WHO SAID IT ? George Morris The American Jumping Style.

[OTTB_#1]

With Thoroughbreds, one needs to compromise and often skirt the dressage issue; really intensive dressage is not usually necessary.

On the other hand, seeing our riders back on their buttocks, with their upper bodies on (and even behind) the verticle, often body-riding and pumping away at their horses, is not my idea of style.

I was reading through some old books, and always found this one to be my favorite. IMO more people should read it! If no one guesses it by 8pm I'll post the answer with book title! :) GL

[equitationlane]

Gordon Wright?

[Eventer13]

With Thoroughbreds, one needs to compromise and often skirt the dressage issue; really intensive dressage is not usually necessary.

On the other hand, seeing our riders back on their buttocks, with their upper bodies on (and even behind) the verticle, often body-riding and pumping away at their horses, is not my idea of style.

I was reading through some old books, and always found this one to be my favorite. IMO more people should read it! If no one guesses it by 8pm I'll post the answer with book title! :) GL

No idea... but do have to say, if someone is driving with their seat and pumping to do "dressage" then no wonder they have to "skirt" the issue, especially with a TB.

[chancellor2]

With Thoroughbreds, one needs to compromise and often skirt the dressage issue; really intensive dressage is not usually necessary.

On the other hand, seeing our riders back on their buttocks, with their upper bodies on (and even behind) the verticle, often body-riding and pumping away at their horses, is not my idea of style.

I was reading through some old books, and always found this one to be my favorite. IMO more people should read it! If no one guesses it by 8pm I'll post the answer with book title! :) GL


Well, then, I guess Mr Morris ought to get himself more educated about dressage because dressage riders should not be behind the vertical nor pumping away at their horses. My guess is that he is referring to hunter riders who *think* they are "doing" dressage when all they are doing is a disservice to their horse.

[seeuatx]

Whoever said it never passed the info along to Hilda Gurney and Keen apparently

[OTTB_#1]

You need to read the entire book:). Those were just two parts I found interesting. Here it is in more detail.

The part on pumping is in reference to the imported warm bloods and how they have affected the American Jumping Style and not for the better.

While not enthusiastic about what they have done to our style, I must say that this type of horse has taught us a lot about riding, especially on the flat. It is interesting to note that continental warmblood horse requires dressage, likes dressage, and flourishes on dressage. One can not succeed with this type of horse without understanding the rudiments of flat work. Thoroughbreds are different. With Thoroughbreds, one needs to compromise and often skirt the dressage issue; really intensive dressage is not usually necessary. North American riders never really understood or appreciated the art of dressage untill the warmblood horse forced us to do so.

On the other hand, seeing our riders back on their buttocks, with their upper bodies on (and even behind) the vertical, often body-riding and pumping away at their horses, is not my idea of style. Hopefully the good we've learned from these horses, especially about the use of dressage, will outweigh the bad things they have done to our classical style: The tendency towards overriding and getting behind the motion. I do not want to see the American Style of riding jumpers change into something other than that what brought us our great success. And I am sure when the pendulum swigs back toward the thoroughbred horse, our horse of choice, this will not happen. It is up to the professionals in this country to have "blood" horses available for their students and to teach them how to ride such horses correctly. I will always equate "style" with "lightness." And to be able to ride "light" one must have a light-type horse. The thoroughbred or near thoroughbred is that type horse.

All I can say is this book is amazing! I will try to get a few more quotes, but like I said anyone who rides should own this book. It is truly one of the best written books aside from "The De Nemethy Method" which I will also quote from later. These I would say are the 2 best books for aspiring riders trainers of today.

[lauriep]

It would help if you would use quotes around the parts excerpted from the book to make your thoughts more readily distinguishable from GHM's.

[chancellor2]

George Morris obviously does not understand dressage if he thinks he needs to skirt the dressage issue with thoroughbreds. Dressage helps every horse when done correctly. However, all too often, I have seen hunter trainers who think they know what they are talking about and they don't. It's sad because the Europeans know that dressage is good for every horse. It's too bad Americans haven't learned that yet. Dressage is not putting your horse in a frame. Dressage is learning to control your horse's engine and that starts from behind the leg.....not in the front in the mouth.

[jumpingmaya]

George Morris obviously does not understand dressage if he thinks he needs to skirt the dressage issue with thoroughbreds. Dressage helps every horse when done correctly. However, all too often, I have seen hunter trainers who think they know what they are talking about and they don't. It's sad because the Europeans know that dressage is good for every horse. It's too bad Americans haven't learned that yet. Dressage is not putting your horse in a frame. Dressage is learning to control your horse's engine and that starts from behind the leg.....not in the front in the mouth.

Haha... I had to laugh... I agree with you on the comment about "Americans" (using quotes because this is a general statement.... There are hunter/jumper people out there that know... but they are few and far between when compared to the rest) not understanding the basic concept of dressage... I own a thoroughbred and ride with a GP dressage instructor once a week.... Not planning on showing dressage... just doing it to improve our performance jumping... Interestingly enough, can't find anyone, trainer wise- to train for the jumpers... The lady I train with for dressage did the jumpers before and has been tremendous help... I wasn't able to switch methods of riding between 2 different trainers especially since my mare does so much better with the "dressage training"... So, to make a long story short, the issue lays with "trainers" "knowing" dressage... and really being clueless... wich goes back to the whole question... of having to get licensed to be a trainer... since it's that way in Europe and they don't seem to be having so many problems!!! So if you know any high level trainer in Tampa, Florida area.... that trains with that in mind... PLEASE let me know :yes:

[findeight]

Read the whole thing to get the context...and he does say Really INTENSIVE dressage.

I take that to mean upper level movements, not the dressage basics we all need and use, even on the TBs. No need to drill one trying to teach it something that is not going to add anything to a round around the fences.

More H/J trainers are familair with correct dressage then you would think by what is posted on here.

[chancellor2]

Read the whole thing to get the context...and he does say Really INTENSIVE dressage.

I take that to mean upper level movements, not the dressage basics we all need and use, even on the TBs. No need to drill one trying to teach it something that is not going to add anything to a round around the fences.

More H/J trainers are familair with correct dressage then you would think by what is posted on here.


Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. I seen hunter trainers who think it is all about headset and nothing about the engine. *shakes head sadly* It's very very sad.

[rileyt]

ohhhhhboooyyyyyy.

"It is interesting to note that continental warmblood horse requires dressage, likes dressage, and flourishes on dressage. One can not succeed with this type of horse without understanding the rudiments of flat work. Thoroughbreds are different. With Thoroughbreds, one needs to compromise and often skirt the dressage issue; really intensive dressage is not usually necessary."

I have to say, coming from GM, I find this paragraph really ignorant and disappointing. At best, I think he's done a piss-poor job of conveying what he means. At worse, it makes him sounds like he still doesn't get the idea of dressage for ALL horses... even TBs.

He implies that while you can't succeed on a warmblood without understanding the rudiments of dressage, that thoroughbreds are "different" i.e., that you CAN succeed on them without knowing dick about dressage. And while that may be true to some extent, I think it ignores the fact that all of these horses would be BETTER if their riders knew a thing or two about dressage. GM implies that the TBs are better off not knowing about dressage, and that really sticks in my craw.

And the concept that you need to "compromise and often skirt the dressage issue"... what horse-shit. This is the same man who lectures about the need for better horsemanship?

It is as if he is equating "dressage" with a 4th level frame and some cranked up contact. Dressage shouldn't be any different from flatwork. Whether you're doing hunters, eventers, or dressage. GM implies that dressage is a dirty word, and that it shouldn't be used on TBs.

Findeight, I'm not sure I read that paragraph in the same way that you do. Would you agree that all horses, even TBs, need "Intensive" flatwork? I do. I think 90% of your schooling should be on the flat... even if you're doing h/j. What is that if not "intensive"? And while I agree that a hunter will never need to know how to piaffe (and even that you might make a particular TB crazy trying to teach him collected movements), good flatwork should still be equated with dressage. If what he meant was merely that TB hunters don't need to know how to piaffe, he could certainly have said that. To me, "intensive" is a different word than "advanced"

I think this sums up GM's perspective: "I do not want to see the American Style of riding jumpers change into something other than that what brought us our great success." I'm sure he doesn't, because then it might mean that, horrors, there are other ways to ride a horse well beyond the patented GHM approach?

I love TBs. They are my horse of choice. They're light and forward, and many of them do require a certain type of ride. But I have NEVER EVER meet a single one that didn't respond positively to dressage (when done right). While they might always enjoy a good gallop, good dressage requires lightness and tact. That seems to be the part GM doesn't quite get. He thinks if you're sitting upright, or have your horse on the bit, you must be riding "heavy". I think its a shame he perpetuates this straw man argument.

I have seen more times than I can count, hunter, jumper, and event riders bring their jazzed up unhappy TBs to my current dressage instructor's farm. They are the quintessential "hot TB" who is unhappy and crunched into a frame. (I'm not knocking h/j/or event riders generally, by the way, but usually by the time they make it to this lady, its because they've been doing it wrong for a long time, and their horses have had it). And time after time after time, I see this woman get on these horses, and work them so compassionately, and so skillfully, that you can almost see the horse going, "ahhhhhhh... this doesn't hurt/frighten me so much...". And yes, she sits upright on them.

For shame George.

[equinelaw]

Read the whole thing to get the context...and he does say Really INTENSIVE dressage.

I take that to mean upper level movements, not the dressage basics we all need and use, even on the TBs. No need to drill one trying to teach it something that is not going to add anything to a round around the fences.

More H/J trainers are familair with correct dressage then you would think by what is posted on here.

GM started out as a dressage rider:) Little known fact. He is not anti-dressage.

[rileyt]

GM started out as a dressage rider:) Little known fact. He is not anti-dressage.


If that is really true, and he understands it even a little bit, I do not know how he could've written that dreck.

[OTTB_#1]

O.k I said read the whole book!! He is brilliant and conveys what he means. You need to read the whole book to understand the concept.

If you read the book from start to finish I think many of you would do a 360 on there negative opinions.

You know what they say "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink".

[jumpingmaya]

That's what I was thinking... that the quote by itself could sound out of "context"...
Either way, love GM and most of the time, his opinion... :-)

[chancellor2]

If that is really true, and he understands it even a little bit, I do not know how he could've written that dreck.

Well said.

[kansasgal]

from page 7, chapter 1, The Eveolution of the American Jumping Style....

"The French invented classical riding. Their genius, coupled with the greatest sense of style and beauty in the world, along with access to all kinds of equestrian sport- racing , hunting, dressage, show jumping, eventing-provided the world with a system of riding, an ideology and methodology, that can't be bettered. The French School, be it manege, jumping, or cross country, solves every problem one can ever come across with a horse, and in the simplest way."

A wonderful book, it really explains the history and evolution of forward seat riding. God bless George Morris for writing this book.

Okay, here's another great quote from page 9,
"....The American School is a complex conglomeration of histories, peoples, countries, ideas, and horsemen. One must first understand the roots, background, and evolution of American horsemanship even to begin to study or understand, let alone learn to do, what we do."

It's too bad more people don't spend to study "the greats" who came before George. Ohh.. I'm getting old! (smile).

[chancellor2]

GM started out as a dressage rider:) Little known fact. He is not anti-dressage.


Linda Parelli used to ride Dressage too. Doesn't mean she totally gets it anymore.

[kansasgal]

George Morris obviously does not understand dressage if he thinks he needs to skirt the dressage issue with thoroughbreds. Dressage helps every horse when done correctly. However, all too often, I have seen hunter trainers who think they know what they are talking about and they don't. It's sad because the Europeans know that dressage is good for every horse. It's too bad Americans haven't learned that yet. Dressage is not putting your horse in a frame. Dressage is learning to control your horse's engine and that starts from behind the leg.....not in the front in the mouth.
Excuse me....

But have you ever been to a George clinic, or one with Anne Kursinski? You'd see "engines engaged"...... and no talk about headset.
Maybe if those hunter trainers you are talking about could be convinced of the importance of studying the foundation of the discipline that they promote and teach, things would be better.....

[dags]

I think when one is provided with a brief excerpt it's a natural reaction to read into it as heavily as possible.

You could do this, and then come up with the theory the GM does not approve of dressage, especially for TBs. You could then apply that theory to everything else you know about the man, and see if it is still on par. For me it is not.

Anyone who is truly familiar with the American Style and Forward Riding would not think for a second that George is throwing dressage out the window. We understand his context, we don't even need to read the book to get that there's probably more to that paragraph.

Intensive flatwork and intensive dressage are two incredibly different things, IMO . . . may I tell you how many dressage riders have point-blank told me that schooling leg-yields, shoulders-in, counter-canter, lenghtening and collection is NOT dressage? It is simply proper flatwork. Find me a place where George does not value proper flatwork.

And is he condemning a proper, 3-point seat when necesary? No, he is condemning riders riding on or behind the vertical, pumping with their bodies and driving with harsh seat bones. Weight should not be on the buttocks, body should be before the vertical, otherwise the move to jump with the horse is far to drastic and disconcerting for the animal.

"Hopefully the good we've learned from these horses, especially about the use of dressage, will outweigh the bad things they have done to our classical style: The tendency towards overriding and getting behind the motion."

I think what he is implying instead (since we're apparently dissecting words here), is that maybe us Americans didn't learn dressage so well.

[equinelaw]

I don't think he is implying it, I think he just flat out says it. Because those were almost his exact words in the clinic I was at when he said he rode dressage. . BUT. . . . .he doe snot long the behind the vertical long stirrup grinding seat bad modern American dressage.

However, this was like 15 years ago and our Dressage has gotten much better.

[lauriep]

Unfortunately, that has not been my experience. I seen hunter trainers who think it is all about headset and nothing about the engine. *shakes head sadly* It's very very sad.

You can trust that not only does GM know, love, and practice dressage, he also rode/rides with the top dressage professionals the industry has had. He isn't your "average" h/j trainer, and understands more than anyone the importance of correct flatwork/dressage on any horse. What he hates, and blames for much of the back soreness in horses, is the heavy pounding, behind the vertical, sitting/driving that is so popular. You can ride lower level dressage correctly in a lighter seat.

[lauriep]

ohhhhhboooyyyyyy.

"It is interesting to note that continental warmblood horse requires dressage, likes dressage, and flourishes on dressage. One can not succeed with this type of horse without understanding the rudiments of flat work. Thoroughbreds are different. With Thoroughbreds, one needs to compromise and often skirt the dressage issue; really intensive dressage is not usually necessary."

I have to say, coming from GM, I find this paragraph really ignorant and disappointing. At best, I think he's done a piss-poor job of conveying what he means. At worse, it makes him sounds like he still doesn't get the idea of dressage for ALL horses... even TBs.

He implies that while you can't succeed on a warmblood without understanding the rudiments of dressage, that thoroughbreds are "different" i.e., that you CAN succeed on them without knowing dick about dressage. And while that may be true to some extent, I think it ignores the fact that all of these horses would be BETTER if their riders knew a thing or two about dressage. GM implies that the TBs are better off not knowing about dressage, and that really sticks in my craw.

And the concept that you need to "compromise and often skirt the dressage issue"... what horse-shit. This is the same man who lectures about the need for better horsemanship?

It is as if he is equating "dressage" with a 4th level frame and some cranked up contact. Dressage shouldn't be any different from flatwork. Whether you're doing hunters, eventers, or dressage. GM implies that dressage is a dirty word, and that it shouldn't be used on TBs.

Findeight, I'm not sure I read that paragraph in the same way that you do. Would you agree that all horses, even TBs, need "Intensive" flatwork? I do. I think 90% of your schooling should be on the flat... even if you're doing h/j. What is that if not "intensive"? And while I agree that a hunter will never need to know how to piaffe (and even that you might make a particular TB crazy trying to teach him collected movements), good flatwork should still be equated with dressage. If what he meant was merely that TB hunters don't need to know how to piaffe, he could certainly have said that. To me, "intensive" is a different word than "advanced"

I think this sums up GM's perspective: "I do not want to see the American Style of riding jumpers change into something other than that what brought us our great success." I'm sure he doesn't, because then it might mean that, horrors, there are other ways to ride a horse well beyond the patented GHM approach?

I love TBs. They are my horse of choice. They're light and forward, and many of them do require a certain type of ride. But I have NEVER EVER meet a single one that didn't respond positively to dressage (when done right). While they might always enjoy a good gallop, good dressage requires lightness and tact. That seems to be the part GM doesn't quite get. He thinks if you're sitting upright, or have your horse on the bit, you must be riding "heavy". I think its a shame he perpetuates this straw man argument.

I have seen more times than I can count, hunter, jumper, and event riders bring their jazzed up unhappy TBs to my current dressage instructor's farm. They are the quintessential "hot TB" who is unhappy and crunched into a frame. (I'm not knocking h/j/or event riders generally, by the way, but usually by the time they make it to this lady, its because they've been doing it wrong for a long time, and their horses have had it). And time after time after time, I see this woman get on these horses, and work them so compassionately, and so skillfully, that you can almost see the horse going, "ahhhhhhh... this doesn't hurt/frighten me so much...". And yes, she sits upright on them.

For shame George.

You really need to read a bit more of his works before making such an asinine judgement based on a couple of sentences taken out of context. I have listened to the man teach for over 30 years, and he does NOT underestimate the importance of dressage for any horse.Audit just ONE of his clinics and you will get it.

[magnolia73]

The book "Riding and Training American Sporthorses" is along the same lines. The crux of it is that dressage can make a horse strong for jumping. The book focuses on creating a horse that carries himself in a relaxed efficient manner.

I think their idea of "dressage" is collection. Of course horses need an engine, suppleness etc. But a hunter need not have the degree of collection that a Grand Prix dressage horse has. The book actually offers a great definition of the different goals- Forward seat Schooling Goals - Connection, jumping/flat, uneven terrain, field riding, speed, forward balance, natural agility, GROUND COVERING MOVEMENT. Position- based on stirrup. Controls- cooperation, 3 levels of control. Dressage Goals: Collection, Menage, high school, central balance. Position based on the seat. Controls- Intensive influence, Obedience and precision.

I'd argue the first steps are the same- relaxed supple horse and work to do such. Cramming a head into a set is not a goal of either discipline unless you have a bad trainer, but happens. Once you get relaxed, impulsion, adjustable and supple, the hunter jumper kind of maintains. The dressage rider then moves to more intense collection work. I think GM means you stop before you begin the steps in dressage that require collection.

Notably, there are people who blame the ever increasing difficulty of eventing dressage with creating horses to reliant on rider input to jump safely.

[dags]

Notably, there are people who blame the ever increasing difficulty of eventing dressage with creating horses to reliant on rider input to jump safely.


I think this is an incredibly interesting thought, as the first time I sat on a real dressage horse my impression was, 'holy crap, it's waiting for me to tell it where to put it's left front leg, and now it's right front leg, and now the left again?? good grief, can't you just trot, horse??!'

It was as if the horse didn't know what to do unless I told him to do it. Jumping was, shall I say, as interesting as this comment. No way was I riding to a fence with that much contact and seat . . . he learned to just kind of let-go, and stretch. To stay straight on his own (here was that conversation- "Listen horse, I know you can swing your haunches left, right, and do the cha-cha, but HONESTLY, if my leg isn't giving you a CUE, they can just travel right behind your front end. No. Really.)

And he learned to accept a nice, easy 2-point canter, and manage his own balance for once. Which is exactly what I was hired to do with the horse. And this was no po-dunk dressage horse.

The moral? Flatwork in more than one discipline is beneficial for any horse. Simple as that :)

[Foxtrot's]

Jack LeGoff said it was not necessary for a horse to be trained higher than Med. l for that exact reason. He wanted the horse's own ability/instinct/jump training to take charge when it came to a matter of survival over the fences on x-c. Lucinda hunter her x-c horses for the same reason, to let them learn to think on their own.

[kansasgal]

and maybe I should post this as another thread. But way back in the mid 80's, Practical Horseman featured a series of articles called "Stabilize to Optimize". The trainer was Ronnie Baird (sp). I am way out of the loop, but last I knew, he was still a big time well respected judge. I would love to get my hands on those articles again! I remember him giving credit to some other great old school trainers, he did NOT invent this idea.... but it was very well presented. I think DeNemathy was mentioned....

Anyway, it was about training your horse to go forward in a steady rhythm first, starting on the longe, then progressing to work under saddle, then over poles and on to jumps. It was about learning to stay out of his way and letting him do his job.

I remember from somewhere a long time ago, I think it was Ann Kursinski who said, "The horse KNOWS how to jump, where to take off. Without a rider, he will find the perfect takeoff spot. Your job is to get him to the jump and then get OUT of the WAY."

I also remember, I think, George talking about the importance of more advanced dressage for jumpers and upper level equitation horses..... but not for hunters.

But yes, I do think that the all important hunter flatwork is becoming a lost art. And people want to shrug it off as unimportant..... but there IS a difference between flatwork for hunters and what many people would define as dressage....

I also remember back to the late 80's , when more people were getting in to dressage, that there was, at least in the area where I was living, an awful trend of what one of my instructors jokingly called "Jump-age"..... too much contact and too much collection... with the mistaken idea that huntseat was... we actually heard someone say this at a show... was "just dressage between the jumps". Ugh.





Also, somewhere there was also a cautionary note of "overdoing" dressage, that you wanted a hunter to think for himself.....

I think that there is a connection to that and what some people in the eventing world are talking about.

[Fluffie]

You really need to read a bit more of his works before making such an asinine judgement based on a couple of sentences taken out of context. I have listened to the man teach for over 30 years, and he does NOT underestimate the importance of dressage for any horse.Audit just ONE of his clinics and you will get it.

I have to agree--it's pretty clear that rileyt and chancellor 2 have never audited/fully read GHM. The opening quote from the OP is a bit out of context (from both the book and this time period), which doesn't help the situation either. ;) The general idea that I've gotten out of doing both activities (altough I have nowhere near lauriep's experience :)) is that you can't generally drill-drill-drill a TB on flatwork and do that weirdness many people consider to be dressage (no weight in heels; random, flapping body parts; and weight behind the motion with locked hands) as much as you can get away with it on a WB.

From what I remember from reading the book in question, his overall point is that typical WB's encourage a "heavier" type of ride (driving and packaging) than typical TB's do. This results in a perversion/alteration (pick your poison in terminology) of what is considered good eq.

[chancellor2]

I have to agree--it's pretty clear that rileyt and chancellor 2 have never audited/fully read GHM. The opening quote from the OP is a bit out of context (from both the book and this time period), which doesn't help the situation either. ;) The general idea that I've gotten out of doing both activities (altough I have nowhere near lauriep's experience :)) is that you can't generally drill-drill-drill a TB on flatwork and do that weirdness many people consider to be dressage (no weight in heels; random, flapping body parts; and weight behind the motion with locked hands) as much as you can get away with it on a WB.

From what I remember from reading the book in question, his overall point is that typical WB's encourage a "heavier" type of ride (driving and packaging) than typical TB's do. This results in a perversion/alteration (pick your poison in terminology) of what is considered good eq.

You do know what they say about ASSuming, right?
I used to think George Morris was a god too for a very long time. And he has much good to say and teach. However, much can be read into the quote from the original post, right? And, let's say that your average hunter trainer (note: I NEVER said that GM was your average hunter trainer) reads into the quote what I am several others have done. He has done a disservice to hunters here as they can benefit oh so much from dressage.

And it is very sad to see people who blindly follow him like lemmings.

[lauriep]

Are you really that foolish? Do you REALLY think people follow him like lemmings? Those that believe in his methods have SEEN the results he gets using those methods. IF you would ever watch him teach, as I have, you would see that whether from his years of experience or just a natural eye, he has an uncanny knack for seeing not just the problems, but the reason for the problem. He sees what works on various types of horses.

The man travels the WORLD studying other countries and their riders/methods. I would argue that he is the MOST studied teacher out there. He sees fads come and go everywhere. He reads books on riding/horses voraciously. And still he sticks to his belief in classical riding and horsemanship.

If Anne, Beezie, McLain, Laura, Katie, Melanie, Leslie, Chris, and thousands of others, are lemmings, well then yes, I guess you are right...

[Fluffie]

You do know what they say about ASSuming, right?
I used to think George Morris was a god too for a very long time. And he has much good to say and teach. However, much can be read into the quote from the original post, right? And, let's say that your average hunter trainer (note: I NEVER said that GM was your average hunter trainer) reads into the quote what I am several others have done. He has done a disservice to hunters here as they can benefit oh so much from dressage.

And it is very sad to see people who blindly follow him like lemmings.

And now who's ASSuming? :rolleyes: (There's a difference between an assumption and a conclusion--I am making the latter based on these posts and others from other threads).

And, once again, the quote that started this thread is taken out of context and is too short a piece for a lot of the assumptions/conclustions that are being made here. I am not a lemming, but I do not see the point on bashing *anyone* on rather incomplete/ill-chosen snipits (esp. since the original, complete text AND the person's spoken words directly countradict most of the conclusions being offered in this thread). Go out and actually r-e-a-d the *entire* book (the horrors) and see that the theories GHM is proposing are not what are being attributed.

[LookinSouth]

What he hates, and blames for much of the back soreness in horses, is the heavy pounding, behind the vertical, sitting/driving that is so popular. You can ride lower level dressage correctly in a lighter seat.

But one must remember that this issue cannot be blamed on the discipline of Dressage. It can really only be blamed on POOR dressage training. Just as the issue of riding ahead of the vertical constantly and jumping ahead can't be blamed on the discipline of Hunters but again on poor training.

Sitting upright with a longer leg doesn't equate to heavy and driving.

A well schooled, correctly ridden lower level Dressage horse can just as easily be loped around in a 2pt as they can be ridden upright with seat contact.

[magnolia73]

Honestly, I think that the dressage they speak of is the upper levels of dressage when the horse is trained to very subtle aids and seeking perfect obedience. I also think that collection is an issue.

I think that there are 2 seperate issues- 1. Bad training, "cram and jam the head down" does no good for any discipline. 2. Very upper level flat work- piaffe, passage, high levels of collection- probably do being to impact the jumping negatively and I imagine that the top line and musculature needed to create TRUE collection is different from what we want in a hunter. Well done dressage builds muscles and at some point, we need different development in a hunter/jumper than a Grand Prix dressage horse.

Perhaps his wording should be "poorly practiced dressage and training at the upper levels of dressage is not good for hunter jumpers".

I do think the goal with a hunter is to get them light and self balanced and capable of carrying itself without much input from the rider. I think the goal with dressage is light and carrying itself, but with a lot more attention paid to subtle aids from the rider and a higher degree of responsiveness. A hunter wants a horse that picks up a great, balanced canter and clicks around a course without change, and without a rider having to do much to maintain it.

[kansasgal]

I think this is a problem when hunters and jumpers get linked together in the same group.
Hunters ARE different than jumpers, training differs and usually, esp. after a certain point, there isn't a crossover.

In the old days, a horse was said to be trained to do "High school" movements, which would be more upper level dressage type work.

I think that maybe it would be helpful to come up with a clear definition of what "flatwork" is?
I think that the idea that "dressage is just the French word for training", maybe has caused a certain amount of misunderstanding for a lot of folks.

Maybe I need to read the book that Magnolia has referred to. (smile) I'm guessing it's probably in there somewhere.


What an interesting topic! Thanks everyone.

[chancellor2]

"High School" movements aka Haute Ecole are the movements done by the Lippizaner stallions including Levade Capriole and Courbette.
Those movements are not done as competitive dressage.

[kansasgal]

"High School" movements aka Haute Ecole are the movements done by the Lippizaner stallions including Levade Capriole and Courbette.
Those movements are not done as competitive dressage.


But back more than 35 years ago (at least where I lived, in Central NYS), you would sometimes see horses advertised as "trained to High School".... meaning that they were trained beyond the basics of "flatwork" or what the typical pleasure horse at that time would know.

Might it have been an old time Cavalry term? Easy to get lost in semantics.

Thanks and best wishes from Kansas.

[kansasgal]

"High School" movements aka Haute Ecole are the movements done by the Lippizaner stallions including Levade Capriole and Courbette.
Those movements are not done as competitive dressage.

Here's a clue.... going back to the history of horse training.....

I just checked out the website for the International Museum of the Horse at the Kentucky Horse Park....
http://imh.org/museum/history.php?chapter=49

Gueriniere's System for Everyday Riding

" Francois Robichon de la Gueriniere (1688-1751)..
has the distinction of having applied the ideas and methods of haute ecole to EVERYDAY RIDING. It was he who developed the counter-canter and the technique of the flying change of leg. Guerniere's instructions for riding were published as The School of Horsemanship in 1733. The soundness of his treatise is evidenced by the fact that Gueriniere's book is still the basic manual for the Spanish Riding School, perhaps the most distinguished equine training."

Interesting! Again, it's so easy to get lost in words and definitions.... and miss the point.

Thanks.

[OTTB_#1]

Read the whole book! Everything from proper 3 point, 2 point, all flat movements with detailed explanations of training them, including piafe and passage to strengthen hind end of upper level jumpers.

This book is about the "American Jumping Style." What I wrote is quoted directly out of the book, if you read the entire book you would know that he references the old dressage being much better of the 60's and 70's as well as noting the decline in educated trainers in America. He gives you all the tools in this book explains the "why" and then explains how to use the tools.

What I find amazing is that people on this board chronicle of the horse are so "uneducated" yet apparently they have the wright to critisize him. Seriously if you have something negative to say please provide video of yourself riding so we can judge your amazing riding system! He has coached the olympic team rode all over the world won numerous awards both on and off the horse. What qualifies you to judge him exactly?? I can name several people he has trained that ride and train internationally. You?? So before you go bashing away READ THE BOOK! At least the you will know what you are talking about.

I started this thread not asking what you thought! You offered your opinions freely. I believe the thread was titled guess who said it. Not guess who said it and do you agree. I was reading and thought there were some interesting quotes. Sorry for the rant.

[jolise]

Just a quick question for the dressage posters bashing George Morris. What color was the dressage Olympic medal in'08? What color was the Show Jumping teams medal? Who trained most of our international show jumpers at some point in their career? GM?
Instead of bashing the hunter/jumper riders constantly, maybe some of the dressage riders would benefit from getting off their A** and going for a good gallop on occasion. The European style is not the only way to ride a horse. And dressage is not the be all and end all for every discipline. Get off your high horses already. It gets tiresome seeing all the posts from the dressage folk bashing the hunter/jumper riders.

[Gonzo09]

[QUOTE=jolise;3881889]Just a quick question for the dressage posters bashing George Morris.

OK what about George Morris bashing the European Showjumpers? And I quote "The North American method is superb. The hotter and more sensitive the horse, the more tact is required and the seat and leg has to be softer. If our very soft way of riding, as demonstraed by Eric Lamaze and the best of our riders, Beezie, McLain, Laura Kraut and Anne Kuzinski etc, were incorporated in Europe, it would be unbeatable." OMG the gall of the man!

[chancellor2]

Given the problems with subjective judging of dressage vs the cut and dried system of jumpers, you cannot use the Olympic medals (which are not colors but metals) unfortunately. Frankly, I wish there was a cut and dried method for judging dressage as there is for show jumping.
I will say Jolise, that the contention on this thread started because of apparent bashing of dressage by George Morris. Please note that I used the word APPARENT here. So it does go both ways.

[ideayoda]

I think GM is right on with his insights. For those who dont know he was long term exposed to (took lessons from) Gunnar Andersen (the dane who trained Liz Hartel who even though paralyzed below the knee rode two tbs in two Olympics 52/56 and to an individual silver medal in 52) when Gunnar was in Au Sable Forks NY training an (now multiple) american team rider. For what it is worth, Gunnar would also get on problematic jumpers (he was a graduate of the Swedish cavalry school as well) when GM had a problem as well. There is the equitation depth of work in GM, the use of gymnastics which is rarely used in the same depth today, and an intensive depth in dressage at all levels in GM!

A rider who is btv (as we often see today) is overwhelming to the horse, and the 'you must' training (over rounded/submissive first of today) will drive a tb influenced horse into extreme hot reactions (the no halt salutes we often see in tests). The fact is the many wbs will indulge common technique is riders much more easily (although no horse should have to do so).

How many riders stay in light two point and just sit light before a fence any more? Most hunter riders are sitting for the entire ride, and even worse so are eventers. Pity the horse.

Imho the quality equitation/autorelease/methodical use of gymnatics has faded from the 60s, quick methods/suspect 'realeases'/any bit goes/quick training methods/muscular type horses have replaced them. Can we ever go back to the times of riding w/o stirrups, two point, earning the right to jump (not in the first lessons)? Not unless showing is something to be earned rather than demanded by the consumer/student.

[rileyt]

Sorry to dredge this up after 3 days, but I've been away, and I feel a need to respond.

1) For the record, I have read, in its entirety, each and every one of GM's books. And I have audited a clinic that he taught. I didn't bother to do this because I think the man is an idiot.

2) I agree, that he does not exhibit any of the "bad hunter training" we've all seen over and over again, focusing on headset, and riding front to back. He is a respected horseman and an undeniable expert in riding hunters.

3) Respectfully, I think there is more to correct dressage (even at the lower levels) than riding back to front, and not pulling the horse into a frame.

My beef is with the paragraph he wrote, which is what was posted on this thread. And yes, it may be "out of context", but I think it is a terribly destructive thing to write. Blaming bad riding (pumping, grinding) on the influx of warmbloods is irresponsible, and someone of GM's experience should know better. It is akin to blaming all of the "posers" in hunt seat equitation on GM's own emphasis on "style" (I'm sure someone will misunderstand that and jump down my throat -- so please, read it twice before blasting me).

Its not the warmbloods that ruin riders. And its not "dressage" that ruins hunters or prevents the "lightness" the GM seeks. Its bad riding. In my opinion, knowing how to ride a warmblood effectively is just as important as knowing how to ride a TB. Even if you're a hunter. Because while you may always ride TBs, there are TBs out there who ride like a warmblood. To ONLY be able to ride a nice round on a forward moving TB shows a lack of a full education in the rider.

And frankly, after observing the man for many many years, I'm not so sure that the paragraph he wrote is really "out of context". I think he believes, on some level, that "dressage" is different from good flatwork, and I think that's an unfortunate misconception that he's perpetuating by his poor word choice (assuming he really doesn't believe it, which I wonder). I think he has sadly seen a lot of BAD dressage riding in this country for years and years. And he's seen a lot of bad dressage instructors telling their students to grind their seat bones into the saddle and crank on the reins. I don't blame him for being wary, as I've seen these things too. But as a horseman, I suspect he is (or should be) well educated enough to differentiate between bad horsemanship, and a destructive theory of riding. The fact that dressage is often so destructive in application (when done incorrectly) doesn't make it something that TBs (or hunters) should avoid, or "skirt". It means it is something that should be pursued with care to make sure you're getting good instruction.

[dags]

Lots to digest there rileyt! I'm gonna jump in before someone jumps down your throat for calling GM an idiot :D

Is blame the right word? Did he use it? (I did not reread the paragraph for a 6th time). Could it be that he meant the influx of X (warmblood) led to Z (BTV, too much hand, driving seat . . . which I agree will send most TBs up one wall and down the other).

And if you believe that first and foremost your teacher is your horse, then again you might see how X can lead to Z. Did he place blame? Or is he postulating what he believes happened? (Which in turn is taken as Holy Scripture).

I know I do not blame GM for posing, I believe that children with already overloaded schedules and a weak work ethic plus parents spending hundreds of thousands on horses and training so child will win LED TO trainers buying ready-made horses on which you can pose and not die. But that's just me postulating now, fortunately no one takes my words with such gravity.