10,000 Hours Needed to Master Dressage

[Mike Matson]

That's 20 hours a week for 10 years, or 10 hours a week for 20 years, or 5 hours a week for 40 years, according to scientists who have studied why certain individuals master a skill.

When they look at any kind of cognitively complex field, they find that you are unlikely to master it unless you have practiced for 10,000 hours. The brain takes that long to assimilate all it needs to know to achieve true mastery. The interesting thing is that the age at which you devote 10,000 hours doesn't seem to matter.

Dressage is a cognitive skill, so for those of you not putting in the requisite hours, better start ramping it up! :)

Source: The Outliers of Success by Malcolm Gladwell
Link to book and reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1237083713&sr=1-1

[merrygoround]

I think they underestimate in some cases. I've done more time that that, honest!, and I still have things to learn. :cry:

[Ambrey]

Ouch.

By about hour 5000 will I stop being sore all the time?

[Mike Matson]

:lol:

[Ginger]

Define 'master' please. :) Is it Anky, the SRS riders, the paraequestrians? Different ends to the means, no less impressive for all of them.

[freestyle2music]

Don't wory because dressage skills are passed on in the genes.

So for every 10 hours your mother or father spend in the saddle you can deduct 5 hours from this 10.000 hours.:D

This means that when you are a 8th generation dressage rider you can start GrandPrix right after your birth.


Next to this you get a 30% discount when you are starting with a schoolmaster;)

[YankeeLawyer]

So which trainers came up with this theory?

[siegi b.]

YL - no trainer came up with this because it's a statistical finding based on one person performing one task - a theory that falls flat on its face the minute you introduce a variable in the form of a living being, i. e. the horse. :-)

And Theo touched on some of the other variables that either cannot be measured or are not taken into consideration by the OP's statement - talent, degree of training of the horse, quality of instruction, etc.

[thatmoody]

I thought it was extrapolated from some semi-scientific findings related to other sports/disciplines (NY times article about 10,000 hours to master a sport: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D00E1DC1F3DF932A25753C1A9629582 60&sec=&pagewanted=all).

Of course that's for a sport/performance where there are less factors - the human and perhaps an instrument or racket. But yes, it does take a long time and many hours, I think that we would all agree. But some people are simply more talented than others - proception response, etc. varies from person to person.

But then what do I know - I'm on the lower end of the athletic talent scale, but I learned to surf really well from just putting in a lot of hours at it. Actually, I just calculated and I've definitely put in my 10,000 hours surfing. But then I've put in a lot more than that on a horse (30+ years and still going) and without instruction, just didn't go far. Now I'm putting in hours PLUS instruction but it's still slow going...come on 9,000 hours!

[pintopiaffe]

Interesting. And seems pretty accurate.

Who is it who said that it takes three lifetimes to become competent in dressage? Yours and those of at least two horses? THAT seems to be accurate too.

[thatmoody]

My trainer keeps saying you ruin two horses before you get any good, and I keep asking her which horse she wants me to ruin today :P.

[Equibrit]

What about the horse ?

[EqTrainer]

My trainer keeps saying you ruin two horses before you get any good, and I keep asking her which horse she wants me to ruin today :P.

:lol: But this is so true. And unfortunately people find it hurtful when you say it, even tho' it is not meant that way.

The little Klimke girl is living proof that genetics and a schoolmaster cut down your learning curve by a lot!

Otherwise, my question is.. 10,000 CORRECT hours? Or.. just 10,000 bumbling around?

[Eventer13]

I agree... I've done so many incorrect hours and I'm sure they don't count to the 10,000. If I got to train with Mr. BNT every single ride, I think I'd be further along than I am.

Really, if you learn it all correctly from day 1, so save so much time in the long run.

[johnnysauntie]

oh, well, this explains A LOT! :lol:

[Ajierene]

That reminds me of when I was younger and we used to count the times we fell off - 100 times and we would be a good rider! When I changed barns in college, the number was 10! Ten? crazy!

Of course, I know plenty of people that have had plenty of falls and still ride like a sack of potatoes and come off as soon as the horse does a simple spook-side step....

Ten thousand hours? I figure I am at a bit less than 3,000 so I should be right where I am, right? YES!

[slc2]

I think that's about right. Depending on what 'master' means.

[Mike Matson]

I think this might be why so many people remain at Second Level or lower. 10,000 hours of practicing/mastering dressage in a lifetime are hard to come by when you are working or raising a family.

[goeslikestink]

That reminds me of when I was younger and we used to count the times we fell off - 100 times and we would be a good rider! When I changed barns in college, the number was 10! Ten? crazy!

Of course, I know plenty of people that have had plenty of falls and still ride like a sack of potatoes and come off as soon as the horse does a simple spook-side step....

Ten thousand hours? I figure I am at a bit less than 3,000 so I should be right where I am, right? YES!

here its 11 falls , haha

[goeslikestink]

I think this might be why so many people remain at Second Level or lower. 10,000 hours of practicing/mastering dressage in a lifetime are hard to come by when you are working or raising a family.

no it because its normal joe bloggs public with a horse and interested in that disipline of choice
not all can do it not they might not have enough money which is a big part of it as entry fees are dear , they might not have no transport - etc you cant say that the all the reason as to why people stay at lower levels

people do things beucase its either a hobby or its a proffession of choice
where they get to depends on themselves and the horses they chose to be there partners
and then the knowledge they have to get there
and depends on what there aims and goals are how far can they reach or go
depends on a lot of things

[Stacie]

Other studies suggest that it takes 10,000 *repetitions* to set muscle memory and master that one thing as a skill. (and that would be correct repetitions :D). So if one can break everything down into very small skills, master those small skills correctly and have them as a toolbox for producing actual dressage movements, then maybe the time to become a master can be less. As I understand it, Classical Dressage is based on a very similar premise.

[Mike Matson]

Kyra at the recent USDF Symposium said it takes 100,000 repetitions, at least as reported in USDF Connection magazine.

[CatOnLap]

haha-
"Ouch! Does it stop hurting after 5000?"

No. Can someone tell me if it stop hurting after the 10,000?

"It takes 3 lifetimes to master dressage- yours and two horses"

"You'll ruin 2 horses before you get any good"

2 horses- check.
Am I any good yet? I haven't finished my lifetime or my 10,000 hours.

I don't know that you actually ruin 2 horses, but you take longer and make many more mistakes with the first two. And you probably don't bring out the horse's true potential, but that is not really ruining it, is it? I am trying for the third one now and it is going quicker and I hope, better.

I find it hilarious/ironic that a good FEI schoolhorse can be "made" by a dressage master in 4 or 5 years, and that HORSE will go on to train many riders to ride FEI. Yet, it truly does take almost a lifetime, I'd agree 10,000 hours (because it still leaves me hope for me yet) to learn to make a decent FEI, horse.

The horse learns to train faster than we learn to train.(arrogant monkeys!)

[freestyle2music]

:lol: But this is so true. And unfortunately people find it hurtful when you say it, even tho' it is not meant that way.

The little Klimke girl is living proof that genetics and a schoolmaster cut down your learning curve by a lot!

Otherwise, my question is.. 10,000 CORRECT hours? Or.. just 10,000 bumbling around?

For every bumbling hours you have to ad 10 correct hours.

It's not a secret that retraining horses take much more time than starting from scratch.

Theo

[godoget]

I don't know what the actual statistics are, but I understand that a huge majority of dressage riders never compete beyond second level. By Malcolm Gladwell's definition, then, any FEI level rider would probably have to be considered an "outlier." That is someone who performs at a level that is more than 2 standard deviations above the mean. Gladwell's thesis is not just that it takes 10,000 hrs to become a master of something, but that those who are outliers achieve that status because they received an "unfair" advantage over others in their field. And that the advantage they received was not of their own making. Someone else, knowingly or unknowingly, created an unusual opportunity for them. The only real allowance he makes for talent is that you need to have some threshold amount. Any additional talent beyond that threshold does not translate into greater achievement. Of course, you can't discount the need for motivation to take advantage of the opportunity once it's presented.

It's a very thought provoking book and worth the read, but I don't necessarily agree with all of Gladwell's conclusions.

[Ambrey]

Well, I haven't read the book, but if he's calling anybody 2 standard deviations above the mean an outlier, he's got a pretty slim grasp of statistics. Although I highly doubt dressage is a normal curve, if it were by definition 2% would be at the 98th percentile (+2 s.d.).

Outlier is a statistical term used to cull unrepresentative data- data that lies outside the curve, as it were. Applying it to the entire top 2% of a measurement provides for a very weak argument (since once you shave those people out of the data, your statistics change and you still have a top 2 % right?).

[godoget]

Well, I haven't read the book, but if he's calling anybody 2 standard deviations above the mean an outlier, he's got a pretty slim grasp of statistics. Although I highly doubt dressage is a normal curve, if it were by definition 2% would be at the 98th percentile (+2 s.d.).

Outlier is a statistical term used to cull unrepresentative data- data that lies outside the curve, as it were. Applying it to the entire top 2% of a measurement provides for a very weak argument (since once you shave those people out of the data, your statistics change and you still have a top 2 % right?).

But maybe I'm misquoting him. Granted his use of the term "Outlier" is not technically correct. And I totally agree that dressage acheivement as measured by level shown would not meet the definition of a standard normal distribution. It is heavily skewed toward Training, First and Second levels. Give him a break! He's journalist. What Gladwell is trying to convey is that these are rare levels of achievement. He's not really making mathmatical arguments.

[Druid Acres]

Outliers is an interesting book - I read it recently. The author's formula, greatly boiled down, is something like this:

Wealthy parents plus 10,000 hours practicing something plus being in the right place at the right time equals immense success (like, say, Bill Gates).

His whole point is that some things we can control for (hours practicing). The other things are closer to luck or fate (wealthy parents and right place at the right time).

[xQHDQ]

Outliers is an interesting book - I read it recently. The author's formula, greatly boiled down, is something like this:

Wealthy parents plus 10,000 hours practicing something plus being in the right place at the right time equals immense success (like, say, Bill Gates).

His whole point is that some things we can control for (hours practicing). The other things are closer to luck or fate (wealthy parents and right place at the right time).

Yeah, that about sums it up. I don't know if everyone he interviewed had rich parents but they all practiced 10,000 hours (I'm thinking of the violinists).

Good book but I don't want to use it as an excuse for not succeeding - just because I wasn't born in January does not mean I can't ride! (I can't but it has nothing to do with what month I was born in).

I want to believe that if I work hard, I can ride at the higher levels. I understand that it will take me longer but I don't want to think that it is impossible.

[InsideLeg2OutsideRein]

:lol: But this is so true. And unfortunately people find it hurtful when you say it, even tho' it is not meant that way.

The little Klimke girl is living proof that genetics and a schoolmaster cut down your learning curve by a lot!

Otherwise, my question is.. 10,000 CORRECT hours? Or.. just 10,000 bumbling around?

I think it's 10,000 hours WITH talent, WITH hard work AND all the help you can get, which means that JUST putting in 10,000 hours will still not get you there... :lol:

One of the exampels they mention in the study is Mozart -- started composing at age 11 (but just "crap"), and then in his early 20s he was pure genius...

[CatOnLap]

One of the exampels they mention in the study is Mozart -- started composing at age 11(but just "crap"),

Well if that is an example in the book, the book is wrong.
Mozart composed since the age of 4 or 5, and those early etudes are still in use as practice exercises in some academies of music. Hardly "crap".

[AmericaRunsOnDunkin]

So which trainers came up with this theory?

The ones who charge by the hour.... :D


Seriously, though, is that 10,000 riding hours? If dressage is so cognitive, can't I just think about dressage for 15 hours, ride for 5 hours and be a superstar?

[slc2]

No.

[thatmoody]

Although from what I remember about my sports medicine psychology from learning to surf (admittedly not a lot) some of the deliberate mental imaging exercises can substitute for actual time.

Of course, I also read a study that said that doing an activity then taking a nap will help solidify motor skills. That perfectly justifies an after surf or after ride nap!!!

[Ambrey]

Although from what I remember about my sports medicine psychology from learning to surf (admittedly not a lot) some of the deliberate mental imaging exercises can substitute for actual time.


That's what I've read too.

[baymare]

And if it is cognitive, does that mean that after 10,000 hours of riding I will eventually learn to think with my a**?

[Ambrey]

And if it is cognitive, does that mean that after 10,000 hours of riding I will eventually learn to think with my a**?

Does that mean it takes less time with men since their brain centers start out closer?

[Mike Matson]

And if it is cognitive, does that mean that after 10,000 hours of riding I will eventually learn to think with my a**?

Depends on how big your a** is. ;)

[slc2]

Keep in mind that riding is supposed to be a hobby, not a mental illness.

[Jeannette, formerly ponygyrl]

Keep in mind that riding is supposed to be a hobby, not a mental illness.

"supposed" would be a key word here. :lol:

[alibi_18]

The horse learns to train faster than we learn to train.(arrogant monkeys!)

That is so true!

I hope not 'ruining' to much horses before getting really really good!
But as my skills and understanding of horses improve, the training really goes faster and better from one horse to another. I just feel bad thinking of the poor damn things I used to ride from the beginning...Good horses! No wonder some of them bucked and ran off...Lol!

I don't know about the hours spent in the saddle but it surrely takes a lot of it! And the other thing is, even if you do spend 200 000 hours, if those hours were badly spent and not part of a real training purposea, it might not count... I've seen people who had been riding forever and are not as good as some beginners that are really training (and have some talent...) !!!:D

[CatOnLap]

if those hours were badly spent
I just had to chuckle at this- I saw a bumper sticker once that said
"No hour in the saddle is ever wasted".
I know what you mean, but really, hours in the saddle, no matter how bad a rider I am, are generally my happiest times!