powers that be USEA, USEF and most importanly the FEI from making the Dressage more technical. As I said earlier, I heard on the Rolex webcast that mostly likely the Eventing Dressage test would be changed again making it more technical. It seems the FEI is going to shove this down the sport of Eventing's throat whether riders protest or not. Since the United Sates has been bearing the brunt of the most recent fatalities, the eventing community is more up in arms but I hear nothing across the pond except from what Lucinda Green has said in the past re: Dressage and XC.

[RAyers]

Could you clarify: "Lower dressage score" meaning the "better" the score the greater the risk?

Yes, the lower the dressage score (better) correlated to the greater likelihood of a fall on XC.


It is my opinion that those who tout dressage as the answer for all things on XC are the same who would suggest power lifting would help a decathlete. Yes, SOME dressage is needed. Yes, continuing to improve one's dressage skills always helps. However when you push dressage at the upper levels, the wrong muscle groups for XC develop as well as the wrong muscle type (fast twitch anerobic muscle) versus the slow twitch aerobic muscle that horses need to run far and fast.

Another cheap anaolgy is a power lifter may have twice the leg strength as a high jumper or long jumper. However they no longer have the coorect muscle groups to be able to jump long nor high.

I agree with JW the connection and collection are two very different things even thuogh they may look the same on the ground. Collection requires submission. Connection only requires agreement.

Reed

[Vuma]

J. Swan, I think you have found the point of contenction in the difference between submission and surrender.

If a horse surrenders to the rider, and to his own deteriment, that is a recipe for disaster. I still think these horses are few and far between whatever their level of Dressage training happens to be.

Nature vs. nuture, horses are still "flight" response animals. I would imagine it would be seriously difficult to train a horse to the level that he willingly accepts death in order to obey his riders incorrect demands. I just don't buy it. I give horses more credit that than.

MAYBE though, the riders demands are SO BOLD that the horse doesn't have a choice but to obey! That I will agree with. Another reason for the need to be a SOFT rider on a well schooled/trained horse. A horse can blow through SOFT, incorrect aids to save his ass, but he can't blow through a rider muscling him to the point of unbalancing his entire body.

Rideablity, as someone suggested earlier, is the key. Dressage and technical Stadium courses "promote and create" rideablity. Why are they being perceived as the enemy?

[RAyers]

Rideablity, as someone suggested earlier, is the key. Dressage and technical Stadium courses "promote and create" rideablity. Why are they being perceived as the enemy?

Because like we saw at a recent Grand Prix event in the jumpers, there are questions and lines being asked on XC that would NEVER be asked in the arena. There is nothing inside the white box that prepare a horse and rider be effective on XC other than to school and run XC.

Put it this way, you can play Wii Tennis all you want. How are you on the real court?

Reed

[lstevenson]

Rideablity, as someone suggested earlier, is the key. Dressage and technical Stadium courses "promote and create" rideablity. Why are they being perceived as the enemy?



:sigh: They are not. Please go back and read for comprehension. Rideability is a good thing. Collection to the point of the horse surrendering completely to it's rider is not (for safety on cross country).

[Kementari]

There is a BIG difference between a horse who runs into a solid fence because his rider "told him to," and a horse that misses a distance because he was following (bad) directions.

I don't disagree that the great majority of horses won't just run into the fence. But what we are looking for is a horse who, when the rider says "get in deep," is smart enough to say, "Not at this fence!" and take a better spot. THAT'S what we're talking about. The horse must be able to think for himself the whole ride, not just at the last minute to decide to jump instead of crash.

Either that, or the rider has to be perfect. I don't know about anyone else, but I sure as heck don't want THAT burden!

[Vuma]

....and I quote:

"Our problems are not being caused by the cross-country test; they are being caused by the dressage and show jumping tests."

[DizzyMagic]

DizzyMagic and Vuma -

Perhaps another way of saying it is that there is a difference between 'submission' and 'surrender'.

I think what some folks may be talking about is that at some point, there may be horses surrendering to the rider - and while that may be the current fashion in the upper levels of dressage; it's something that is should not be seen in the event horse.

Is that maybe closer to what folks are discussing?

I always think of it as "conditional submission"... Seems like a great event horse absolutely MUST be rideable, must have a strong element of submission. But at the same time he has to be thinking, processing information on his own terms, so that if the situation called for it he could withdraw submission.

I'm sure there are lots of examples, but I think of DOC and Custom Made. Especially in their later years, Tailor was an icon of submission in his dressage, allowing David to move and place his body and his feet with incredible precision. But if David goofed on xc, the horse could rely on his own excellent judgement to fix the bobble.

In training, it has always struck me that David balanced the precision parts (i.e. "you must be able to place each foot where you want it, to the inch," spoken as he cantered Tigger literally inches from a group of spectators' toes), with puzzles and brain-games for the horses, where the animal had to use his own mind and learn by trial and error how to move his body to "solve the puzzle."

I worry about an increased emphasis on dressage, combined with a decreased emphasis on elements of the sport that promoted the horse's natural thinking, such as the steeplechase phase - I worry that the combination of these will have a growing negative impact on horses' ability to negotiate the xc phase, making him rely too much on his very human rider.

[lstevenson]

....and I quote:

"Our problems are not being caused by the cross-country test; they are being caused by the dressage and show jumping tests."


Come on Vuma! :rolleyes:

If you READ the whole thing instead of just quoting one sentence, you will see that he is not talking about "dressage and show jumping", but about UPPER LEVELS of those phases. It's not the training and the flatwork that ruins a horse's initiative, it's training for EXTREME collection and domination.

[purplnurpl]

what about

Klimke
B. Hoy
Severson
Dutton
OC
Touzaint (remember that gray horse he rode?)
Holder
Todd
to name a few
?

I don't know about you guys but Dan was the biggest POS out on XC that I EVER saw. (rolling eyes)
Too bad these champion eventers win the dressage and suck on the XC course. I just don't know how they make it around.

I don't have a ton to say because my opinions come from my experiences and my experiences are few.
But I tell you this, the horse that has been my prelim ride up to now is a damn good dressage horse working at a high level (4th?) and he goes out on the XC course and drags my big butt around with his brains and attitude.
But again, I train him to do this through gymnastic schoolings. I'm a 'you figure it out horsie' kinda rider. Even on the flat.

I'm not so sure it's the submission/collection that is the problem, but many of the horses I have seen at the upper levels this year have been plagued with the "Giraffe Syndrome". They are trained to 'assume the position'. I can't believe riders are rewarded in the DQ arena for their way of going. It baffles my mind because it's not true collection. And it's amazing how many advanced horses can make it around the XC course never once stretching out their neck over fences. Just amazing. Amazing jumpers use their butt, neck, back, and abbs. The Giraffe way of going only allows the use of butt and hocks. ouch.

Unfortunately, I think this topic has allowed some people to feel that they have the right of passage to say, "ya, good dressage horses suck on the XC course," because they struggle with the flat work and now have an excuse to ignore training issues. Great.

I will join the wagon. I think adding tempis is retarded.
Even though if you can do one, you should be able to do two, then 5s, 4s, and even 3s. But, some horses are too hot to dish out one quiet change. laughing.
that's eventing. : )

Now, how does this apply to XC you ask? We as riders should be training our horses to 'jump' where our body is. To follow our body weight. Like canter pirouette. You sit back and in on the inside hind leg and ta-da! horsie goes around in pirouette. Half pass: sit to the inside, lift inside rein and suck horsie to the inside with your weight. No kicking or pulling.
XC. bounce log down off a bank, three stride right turn to a skinny. Where is your body weight on the way off the drop? THATS RIGHT! (pardon the pun) Horsie should follow your body weight. No need to kick or pull because you trained them in the arena to go where your weight falls. And if not, then you usually have a run out.
When I am late looking or moving my body weight I don't make the turn. ooops, my bad.
Dressage over Fences is what is.

happy trails to you all.
Kristen

http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=19638353&uid=3944062

[pwynnnorman]

I think we need to remember that the influence of dressage on x-c is 1.) just a theory, 2.) a generalization, 3.) applicable as a concern (not just a "philosophy") only at higher levels, 4.) Vuma's point about the fall occuring in open fields rather than in complexes needs to be addressed and 5.) it's irrelevant if the course or complex is specifically designed to test the rider's ability to "micromanage" the horse over here and let it fly over there.

Let's also not forget what even I'll admit was a significant part of what has changed the sport: the European ride (i.e. German et al influence). That ride is not the American or British ride, in terms of tradition and philosophy (I think). But that ride (and the horse that can take it) is dominating the sport (even though, curiously enough, it does not seem to be WINNING to the extent that its presence is dominating). All of these things lead me to conclude (although it's an excellent discussion!) that emphasizing getting horses to think for themselves at the upper levels while de-emphasizing (more or less) dressage has and will have little practical value in today and tomorrow's sport.

I'd love to go back to a sport that emphasized what the Thoroughbred does best: run and jump and tell you to go f-yourself if you try to dominate them. But it's not going to happen. JW's comments aren't going to get course designers to produce courses at the upper levels which emphasize JW's "theory." It's just not going to happen--probably because it IS just a theory.

Regardless of annecdote from ULRs, there's no way of knowing the relative numbers of horses who CAN differentiate the rider-dominant phases of dressage and stadium from the horse-dominates one of x-c. But of even more importance, IF IF IF the bar is set at the upper levels by the winning riders, then you (and the FEI and whoever else dictates what the sport emphasizes) can't ignore the consistency in dressage and in the results of the best-moving, most submissive horses of Phillip, Kim, Pippa, Karen, Nicholas, Leslie -- even the sort-of next generation of Allison, Missy, Corrine, etc. (The latter may still be perfecting their game, but you can't ignore what their scores represent.) And you can't help but contrast them with those whose horses are NOT consistently at the top of the dressage results (I'm thinking now of a horse like Tamarillo).

Anyway, IMO, it would be interesting to advance the discussion to the question of "Do the courses MAKE the horses--or should the courses be made FOR the horses?" The answer, IMO, is what identifies the current philosophy behind the sport (even if it doesn't support the most popular theory behind it).

[lstevenson]

what about

Klimke
B. Hoy
Severson
Dutton
OC
Touzaint (remember that gray horse he rode?)
Holder
Todd
to name a few
?

I don't know about you guys but Dan was the biggest POS out on XC that I EVER saw. (rolling eyes)
Too bad these champion eventers win the dressage and suck on the XC course. I just don't know how they make it around.





Many of the ones you mention have had crashing falls, but no fatalities as of yet. Did you see Dan's fall at Burghley? She missed, and he never made a decision as to when to leave the ground. Case in point.

Again, the riders who are winning the dressage and still winning the events are so good that they rarely miss. But when they finally do, lookout.

[Vuma]

Come on Vuma! :rolleyes:

If you READ the whole thing instead of just quoting one sentence, you will see that he is not talking about "dressage and show jumping", but about UPPER LEVELS of those phases. It's not the training and the flatwork that ruins a horse's initiative, it's training for EXTREME collection and domination.

Quoted from the article;

"However, we have recently started to require collection from our horses, and I am sure this is where we have gone wrong."

and another....

"Two of my Olympic coaches, Jack LeGoff and Joe Lynch, told me not to go too deeply into collection because it would make the horse reliant on me."

I just don't buy that Dressage, which is a discipline dependent on varying degrees of collection, is the culprit here. Collection of a horse, even on xc, IF SOFTLY ridden does not make horses a.) forget to save themselves, or b.) ruin Evenitng. I'm sorry, I just don't agree.

[KSevnter]

I am certainly not one to say that bad dressage horse = great x-c horse. What I am saying is that at the upper levels of dressage, every footfall is controlled by the rider. The rider cues and the horse responds. This type of surrender on the horse's part does not comport with decision making going 570 mpm with a double bounce ahead. If the rider makes a mistake the horse has to have been taught to puzzle it out himself. That is what makes this sport so fantastic.

FWIW I would not throw Betina Hoy in there as upper level dressage horse = great x-c round.

[purplnurpl]

Quoted from the article;


I just don't buy that Dressage, which is a discipline dependent on varying degrees of collection, is the culprit here. Collection of a horse, even on xc, IF SOFTLY ridden does not make horses a.) forget to save themselves, or b.) ruin Evenitng. I'm sorry, I just don't agree.

thank you

That was a cheep shot at Kim and Dan. You should apologize because you don't really know what was going on inside of their brains.
First off, Burghley.
(if I remember correctly) It was a combo, up hill, under a tree with shadows, and he stopped. She fell off. whoopie.
Poor guy was probably getting tired because he had already won Rolex start to finish, what, 2-3 times?

Those riders have falls because they ride a bajillion horses at a bajillion events. But they still kick our asses.

[purplnurpl]

FWIW I would not throw Betina Hoy in there as upper level dressage horse = great x-c round.

snork, snicker.
I'm laughing cause I know what you are talking about.
fine, take her out.

[DizzyMagic]

Quoted from the article;
"Two of my Olympic coaches, Jack LeGoff and Joe Lynch, told me not to go too deeply into collection because it would make the horse reliant on me."

I just don't buy that Dressage, which is a discipline dependent on varying degrees of collection, is the culprit here. Collection of a horse, even on xc, IF SOFTLY ridden does not make horses a.) forget to save themselves, or b.) ruin Evenitng. I'm sorry, I just don't agree.

Perhaps it's a matter of degrees - that seems to be what JW was saying. Some collection is good and essential. Going "too deeply" into collection is not so good and can have unintended consequences. It's a matter of striking the right balance.

On Reed's point about the different muscles needed for higher level dressage movements vs. dressage, I think that's a very strong point. I was told by a dressage judge that she doesn't expect to see the same degree of collection in an event horse as in a pure dressage horse, "because the event horse is muscled in a way that allows him to run and jump across country the next day."

Emily

[Vuma]

.

I'm not so sure it's the submission/collection that is the problem, but many of the horses I have seen at the upper levels this year have been plagued with the "Giraffe Syndrome". They are trained to 'assume the position'. I can't believe riders are rewarded in the DQ arena for their way of going. It baffles my mind because it's not true collection. And it's amazing how many advanced horses can make it around the XC course never once stretching out their neck over fences. Just amazing. Amazing jumpers use their butt, neck, back, and abbs. The Giraffe way of going only allows the use of butt and hocks. ouch.
[B]
Kristen

http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=19638353&uid=3944062

I couldn't agree with you more. There is a particular UL rider who rode at Rolex this year who placed well in Dressage, but his xc ride was nothing less than dangerous riding. No only was the horse a giraffe...he shook his head in defiance at every single aid given on xc - sometimes over the fence itself. The holes in the training were evident, even though the Dressage round "seemed" to be decent. If the Dressage training of this particular pair included a little more "submission" possibly it would have transalated to the xc course. It truly was a shocking display of pathetic riding. So I wasn't surpirsed to see this particular rider photographed weeks later on yet another mount with the same issue surfacing. There is a difference between Dressage that fosters the correct amount of submission "that can translate to xc", and riding a pretty test.

And yes, some wonder why those horses who are consistently photographed with their heads in the air and their hind feet flying completely behind - not under - themselves need all the chiro/massage, etc. They haven't been taught collection to the degree that they needed it at those fences. The proof in the photos could not be more clear.

Collection DOES NOT mean go slow. Ever seen a racehorse put his weight back? His front end can come up so drastically that his forelimbs are nearly at the height of his nose. And his hind legs come further under him than the girth's placement. Did anyone see Coughnaght (sp?) gallop at Rolex? That was a pretty "collected" gallop "at speed" and he could cover ground like no body's business with a single stride making it look easy. Don't be confused, there was a definate degree of collection going on to achieve that. Collection is not the culprit nor is the Dressage training require to achieve it.

[Vuma]

thank you

That was a cheep shot at Kim and Dan. You should apologize because you don't really know what was going on inside of their brains.
First off, Burghley.
(if I remember correctly) It was a combo, up hill, under a tree with shadows, and he stopped. She fell off. whoopie.
Poor guy was probably getting tired because he had already won Rolex start to finish, what, 2-3 times?

Those riders have falls because they ride a bajillion horses at a bajillion events. But they still kick our asses.


This post seems to imply I have said something of Dan or Kim. Not sure what anyone else sees, but please know I haven't said anything of the two....must have been someone else.

I adore Kim's riding and if I had to pick only one rider to emulate, she would be the one.

[Hilary]

While we're all throwing out all these opinions.....

I remember going to a lecture about finding a great dressage prospect -one of my best freinds is a DQ, she comes to my events, I go to her dressage stuff....

The first criteria Carol Lavell used to pick her horse was SUBMISSION.

I about fell off my bleacher seat because I had my eventer hat on. But yes, the DQs need their horses to submit. So Carol goes out and chooses the horse at the bottom of the pecking order because she knows she'll have less trouble getting him to submit to her.

This friend of mine (who used to event) said to me the other day "why are there changes in the Advanced dressage test? Don't they know that proper changes require HUGE amounts of submission and collection and the event horses don't need that!"

She's taught 2 horses - one a failed eventer who preferred dressage because he always knew what was coming next and couldn't think as fast as he could canter - to do changes.

I think we all ought to ride mares. You can train them to work with you but they always think for themselves.

But how many mares are out there? Rolex had The Good Witch and UN. How many others? Were there really only 2?

[Mustang51]

I'm going to repeat what I said on the last JW thread on this topic as I think it's just as relevent here. Just an other angle to the topic I think is worth considering:
----------------------------

QUOTE:
Originally Posted by sabryant
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.
END QUOTE
----------------------------

Originally posted by Mustang51:
-------------------------------
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 (though I won't pretend that I remotely have the experience to pass judgment on that) 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?

[Vuma]

While we're all throwing out all these opinions.....

I remember going to a lecture about finding a great dressage prospect -one of my best freinds is a DQ, she comes to my events, I go to her dressage stuff....

The first criteria Carol Lavell used to pick her horse was SUBMISSION.

I about fell off my bleacher seat because I had my eventer hat on. But yes, the DQs need their horses to submit. So Carol goes out and chooses the horse at the bottom of the pecking order because she knows she'll have less trouble getting him to submit to her.

This friend of mine (who used to event) said to me the other day "why are there changes in the Advanced dressage test? Don't they know that proper changes require HUGE amounts of submission and collection and the event horses don't need that!"

She's taught 2 horses - one a failed eventer who preferred dressage because he always knew what was coming next and couldn't think as fast as he could canter - to do changes.

I think we all ought to ride mares. You can train them to work with you but they always think for themselves.

But how many mares are out there? Rolex had The Good Witch and UN. How many others? Were there really only 2?


Debbie McDonald says she looks for a horse that is in the middle of the pecking order. She wants a horse that is submissive enough to be ridable, but one who is self assured and confident enough to think for itself and let her know when she's not "doing it right". I think that is the key.

[Hilary]

And to take Mustang's point a few steps further, if we are not doing as much conditioning are the horses not as fit as they ought to be to tackle the **** course?

I don't know how much time ULRs spend conditioning for the short formats. Has anyone said one way or another if their fitness regime has changed since XC no longer lasts 2 hours?

It seems that the current **** courses are no less taxing on the horse, but are people conditioning less because they are not having to prep for phases A-C?

And I'm going to Mr. Wofford's clinic next week - I'll see if I can ask him about this.....although we could probably spend the entire 2 days in discussion, I do want to jump...

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Vuma - I wonder if what you are calling collection is what I would call engagement - which I would say is a necessary but not sufficient prerequisite to collection...

Intelligent people may certainly disagree about what qualities a pair might need to develop to progress safely, but frankly, when people imply that Jim Wofford is flat out wrong, and wrong through stupidity/ignorance -well, it doesn't encourage me to give much credence to their counterarguments, fwiw...

[RAyers]

Debbie McDonald says she looks for a horse that is in the middle of the pecking order. She wants a horse that is submissive enough to be ridable, but one who is self assured and confident enough to think for itself and let her know when she's not "doing it right". I think that is the key.

And Debbie McDonald ran Rolex or even Galway or Maui Jim last...?

Reed

[NeverTime]

I am certainly not one to say that bad dressage horse = great x-c horse. What I am saying is that at the upper levels of dressage, every footfall is controlled by the rider. The rider cues and the horse responds. This type of surrender on the horse's part does not comport with decision making going 570 mpm with a double bounce ahead. If the rider makes a mistake the horse has to have been taught to puzzle it out himself. That is what makes this sport so fantastic.

(Emphasis added by me). While I respect JW immensely, I think there is a fallacy in this argument in that I see very, very, VERY few horses, even at the **** level, who are submissive to this degree.
Even among the best rides at Rolex, I saw very few (none?) in which the horse appeared to have "every footfall controlled by the rider." And, it's worth noting, at Rolex at least, the people at the top after dressage largely stayed at the top after XC.
Comet's lovely test didn't seem to hurt his initiative at ALL out there. And I can't say Heidi's problem XC was caused by Farley waiting on her to control his every move; rather, it seemed like she wasn't doing much except kicking on and letting him sort it out when the fence arrived. And he was doing a pretty damn good job of that until they cut one line a little too close and he didn't clear part of the fence.

[Dr. Doolittle]

While we're all throwing out all these opinions.....

I remember going to a lecture about finding a great dressage prospect -one of my best freinds is a DQ, she comes to my events, I go to her dressage stuff....

The first criteria Carol Lavell used to pick her horse was SUBMISSION.

I about fell off my bleacher seat because I had my eventer hat on. But yes, the DQs need their horses to submit. So Carol goes out and chooses the horse at the bottom of the pecking order because she knows she'll have less trouble getting him to submit to her.

This friend of mine (who used to event) said to me the other day "why are there changes in the Advanced dressage test? Don't they know that proper changes require HUGE amounts of submission and collection and the event horses don't need that!"

She's taught 2 horses - one a failed eventer who preferred dressage because he always knew what was coming next and couldn't think as fast as he could canter - to do changes.

I think we all ought to ride mares. You can train them to work with you but they always think for themselves.

But how many mares are out there? Rolex had The Good Witch and UN. How many others? Were there really only 2?

Hilary...brilliant! :D

[J Swan]

Yes - that seems reasonable. In hunting (which I have more experience with) what I am looking for is a bit of a balance. He needs to do exactly what I tell him to do no questions asked. But he also needs to be able to think - to extract himself from a bad spot. Or do things like avoid a collision with another horse while I'm looking off in the distance watching for hounds. In the off season - I do pretty much nothing but dressage with my field hunter. And it does pay off out hunting.... but I don't know that I would want a GP dressage horse (with today's method of riding and training) - out there riding across country. I could very well imagine this sport ending up with high scoring dressage horses falling all over themselves on xc.

Oh my - Custom Made. A great horse. Yes - he would be an excellent example.



I always think of it as "conditional submission"... Seems like a great event horse absolutely MUST be rideable, must have a strong element of submission. But at the same time he has to be thinking, processing information on his own terms, so that if the situation called for it he could withdraw submission.

I'm sure there are lots of examples, but I think of DOC and Custom Made. Especially in their later years, Tailor was an icon of submission in his dressage, allowing David to move and place his body and his feet with incredible precision. But if David goofed on xc, the horse could rely on his own excellent judgement to fix the bobble.

In training, it has always struck me that David balanced the precision parts (i.e. "you must be able to place each foot where you want it, to the inch," spoken as he cantered Tigger literally inches from a group of spectators' toes), with puzzles and brain-games for the horses, where the animal had to use his own mind and learn by trial and error how to move his body to "solve the puzzle."

I worry about an increased emphasis on dressage, combined with a decreased emphasis on elements of the sport that promoted the horse's natural thinking, such as the steeplechase phase - I worry that the combination of these will have a growing negative impact on horses' ability to negotiate the xc phase, making him rely too much on his very human rider.

[lstevenson]

That was a cheep shot at Kim and Dan. You should apologize because you don't really know what was going on inside of their brains.
First off, Burghley.
(if I remember correctly) It was a combo, up hill, under a tree with shadows, and he stopped. She fell off. whoopie.
Poor guy was probably getting tired because he had already won Rolex start to finish, what, 2-3 times?



Wrong. It was a rotational fall because she missed and he didn't know when to take off. They were lucky that neither of them were hurt.

Kim is a great rider and doesn't miss very often, but her mistake certainly proves a point.

[lstevenson]

Quoted from the article;

"However, we have recently started to require collection from our horses, and I am sure this is where we have gone wrong."

and another....

"Two of my Olympic coaches, Jack LeGoff and Joe Lynch, told me not to go too deeply into collection because it would make the horse reliant on me."

I just don't buy that Dressage, which is a discipline dependent on varying degrees of collection, is the culprit here. Collection of a horse, even on xc, IF SOFTLY ridden does not make horses a.) forget to save themselves, or b.) ruin Evenitng. I'm sorry, I just don't agree.


It's obvious that the explanations that have been given on this thread so far have been going in one of your ears and just right out the other, so I will just repeat one more time:

Upper level dressage collection (which IS quite different from engagement and merely balancing a horse in front of a fence, is that what you are not getting???) makes a horse surrender himself to the rider mentally and physically.

And when that horse then gets in trouble because his rider misses at a fence, he tends to just wait for the rider to tell him what to do, instead of taking over and saving himself.

When you see a rider miss and a horse fall, it looks pretty obvious to me that the horse is just waiting to be told where to take off and doesn't get an answer or doesn't get the right answer. When you know darn well that horse could jump the jump just fine without a rider on his back.

And I'm also wondering Vuma, have YOU personally done either upper level eventing or dressage? Have you personally felt how totally a correct upper level dressage horse "gives" himself to you? Mentally and physically? Have you personally felt a cross country machine's initiative out on top level cross country?

I'm betting good money on no to all of those questions. Of course everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I find it funny that you seem to be saying that people who have actually FELT what Jimmy is talking about are wrong. Jimmy is wrong. Jack LeGoff is wrong. Ralph Hill is wrong. And of course I am wrong (and I have ridden to the top level in eventing and used to ride in upper level dressage as well).

And have you noticed that while riders like Reiner and Ingrid Klimke both rode to the top levels in dressage and eventing, that they used different horses for each sport? I wonder why that is?

And yes, I know that there are some horses that go on to do upper level dressage after their eventing career is over, but that is a different story. They are not doing both at the same time.

[LLDM]

Of course everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I find it funny that you seem to be saying that people who have actually FELT what Jimmy is talking about are wrong. Jimmy is wrong. Jack LeGoff is wrong. Ralph Hill is wrong. And of course I am wrong (and I have ridden to the top level in eventing and used to ride in upper level dressage as well).


J. Michael Plumb - On Ledyard, 1977

"Only the first and second fences were gifts, then after that the course posed problems at almost every fence, and that's the way it should be at that level. It was a matter of having your horse under control at all times, and knowing what you were about."

Intelligent people can disagree - even at the upper levels.

SCFarm

[Vuma]

It's obvious that the explanations that have been given on this thread so far have been going in one of your ears and just right out the other, so I will just repeat one more time:

Upper level dressage collection (which IS quite different from engagement and merely balancing a horse in front of a fence, is that what you are not getting???) makes a horse surrender himself to the rider mentally and physically.

And when that horse then gets in trouble because his rider misses at a fence, he tends to just wait for the rider to tell him what to do, instead of taking over and saving himself.

When you see a rider miss and a horse fall, it looks pretty obvious to me that the horse is just waiting to be told where to take off and doesn't get an answer or doesn't get the right answer. When you know darn well that horse could jump the jump just fine without a rider on his back.

And I'm also wondering Vuma, have YOU personally done either upper level eventing or dressage? Have you personally felt how totally a correct upper level dressage horse "gives" himself to you? Mentally and physically? Have you personally felt a cross country machine's initiative out on top level cross country?

I'm betting good money on no to all of those questions. Of course everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but I find it funny that you seem to be saying that people who have actually FELT what Jimmy is talking about are wrong. Jimmy is wrong. Jack LeGoff is wrong. Ralph Hill is wrong. And of course I am wrong (and I have ridden to the top level in eventing and used to ride in upper level dressage as well).

And have you noticed that while riders like Reiner and Ingrid Klimke both rode to the top levels in dressage and eventing, that they used different horses for each sport? I wonder why that is?

And yes, I know that there are some horses that go on to do upper level dressage after their eventing career is over, but that is a different story. They are not doing both at the same time.

Wow, I didn't know I had to include a resume to post a differing opinion to the "greats" such as yourself and the other names you're throwing around, but just to yield some clarity on my experience as it "might" relate to my differing opinion;

~Worked for and trained under 2 Olympic Eventers where I had the good fortune to ride several horses from T through ****. Let me note that the **** horse I rode was a "computer" - you simply told him what to do and he did it. I have never ridden a more submissive horse and HE WAS THE WORLD CHAMPION THE YEAR HE WAS PURCHASED! I also witnessed that horse be on his toes and think for himself on xc when his owner/rider made a mistake. The submissiveness DID NOT take away his initiative. He went on to the Sydney games with that rider and continued to do the same.

~I interned for six intensive months with “3” FEI Dressage riders, both American and German. I daily rode an I1 mare and sat on four other horses as they were being brought up from T to 4th.

~I galloped 6 horses a day 6 days a week for a year at the track and had 48 2-3 year olds under my care, taking them from being backed through to the sales for the leading Stud Farm (3 years running) in South Africa where, by the way, Lasix is not allowed!

~I foxhunted for 2 seasons on 3 different horses riding with both the Field and with the Whips.

~I rode Hunter Eq. to nationals in high school and college.

~Got a Pre-Vet degree with a triple minor in Equine Sciences; Breaking and Training, Teaching Equitation and Equine Repro. Physiology.

~Amongst other side interest I rode cutting horses for a summer and spent my days as child riding bareback through the 2000 acres of Forest Service that surrounded our farm where my parents raised Lippizans.

So, do I now have your permission to comment? Have I ever had the good fortune to own and event my own Advanced horse? NOT YET! Do I have the knowledge and tools to get there? I certainly think so and I will continue to train to that degree. I am currently bringing on a youngster who is at T and “if” he has the talent, we’ll continue to pursue it. But if not, I have the sense to know when to pull the plug and start looking for another. Or, maybe I’ll win the lottery and be lucky enough to buy a horse with that kind of talent.

It amazes me that an UL rider such as yourself has such unwarranted arrogance to assume that only an UL has the knowledge to comment on the issues that ultimately affect us all.

[Vuma]

And Debbie McDonald ran Rolex or even Galway or Maui Jim last...?

Reed

That was simply added as an additional comment on "Pecking Order". Did you read the title? Wasn't meant as a comment to judge Debbie as an Eventer.

[Vuma]

(Emphasis added by me). While I respect JW immensely, I think there is a fallacy in this argument in that I see very, very, VERY few horses, even at the **** level, who are submissive to this degree.
Even among the best rides at Rolex, I saw very few (none?) in which the horse appeared to have "every footfall controlled by the rider." And, it's worth noting, at Rolex at least, the people at the top after dressage largely stayed at the top after XC.
Comet's lovely test didn't seem to hurt his initiative at ALL out there. And I can't say Heidi's problem XC was caused by Farley waiting on her to control his every move; rather, it seemed like she wasn't doing much except kicking on and letting him sort it out when the fence arrived. And he was doing a pretty damn good job of that until they cut one line a little too close and he didn't clear part of the fence.

Let me point this out again in case it was overlooked; "I think there is a fallacy in this argument in that I see very, very, VERY few horses, even at the **** level, who are submissive to this degree."

Exactly my point. We're not asking for GP Dressage horses here (or even I1,I2 or PSG for that matter), we're asking for correct training through dressage which "does" include an element of submission and collection. But we're not even seeing that, which is IMO the reason for the recent disasters rather than the converse which is what JW is saying in this article.

[pwynnnorman]

And I'm also wondering Vuma, have YOU personally done either upper level eventing or dressage? Have you personally felt how totally a correct upper level dressage horse "gives" himself to you? Mentally and physically? Have you personally felt a cross country machine's initiative out on top level cross country?
lstevenson, I agree with a lot of what Vuma is saying and I have ridden and trained FEi-level dressage horses. I think you have to respect this as a THEORY, not a fact. Just because a highly regarded individual puts it forth, that doesn't mean it always applies--or even often applies. As a result, anyone, with or without direct experience in the sports invovled, should receive equal respect in proffering their opinions.

Vuma, don't mind that attitude. I ran into it, too, when I first started posting here. I chose to play cute and waited through twelve pages of attacks (because I dared to criticize an event) before informing my critics of my own, life-long background with the sport. They tend to assume you're an idiot until you prove otherwise. It has something to do with how much they love the sport and hate for outsiders to criticize it. Quite natural, but annoying.

[seeuatx]

We're not asking for GP Dressage horses here (or even I1,I2 or PSG for that matter), we're asking for correct training through dressage which "does" include an element of submission and collection. But we're not even seeing that, which is IMO the reason for the recent disasters rather than the converse which is what JW is saying in this article.

I think what you are saying is that true dressage is simply correct training of the horse to be supple and willing. Yes, some submission and collection are required... but not to the degree sometimes seen in the UL dressage arenas. I agree with that idea.

On the other hand, the FEI wants to add tempis to the Advanced test. That would make the test the equivalent of an Intermediare test, so yes we would be asking for those horses.

[Vuma]

lstevenson, I agree with a lot of what Vuma is saying and I have ridden and trained FEi-level dressage horses. I think you have to respect this as a THEORY, not a fact. Just because a highly regarded individual puts it forth, that doesn't mean it always applies--or even often applies. As a result, anyone, with or without direct experience in the sports invovled, should receive equal respect in proffering their opinions.

Vuma, don't mind that attitude. I ran into it, too, when I first started posting here. I chose to play cute and waited through twelve pages of attacks (because I dared to criticize an event) before informing my critics of my own, life-long background with the sport. They tend to assume you're an idiot until you prove otherwise. It has something to do with how much they love the sport and hate for outsiders to criticize it. Quite natural, but annoying.

Thanks for your words of wisdom here. This is exactly the reason I don't want to post my name, not that it would be worthy of recognition! But seriously, there are plenty of good horsemen/women out there who have never ridden <*, but is that an automatice requirement for understanding horses/training/riding? Good horses/training/riding are the same in ANY discipline.

[Vuma]

I think what you are saying is that true dressage is simply correct training of the horse to be supple and willing. Yes, some submission and collection are required... but not to the degree sometimes seen in the UL dressage arenas. I agree with that idea.

On the other hand, the FEI wants to add tempis to the Advanced test. That would make the test the equivalent of an Intermediare test, so yes we would be asking for those horses.

But we're not asking for tempi's now, and as I understand JW's article he is saying that we are "now" asking for too much from our horses. I totally agree with you that tempi's do not belong in Eventing.

[pwynnnorman]

Isn't it so very odd that FEI is suggesting tempis when...what..90% of the horses at the **** level blow single changes and another 5% who don't blow them are being ridden in mechanical, low frames resulting in flying changes that have no more expression to them than a hunter pony?

I noticed that a LOT at Rolex this year. IMO, it was a definite advantage to ride the test in a lower level frame and a lesser degree of collection/engagement. I said this before, but I'll repeat it: some of the frames seemed markedly different from the high, engaged frames Mark Phillips was very firm with riders about developing during the Winter Training Sessions this spring.

[KSevnter]

(Emphasis added by me). While I respect JW immensely, I think there is a fallacy in this argument in that I see very, very, VERY few horses, even at the **** level, who are submissive to this degree.
Even among the best rides at Rolex, I saw very few (none?) in which the horse appeared to have "every footfall controlled by the rider." And, it's worth noting, at Rolex at least, the people at the top after dressage largely stayed at the top after XC.
Comet's lovely test didn't seem to hurt his initiative at ALL out there. And I can't say Heidi's problem XC was caused by Farley waiting on her to control his every move; rather, it seemed like she wasn't doing much except kicking on and letting him sort it out when the fence arrived. And he was doing a pretty damn good job of that until they cut one line a little too close and he didn't clear part of the fence.

Just for clarification I wasn't making the upper level dressage argument in terms of the Rolex horses/tests as they are now. I was talking about true upper level dressage (Prix St. George and above) in regards to "you can never have too much collection and control" argument. More of the slippery slope as I see it, if we continue to make the dressage tests require more and more collection.

[lstevenson]

J. Michael Plumb - On Ledyard, 1977

"Only the first and second fences were gifts, then after that the course posed problems at almost every fence, and that's the way it should be at that level. It was a matter of having your horse under control at all times, and knowing what you were about."

Intelligent people can disagree - even at the upper levels.

SCFarm


I'm curious as to how what Mike is saying about the fact that problems should be spread evenly around the course and that your horse should be under control is relevent to this discussion? Is this also being disputed somewhere?

[lstevenson]

Wow, I didn't know I had to include a resume to post a differing opinion to the "greats" such as yourself and the other names you're throwing around, but just to yield some clarity on my experience as it "might" relate to my differing opinion



You obviously missed the point..... again.

I never asked for your resume. I asked if you have ridden at upper levels of dressage or eventing. Because I am suspecting that it will be mostly riders who have never personally experienced the difference between a horse who is totally subservient and horse who is a cross country machine, who feel the way that you do.

And you never answered any of these questions:

Have you personally felt how totally a correct upper level dressage horse "gives" himself to you? Mentally and physically? Have you personally felt a cross country machine's initiative out on top level cross country?

And I still feel from reading your posts that you are not differentiating between the collection of upper level dressage and engagement and balancing a horse in front of a fence.

Do you really not see a difference in the amount of collection and surrender of a horse's mind, body, and spirit in a second/third level horse vs. a Prix St. George horse????

[lstevenson]

As a result, anyone, with or without direct experience in the sports invovled, should receive equal respect in proffering their opinions.


So you think any Joe off the street can voice an opinion, even if they know nothing about the sport?? That's an interesting viewpoint. I for one hope that it is only people who are very experienced at this sport and knowledgeable on the subject who are coming up with solutions and making the changes that will be made to the sport.

That would be like me offering my opinions on the specifics of flying an airplane more safely, when I know nothing about being a pilot. :confused: I would think the one who regularly flies the plane, the pilot, would be the one to interview about his opinion.

And, just speaking generally, I think it is HIGHLY arrogant...or maybe ignorant is a better word, for anyone who doesn't have experience doing something to refute the opinions of people who actually do it.

[CarrieK]

Anyone can voice an opinion but whether those opinions should hold any sway is another matter altogether.

I've worked for 20+ years as a 911 operator/police dispatcher. Everybody and his brother thinks they know how police work should be done and everybody and his brother tells us so. We even have people who work in the same room as us, who control the traffic signs on the freeway, who tell us to tell the troopers how to do their job. In these days of CSI and Cops and Youtube, everybody's an expert. :: rollseyes ::

People who actually do the thing--whether it's riding in upper level competitions or answering the 911 lines--have a better insight on the whys and the wherefores. People a little on the outside can bring a fresh point of view or can help revisit an idea that's been tossed aside.

[LLDM]

I'm curious as to how what Mike is saying about the fact that problems should be spread evenly around the course and that your horse should be under control is relevent to this discussion? Is this also being disputed somewhere?

Gee, I didn't think it was so hard. When a horse (or anything) is "under control at all times" it is not able to exert its own freewill. Ergo, it is NOT available to use its own initiative to bail out its rider. Or, if you will, Submission -> submitting to authority -> yielding to authority -> under another's control.

I have no idea who you are. Don't really care. But your attitude is atrocious. And why there is such distrust these days of ULRs. No decent horseman claims to know all. There are many, many people who have never ridden the upper levels who are far better horseman than any who currently are. The problem with ULRs is that you all believe your own press. :rolleyes:

I may just be in a bad mood today - but the fact that you think you have all the answers clear tells me you don't. Intelligent people can disagree, even learn from other perspectives.

SCFarm

[Vuma]

You obviously missed the point..... again.

I never asked for your resume. I asked if you have ridden at upper levels of dressage or eventing. Because I am suspecting that it will be mostly riders who have never personally experienced the difference between a horse who is totally subservient and horse who is a cross country machine, who feel the way that you do.

And you never answered any of these questions:

Have you personally felt how totally a correct upper level dressage horse "gives" himself to you? Mentally and physically? Have you personally felt a cross country machine's initiative out on top level cross country?

And I still feel from reading your posts that you are not differentiating between the collection of upper level dressage and engagement and balancing a horse in front of a fence.

Do you really not see a difference in the amount of collection and surrender of a horse's mind, body, and spirit in a second/third level horse vs. a Prix St. George horse????


To answer your questions more fully..... (I assumed that when I stated what I had trained/sat on previously it would be obvious that there was at lease some proficiency implied as to what I have “felt”, but if you want the specifics as it relates to your very direct questions I will explain in detail.)

Yes, I have felt what it feels like to ride upper level movements on a Dressage horse that give itself to me completely in every movement called for in the Advanced test. In addition I have correctly executed 2 tempi's, canter pirouettes and half steps of piaffe under the watchful eye of trainer UNTIL it was done reliably and correctly.

Having foxhunted on an ex-Eventer that had competed (in its earlier years) up to the 3* level, I do know what it feels like to gallop at solid fences that you haven't been given the foresight of walking to assess before hand, as you navigate around, amongst and through others in a field at Full Cry pace which I can assure you isn't far off pace from what you are fishing for. (I don’t ride with a watch to FH, but know what varying speeds feel like from having galloped plenty of horses at the track.)

Have I had the good fortune to ride an Advanced level XC round? No, I have not and certainly hope to have a horse of the required talent to do so one day. Since you have had the good fortune to ride Advanced, I congratulate you on your achievement. It is something to be very proud of and I am sure you have gained great experience on the way that is relevant to your view point on this topic. Are my opinions any less valid? Are they any less noteworthy? I have a collection of Private Messages from other UL riders who also disagree with the article, but who do not want to offend the author by posting on the BB. Whether you agree with me or not, you should concede that there are opposing view points on this topic from credible “been there, done that” riders. If you disregard my viewpoint “because” I haven’t ridden Advanced, maybe you will allow for some oppositional thought knowing that there are UL riders who agree with the premise that today’s Dressage and Show Jumping tests, AND submission and collection PRESENTLY called for, is not to blame for the accidents we see happening in this sport.

Do I see a difference in the submission required at these very different questions asked of the horse. Absolutely. But, I have a differing option to the one presented in the article we're discussing as it blatantly says that Dressage and Show Jumping AS IT IS TODAY is to blame for the accidents that have occurred in our sport.

Are we seeing PSG level collection, submission or high end movements in today’s Advanced level test? NO. Are the horses that are putting in good Dressage rounds at the Advanced level crashing and burning? NO.

The idea that our stadium rounds are too complex and technical to be useful to the cross country ride is baffling to me. The technicality in my mind only improves the horse’s ability to think itself out of complex situations where the poles will fall because, as the article states, even Advanced riders are not always able to put a horse at the right distance in SJ or XC.

Why not keep it technical in SJ where there is little chance for rotational falls and more chance that the rider can train their own eye and learn to ride distances correctly. And if they are riding them correctly, they will be riding softly, where the horse can blow through the aids to save himself if need be. (Though I would contend that if you can’t reliably see a spot in SJ at the A level, you don’t belong there.) Where do you learn to ride softly and get a rideable horse who will respond to soft aids? Through your Dressage work.

Bottom line, in my mind, the level of submissiveness called for in today’s Advanced D test are not taking away the horses initiative. Now, I’ve said it once before and I’ll say it again, IF the rider is hassling the horse so that it rips it’s feet/base of support out from under it at the jump face then I agree the horse has no choice but to respond. Is Dressage, submission, collection the cause of actions such as these? No, and I would venture to say the lack thereof is the primary reason based on recent occurrences.

Again, the table-type galloping fences, not in combinations/related distanced, on XC is where the majority of fatalities have occurred in the past 18 months. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Let’s consider the max. width on A XC is 8'10" at the base with a max. height of 3'11" and the length of a horse’s stride would be pretty maxed out at 20-22’ (28’ IF YOU”RE MAN OF WAR in a flat race). In addition to this, the horse will leave the ground approximately 3’4” from the base and will land 4’11” on the other side. It would actually be greater as this formula (from the ICP SJ symposium) is for fences of only 3’6” in height and horses were not approaching at XC speeds. But, since this is all I have to go on, let’s hypothesize for a moment. (I actually think it would add more weight to the argument as horses will be leaving longer and landing longer. And certainly anyone with better data on this please jump in and contribute; it would be valuable to know.) This leaves only +/- 3’ of extra room for mistakes in my mind. Now consider that the ground lines are occasionally not all that substantial, some are actually on an angle, and some are in shadows, etc. YOU KNOW THIS AS YOU HAVE ALREADY WALKED THE COURSE; YOUR HORSE HAS NOT. Should you help/assist your horse or just let him figure it out? That really is the question I feel we are all in qualms about.

I personally would want to know, at the very least, that I can reliably see a spot if I’m riding at the A level. If a horse is not blowing through your aids coming into the fence, there is no reason why you shouldn’t see your distance!!! I want to be sitting on a horse that is going to half halt reliably, even at speed, in order to rebalance his frame, elevate his forehand, rock his balance back to his haunches prior to take off for maximum bascule to clear the fence. How does one achieve the responsiveness and submission – yes submission – it takes to get a horse galloping at 570+m/m to half halt? Through flat work that has asked for “submission” (not domination). How does one achieve re-balancing and a collection of stride so that the forward stride is now elevated enough to be forward without being on the forehand? Through collected work on the flat. How does the horse build the muscles of the haunches and the forehand to stop the forward motion, sit back and lift off? Well since this is the ultimate form of collection I would say, work with collection. (If there weren’t a fence there it would be a capriole!)

Can a Steeplechase jumper do this to some degree naturally on his own as the Author implies? Sure, but he’s not also required to go through sunken roads, coffins, water elements, related distances, etc. That’s why he’s a Steeplechaser, not an Eventer. Evening requires a different horse and a different level of training.

Good and safe riding does require submission and collection in my opinion and the opinion of other UL riders who have PM’ed me on this issue while not wanting to offend the Author. I see collection, submission, and our current Dressage and Show Jumping tests as exercises to assist a horse on XC. And it is working for those who are doing it right.

[KayBee]

I understand what JW is saying about the collection taking away iniative. But, that logic means our dressage winners would be crashing and burning in cross country, and that just ain't so. My guess is they know how to train for the dressage while preserving their horse's iniative for cross country jumping.

I think the problem is that there are several different issues that fall under the heading of "how do we improve/save our sport."

Has the switch to the short form led to increasingly technical X-C courses (showjumping over solid fences)?
Is the recent rash of cardiopulmonary-related horse deaths (hemmorhages, etc) due to need to collect for the technical jumps and then revving the engines hard to make time?
Is the combination of technicality plus the need for speed leading to increased rider error due to mental fatigue?
Has the switch from long- to short-form encouraged riders to prefer warmbloods over thoroughbreds who are, in the opinion of some, more inclined to look out for themselves?
Have the changes to the sport resulted in a different approach to training -- more emphasis on collection and submission -- led to the creation of horses that wait to be told based on the demands of a changed sport, ie...
a heavier emphasis on dressage
the changes to the stadium format (more technical courses/higher fences)
And will the FEI's desire to include tempis changes in dressage exacerbate that problem
Are the problems we're seeing in part due to a lack of rider responsibility including:
buying "success" by purchasing a horse whose skills exceed its rider
riders that fail to properly prepare for XC by conditioning their horses sufficiently/correctly and/or show them too much within a given season?
riders who are so determined to succeed that they
don't heed warning signs and pull up when their horse shows signs of fatigue
don't heed the signs of their own physical/mental fatigue or pull up when they're having a "off" day
Is part of the problem cultural in that the sport of eventing has increased in popularity whereas...
there are fewer and fewer open spaces on which to train (ie, riders don't have enough experience jumping (and rebalancing) at speed?
there are instructors who perhaps do not have sufficient experience in the sport and...
are not demanding a certain level of competency before allowing riders to move up
Are not making sure that riders are also horsemen/women?
Are encouraging a trend toward "buying" success

This is just a stab at a comprehensive list -- I'm sure that there are things I've missed. And when you read over the list, there are questions that are certainly inter-related. But still, I think there are 4 broad categories.

[pwynnnorman]

So you think any Joe off the street can voice an opinion, even if they know nothing about the sport??

Yup, I do, 'cuz this is America. And some Joe's out there have very well-developed powers of observation and can view a situation objectively and scientifically in a way that those intimately involved may be unable to.

Yup, I highly value the Joes. The useless ones, I ignore. The insightful ones, I'm always happy to listen to.

Some of my best friends are Joes. :D

Actually, lstevenson, it occurred to me before I clicked on the save button that that's exactly what PR and marketing professionals (including those specializing in crisis management) do all the time. It's their job to understand both the organization's perspective (and research its issues and culture) and also to respect that of your average Joe Public.

[pwynnnorman]

That aside, though, lstevenson, I'm enjoying the contrast between your perspective and Vuma's. What do you guys/gals think of Windfall's history? Extraordinary in dressage, pretty opinionated (often to his detriment, I think) on x-c, wouldn't you say? Does he prove that it's possible to have your cake and eat it, too? Or does being a stallion make him an exception? Just curious about what you think!

[J Swan]

That's a good question. Not that Salinero does xc - but that stallion does seem to jerk Anky's chain quite a bit. I guess some folks would say it's because he's rebelling over the use of rollkur.

Not wanting to step in that hornet's nest, I'm curious if his behavior is attributed to his sex - rather than "learned helplessness" or whatever folks are calling it these days.

I've not had enough experience handling stallions to know much at all - though I have known some that were quite gentlemanly - and others with a Hastings like temper.

[claire]

That's a good question. Not that Salinero does xc - but that stallion does seem to jerk Anky's chain quite a bit. I guess some folks would say it's because he's rebelling over the use of rollkur.

Not wanting to step in that hornet's nest, I'm curious if his behavior is attributed to his sex


Except, that Salinero is a gelding...:winkgrin:

That said, are there many stallions (or mares) eventing at the **** level?

KayBee, good point about the many different aspects that should be questioned.

I would be interested in JW's thoughts about the issue of the number of deaths attributed to pulmonary bleeding (??? correct term)

Hopefully, by having open meetings and open discussions with input from varied fields and experiences, the root cause (or causes) of these fatalities will be discovered and solutions be implemented.

[J Swan]

Except, that Salinero is a gelding...:winkgrin:



Well - there goes my brilliant theory.:rolleyes:

So I guess it is rollkur that makes him so grumpy. ;)

[claire]

Well - there goes my brilliant theory.:rolleyes:

So I guess it is rollkur that makes him so grumpy. ;)


:lol: Good thing this is the eventing forum.

Saying the "r" word in conjunction with the "A" word on the Dressage forum is a for-sure train wreck! :eek:

Seriously, I would be interested to know if there is a relation between sex/harmones and eventing performance.

Are there *relatively* few stallions and mares competing at the ****
level? And if so, why?

[KBG Eventer]

I'm sure there are lots of examples, but I think of DOC and Custom Made. Especially in their later years, Tailor was an icon of submission in his dressage, allowing David to move and place his body and his feet with incredible precision. But if David goofed on xc, the horse could rely on his own excellent judgement to fix the bobble.

In training, it has always struck me that David balanced the precision parts (i.e. "you must be able to place each foot where you want it, to the inch," spoken as he cantered Tigger literally inches from a group of spectators' toes), with puzzles and brain-games for the horses, where the animal had to use his own mind and learn by trial and error how to move his body to "solve the puzzle."




I am a little late on this, but I see what you mean with David O' Connor. I guess what I think the problem might be is that there are not very many Davids out there who can balance all the different phases so well and get the performances in dressage and stadium but still go out and do great on cross country. And I guess there is probably not many horses who can do that either.

[wanderlust]

What do you guys/gals think of Windfall's history? Extraordinary in dressage, pretty opinionated (often to his detriment, I think) on x-c, wouldn't you say? Does he prove that it's possible to have your cake and eat it, too?

I wouldn't call Windfall "extraordinary" in dressage. He can do very good eventing dressage and is a very good mover for an event horse, but never looks particularly happy about it. I'd certainly not call him submissive.

If he was a truly exceptional dressage horse, he'd be doing strictly UL dressage, not eventing.

[DizzyMagic]

I am a little late on this, but I see what you mean with David O' Connor. I guess what I think the problem might be is that there are not very many Davids out there who can balance all the different phases so well and get the performances in dressage and stadium but still go out and do great on cross country. And I guess there is probably not many horses who can do that either.

Perhaps I'm overly optimistic, but I don't think everyone has to be DOC in order to make sure their training has that same kind of balance. Supposing you're at the intermediate level - you're working on submission, collection - both in the dressage ring and in the showjumping school. But not many people do what David did with his horses (the demo I saw was with Tigger) - jump them on the lunge line over various exercises, which engaged a horse's brain AND forced him to figure out all by himself how to move his body to solve the problem. He marveled, kind of like JW did in his article, about how well a horse can jump when no one is interfering. Perhaps working on exercises like that would help to encourage a horse's initiative in a balance with encouraging submission...

I've been thinking about this - at first I totally agreed with Jimmy's comment that the problems are caused by SJ and Dressage, but I've kind of changed that view. I think that losing the long format caused us to UN-balance the sport. Without steeplechase, the first and last phase take on a heavier weight - and I'm not talking about the score - but the horse's and the rider's experience of the Event shifts dramatically. Steeplechase was the phase that forced all competitors to experience the hands-off, let the horse run and jump and take off where he takes off.

I think about the riders I've watched preparing for their first one-star as they try to learn to jump a steeplechase fence. It's so hard for them to DO NOTHING approaching the fence - I can remember my instructor saying to students to leave his stride alone, it's fine that he's on that long stride, he'll figure it out himself, just sit there and leave him alone. Both horse and rider had these moments of confusion, and some interestingly awkward jumps, but then the grins would start. I've never met a real three-day horse who didn't absolutely love the chase.

Score-wise it wasn't a significant piece, but I really believe that steeplechase balanced the technicality of the xc phase. When going out on course, no matter how technical, both horse and rider had just had a reminder of how it felt to just let go and let the fences happen. Riders like Karen have done so much of that that they're never going to forget it, and her rides today look as fluid and soft as they did before.

But a whole generation is coming along who've never faced that requirement - or who've faced it only in a one-star. So, they ride a technical dressage (whether or not it's well done), a technical xc phase, and a technical show-jumping phase. Losing the steeplechase - the ONLY non-technical element - made the sport lose its balance.

Emily

[J Swan]

:lol: Good thing this is the eventing forum.

Saying the "r" word in conjunction with the "A" word on the Dressage forum is a for-sure train wreck! :eek:

Seriously, I would be interested to know if there is a relation between sex/harmones and eventing performance.

Are there *relatively* few stallions and mares competing at the ****
level? And if so, why?


No idea about eventing - but racing has a bit of the type of data you're seeking. I don't know that you can draw any conclusions from it - but it would be interesting.

[lstevenson]

Gee, I didn't think it was so hard. When a horse (or anything) is "under control at all times" it is not able to exert its own freewill. Ergo, it is NOT available to use its own initiative to bail out its rider. Or, if you will, Submission -> submitting to authority -> yielding to authority -> under another's control.


Your simplistic view is not exactly correct. A horse can be "under control" and still think for itself. He is "under control" in that he is doing exactly what the rider asks of him. Going in the direction, speed, and balance that the rider requests. But if the rider is one who lets the horse think for himself, he can decide on his own what to do with his feet. As Ralph always used to say, "there is no better master of their (own) legs than the horse." If riders let the horses do it!


Control, submission and collection are relative terms. They can all be had in DEGREES or LEVELS. It's not: submissive or unsubmissive, or collected or uncollected. There is a HUGE RANGE of these qualities possible in the horse in any given situation.

IMO (and my atrocious one apparantly :winkgrin:) THIS is what this arguement is all about. Some (despite being told otherwise over and over) think Jimmy is saying that all collection and submission is bad. But he is not saying that we should not train our horses on the flat. The amount of collection and submission required of an upper level dressage horse is where you start to see the horse giving himself totally to the rider, and THAT is when many (not all) horses lose their desire to think for themselves.


Yes I am outspoken, and I could care less if some don't like it. ;) But Jimmy is my mentor. And even though I know he doesn't need me fighting his battles for him, it really annoys me when people who have never even actually experienced what we are discussing, thinking they "know better" than a multiple Olympian and the person who has trained most of the top riders in this country at one time or another.

Btw, Jimmy DOES read these boards, and he is probably finding this all quite amusing! :cool:

[Vuma]

Btw, Jimmy DOES read these boards, and he is probably finding this all quite amusing! :cool:

I think he will be most amused with your assumption that "only UL riders need apply" when discussing issues that effect us all. The safety issues we're facing are not exclusive to the UL's.

[lstevenson]

I think he will be most amused with your assumption that "only UL riders need apply" when discussing issues that effect us all. The safety issues we're facing are not exclusive to the UL's.



How exactly does not increasing the amount of collection in the dressage required at the top level affect LLR's?

The issues in Jimmy's article pretty much apply to upper level riders.

And actually I'm sure he would agree that only experienced and knowledgable people should be making these decisions.

[DizzyMagic]

Yes I am outspoken, and I could care less if some don't like it. ;) But Jimmy is my mentor. And even though I know he doesn't need me fighting his battles for him, it really annoys me when people who have never even actually experienced what we are discussing, thinking they "know better" than a multiple Olympian and the person who has trained most of the top riders in this country at one time or another.

Btw, Jimmy DOES read these boards, and he is probably finding this all quite amusing! :cool:

FWIW, you don't come across as outspoken to me, but rather as narrow-minded and supercilious - I don't know if that's the intention, as sometimes the written word is harder to judge than a face-to-face conversation. You seem absolutely stunned that Vuma would dare to have an opinion that is different from a great equestrian like JW - but she raises some pretty good points.

Do I see a difference in the submission required at these very different questions asked of the horse. Absolutely. But, I have a differing option to the one presented in the article we're discussing as it blatantly says that Dressage and Show Jumping AS IT IS TODAY is to blame for the accidents that have occurred in our sport.
...

Are we seeing PSG level collection, submission or high end movements in today’s Advanced level test? NO. Are the horses that are putting in good Dressage rounds at the Advanced level crashing and burning? NO.
...

Bottom line, in my mind, the level of submissiveness called for in today’s Advanced D test are not taking away the horses initiative.


I don't think anyone sees any possible benefit to adding tempis to the dressage tests, but in my opinion the points raised here are good ones. Vuma seems to be using her own education, experience, and powers of deductive reasoning to come up with these points, and I've got a lot of respect for that, regardless of agreeing or disagreeing on specifics. And I would really love to hear what JW might say in response, whether he would disagree entirely or perhaps expand more on his theory...

The dichotomy of this discussion has, in part, led me to form some of my own conclusions (detailed in an earlier post). In spite of my own extremely sparse equestrian "resume", I'm hoping to listen, learn, AND use the brain I was born with to help pinpoint some critical problems and ultimately to put forth some ideas to help this sport get back on track. Someone did ask for ideas, after all.

If Jimmy Wofford does peruse these boards, I hope he's able to see through all the vitriol to what is actually a pretty thought-provoking discussion.

Emily

[LLDM]

Control, submission and collection are relative terms. They can all be had in DEGREES or LEVELS. It's not: submissive or unsubmissive, or collected or uncollected. There is a HUGE RANGE of these qualities possible in the horse in any given situation.


That's the first post you've made that doesn't come across as an absolute. It's one thing to try hard to make your point - but until now you haven't been making it.

Yes, of course it's relative. DUH. Maybe it's what you meant - but it ain't what you said.

I have a lot of respect for JW - but I certainly don't think he hung the moon. And I certainly don't think that his words are gospel. They are only words and can not substitute for sorting it out for oneself (with one's horse, of course). I only quoted M. Plumb to make the point that it can be looked at a variety of ways.

Chill out a little, 'kay? There is a lot of good stuff in what you've been saying - but it's being lost in the insults. Stop treating everyone like they are stupid and they are more likely to listen to your point of view.

Oh, and you can tell JW that I think it sucks he won't be at the safety summit.

SCFarm

[DizzyMagic]

How exactly does not increasing the amount of collection in the dressage required at the top level affect LLR's?

The issues in Jimmy's article pretty much apply to upper level riders.

And actually I'm sure he would agree that only experienced and knowledgable people should be making these decisions.


How does anything at the top level affect LLR's? That one is easy - because I don't want to go to an event and watch you die.

I'm sure that only experienced people will MAKE the decisions. But I dearly hope they're open minded enough to HEAR and consider a broad variety of ideas.

Emily

[EventerAJ]

I've been thinking about this - at first I totally agreed with Jimmy's comment that the problems are caused by SJ and Dressage, but I've kind of changed that view. I think that losing the long format caused us to UN-balance the sport. Without steeplechase, the first and last phase take on a heavier weight - and I'm not talking about the score - but the horse's and the rider's experience of the Event shifts dramatically. Steeplechase was the phase that forced all competitors to experience the hands-off, let the horse run and jump and take off where he takes off.

I think about the riders I've watched preparing for their first one-star as they try to learn to jump a steeplechase fence. It's so hard for them to DO NOTHING approaching the fence - I can remember my instructor saying to students to leave his stride alone, it's fine that he's on that long stride, he'll figure it out himself, just sit there and leave him alone. Both horse and rider had these moments of confusion, and some interestingly awkward jumps, but then the grins would start. I've never met a real three-day horse who didn't absolutely love the chase.

Score-wise it wasn't a significant piece, but I really believe that steeplechase balanced the technicality of the xc phase. When going out on course, no matter how technical, both horse and rider had just had a reminder of how it felt to just let go and let the fences happen. Riders like Karen have done so much of that that they're never going to forget it, and her rides today look as fluid and soft as they did before.

But a whole generation is coming along who've never faced that requirement - or who've faced it only in a one-star. So, they ride a technical dressage (whether or not it's well done), a technical xc phase, and a technical show-jumping phase. Losing the steeplechase - the ONLY non-technical element - made the sport lose its balance.

Emily

Excellent point about sc, can't say it any better. BTW, the part about "confusion" and "grins" is SO TRUE!! Been there myself, wish I could go back. Far less "grinning" nowadays...

SC seemed to help so many horses; it settled the rank-and-wild, but gave some fire-breathing courage to others (like mine). An x, a vertical, and an oxer just don't do what 2 minutes of fly-fences did: develop rhythm, forward, trust, and *gentle* balancing. And fun. :p

[tlw]

So, at what point does dressage become upper level dressage for purposes of this discussion? 2d level (minimal collection, no flying changes), 3d level (collection, half pass to a flying change on the rail), 4th level (collection, multiple flying changes)? I'm curious because for a mid level eventer (training/prelim) competent third level dressage is not out of the question. Do we mid level eventers need to worry about this issue if we also ride successfully at 2d or 3d level dressage? Or is it only at 4th level and above (and upper level eventing) where the problem starts to become apparent?

[lstevenson]

You seem absolutely stunned that Vuma would dare to have an opinion that is different from a great equestrian like JW - but she raises some pretty good points.



Yes, I think it is arrogant of her to say that riders/trainers of that caliber are "wrong" and she is "right". But the reason I keep responding to Vuma's posts is because of the INACCURATE and ignorant statements like this one:


Dressage and technical Stadium courses "promote and create" rideablity. Why are they being perceived as the enemy?


I think Vuma is the one being narrow minded (and very incorrect) because she is saying that if Jimmy says that too much collection and dominance is a bad thing, that MUST mean that he is saying that dressage and stadium training ruins a horse for x-c. She seems stuck on that incorrect blanket statement, and seems to refuse to think about what Jimmy is really saying.

[lstevenson]

That's the first post you've made that doesn't come across as an absolute. It's one thing to try hard to make your point - but until now you haven't been making it.

Yes, of course it's relative.



Huh? Go back and re-read my posts. That's what I have been saying the whole time! That it is the AMOUNT of collection and submission that is the problem. Too much makes the horse lose it's initiative. The right amount is paramount.

[lstevenson]

So, at what point does dressage become upper level dressage for purposes of this discussion? 2d level (minimal collection, no flying changes), 3d level (collection, half pass to a flying change on the rail), 4th level (collection, multiple flying changes)? I'm curious because for a mid level eventer (training/prelim) competent third level dressage is not out of the question. Do we mid level eventers need to worry about this issue if we also ride successfully at 2d or 3d level dressage? Or is it only at 4th level and above (and upper level eventing) where the problem starts to become apparent?


Not sure how Jimmy would answer that question, but in my opinion it would be 4th level and above.

[Vuma]

Yes, I think it is arrogant of him/her to say that riders/trainers of that caliber are "wrong" and he/she is "right". But the reason I keep responding to Vuma's posts is because of the INACCURATE and ignorant statements like this one:





I think Vuma is the one being narrow minded (and very incorrect) because he/she is saying that if Jimmy says that too much collection and dominance is a bad thing, that MUST mean that he is saying that dressage and stadium training ruins a horse for x-c. He/she seems stuck on that incorrect blanket statement, and seems to refuse to think about what Jimmy is really saying.

No, JW is saying that himself. Let me quote the article directly for you...... once again;

"Our problems are not being caused by the cross-country test; they are being caused by the dressage and show jumping tests."

That statement is not taken out of context. It is what it is...

And regarding your statement that I said JW, or anyone else for that matter, is wrong…. from my original post my title was; “I (me, myself, and I) am not buying what he’s selling.” Where do you get that I have said he is wrong? I disagree with him “on this article” and in my opinion, as I have stated more than once - it is my opinion, I have elaborated as to why. I actually agree with JW for the most part and do “buy” (literally) much of what he has said in his books/videos/ect. I don’t, however, agree with this article.

You’ve let it be known that he is your riding mentor. As a writter, maybe he can also mentor you on written etiquette.

[DizzyMagic]

I think Vuma is the one being narrow minded (and very incorrect) because she is saying that if Jimmy says that too much collection and dominance is a bad thing, that MUST mean that he is saying that dressage and stadium training ruins a horse for x-c. She seems stuck on that incorrect blanket statement, and seems to refuse to think about what Jimmy is really saying.

Dressage and technical Stadium courses "promote and create" rideablity. Why are they being perceived as the enemy?

The way I read the article, Jimmy is saying that too much collection makes the horse too dependent on the rider, taking away the horse's initiative. Even in the context of his article, Vuma's statement wouldn't be incorrect - it's just a disagreement about whether greater degrees of rideability or submission are having a negative impact on the way xc is ridden.

Does too much "rideability" mean that the horse becomes too dependent upon instructions from the rider? My own opinion is that a good balance between the two has to be struck, and that eventing has definitely fallen out of balance. Am I right? I don't know, but my conclusion feels right to me...

Emily

[lstevenson]

Are we seeing PSG level collection, submission or high end movements in today’s Advanced level test? NO. Are the horses that are putting in good Dressage rounds at the Advanced level crashing and burning? NO.

The idea that our stadium rounds are too complex and technical to be useful to the cross country ride is baffling to me. The technicality in my mind only improves the horse’s ability to think itself out of complex situations where the poles will fall because, as the article states, even Advanced riders are not always able to put a horse at the right distance in SJ or XC.

Why not keep it technical in SJ where there is little chance for rotational falls and more chance that the rider can train their own eye and learn to ride distances correctly. And if they are riding them correctly, they will be riding softly, where the horse can blow through the aids to save himself if need be. (Though I would contend that if you can’t reliably see a spot in SJ at the A level, you don’t belong there.) Where do you learn to ride softly and get a rideable horse who will respond to soft aids? Through your Dressage work.

Bottom line, in my mind, the level of submissiveness called for in today’s Advanced D test are not taking away the horses initiative. Now, I’ve said it once before and I’ll say it again, IF the rider is hassling the horse so that it rips it’s feet/base of support out from under it at the jump face then I agree the horse has no choice but to respond. Is Dressage, submission, collection the cause of actions such as these? No, and I would venture to say the lack thereof is the primary reason based on recent occurrences.

Again, the table-type galloping fences, not in combinations/related distanced, on XC is where the majority of fatalities have occurred in the past 18 months. (Correct me if I'm wrong.) Let’s consider the max. width on A XC is 8'10" at the base with a max. height of 3'11" and the length of a horse’s stride would be pretty maxed out at 20-22’ (28’ IF YOU”RE MAN OF WAR in a flat race). In addition to this, the horse will leave the ground approximately 3’4” from the base and will land 4’11” on the other side. It would actually be greater as this formula (from the ICP SJ symposium) is for fences of only 3’6” in height and horses were not approaching at XC speeds. But, since this is all I have to go on, let’s hypothesize for a moment. (I actually think it would add more weight to the argument as horses will be leaving longer and landing longer. And certainly anyone with better data on this please jump in and contribute; it would be valuable to know.) This leaves only +/- 3’ of extra room for mistakes in my mind. Now consider that the ground lines are occasionally not all that substantial, some are actually on an angle, and some are in shadows, etc. YOU KNOW THIS AS YOU HAVE ALREADY WALKED THE COURSE; YOUR HORSE HAS NOT. Should you help/assist your horse or just let him figure it out? That really is the question I feel we are all in qualms about.

I personally would want to know, at the very least, that I can reliably see a spot if I’m riding at the A level. If a horse is not blowing through your aids coming into the fence, there is no reason why you shouldn’t see your distance!!! I personally would want to know, at the very least, that I can reliably see a spot if I’m riding at the A level. . (If there weren’t a fence there it would be a capriole!)

Can a Steeplechase jumper do this to some degree naturally on his own as the Author implies? Sure, but he’s not also required to go through sunken roads, coffins, water elements, related distances, etc. That’s why he’s a Steeplechaser, not an Eventer. Evening requires a different horse and a different level of training.

Good and safe riding does require submission and collection in my opinion and the opinion of other UL riders who have PM’ed me on this issue while not wanting to offend the Author. I see collection, submission, and our current Dressage and Show Jumping tests as exercises to assist a horse on XC. And it is working for those who are doing it right.


Sorry, I had missed this post entirely.

"Are the horses that are putting in good Dressage rounds at the Advanced level crashing and burning?"

The horses that are crossing the line of doing dressage at the level where they "give" themselves to the rider are at increased risk of crashing. It may have not happened yet, but wait until that rider really misses out on x-c, then it might.

And when the SJ gets bigger and more technically difficult riders focus their training on being supremely accurate with total control of their horses stride and timing. Which would be all fine and dandy if the rider will promise to NEVER, EVER miss at speed on x-c.

Again, both of those situations set the horse up to listen totally to his rider and not think for himself.

"the table-type galloping fences, not in combinations/related distanced, on XC is where the majority of fatalities have occurred in the past 18 months"

Because the table type obstacles is where the riders are "missing". They are usually going at a much higher rate of speed at those jumps. And while speed per se is not the problem, it becomes part of the problem when the horse's initiative has been suppressed AND the rider misses.

"YOU KNOW THIS AS YOU HAVE ALREADY WALKED THE COURSE; YOUR HORSE HAS NOT. Should you help/assist your horse or just let him figure it out?"

Horses have an amazing ability to quickly assess a situation and stay on their feet. *IF* we nurture that in training and then let them do it.

"I personally would want to know, at the very least, that I can reliably see a spot if I’m riding at the A level. "

Yes, but every rider is bound to miss now and then, and when the horse's initiative has been supressed, that miss is more likely to be fatal.

"I want to be sitting on a horse that is going to half halt reliably, even at speed, in order to rebalance his frame, elevate his forehand, rock his balance back to his haunches prior to take off for maximum bascule to clear the fence. How does one achieve the responsiveness and submission – yes submission – it takes to get a horse galloping at 570+m/m to half halt? Through flat work that has asked for “submission” (not domination). How does one achieve re-balancing and a collection of stride so that the forward stride is now elevated enough to be forward without being on the forehand? Through collected work on the flat. How does the horse build the muscles of the haunches and the forehand to stop the forward motion, sit back and lift off? Well since this is the ultimate form of collection I would say, work with collection. "

With this I agree. But upper level collection crosses the line into domination. Different story. And balance is really a better word than collection to describe a horse approaching a jump. Horses need to be balanced in front of jumps, but they don't need to be collected.

[lstevenson]

No, JW is saying that himself. Let me quote the article directly for you...... once again;

"Our problems are not being caused by the cross-country test; they are being caused by the dressage and show jumping tests."

That statement is not taken out of context. It is what it is...


So let me get this straight. You really still believe that Jimmy is saying that ALL dressage and stadium training will ruin a horse? You refuse to believe that he is talking about crossing a line with too much collection and subservience and therefore too much dominance?

[Peggy]

IMHO, it's hard to define the line of no return for "too much" submission, collection, whatever in terms of dressage movements or even tests. A lot depends on how the movements are ridden and trained as well how they're strung together in a test. Not to mention the horse's brain and aptitude. An isolated string of four-tempis, a bit of half-pass, etc. is one thing, but having them come up rapidly in a test is quite another. Sort of like the difference b/w riding a single 4' fence, a 4' fence coming out of a gymnastic line, a simple course of 4' fences, or a technical course of 4' fences.

I really don't think the fact that I had Star schooling roughly 4th level, including tempis has ruined his initiative going down to a fence. Changes were pretty easy for him, which may have been a factor. Other aspects of dressage were not, which is one reason we switched disciplines (to HJ, not eventing).

Credentials- merely Training Eventing, but up to 3'6"-3'9' hunters/jumpers/eq and schooling I-2 movements in dressage.

[pwynnnorman]

Just to open up another can of worms...:winkgrin:

There is that 800-pound gorilla in the room. The one which keeps whispering about how we got to where JW says we are.

JW is one of the top coaches of the past 20 years--if not THE top coach. Coaches set the pace of the sport directly, by coaching the top riders, and indirectly as those riders in turn develop others. If you were to do the Kevin Bacon Six Degrees of Separation game with JW and ULRs, I think it'd be pretty rare for you to ever need more than three degrees.

This isn't a criticism of JW. It's pointing out just how futile this discussion is, ultimately (not that it hasn't been fun!).

IMO, it can't be collection that is causing the problem--because if it were, JW's influence on this sport would be totally negated since, surely, he didn't spend the last 20 years drilling riders to micromanage their horses.

So why are we now so concerned with collection and the influence of dressage and the lack of steeplechase? Is there a possibility that the generation which followed JW in coaching has yet to catch up with the changes in the sport--that it is just that simple? And that all these discussions and concerns are simply part of that catching up process?

An assumption being made here, by JW and others, IMO, is that what is going on here is all BAD, heading down the wrong road, destroying the sport. I think it is worth considering that while the moments may be pretty awful, they may be part of a process of growth and refinement which was inevitable with the introduction of the short format.

And that means no single element, like collection, is a determinant of the current state. It's just far more complicated than that.

And the simplest example of that complexity is the fact that if you are riding a horse that simply cannot be made to submit, it ain't gonna happen.

So what came first: the submission or the submissiveness? Given the evolutionary trends in the sport, I'd argue its the horse, not the course, in this instance. Rideable horses are a premium in the sport due to the new nature of participants, both at the lower levels and at the upper ones. (I'd speculate that less rideable creatures take a lot more TIME to develop and hence the UL pro isn't going to choose that type if given a choice--big generalization, but see what the possibilities are?)

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Pwynnormoan

I remember when the short format came to be. Standing at Fair Hill watching it when it was first run as a short format. I saw Jimmy and asked him what he thought. He shook his head in disgust. Said they are changing every thing about this sport but one thing...the horse.

He was just waiting for the accidents to start to happen.

I don't think the problem is all in the training. I think the problem is more fundamental. We think...stiffen up the dressage...make the cross country harder...make the stadium harder....why. Just because the riders have gotten good and the horses fancier? Screw that...let the scores be close. Let it be separated by a point or two. Why must things be made tougher and harder?


And as for what Jim is saying in the article.....Even the best rider in the world will miss.

In my last lesson, he told me a story about Bill Steinkraus...one of the world's best show jump riders. Bill Steinkraus was known for having one of the best eyes for a distance EVER. As a young man, Jim asked him how often he missed a distance....thinking the answer would be once every few months. Bill responded that he probably missed 3 out of every 10 fences.

That was a powerful lesson to learn at an early age....if one of the BEST in the world misses that much, you better believe that the rest of us mortals will miss more and we better do what we can to teach our horses how to think fast for themselves and save us both. This is counter to what you work on in Dressage. LOOK AT HIS TITLE...it is about finding the BALANCE between the two.

This line of thinking is not unique to Jim. All the top trainers that I have worked with or work for (and respect) have said similar things....and while I my self may not be very good...I have worked with many of the best.

I also agree with Pwyn...perhaps riders are picking horses that move well and are already more submissive by nature rather than the xc and jumping machines of the past.....but you add to that, the backwards riding (or forward on a flat stride riding), and some of the lack of fundamentals that some of our UL rides have (some not all), and it creates a higher risk for an accident. So it isn't just issue with the course design...but how people are answering (or not) the questions and what happens when they are wrong.

I think the sport has changed.....and Jimmy has changed how he trains his riders and the focus in his lessons. I've ridden long enough with him to see the difference even for us lowly lower level riders.

But ask yourself WHY does the sport keep changing. Why do we need to make the phases harder. I'm not seeing the horses that win dressage always winning. I'm still seeing good jumping horses rise to the surface. And regardless, if the competition gets closer....isn't that the point of good competition?

[Vuma]

Just to open up another can of worms...:winkgrin:



An assumption being made here, by JW and others, IMO, is that what is going on here is all BAD, heading down the wrong road, destroying the sport. I think it is worth considering that while the moments may be pretty awful, they may be part of a process of growth and refinement which was inevitable with the introduction of the short format.

And that means no single element, like collection, is a determinant of the current state. It's just far more complicated than that.

And the simplest example of that complexity is the fact that if you are riding a horse that simply cannot be made to submit, it ain't gonna happen.




I agree.

Furthermore, I see it as being quite obvious that with the introduction of the short format, the sport is now more assessible to LL riders AND to more rides for UL riders. (I am not complaining about that.) With more participants in the sport and more rides for each participant, more accidents are inevitable. That doesn't relieve us of the duty to strive for safety across the board, but the law of averages has no other choice than to play a significant role here.

[DizzyMagic]

I think it is worth considering that while the moments may be pretty awful, they may be part of a process of growth and refinement which was inevitable with the introduction of the short format.


I just wonder if anyone is willing to grow and refine the short format...

And if the response to a sport that has fallen out of balance, is to bring it even more out of balance by introducing MORE technicality...well, that just worries me.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

I just wonder if anyone is willing to grow and refine the short format...

And if the response to a sport that has fallen out of balance, is to bring it even more out of balance by introducing MORE technicality...well, that just worries me.


same here.....it would also send me away from the sport and I think will cause even more issues.

[dq140]

The problem I see in eventing has nothing to do with collection rather it is a problem of everything counter to collection. It is the problem of riding the horse by/from the hands (backwards riding) which is causing a failure of initiative. Instead of learning the skills of how to ride...use of seat and legs as the primary aids...people are relying on bigger bits, more rigs/gadgets which CUT right into the heart of a horse and their initiative.

[dq140]

Maybe the event world should make a rule about bitting: like only a snaffle bridle up to and through the preliminary level. That would put a hold on a lot of people, making them learn how to ride rather than letting them rely on the superficiality of bigger bits and more gadgets!

[Vuma]

The problem I see in eventing has nothing to do with collection rather it is a problem of everything counter to collection. It is the problem of riding the horse by/from the hands (backwards riding) which is causing a failure of initiative. Instead of learning the skills of how to ride...use of seat and legs as the primary aids...people are relying on bigger bits, more rigs/gadgets which CUT right into the heart of a horse and their initiative.

Yes, yes, yes!

And I think most folks are confusing riding with collection as having heavy hands. Though some might ride collection in that erroneous fashion, (and we see plenty of examples of that sort of riding) that is not true collection.

From the "Principles of Riding" (The German National Equestrian Federation handbook)....

Under 2 (3)ii COLLECTION

"To achieve this change, the propulsive force should be increased by stronger forward driving aids..."

"This involves easing the weight on the forehand, which give greater mobility to the forelegs."

A great place from which to jump I would say!

"When the horse is correctly trained, his neck shapes itself. The lowering of the quarters determines how high the neck is carried and arched: the horse carries itself. Whereas if head and neck position are caused by the reins mainly or solely, the rider has to carry the horse's head and neck with his hands."

This is how some GP jumpers can take serious fences from the trot, because of the propulsive power from the haunches through collection WITHOUT heavy hands to block the lightness of the forehand.

In my mind, when your horse is galloping to a fence at 570m/m and he has been trained to be responsive enough to soft aids that he, through the riders soft influence, sits back, slows the pace to what is appropriate for that fence, engages the engine, lightens the forehand and takes the fence from that position, it will always be a safe (and picture perfect!) fence.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

In my mind, when your horse is galloping to a fence at 570m/m and he has been trained to be responsive enough to soft aids that he, through the riders soft influence, sits back, slows the pace to what is appropriate for that fence, engages the engine, lightens the forehand and takes the fence from that position, it will always be a safe (and picture perfect!) fence.


Only if the rider NEVER misses. No one is disagreeing that a horse like you describe is desirable....but what Jimmy was saying is you need to balance that level of responsiveness with a horse that still can think and make decisions. So that when you are going 570 mpm and hit the gallop fence on a perfect half stride...you have a horse that knows how to compensate and make the right decision if the rider upstairs has a "duh" moment and doesn't help the horse make the decision (or tells the horse to do something really wrong...like gun it and leave long)....

But if you come in to that same fence, on the forehand, on a flat stride....even the best trained horse will not be able to compensate. It is all in the BALANCE....balance of the horse, balance of the aids, balance of the rider being able to allow the horse to compensate for their missed distance.........that was his whole point.

[dq140]

Only if the rider NEVER misses. No one is disagreeing that a horse like you describe is desirable....but what Jimmy was saying is you need to balance that level of responsiveness with a horse that still can think and make decisions. So that when you are going 570 mpm and hit the gallop fence on a perfect half stride...you have a horse that knows how to compensate if the rider upstairs has a Blonde moment and doesn't help the horse make the decision....

But if you come in to that same fence, on the forhand, on a flat stride....even the best trained horse will not be able to compensate. It is all in the BALANCE....balance of the horse, balance of the aids, balance of the rider being able to allow the horse to compensate for their missed distance.........that was his whole point.

What Vuma and I are trying to say, is that we don't see that "level of responsiveness" very often to begin with. So, the problems we are seeing, could hardly be the fault of collection. Not many have gotten their horses to that "level of balance/responsiveness" where one could even begin to work on collection.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

What Vuma and I are trying to say, is that we don't see that "level of responsiveness" very often to begin with. So, the problems we are seeing, could hardly be the fault of collection. Not many have gotten their horses to that "level of balance/responsiveness" where one could even begin to work on collection.


But if the collection work is added to the dressage as is being proposed....you will. That was his warning.

I think it has changed though. Riders are picking horses that are naturally more submissive. We are schooling more and more techincal exercises....and many riders are focusing on teaching horses to wait for direction for the rider (or slapping on the hardware to demand it)....instead of schooling the horse to answer the question without the direction of the rider. To be honest, some of the questions asked on xc today probably can not be solved by most horses....and that is one of the changes and one of the dangers of today's UL...requiring even more skill on the rider's part to keep them both safe. It isn't the sole source of the problems (and even Jim says that it isn't the sole source)....but I do have to think that it is a factor.

[LLDM]

Riders are picking horses that are naturally more submissive.

See, I wonder about that. I wonder if riders (ULRs) are picking horses at all. Or are they just doing what they can with the horses owners choose to send them?

I think up to 10 -15 years ago eventers really did pick their horses - and very carefully at that. It seems NO ONE had more than 2 upper level horses. They just couldn't possibly have the time to train and condition more than two. So the ones they chose had to be both very capable and to really "fit" them in terms of personality, ridability and partnership. They HAD to get along since they spent so much time together.

Now horses are passed around like a bowl of candy. And grooms or WSs do most of the conditioning. ULRs school the technical stuff - not so much the gallops. That's the difference I see in the video thread.

I could be way off - but that is what I remember from coming up and how different it is today.

SCFarm

[bornfreenowexpensive]

See, I wonder about that. I wonder if riders (ULRs) are picking horses at all. Or are they just doing what they can with the horses owners choose to send them?

I think up to 10 -15 years ago eventers really did pick their horses - and very carefully at that. It seems NO ONE had more than 2 upper level horses. They just couldn't possibly have the time to train and condition more than two. So the ones they chose had to be both very capable and to really "fit" them in terms of personality, ridability and partnership. They HAD to get along since they spent so much time together.

Now horses are passed around like a bowl of candy. And grooms or WSs do most of the conditioning. ULRs school the technical stuff - not so much the gallops. That's the difference I see in the video thread.

I could be way off - but that is what I remember from coming up and how different it is today.

SCFarm



I don't think you are way off. I've also thought similar things. But it isn't uniform.....and I do think like all things...it is just one factor.

I'm all for making things safer (but eventing will never be safe)....just don't agree that you make it safer by increasing the techincal difficulty of any of the phases. You make it safer by having riders and horses with better skills....but how to legislate that is a hard call...and I don't think there is a quick fix.

[dq140]

But if the collection work is added to the dressage as is being proposed....you will. That was his warning.

I think it has changed though. Riders are picking horses that are naturally more submissive. We are schooling more and more techincal exercises....and many riders are focusing on teaching horses to wait for direction for the rider (or slapping on the hardware to demand it)....instead of schooling the horse to answer the question without the direction of the rider. To be honest, some of the questions asked on xc today probably can not be solved by most horses....and that is one of the changes and one of the dangers of today's UL...requiring even more skill on the rider's part to keep them both safe. It isn't the sole source of the problems (and even Jim says that it isn't the sole source)....but I do have to think that it is a factor.

I quite agree! Advanced collection (what I know it to be) should not be at the top or anywhere close to the top of the game here.

[DizzyMagic]

What Vuma and I are trying to say, is that we don't see that "level of responsiveness" very often to begin with. So, the problems we are seeing, could hardly be the fault of collection. Not many have gotten their horses to that "level of balance/responsiveness" where one could even begin to work on collection.

Ok, so here's a devil's advocate sort of question:

The horses in the video I posted on the "old days of eventing" thread, the ones that were so smooth and fluid across country, were not typically top-scoring dressage horses. At the international level, US riders weren't consistently getting competitive dressage scores, and that was something CMP worked on a lot when he came on board here - mid-1990s wasn't it?

Yet the "perfect moment" video shows horses being very responsive across country, and riders giving them soft and steady rides.

Why? Doesn't that suggest that the correlation between improved dressage (greater displays of submission and collection) isn't as clear as one might think?

Emily

PS - I've noted improved dressage as greater "displays" of submission and collection to take into account the temperament of a well-schooled horse. Some horses of the past, who schooled these well at home, became explosive under the combined pressure of being three-day fit and being in a show atmosphere. Good riders didn't pressure them, so the test may have appeared more mediocre than the horse's training would indicate.

[DizzyMagic]

See, I wonder about that. I wonder if riders (ULRs) are picking horses at all. Or are they just doing what they can with the horses owners choose to send them?

I think up to 10 -15 years ago eventers really did pick their horses - and very carefully at that. It seems NO ONE had more than 2 upper level horses. They just couldn't possibly have the time to train and condition more than two. So the ones they chose had to be both very capable and to really "fit" them in terms of personality, ridability and partnership. They HAD to get along since they spent so much time together.

Now horses are passed around like a bowl of candy. And grooms or WSs do most of the conditioning. ULRs school the technical stuff - not so much the gallops. That's the difference I see in the video thread.

I could be way off - but that is what I remember from coming up and how different it is today.

SCFarm


I'm not sure about that - I couldn't speak to what was typical, but 10 years ago I started grooming for Phyllis Dawson, and she had 4 advanced horses going, and 3 at prelim just moving up to intermediate...

Emily

[Sannois]

I'm not sure about that - I couldn't speak to what was typical, but 10 years ago I started grooming for Phyllis Dawson, and she had 4 advanced horses going, and 3 at prelim just moving up to intermediate...

Emily
about anymore. I always admired her. :yes:

[RAyers]

At the international level, US riders weren't consistently getting competitive dressage scores, and that was something CMP worked on a lot when he came on board here - mid-1990s wasn't it?

Yet the "perfect moment" video shows horses being very responsive across country, and riders giving them soft and steady rides.

Why? Doesn't that suggest that the correlation between improved dressage (greater displays of submission and collection) isn't as clear as one might think?


The facts as they are gathered are even pointing in that direction so I absolutely agree with you.

Better, tougher dressage does not correlate to safer, more effective XC. I discsussed this with an dressage "O" judge (Athens) this weekend. Whle she feels the dressage is not as good as it can be, she also said what she saw never could be used to judge a horse and rider on XC (ther than if it was obvious the rider was completely out of control).

Reed

[lstevenson]

PS - I've noted improved dressage as greater "displays" of submission and collection to take into account the temperament of a well-schooled horse. Some horses of the past, who schooled these well at home, became explosive under the combined pressure of being three-day fit and being in a show atmosphere. Good riders didn't pressure them, so the test may have appeared more mediocre than the horse's training would indicate.


Exactly. And this is why some are saying that they are not seeing that "level of responsiveness" in many of the horses. You don't always see it at events since the horses know that cross country is coming and the excitement of that keeps them from giving themselves to their riders fully. These are usually the horses who refused to be completely dominated. And they tend to be the best natural cross country horses who think for themselves. And these are the ones who don't fall down when their riders miss.

[Sandy M]

The problem I see in eventing has nothing to do with collection rather it is a problem of everything counter to collection. It is the problem of riding the horse by/from the hands (backwards riding) which is causing a failure of initiative. Instead of learning the skills of how to ride...use of seat and legs as the primary aids...people are relying on bigger bits, more rigs/gadgets which CUT right into the heart of a horse and their initiative.

Call me naive or whatever. I've ridden since I was 9 or 10 - lesson horses originally, some good some bad, all of limited talents. Got my first horse when I was 24. Got my first GOOD horse (an eventing schoolmaster) when I was 33. Evented for about 15 or 16 years, and stopped when I retired my 2nd good eventer in 1987 and turned to H/J and breed shows (App) for a while. Eventer through Prelim, did a few Intermediate combined Tests. Showed H/J mostly in the 3'6" division, up to 4' in jumpers, occasional 5- bar (scared myself silly doing that one and my nerve failed at around 5'3" *G* Horse could have done it if not for his semi-chicken rider).

Through all those years... about the most severe bit I saw USED was a long-shanked pelham or a double-twisted wire snaffle. Myself - I did my first cross-country on the schoolmaster in a rubber Tom Thumb pelham, but quickly switched to a plain snaffle when I got the "feel" of him; even my 16.3 very powerful 2nd eventer went in a Dr. Bristol for x-c, french snaffle for dressage and stadium. Other than than saw a few gags on cross-country. My horses DID take care of me. I tried to ride the best I could, and if I made a misjudgment, they usually saved my a$$ OR STOPPED if I really got them in an impossible place. Over all, I got around clean a lot more times than I didn't, and placed (and occasionally won) at a decent rate.

NOW....mygod! the HARDWARE I see. Yes, I know "powerful" WBs or WBX horses can be "different" or "difficult" to ride - but they couldn't be much more powerful than that 16:3h.h, 1,450 lb Appy who didn't like to rate (but did, with training, in a Dr. Bristol and a running martingale, and later w/o the martingale). I am amazed at the "stuff" is see on horses - odd combination bits, freakish shanks, cables over the nose. Have horses REALLY changed that much, or training methods? I see stuff I wouldn't have DREAMED of putting in my horse's mouth in the '80s. Obviously, any bit is as severe as the rider's hands, and I'm not going to say that a really skilled ULR cannot/should not use such bits, but in general, the proliferation of all that hardware is, to me, very disturbing.

[DizzyMagic]

about anymore. I always admired her. :yes:

About Phyllis - she does still compete and has tons of students. Her website is www.teamwindchase.com

I came to her as a walk/trot beginner, afraid to canter, with an untrained 8-year old Morgan mare and a 27 year old TB gelding I'd rescued out of a field starving to death and who had once been AHSA dressage horse of the year for Prix St. Georges. I've always thought it amazing that an Olympian would take the time to teach such a motley crew... I owe her so much!

Emily

[lstevenson]

The problem I see in eventing has nothing to do with collection rather it is a problem of everything counter to collection. It is the problem of riding the horse by/from the hands (backwards riding) which is causing a failure of initiative. Instead of learning the skills of how to ride...use of seat and legs as the primary aids...people are relying on bigger bits, more rigs/gadgets which CUT right into the heart of a horse and their initiative.


This I have mixed feelings about. I am all for the fact that training is usually the answer over bitting up.

BUT when speed and adrenaline are added to the mix on x-c, many horses need something other than a simple snaffle to be as responsive as we like. And that does NOT mean that they are not properly schooled. Often the most responsive obedient horse on the flat becomes a tiger when out on x-c.

Sure race horses run in snaffles but all they have to do is run. And chase'ers and timber horses don't have to come back for technical combinations. The technicality combined with speed makes more bit neccessary for many horses.

We should be able to do SJ in a simple snaffle though. But then again, the straight jumper riders at all levels don't either.

[DizzyMagic]

NOW....mygod! the HARDWARE I see. Yes, I know "powerful" WBs or WBX horses can be "different" or "difficult" to ride - but they couldn't be much more powerful than that 16:3h.h, 1,450 lb Appy who didn't like to rate (but did, with training, in a Dr. Bristol and a running martingale, and later w/o the martingale). I am amazed at the "stuff" is see on horses - odd combination bits, freakish shanks, cables over the nose. Have horses REALLY changed that much, or training methods? I see stuff I wouldn't have DREAMED of putting in my horse's mouth in the '80s. Obviously, any bit is as severe as the rider's hands, and I'm not going to say that a really skilled ULR cannot/should not use such bits, but in general, the proliferation of all that hardware is, to me, very disturbing.

About bitting - I bought a retired 3-star horse who was so responsive that we did our Novice xc in a "nathe" bit (very floppy piece of plastic for anyone who doesn't know). However, he won the Essex 2* in 1993 wearing a gag bit combined with something else - don't know what but the video I have shows a lot of hardware on his face! The video also shows him beind forward, fluid, and responsive - though a couple of spots showed just why he had hardware in his mouth.

I'm going to say that too much bit is probably better than too little - better NOT to have him running through your hands toward the sunken road. Hopefully, though, the bit isn't a substitute for training...

Emily

[LLDM]

I'm not sure about that - I couldn't speak to what was typical, but 10 years ago I started grooming for Phyllis Dawson, and she had 4 advanced horses going, and 3 at prelim just moving up to intermediate...

Emily

Actually, that's who I was thinking of when I was trying to remember when it started to change. My guess was early 90's - but of course these things change gradually.

The Grey Goose was my all time favorite horse.

SCFarm

[Albion]

Sure race horses run in snaffles but all they have to do is run.

Lest we forget, plenty of racehorses run in ring bits - the trainer I worked for had an extremely impressive collection of bits. The most any of the horses went in was a ring bit, but there were plenty of stronger options should one have been required. The Citation bit springs to mind. :eek:

[Sannois]

About Phyllis - she does still compete and has tons of students. Her website is www.teamwindchase.com (http://www.teamwindchase.com)

I came to her as a walk/trot beginner, afraid to canter, with an untrained 8-year old Morgan mare and a 27 year old TB gelding I'd rescued out of a field starving to death and who had once been AHSA dressage horse of the year for Prix St. Georges. I've always thought it amazing that an Olympian would take the time to teach such a motley crew... I owe her so much!

Emily
coolest thing I have read about an upper level rider, I think forever!
What a great experience for you! :yes:

[dq140]

[QUOTE=DizzyMagic;3223655]Ok, so here's a devil's advocate sort of question:
Why? Doesn't that suggest that the correlation between improved dressage (greater displays of submission and collection) isn't as clear as one might think?




For the same reason that there were/are many good riders then/now who did/do well in the dressage phase and continue/d to be successful through the other two phases.

I see too many horse/rider combos that lack basic skills and correct muscle development...training good bascis with correct muscleing doesn't make a horse more submissive (in some way that destroys their initiative,) it makes them better athletes. It's as plain as that.

[cyberbay]

Argh. And can I mention that although Jim is lamenting that the FEI is "stuck," it's his, um, protege, David O'Connor, current USEF President, who a few years ago, threw his hands heavenward and claimed that there was nothing to be done to salvage the long format, that that train had already departed the station, and gosh we'll just have to live (and now die) with the short.

I think someone just couldn't be bothered, or was making sure that he was on the 'winning' side of that barely aired 'debate' (since one never took place) over format more than wondering about the long-term wellbeing of the sport... hmmm.

The sport experienced a terrible rash of deaths about 8 years ago, just like this one we're in the midst of. David had plenty of time and upfront experience to help address the symptoms of the terrible illness this sport is now in the throes of, but he somehow just, gosh, never could get it to be a priority.

Is the irony too rich that eventing is suffering, while it is our O. Games eventing gold-medalist who is at the helm?

[ezmissg]

Argh. And can I mention that although Jim is lamenting that the FEI is "stuck," it's his, um, protege, David O'Connor, current USEF President, who a few years ago, threw his hands heavenward and claimed that there was nothing to be done to salvage the long format, that that train had already departed the station, and gosh we'll just have to live (and now die) with the short.

I think someone just couldn't be bothered, or was making sure that he was on the 'winning' side of that barely aired 'debate' (since one never took place) over format more than wondering about the long-term wellbeing of the sport... hmmm.

The sport experienced a terrible rash of deaths about 8 years ago, just like this one we're in the midst of. David had plenty of time and upfront experience to help address the symptoms of the terrible illness this sport is now in the throes of, but he somehow just, gosh, never could get it to be a priority.

Is the irony too rich that eventing is suffering, while it is our O. Games eventing gold-medalist who is at the helm?


So, I'm not the only one whose mind these thoughts have floated in?

[N&B&T]

....The sport experienced a terrible rash of deaths about 8 years ago, just like this one we're in the midst of...

I remember this quite well and have been wondering what came of it--that is, was the cause ever discovered or was it considered a sort of statistical blip? I would think it would be pertinent now?

[pwynnnorman]

Good question, N&B&T (and what does your username stand for, anyway--I like it!).

The short format is four years old or so, yes? What if it takes about that long for a big change to have a significant impact. What happened four or so years before that last "blip" of tragedies, I wonder?

[Bobthehorse]

NOW....mygod! the HARDWARE I see. Yes, I know "powerful" WBs or WBX horses can be "different" or "difficult" to ride - but they couldn't be much more powerful than that 16:3h.h, 1,450 lb Appy who didn't like to rate (but did, with training, in a Dr. Bristol and a running martingale, and later w/o the martingale). I am amazed at the "stuff" is see on horses - odd combination bits, freakish shanks, cables over the nose. Have horses REALLY changed that much, or training methods? I see stuff I wouldn't have DREAMED of putting in my horse's mouth in the '80s. Obviously, any bit is as severe as the rider's hands, and I'm not going to say that a really skilled ULR cannot/should not use such bits, but in general, the proliferation of all that hardware is, to me, very disturbing.

I was at an event last week, and about 80% of the ENTRY AND PRETRAINING (BN and N in the US) were all going in sliding gags, or 3 rings often on the last ring. Do they just want to look more pro (because I also saw a lot of super fancy military type saddles in the lower divisions)? I dont know. But I do know that most LL hands are not ready for such devices, and in most cases they just dont need that kind of leverage for that speed/difficulty.

[pwynnnorman]

But, sheesh! Surely that's a trainer issue? Who is training those people with all those gadgets?

That's a big challenge, isn't it? How do you get at the training/trainers about stuff having an impact on the sport? Licensing? ICP? But neither of those will do much to keep a trainer from putting the kitchen sink into a horse's mouth so the client won't get run off with. Censure? How?

[Vuma]

In regards to the discussions here on this thread and, check out the link below, and scroll down (way down) to the photo sequence labeled "Speed Axcel".

http://www.tamarackhill.com/AboutUs/about-us.htm

I don't think anything I have written previously could more visually represent what I was hoping to explain than these photos. This is text book xc riding in my opinion! It clearly depicts an UL/ Hall of Fame Rider (many will recognize!) who is ….

1.) approaching a xc fence and has changed from galloping at speed to galloping in an uphill balance (photo 1),

and who is….

2.) what appears TO ME to be – dare I say it – SEEING THE DISTANCE and responding through asking the horse for - dare I say it - “collection” to shorten the stride (notice the forward motion transferring itself to a much more vertical motion in photo #2. Also of note is that he is not pulling back any more on his horse’s face than he was in photo 1, but instead asked for more forward with his leg while maintaining the proper contact he already had to get that collection – no backward riding here!),

and who is…

3.) displaying the proper training of this horse who is – dare I say it - "submissive" to those aides, (no gaping mouth, no tossing head, no running through the aids - photo #3),

and who is then….

4.) softening to the “spot” to “allow” the horse to respond with a beautiful and "easy" jump complete with use of the whole body allowing for a proper bascule and an even front end (photo #4)….

…..all accomplished in, what looks like to me, a nice SNAFFLE!

(Yes, I know some horses need more bit sometimes. I am personally of the opinion that soft hands with a firm bit is better than a soft bit with firm hands, but I am also of the opinion that if the training continues to be correct ideally the horse can “train-out” of the hardware. BUT I love seeing horses on xc going submissively in a snaffle so I had to add that last bit for effect!)

Now, I know what some of your might be thinking….. “but that’s Denny – he can do that all day”. I would answer… “SO SHOULD ANYONE RIDING AT THE UPPER LEVELS”.

I personally feel some folks here are a bit disillusioned thinking that the “good-ole-days” riding was not done with “collection” and “submission”, but I think this photo sequence proves otherwise.

Notice all the other photos on this page, and even on the page with many of the students riding. These horses have been “set up” to allow for many of these text book photos. I might be going out on a limb here, but I would even venture to say most of these riders saw some sort of spot and prepared their horses for that spot, because jumps like these don’t just “happen” by allowing the horse to cruise along without significant rider influence and rideability on the part of the horse. Good riding never changes, and the riding depicted in these photos embody, in my mind, the "influential" yet "allowing" partnership necessary for safe and effective xc rounds.

[lstevenson]

How on earth can you see from a photo if a rider is seeing a spot or not?? I guess you see what you want to see. I see him balancing his horse....period. And doing a nice job of that, but that is neither a high level of "collection" or "submission".

I daresay that most Advanced riders could gallop a simple, single jump like this one just fine.

[lstevenson]

I might be going out on a limb here, but I would even venture to say most of these riders saw some sort of spot and prepared their horses for that spot, because jumps like these don’t just “happen” by allowing the horse to cruise along without significant rider influence and rideability on the part of the horse.



You think that horses can't jump nicely if the rider doesn't look for and see a spot? You would be suprised. When the horse is truely straight and balanced, and the rider maintains the rhythm and stride length to the fence, the perfect "spot" usually just magically appears, and the horses jump to the best of their ability.

It's the quality of the canter/gallop that matters most.

[Vuma]

[QUOTE=lstevenson;3228964]How on earth can you see from a photo if a rider is seeing a spot or not?? I guess you see what you want to see. I see him balancing his horse....period. And doing a nice job of that, but that is neither a high level of "collection" or "submission".

QUOTE]

You'll just have to trust me on that one. :yes:

[Vuma]

You think that horses can't jump nicely if the rider doesn't look for and see a spot? You would be suprised. When the horse is truely straight and balanced, and the rider maintains the rhythm and stride length to the fence, the perfect "spot" usually just magically appears, and the horses jump to the best of their ability.

It's the quality of the canter/gallop that matters most.

While I agree with the last statement wholeheartedly and feel like it is the first issue to address, I would like to elaborate on your first statement.

And since you will agree with JW himself...

...in his own words

"However, the recent changes to the show jumping test have made accuracy necessary. There may be one or two horses around the eventing scene who do not have to be accurate to four-foot oxers with a five-foot spread, but those horses are few and far between. The vast majority of event horses are reaching the limits of their scope when they approach a show jumping fence of this size, and then the reverse of my statement comes into play. You don't need to see a stride over low fences for the same reason that you do need to see a stride to big fences. Low fences do not test your horse's scope.

Once you approach the limits of your horse's abilities, there is no other possible answer than to regulate your horse's stride in the approach."

Though his general idea here is stated in the first sentence, the rest remains true as it applies to your question.

[lstevenson]

[quote=lstevenson;3228964]How on earth can you see from a photo if a rider is seeing a spot or not?? I guess you see what you want to see. I see him balancing his horse....period. And doing a nice job of that, but that is neither a high level of "collection" or "submission".

QUOTE]

You'll just have to trust me on that one. :yes:


I'll stick with that you see what you want to see. ;)

[lstevenson]

Once you approach the limits of your horse's abilities, there is no other possible answer than to regulate your horse's stride in the approach."



You seem to be missing the part about "once you approach the limits of your horse's abilities."

IOW unless the horse is jumping jumps at the top level of it's scope, the rider does not need to see a stride to have a good jump. Not sure how that proves your point that riders should see their spots all of the time.

[pwynnnorman]

You seem to be missing the part about "once you approach the limits of your horse's abilities."

IOW unless the horse is jumping jumps at the top level of it's scope, the rider does not need to see a stride to have a good jump. Not sure how that proves your point that riders should see their spots all of the time.

But, lstevenson, "seeing it" and "regulating it" are two different things. Isn't Vuma saying they should be capable of doing so (in fact, you could say that "regulating" can also mean just leaving it alone because it is acceptable under the circumstances--surely, Vuma doesn't mean picking at the horse at every fence--that would clearly be unreasonable)? I don't read him/her as advocating micromanagement, just being capable of doing so for those times when it is necessary. For example, the young horse, the tired horse, the hurting horse (unbeknownst to the rider), the reluctant horse, the confused horse, the horse-that-didn't-walk-the-course-and-so-won't-see-that-skinny-two-downhill-strides-after-that-upright...

And, perhaps most challenging of all, for those times when you just don't know if the horse IS "maxed out".

I'm curious: Does anyone DISagree that the higher up the levels you go, the more mandatory is the skill of seeing a distance? (Again, SEEING it, not using it constantly.)

[LLDM]

I'm curious: Does anyone DISagree that the higher up the levels you go, the more mandatory is the skill of seeing a distance? (Again, SEEING it, not using it constantly.)

I'll bite. Yes, the higher you go, the more important it is to see (pretty much) EVERY distance. AND help your horse get there without distracting the crap out of him - i.e. without doing more harm than good by interfering. I would hope this is possible by the Adv/4* level.

I will go much further than that though. I will say that anyone riding at BN and up should be able to tell, at least with *some* accuracy, if they are going to get a decent spot OR *at least* be able to tell when a really bad one is coming in time to do *something* to help their horse.

And, if the horse is at the limit of its scope at BN or N, they should - as you all have agreed :yes: - always see it and be able to help when required.

Just like your (all) arguments about collection/shortening/whatever have to do with degree, seeing a spot relative to your horse's natural ability is a matter of degree and development AND a skill important to the safety and welfare of your pony!

I *think* you guys will agree. I simply wanted to point this out for "the rest of us" on this thread. I was too important a point to be lost in the upper level stuff.

SCFarm

[LisaB]

Oh jeez guys! You can't look for a friggin' spot on an uphill oxer! That's just plain dangerous!
YOU DON'T LOOK FOR A SPOT!!!! YOU CONTROL THE APPROACH, THE SPEED, AND THE BALANCE. THAT'S IT.
Your horse should be able to jump from any spot.
Let me explain.
Yes, you should able to hit a spot if you take over control. Your horse should listen to you. Because there are dire times when that has to happen. Your horse misread the question. Or in a tricky combo stadium.
BUT, this the exception rather than the rule. More often than not, you need for your horse to think for himself and be confident that he's going to get over that fence.
When like Denny says to count strides, it's not to hit a spot. It's to know your timing and your horse's striding. You what you have under you to make proper calculations and calls to that question.
In that sequence, Denny is telling his horse where to go, at what speed, and at what balance. He is not telling his horse where to take off and how to jump. The horse's ears are flicked forward coming to the fence. He knows what to do because the rider has given him the direction beforehand. The horse has it and is ready to go. Then over the fence, he flicked his ear back to say, where to now? If the rider was telling the horse where exactly to take off, the horse's ears would have been flicked back to be listening to him.

[LLDM]

Oh jeez guys! You can't look for a friggin' spot on an uphill oxer! That's just plain dangerous!
YOU DON'T LOOK FOR A SPOT!!!! YOU CONTROL THE APPROACH, THE SPEED, AND THE BALANCE. THAT'S IT.
Your horse should be able to jump from any spot.
Let me explain.
Yes, you should able to hit a spot if you take over control. Your horse should listen to you. Because there are dire times when that has to happen. Your horse misread the question. Or in a tricky combo stadium.
BUT, this the exception rather than the rule. More often than not, you need for your horse to think for himself and be confident that he's going to get over that fence.
When like Denny says to count strides, it's not to hit a spot. It's to know your timing and your horse's striding. You what you have under you to make proper calculations and calls to that question.
In that sequence, Denny is telling his horse where to go, at what speed, and at what balance. He is not telling his horse where to take off and how to jump. The horse's ears are flicked forward coming to the fence. He knows what to do because the rider has given him the direction beforehand. The horse has it and is ready to go. Then over the fence, he flicked his ear back to say, where to now? If the rider was telling the horse where exactly to take off, the horse's ears would have been flicked back to be listening to him.

Easy does it!

Just because you can see a spot doesn't mean you can (or should!) get the horse to it! But by golly, you better know where it is if you are at your horse's (or your own) limit (and not just scope wise).

And if the spots are really not coming up right - that might be a good indication it it time to retire for the day.

But you can't do any of that if can't see it or won't even look for it.

SCFarm

[Hony]

From what I understand most people can't see a spot until 3 strides out which is too late to change anything anyway. However, if you have a correctly balanced canter you can support through whichever spot is available. If you don't look at the jump you wont see any spot at all so you do need to look so that you know 3 strides out which distance you're going to get so that you can support correctly.
The only time I find it completely neccessary to look past the jump (and this is a personal thing) is when the jump is slightly down hill or if it's something I'm particularly nervous of. If I look I always pick and get it wrong. If I don't look and instead concentrate on the rhythm I will get there right.

[Kementari]

The only time I find it completely neccessary to look past the jump (and this is a personal thing) is when the jump is slightly down hill or if it's something I'm particularly nervous of. If I look I always pick and get it wrong. If I don't look and instead concentrate on the rhythm I will get there right.

True for me, too! :yes: Of course, I also won't be doing Rolex any time soon. ;)

I do think there is a huge difference between SEEING a spot and PICKING a spot. I definitely want to SEE my spot, because then I am prepared for when and how my horse is likely to jump. But I don't PICK the spot (on xc) until, as others have noted, my horse is at the top of his scope. And I don't show at the top of his scope (and rarely school there, xc anyway) because I am not infallible, and don't want to put him in the position of me missing and him not being able to compensate.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

From what I understand most people can't see a spot until 3 strides out which is too late to change anything anyway.

Actually....if your horse is balanced and in a good canter....you should not be even looking for your distance until you are a little over three strides out and can change things then (just not drastically). At that point, you can easily do nothing but maintain the canter (if you are on), ask for a bit more (if you are a little long), ask for them to wait (if you are a little short) or really ask them to wait (if you are on a half stride). Pretty much all the top trainers that I've ridden with or worked with with tell you not to even look for your "spot" until you at about 3 strides. Before that you should just be riding your canter. If you start looking for a spot (and picking) before then, you will likely screw it up. (And I've heard this said to better riders than me! so it isn't just my eye!)

But I do look and focus on the fence long before those three strides....how else do you know where you are going, whether you are on line and when you are about three strides out?

But really...in the practical sense....I do not think we are saying or doing things much differently. And when scared...I still look at the fence...but put my hands down, grab mane and keep my leg on...and whisper to my horse to please save my butt and I will give you extra peppermints. I also try and only ride horses who will have more scope to save my butt than I will ever need!!!;)

[Hony]

I think we're saying the same thing. I could have worded things better though. I'd better have another coffee :D

[Fence2Fence]

I was one of Denny's March Campers (you know his, "Adult Camp") this year in Southern Pines. I learned a ton (currently planning to rob a bank so I can go back ;) in 2009)and I don't think Denny would mind me talking about this.

He talked a lot about seeing the distance, his own learning process, qualities of what it takes to see a distance, natural talent to see a distance/versus learning to see it, and the two sides of the 'seeing the distance' discussion.

I actually have my camp notes with me, stashed in my briefcase with my horse/riding organizer-journal.

*pulls out notes*

LeGoff's five requirements of a successful jumping: 1. right direction 2. speed for the job 3. balance 4. impulsion 5. timing. Qualities 1 -4 can be summed up as developing the right canter (or gallop). Timing (seeing the distance) will take care of itself if you have the other 4, but you can't write it off because timing is also part of having the first four qualities.

The successful upper level riders nearly always have a perfect distance, and have the approriate mix of the first four qualities. So yes, this is a skill that successful upper level riders have, and a mandatory skill for those who want to compete at the upper levels.

It's also a necessarily skill for the lower level rider to have, but not to the extent they need to be perfect (the lower level courses are more forgiving). One of the biggest problem with lower level riders is that they take/accept the quality of canter the horse decides to give them that day. The horse flies around the course, they hang on. They horse dawdles around the course, they hang on. This is why it's important to a lower level rider--so they stop taking what the horse hands them and starts asking for a better quality of canter.

I hope I didn't butcher what Denny was trying to explain too much by using my own voice and looking at my notes, and if I did, I apologize to him. Essentially, I learned is that the riders "eye" for the distance and the ability to develop the horse's canter with the right mix of balance and impulsion go hand and hand.

After lunch one day, he took his prelim horse, and demo'd seeing the distances, but also dealing with the training aspects of appropriate balance and impulsion. It doesn't matter what fence he's approaching. He can see the distance and put the horse there perfectly, and will correct and school the horse when the horse tries to cheat by getting there in the wrong balance or wrong balance.

What I thought was so cool about the sequence of Speed Axcel is where the horse's hind leg is in the third photo. Underneath him. Engaged. He's been trained to jump using his butt.

Just in case I haven't made this clear, picking at the horse and the backwards riding is NOT at all what this was about!!

[bornfreenowexpensive]

The right canter/gallop is also critical to "seeing" a distance because if the horse's canter is changing...i.e. getting longer, shorter, faster, slower....you will not be able to see a distance. That was light bulb moment that I got from an old time hunter trainer.....stupidly simple concept that only took me 15 years to finally understand;)

[PhoenixFarm]

But we (and JW) are talking about two different things.

I don't think anybody would argue that every rider at every level should work on their eye, to a variety of obstacles and terrain. Obviously a good or great eye is valuable and useful.

However, there isn't a human being alive who has a perfect eye, and the average ULR probably hovers around 85% of the time. (Phillip and Bruce pull up the curve at about 98% each--but I've personaly witnessed both of them miss and it's damn ugly), while the average LLR probably hovers around 60%.

However, what makes a good jump is the quality of the canter and the apprach, not the eye of the rider. The best eye in the world can't produce a good jump if the quality of canter isn't there, and conversely the right quality of canter can produce a great jump from any distance. With a good balanced, powerful canter, there's no such thing as a bad spot--the deep one or the long one rides well.

I have always been taught, and teach myself, to get the canter you need for the job at hand, and let the horse jump the jump. (As an aside, speaking for myself, I know when I have the right canter, my eye becomes more acurate, the the distance is just always right there--when I miss it's usually because I didn't have the canter I needed in the first place.)

Our horses need to have the initiative and confidence to jump the jumps with out waiting for a signal that, because of the reality of the fallability of humans, simply won't come some percentage of the time. When we start babies, they spend a LOT of time doing exercises without help from the rider, so that they learn how to sort themselves out.

And, yes, I do believe that at a certain point the collection and submission required in the dressage removes this independant streak from the horses that is so crucial to safe xc.

When you speak to UL dressage riders, they would tell you the same thing actually.

[DizzyMagic]

It seems to me like it would be more important for the horse to be able to see a distance to the fence than for the rider - or at least equally as important.

I have only evented on two horses. Disco was a small Morgan who was green as grass and had the scope of a fat shetland pony - I started with her, and eventing really wasn't as much fun as it seemed like it ought to be. She was truly maxed out at Novice height/width and if we didn't end up at a deep spot, she would not leave the ground. Early on, I learned to see a distance as much as 3 strides out, but I was never a good enough rider to help her out. We did finally get to the point where we could go determinedly and pleasantly around BN, and I was happy with this until I rode the next horse.

Magic was a retired 3 star horse who had evented and won and placed in more countries than I've ever even visited. He had scope to burn at Advanced, so when I started learning to jump on him, the lightbulb came on, and I found the joy of riding a horse who could dig us out of any trouble I might get us into.

But what was truly significant to me was learning just how good his eye was, even when we were schooling at home. At our first event, where he was more revved than I'd ever experienced, he showed me the real stuff. In most cases, he was locked onto the fence as many as 6-8 strides out. If his ears were still swiveling at about 5 strides, I half-halted more, asked him to rock back a bit more, and that alway did the trick - changing his balance (or the length of his stride?) always caused the ears to lock forward. At about 3 strides, I could see where we were going to take off, which just let me be prepared for his movement.

For me, at Novice, Magic's ability and experience just made the whole thing fun. I never tried to ride a distance - the only "help" I ever gave him was rebalancing if I could tell he wasn't seeing it. It was amazing to feel him - sometimes he would move himself up to his spot, lengthen a bit, and other times he would compress to the spot. But he almost always saw that spot and had made the decision about how to get there MANY strides away from the fence.

At the upper level, with the best riders, even in technical complexes, it looks to me like BOTH the horse and the rider are seeing the distance together - and from much further away than 3 strides. When I watch video of Magic competing at Advanced with Phyllis, they look like a partnership, not like she's constantly seeing a stride and micromanaging his, but like they're a team, evaluating the questions and agreeing on the answers. In videos of the pair at Intermediate, she seems to do a bit more adjusting, but as his experience grew, his eye seemed to become just as accurate, or more accurate than hers was - even in complex questions.

When we talk about the horse's initiative, we also have to talk about his education and experience. The horse must be taught to think for himself, and he must be taught to think rightly - so if his very human rider is wrong and misses, he has both the initiative to take his own action and the ability to do it well. At least, that's what I've learned on the back of a horse who had been taught both... :)

Emily

[bornfreenowexpensive]

When we talk about the horse's initiative, we also have to talk about his education and experience. The horse must be taught to think for himself, and he must be taught to think rightly - so if his very human rider is wrong and misses, he has both the initiative to take his own action and the ability to do it well. At least, that's what I've learned on the back of a horse who had been taught both... :)

Emily


I agree. When I work with my trainer...it depends on the time of year but we do work on my ability to "see" a distance or more accurately, react to what I'm seeing. No it is not as critical at the lower levels....but it is still a skill to develop. But more importantly, from winter gymnastics to tunning during competition season.....starting when they are grean beans....he is teaching the HORSE how to see a distance, react to the fence and question...and on my ass how NOT to get in the way of the horse.

So yes, I do think the rider should work on seeing a distance (and work on learning that skill when they have the other skills in hand), know how to respond to what they see, know what is a good canter/gallop and how to obtain it. Just as we work on all of our other skills. But also the initiative of the horse must be fostered and developed so that on THOSE occassions when I screw up (which happens more than I like to admit)...my horse can save us both.

But hell....this is riding....and for most of us (and many horses), these are skills that we will be working on for the rest of our lives. At the elite level....these are the skills the horse and rider should already have since the margin for error or mistake at that level is so small....and that is what it means to be at an elite level (having not just the natural talent to be there but also the developed skill level).

[pwynnnorman]

You can't look for a friggin' spot on an uphill oxer!


Lisa, darling, while there are exceptions to every circumstance, of course, that particular one is going to depend on the size of the hill, the size of the oxer and the size of your horse's brain to know that he most likely can't go leavin' one out or chippin' one in.

[Vuma]

I agree. When I work with my trainer...it depends on the time of year but we do work on my ability to "see" a distance or more accurately, react to what I'm seeing. No it is not as critical at the lower levels....but it is still a skill to develop. But more importantly, from winter gymnastics to tunning during competition season.....starting when they are grean beans....he is teaching the HORSE how to see a distance, react to the fence and question...and on my ass how NOT to get in the way of the horse.



A very important point. I think for those of us brining horses along it is imperative that we help train them to see the distance. How many youngsters want to leave long because they are 1.) week behind, 2.) rushing because they are nervous, 3.) jumping across the fence more than around the fence to allow for maximum height, etc. Sure, there are some natrually wonderul jumping athletes out there. But even for them, improvement should also be fostered.

I agree most definately that the quality of the canter, which includes the "adjustability" of the canter, is the foundation needed for everything else that leads up to the "best" jumping effort the horse can produce.

Speaking of adjustability.....back to the photo sequence....

In photo #2 I don't JUST see re-balancing the stride. My eyes see a SHORTENING of the 2nd stride to allow for the perfect distance after the 3rd stride.

Notice in photo 1 the horse is already perfectly balanced uphill; he's not in a gallop on the forehand. If the spot were going to happen automatically in this already balanced stride (in the canter stride the horse was giving in photo #1/the first stride of this sequence) Denny wouldn't have needed to shorten the canter stride momentarily (as in photo 2).

If a spot was not seen by Denny, the stride length would be the same in all three of the canter stride frames we see here. (Which would have put him much closer to the base of this jump.) BUT, we see a regular/perfectly balance first stride, then an adjusted/shortened second stride, followed by another regular/perfectly balanced third stride.

I also love the security of his lower leg which stays in the same position in each frame. This is possible, not only because he is a strong FIT rider, but because his horse is not pulling him forward and out of balance which in my mind re-affirms the submissive/ridability of this horse through correct training. ALSO, this shows that he is riding the BODY of the horse, NOT just the head of the horse!!!!!! (You can't do this with the legs off approach; the legs that swing back toward the flank and put the upper body too far forward to compensate.)

His secure position (starting from the leg) allows him to simply close the hip angle over the fence. If you were to draw a line from Denny's shoulder to his hip this line would parallel the line from the shoulder of the horse to the hip of the horse. Both are perfectly in balance and are a true "team".

This really is a beautiful sequence. The details would get lost if we were to just see a video where we might miss that all important 2nd stride. This demonstrates how the best riders make it seem like they’re just up there for the ride letting their horses dictate the day.

[LisaB]

Kemetari has it right:
between SEEING a spot and PICKING a spot
We can't pick the spot on an uphill and we best not gun it or hold back when trucking up that hill, Wynn.
I'm talking about picking a spot. That's a dangerous thing to do on an ongoing basis.

[pwynnnorman]

OK, just a semantic misunderstanding.

[lstevenson]

I'm curious: Does anyone DISagree that the higher up the levels you go, the more mandatory is the skill of seeing a distance? (Again, SEEING it, not using it constantly.)


Do I have my students practice excercises to work on their eye? Of course. But the primary focus is rhythm, balance, and the quality of the canter.

And we do lots of gridwork on as loose of a rein as possible, sometimes with off distances to work on the horses' eyes and their ability to think and take care of themselves.

[lstevenson]

I know when I have the right canter, my eye becomes more acurate, the the distance is just always right there--when I miss it's usually because I didn't have the canter I needed in the first place.



Exactly!!!



And, yes, I do believe that at a certain point the collection and submission required in the dressage removes this independant streak from the horses that is so crucial to safe xc.

When you speak to UL dressage riders, they would tell you the same thing actually.


Absolutely. With "certain point" being the operative words.

[N&B&T]

Good question, N&B&T (and what does your username stand for, anyway--I like it!).

The short format is four years old or so, yes? What if it takes about that long for a big change to have a significant impact. What happened four or so years before that last "blip" of tragedies, I wonder?

Thanks pwynn--no-one else thinks this might provide some useful info? I don't recall if the deaths/injuries were limited to riders or included horses as well...Maybe a spin-off question? Have at it!

(User name is initials of my name and two of my horses' stable names. Unfortunately, since we can no longer change user names (for the good of the board I guess :D ) the third horse cannot be represented...:D