Is There A Difference?

[rizzodm]

I am just curious but I have seen and heard a few times that dressage done in eventing is different than if showing just dressage. Is this just a matter of opinion or is there some truth in this and if so what's the difference?

Dawn

[Kementari]

There is no fundamental difference in training. The only practical difference is that the top level eventing dressage tests call for less technical movements than the top level dressage dressage tests, since eventers also have to go out and gallop and jump, too (the short explanation ;)).

[rizzodm]

Thanks:)

[JRG]

If you look at the movements in the USEA test at the top level and compare it to the USDF tests it would be the equal to Third level.

In Advanced Test B and C, trot work is all done sitting, half passes and a single flying change.

USDF, all trot work done sitting, half passes and a single flying change at Third Level.

FEI could be argued that is lower level Forth due to the amount in the test, what is asked and that there are multiple flying changes just not in succession.

You still have to give those eventors their dues....they have 3 phases to get through.

[slc2]

People say there is a difference.

I think what one is mostly seeing, beyond the lowest levels, is horses that are slimmer and fit to gallop and jump, and quite often, they are more on their toes and on the muscle when they do dressage. With some of the horses, dressage just isn't their forte (or they'd be dressage horses), and sometimes, what makes them so good cross country, affects their dressage in a negative way. They may be very eager and have trouble being really supple or 'waiting' for their rider. For dressage after first level, a horse really has to start being like a yo yo-he can come back, go forward, all eagerly, but not get too excited and impatient when asked to come back and wait.

I think when eventing dressage is judged at the top levels, MOST of the horses are more excited and a little less supple than a dressage horse. Not that they are trained badly or ridden badly, they're just more excited and fit.

When one concentrates more on dressage than jumping and galloping, a horse's back and stomach and hind quarter and neck muscles all look quite different than they do if the horse does more galloping and jumping. I think some of what one sees as a difference in performance is actually a difference in musculature.

[Mary in Area 1]

The people who win at eventing dressage do not training differently than people who do regular dressage. Event horses tend to be more aerobically fitter and have longer, leaner bodies for running and jumping. Some dressage horses are strong and fit, but some are just plain fat.

[STF]

I have been now on both sides of the fence. X eventer here, gone straight dressage (with some jumping in the program, but rail and poles now, no solid stuff).
The dressage IS the same, but honestly, I dont know many eventer who take the time to make their test a prefection. You see so many high 30's and 40s in dressage for simple tests due to lack of preperation and correcet training (only an opinion of what I see). Most just saw it to get to the jumping phases and most of the eventers I knew thought dressage was boring as all get out, I think the comment was "like watching cement set"......

So, no its not any different, it just depends how it is applied.

And, for who mentioned they thought some dressage horses were fat. Well, some, yes, but some who are strong and powerful for the movemnts cant be to fat to get that power.

[slc2]

The dressage horses aren't necessarily fat, so much as having different shape and distribution to muscles.

People also seem to select a different type of horse for higher level eventing that looks more like a race horse - narrow chest, generally light build, lighter bone, narrower in the body, etc. Most are less massive and would never have the same muscle and build as some of the dressage lines, no matter how they were trained.

[STF]

I agree SLC.
Most of the TB's in eventing dont have the correct muscle for the really strong movements of dressage. Most eventers have a serious lack of topline and muscle needed to really "carry/sit" for what most would consider correct dressage that are dressage people.

Totally different outlook of what dressage SHOULD be, IMO.

[rabicon]

I've shown c/t's and just dressage at the lowest level ;):lol: but I've not noticed any difference in the judging at all. They look for the same thing. The one thing I do notice is that in upper level eventing and the equivalant of dressage at that level is that the eventing horses are not as good at it ;) Nothing aganist the eventers but they have three disciplines to train for and not just one so you would think that dressage horses at 3rd level would be better than an eventing horse at the same level.

[STF]

The judging should not be much different, they use USDF standards and dressaeg judges.

[Jealoushe]

It is the same, the horses are a bit different, and obviously dressage shouldn't be their first career choice, but many eventers kick major a** when they go to their local dressage shows for schooling.

I would also like to say that MANY eventers DO look for perfection in their tests, and some of them can pull off some really nice work. Obviously it's not at GP level, but a lot do a decent job.

[Kementari]

I would also like to say that MANY eventers DO look for perfection in their tests, and some of them can pull off some really nice work. Obviously it's not at GP level, but a lot do a decent job.

:yes: Especially up to Prelim or so, events are won or lost on dressage scores, so you can bet that competitive eventers take their dressage seriously.

Plus, after Novice or Training, most (serious) eventers take lessons from a dressage coach, so are learning the same dressage as everyone else.

The types of horses are most definitely different, and eventers need muscles (and attitudes) that dressage horses don't, but I think that's mostly a matter of preference (I'd rather watch a TB than a WB any day, personally ;)) rather than actual performance.

[quietann]

The dressage IS the same, but honestly, I dont know many eventer who take the time to make their test a prefection. You see so many high 30's and 40s in dressage for simple tests due to lack of preperation and correcet training (only an opinion of what I see). Most just saw it to get to the jumping phases and most of the eventers I knew thought dressage was boring as all get out, I think the comment was "like watching cement set"......

I think anyone who wants be a competitive eventer in a crowded USEA region (like Area 1 or 2!) learns very quickly that they need to spend more time on dressage! A lot of events are "won on the dressage score", which is to say several horses get clear rounds in X/C and stadium, and whoever has the best dressage score wins.

That said, in my one and only horse trial (one day event), my trainer and I chose the level based on what I was capable of jumping, not what dressage test I was capable of doing. This was a schooling trial and I went Elementary -- max fences were 2'4" and we did the Beginner Novice A dressage test. I could have gotten through either of the Novice dressage tests, but not the higher jumps. We came in third -- based on our dressage score, as mentioned above. Mine was the worst, amongst three of us who went double-clear in the jumping phases.

[Dixon]

Most of the TB's in eventing dont have the correct muscle for the really strong movements of dressage. Most eventers have a serious lack of topline and muscle needed to really "carry/sit" for what most would consider correct dressage that are dressage people.

Totally different outlook of what dressage SHOULD be, IMO.

The difference is that for dressage folks, the movements and tests are ends unto themselves, instead of a means the the end of improved jumping performance. One outlook is no more correct than the other. In fact I'd argue that in the past, when lower-level eventing's dressage scores were not weighted as heavily as now, good dressage training was all the more important, not in terms of points and scores, but in terms of distinguishing the best pairs from the "just-getting-by" pairs in the stadium jumping phase. A horse and rider just can't put in good jumping rounds over challenging courses without a solid dressage foundation that transcends merely "going through the movements," so when the jumping got dumbed down, the point of eventing dressage unfortunately did too.

[STF]

The difference is that for dressage folks, the movements and tests are ends unto themselves, instead of a means the the end of improved jumping performance.

I dont agree with that, but Im to tired to explain why.

[Mary in Area 1]

The dressage horses aren't necessarily fat, so much as having different shape and distribution to muscles.

Sorry, SLC, how silly of me! I was just quoting Dr. Hillary Clayton from a segment at last year's USDF Convention. She said many dressage horses are way too fat, and she is trying desperately to get DQ's to slim their horses down and do more cross-training, like the event horses, because they would be less likely to have ligament injuries.

[slc2]

I said they aren't necessarily fat if they look different, please read what I wrote. It means just because a horse looks different to someone doesn't always mean it's fat.

I am very aware that some dressage horses are too fat. I have one of my own, in fact. :lol:

But some aren't actually fat, just rounder, thicker muscles. A horse with a very narrow chest and flat sides and light bone and naturally less round, heavy muscles always looks slim compared to a naturally bigger more massive horse.

[Mary in Area 1]

The people who win at eventing dressage do not training differently than people who do regular dressage. Event horses tend to be more aerobically fitter and have longer, leaner bodies for running and jumping. Some dressage horses are strong and fit, but some are just plain fat.

SLC, it appears you need to sharpen your reading skills as well!

Pot, this is a Black Kettle.

[Jealoushe]

A horse and rider just can't put in good jumping rounds over challenging courses without a solid dressage foundation that transcends merely "going through the movements," so when the jumping got dumbed down, the point of eventing dressage unfortunately did too.

I missed something, when was the jumping dumbed down?

[Equibrit]

I think it would be safe to say that the type of horse required for eventing is very different to that required for stand alone dressage. This influences how the horse is trained, ridden and his way of going.

[Bobthehorse]

I agree SLC.
Most of the TB's in eventing dont have the correct muscle for the really strong movements of dressage. Most eventers have a serious lack of topline and muscle needed to really "carry/sit" for what most would consider correct dressage that are dressage people.

Totally different outlook of what dressage SHOULD be, IMO.

Thats not what slc said. They said that there is a reason event horses look different, they are not dressage horses, they hare eventers. They have to also be able to gallop and jump, make sharp turns, and get themselves out of sticky situations. This is the type of horse that is required, its not because eventers cant ride well enough to condition their horses properly. Like a sprinter vs a triathlete. Different body type is required, and likewise different muscling.

Plus, the horses are fit to the max. They are bouncing off the walls. No dressage horse is ever required to be that fit. Completely different types of horses, but the training is the same.

[Bobthehorse]

I missed something, when was the jumping dumbed down?

I dont know, I thought it was beefed up? haha.

[in_the_zone]

Same dressage, different horses. Event horses have to be good at everything. Most eventers will tell you their horse's (and often their own) weakness is the dressage phase. If those horse would have shown more aptitude for dressage in their early training, they probably would have been made into dressage horses and not eventers.