Ruining Horses (in order to advance)

[309016]

I read (in the 10.000hrs forum) that someone said their trainer said that you have to ruin at least two horses before you really start to get the hang of mastering/advancing riding "dressage" (or at least that is how I took it).

Do you find this to be true at any level? I feel that ruining a horse (not to the point where they are un-rideable but instead slightly develope not proper habits in their way of going because of lack of rider knowledge) and then being taught to fix it again can work in ones advantage because they then learn to feel what is wrong and then correct it. Almost like a muscle memory thing. What do you guys think?

[Couture TB]

Every time you get on a horse you teach them something. Be it good or bad. I find the idea of knowingly teaching a horse an improper way of going or a bad habbit to be the worst thing you could do. Just my opinion though.

[309016]

I meant.....say you are riding around and you did not notice your horse is diving to the inside (which everyone should learn to feel that). So now you have a trainer come out and tell you how to fix this habit/ruined way that the horse is going, so next time they do it the rider can be like "ok my horse is diving in" and fix it themselves. Therefore, you just learned how to fix something that you may have never noticed before in "ruining" the horses way of going. :D

[CatOnLap]

I think it is faster to learn good habits on a schoolmaster first before you "ruin" a horse you train. I don't think you necessarily ruin the first couple of horses you train, but you certainly do better, faster with subsequent ones. If you haven't learned what "good" should feel like on a school horse, you are more likely to train wrong ways of going into your green horse.

[saultgirl]

Yes, my trainer has also said that you are going to ruin a lot of horses before you truly learn to ride. A good reason to have a pro get on and fix them every so often.

[merrygoround]

That comment about ruining horses sounds like someone I worked with, not briefly enough, a long time ago.

I do not think it is an accurate statement for anyone working regularly with a competent instructor. That is what they are there for, to explain things in such a way, that a rider can deal with difficulties and continue orderly progression.

Yes, a schoolmaster can help, but nothing can take the place of educated eyes on the ground, no matter what level you are now riding, or have trained to in the past.

[pintopiaffe]

It used to make me nuts that my younger mare--younger by 2 years, would be right up to the level of the stallion, on whom I took lessons etc. in far less time and with far, far fewer rides (time off to have babies etc.)

Well, of course she was. I learned how to teach it to him, then learned how to FIX it on him, *then* could TEACH it to her, right the first time.

I keep thinking the young'uns coming up are quite the prodigies. Well, they are better than the sum of their parents, (and they should be or I shouldn't be breeding!) but it's more about how far I've come since I started their parents.

I've always said, any horse I deal with in my life owes more to His Princeness & the Pea than they will ever know. ;)

[MelantheLLC]

What does "ruined" mean?

If it means lamed or physically broken down, man I hope not.

If it just means that they don't learn self-carriage, or learn evasions, ok. Both of those can be re-trained, in which case I'm not sure I'd call a horse "ruined." Just "remedial."

[Arathita]

I really dislike the phrase "ruin a horse".

I do not believe that a horse is "ruined" because he falls in, or is not engaged behind, or learns numerous evasions. He is simply choosing to do his work the easiest way possible and the rider is allowing him. Most horses in these situations are quite happy. Some horses under "professional" trainers are miserable.

Every rider learns more the more horses she rides. It's impossible to say that a rider "gets" it after "X" amounts of horses. Depends on the rider, the horses, the quality of instruction, etc.

[MelantheLLC]

Hehe Arathita, cross-posted. GMTA ;)

[EqTrainer]

I think it is true. The first horse, you are learning to ride on. Don't ever fool yourself, it is very hard on their bodies to have people up there bobbling around. The second one, you learn to train on. You make mistakes. They pay the price.

The good news is.. as long as you take good care of your horses it's a fair deal. And.. it's unavoidable. No matter how much instruction you get, or how good your intentions are, you are hard on them for a while. To think you are not is.. I don't know. Riding with your eyes closed?

[saultgirl]

In this context, I think more that the horse isn't going to reach it's full potential, not "ruined" such that it is broken down and lame or too fried to do any useful job.

[EqTrainer]

Hmmmm.. no, I don't mean it like that. I mean that the horses have to take it while people learn what they are doing. You don't learn to ride, or train, without making mistakes. Many of them are *unavoidable*. If you try, you will make them. They are hard on the horses. Hocks, backs, front feet, polls, necks.. they all pay the price. During those 10,000 hours that you are learning to be competent, every one of those hours is spent on a horse coping with your incompetence.

Think about it. For an hour a day, someone gets on YOUR back and accidentally pulls on you. Or bounces on you. Really... put a child on your back and tell them to fall behind the motion while you go forward, just once.

Truly, most horses are saints. And we repay them by taking great care of them and hopefully respecting their kindnesses and giving them the retirement they deserve when the time comes. It's a fair deal IMO.

[FlashGordon]

Have to say I've always been acutely aware that I've probably ruined every horse I've sat on, or dealt with, in the last 20 years. In one way or another. ;)

Sometimes that feeling can almost be overwhelming, particularly with an exceptionally nice, kind, well-trained horse. They are forgiving creatures though...

And really what is "ruining?" To me, true "ruining" means souring a horse to its job. As long as you aren't doing that, and you are treating the horse fairly, kindly, and respectfully... well I think it is quite alright if things get a wee bit "messy" now and again.

The joy of riding is that you never stop learning... but that means there are always mistakes to be made, too.

[BaroquePony]

There is ruined and ruined :yes: It is relative.

Every "I" judge I've ridden under has said, "You will ruin at least three horses before you get it right." It is some kind of 'old saying'. Several have added, "You can ruin the same horse three times before you get it right, but they will be so old and arthritic by that time you won't do very well in competition".

These instructors were not implying that you would be crippling your horse or even causing permanent damage other than normal intermmediate level riding (basic soft contact running around on the forehand).

Correct classical dressage is supposed to lengthen the useful lifetime of the riding horse in accordance with it's God given conformation. It was intended to train the horse to rebalance itself after taking on the extra weight of the rider which is generally located more over the forehand of the horse. By redistributing the weight carrying capacity to the rear quarters to a certain degree, the horse was able to travel long distances with a rider while keeping the concussive wear and tear to its legs balanced, thus saving extreme wear and tear to the forelegs.

That supposedly was the orginal basic intent of dressage to my knowledge. The complexities came later.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

My trainer has said the same. So I take my responsibilities towards my horse seriously, and do my best, each time, to help him be more physically capable.

I am not saying I succeed every time. But I do my damndest.

[Whisper]

That's part of what I like about part-leasing a horse who has another regular rider who is more advanced than I am - I'm less likely to pull the horse down to my level. In general, I think it's wise for anyone who wants to learn how to ride to work with a horse who knows more than they do, and to have someone knowledgeable keep it tuned up.

Back in high school, I rode a very green 6 y/o mare, who pretty much had been sat on at the walk and a little trot, but that was it. I don't think I trained her effectively, but after a year and a half of me riding her, she would W/T/C/halt/steer easily in the arena and was fantastic out on the trails. Her owners sold her around then, because the barn she was at closed, and they were able to get a lot more for her than if I hadn't been riding her. She certainly wasn't a dressage horse, though!

[pintopiaffe]

This is a quote of a friend, who was remembering what her teacher said... so no true attribution... still, I've always loved it. (and used it as my sig off and on)

"We have them," he said, "to learn from. And some lessons are easier than others. You ride, and you enjoy them, and you make mistakes. We all make mistakes. But you do your best and you work hard, and you make as few as you can."

[mvp]

.... but if we are lucky we spread that "ruin" around many horses, asking each to suffer just a bit while we learn to ride and train.

When I was a kid, a hard-ass trainer told me it used up (physically) one horse to make one rider. That was true because, try as we might, it just takes that long to teach us how to make good training and management decisions, and that's the quick part. The longer, unavoidable part is learning the body awareness and control to actually ride as well as we intend to.

All this argues for riding many, many horses while you are learning. Both sides benefit, I think. If a school-master is in the mix, so much the better.

In any case, it's a good idea to take this seriously.

[BaroquePony]

Originally posted by mvp:

In any case, it's a good idea to take this seriously.

Well said :yes:

[Fixerupper]

Just to interject here - this is an unusually thoughtful thread. Good on you all. :) Carry on...

[slc2]

Actually, someone tried to make the saying a lot more politically correct. The original saying is 'every horse you train, you ruin a little bit less.

It says nothing about 'two' or 'three'.

'Ruin' could mean a lot of things.

To the old timers, I believe it meant crooked, incorrect contact, not forward - lacking in basics that simply cannot be fixed later.

At the beginning, it COULD refer to bumping around on the back and not correcting problems with balance, getting horse on the forehand, etc.

And it might do a horse real physical damage, but I think that's actually quite rare, unless the horse is getting pounded into the ground hours and hours a day at a riding school, or has a specific physical problem.

Later, people tend to drill, drill drill in their efforts to 'get it right'. That can put a lot of wear and tear on a horse.

They also may put an unsuitable horse to a task it was never intended for, or work it too hard.

They also may not notice lameness, or not rest a horse sufficiently after injury. They may overfeed the horse and not keep it fit enough.

But I think that what the old timers meant when they said, 'RUIN', was a horse that has bad basics, so that it is uneven on the reins, crooked, not off the leg, not supple, not engaged.

I was lucky enough to get to ride a series of horses that a trainer had trained.

The first one he trained pulled like an effing train. He was very stiff on the reins and hung very, very hard on one rein. This was one of the few horses I ever felt the need to do standing flexions on. His hind legs were stiff, his back was stiff, his neck was stiff. And he had an INCREDIBLY uneven contact.

The second horse I rode that he trained, had a more even contact, but he had one flying lead change that was really bad; the other one was clean. Fact was, his leads at the canter did not match at all, at that point the trainer couldn't identify 'mismatched leads', and together with the flat, nearly 4beating lead on one side, the horse was just too crooked to make a good change in the one direction.

The third horse I rode that he trained, was more supple, but was really quite limited. While pretty, he was really just NOT made for upper level work. He actually chewed through a copper bit, because he was so much laying on the bridle and so much of a horizontal horse. He really was a horse that was very, mvery much struggling to do FEI work, but by heaven, that's what the trainer wanted to do with him, so there he was.

So onward and onward in the process of learning training. But depending on what 'ruin' is, I am pretty sure it is not 2-3 horses.

[thatmoody]

I suppose I shouldn't have posted that so lightheartedly (yes, I was the OP who said that). It's something my trainer said to me when I was having a really bad *headdesk* day and was frustrated about not being able to feel and correct something :winkgrin:. I took it as she was trying to get me to take more chances - to not worry so much about "ruining" the horse that I was riding (I may have been rather hesitant that day, IIRC) and just get to riding.

Certainly I have days when I progress better than others, but it's important to keep going forward, and not to be afraid to try something different because you're afraid of "ruining" what's already been done. She reassured me that if what I was doing didn't work, she would be happy to help me learn to "fix" it.

So that was the spirit of the original comment - sorry if it came across as flippant, although that was a rather flippant thread to begin with.

[Thomas_1]

I often say that you can't teach a horse and bring it on unless you know what you're doing.

So the goal IMO with a young or unschooled horse should always be to develop and improve it's training and to teach it good.

It's why I'm so against novice owners getting youngsters or untrained horses or horses to bring on.

It's why I keep insisting, in cyberspace and more so in real life, that you can't have riding lessons on a poorly trained horse.

It's why I am so old fashioned about folks having riding lessons under good instruction so that only good habits are developed.

I think if folks learn under good supervision and instruction on good well trained horses first and then learn how to develop skills for bringing a horse on because they know what they "should" do that whils they might not always get it right first time and they might not always reach a state of absolute perfection (who does!) but they're not, no way, going to "ruin" a horse.

My definition of "ruin" is either to wreck a horse so much so that it's unrideable at the extreme end and the best end of "ruin" is what I tend to get to retrain which is "the horse has been taught bad habits in ignorance or by intent and so much so that it will no longer do what the rider/handler wants and needs it to do and it's becoming a danger - either to the horse or human".

A common example at the minor end of "ruin" and an example of one of my pet hates is the "my horse won't leg yeild" and the 'discovery' that every time the person rides out on the road and a car comes from behind they turn their head over their (offside ) shoulder to see what it is and giving the horse a whole set of instructions to move away from the straight and turn into the road. So horse gets an immediate check with reins/legs/whatever to bring it back. Then horse learns quickly all that shift in position and unintentional command means go straight or you get checked (or counter commands). "Ruined" or "spoilt". I'd say spoilt.

If however the horse obeys the commands unintentially put on with the turn to see what's coming behind and ignores the check and drifts obediently and willingly to the crown of the road and get's into a road traffic accident, I'd say ruined.

To me use of the word "ruin" describes the outcome not the process of getting there.

I personally think it would be an extremely sad and sorry day if folks ever in a lifetime even "ruined" one horse, let alone shamefully ruined two.

If we ever get to that stage I'd be lobbying for a licence to horseride :winkgrin:

[johnnysauntie]

My trainer has said the same. So I take my responsibilities towards my horse seriously, and do my best, each time, to help him be more physically capable.

I am not saying I succeed every time. But I do my damndest.

Yes, exactly, I couldn't have said it better myself. And I do have my trainer get on at least weekly, to 1) fix the damage I've incurred and 2) to restore his faith in humanity! (or, at least in light, balanced, talented riders ....)

[arena run]

I think it is faster to learn good habits on a schoolmaster first before you "ruin" a horse you train. I don't think you necessarily ruin the first couple of horses you train, but you certainly do better, faster with subsequent ones. If you haven't learned what "good" should feel like on a school horse, you are more likely to train wrong ways of going into your green horse.

I didn't take it that the op was meaning young/green horses, simply that before you learn what you're doing you're going to mess up some otherwise well-trained horses.

It can't be helped. You don't know what you're doing... and someone who doesn't know what they're doing, well, doesn't always know what to do!

Horses are learning every time they are handled. Matters not if the handler understands this about horses... the horse is going to learn from the handler, period. Any time someone has to get back on a lesson horse and 'tune them up' after a few lessons is victim to this concept. :) sylvia


OP... I think your trainer was spot-on in what she told you. If the horse is of the right mind to be a lesson horse and the trainer/instructor knows what the heck they're doing, then it's really not a biggie at all to have to get back on and fix some 'lesson damage'.

The important thing for your instructor at that time was your proper instruction. :D sylvia

[Carnelian]

I think the term "ruining" a horse is extreme, but I understand what you are after.

My first project horse as a re-rider was training exclusively by me as the rider on top, but with 2 lessons a week with my trainer. It took us 18 months to go from green-broke to first level (three years ago), and I'm sure I could progress with her much faster now. No, I didn't ruin her, but I'm sure a professional could have done a better job faster. It just so happened that the professional (who owned the horse) had no time for her and was willing to let me work with her.

So I recently purchased a horse with little dressage training. Her progression has been MUCH faster and she's a better trained horse because I was able to make mistakes on the other mare.

I have three other project horses. I may not be a professional, but I am able to keep the horses tuned up so the owners can learn something and continue to enjoy their horses. One actually tells me she's afraid she's going to ruin her horse. As long as you are actively in lessons with a competent professional you aren't going to ruin a horse. You just may need someone to keep him tuned up so you can continue to learn as the horse progresses through the training scale.

And I fully recognize that these three project horses would progress faster with a professional. I'm just fortunate that others will give me the opportunity to hone my skills on their horses. It's a win-win.

[mvp]

I think about this the way thatmoody's trainer probably does.

While in a lesson, we need to make "big moves" or "big changes" that allows our instructor see a difference and say "yes, that's better" or "no, that's not what I meant."

Why? Because the horse is being trained and using up his body the whole time. If we don't take a risk that allows our trainer to correct us, we will do the same thing forever and that goes on our horse's meter.

I have the most difficult time teaching tentative, well-intentioned riders who have not yet really accepted the responsibility for training the horses they ride. While teaching a friend to put my own schoolmaster on the bit, she spent 7 or 10 circuits of a 20 meter circle with no appreciable change in the horse. He was doing exactly what she asked-- pretty much nothing-- while she thought she was making changes to her aids.

I finally got mad, not because the horse was being "untrained"-- he can be retuned easily, so long as he is not ridden this way for months on end. What bothered me is that she didn't seem to realize that he has only so many 20 meter circles in him, and that she had used up 10 of those for nothing.

[Movin Artfully]

If you are not making the horse better...you are making him worse. But no one intentionally ruins a horse to advance...

The more horses you ride and the more you develop your own knowledge/skill...the more you will look back and realize how flawed you were...and how the horse was kind enough to either point it out to you or to tolerate it.

Each horse you ride should be better than the last.

If you don't think you have ruined a few horses... you need more time in the saddle :)

Very few people take "ruined" to the far extremes of blatant disobedience- it's usually more common in terms of crookedness, being heavy on the forehand, leaning on the bit instead of come up to the bit, dull to aids.

A great many "ruined" horses make fabulous novice/youth mounts because they tolerate ANY body or leg position and continue plodding along :)

[CatOnLap]

"before you learn what you're doing you're going to mess up some otherwise well-trained horses."

I guess I don't agree. But like Thomas I take "ruined" to mean unsound, broken down, sour or having serious evasions requiring professional retraining. I suppose I could imagine "lightly ruined" as a horse not reaching their true potential. In which case, most horses are lightly ruined.

When I was young, I never had the luxury of well trained horses, which is why I highly recommend them now. I did, being tall and skinny as a teen, have the luxury of getting excellent training from pros while I risked my neck on their unbroke and race broke H/J prospects. I doubt I "ruined" any of them though- they all sold for good prices. The first one I owned, an OTTB, when I was 14, that I trained myself, went on to become a 12 year old's provincial champion hunter. And lived to 20, sound.

The next one I broke and trained myself to PSG, became a third level champion and is still doing third level work as a schoolmaster at age 25. He never did reach his potential as a grade cutting horse colt from a PMU farm, so I guess I ruined him good. The next one, who is much better suited, is showing PSG at 20. That one did not reach his true dressage potential, so I guess he is "ruined". OTOH, he did come back from a devastating suspensory/hind end injury that took him out of commission for about 3 years, so I forgive him...and me.

The key elements were yes, good pro eyes on the ground as a much as possible, and pretty much daily riding. And kind people who occasionally let me ride their advanced horses to "cop a feel". And I really felt the chance to ride a well trained horse allowed me to make HUGE advances quickly.

Perhaps the reason some horses get ruined by folks who are training their first, second or third horse is because they lack a chance to ride daily, or have lessons weekly or more(eyes on the ground) but also because they do not have a good sense of what "good" feels like as they never rode it on a schoolmaster. This conversation made me remember that a good pro can ride "good" feel into your own horse and if you get on immediately afterwards, you will have the experience that way. Not quite the same as a schoolmaster, but lets you know the goal for your own horse's next step up.

"Feel" is a multimodal memory. You cannot learn it from hearing or reading alone. You must be in the moment , on the horse.

[Thomas_1]

I suppose I could imagine "lightly ruined" as a horse not reaching their true potential. In which case, most horses are lightly ruined. Now I could never imagine not reaching full potential as being ruined. Not even "lightly ruined"!

Even the very best of horses is just average with an average rider and average horses can be exceptional with the very best of riders.

To me that is merely not getting the best out of the horse.

Likewise I can't think of not advancing and bringing on in leaps and bounds as "ruining". To me, that is just not progressing or standing still.

Ruin means total destruction

Ruining means the act of totally destroying or to harm irreparably. Causing so much damage that it can't be fixed.

I'm thinking that if a rider "ruined" one horse that would be BAD, VERY BAD. If they "ruined" two it would be outrageously tragic and a demonstration that they should never be allowed near a horse again and be inflicted by a chronic painful plague of boils !

[Dressage Art]

There is an intentional abuse and there is a process of learning to ride. Most riders are not born in the saddle, so we all make mistakes. The important part is to learn on those mistakes and not to repeat them on other horses.

[sm]

Interesting thread. With my FEI horse my trainer (who also competed him) told me there was nothing I could do with my horse that she couldn't fix.

A weekend rider/visitor, I was always worried about leaving him not as finely tuned as when I found him. Then again, bright and early on Monday morning she always knew when I rode him both Saturday and Sunday...

[Jenn2674]

I too think ruined is way too strong of a word although if you take it in the context of dressage, it might be ruined for good dressage.

Even if a novice buys a schoolmaster, there is still the learning curve and you are still going to "ruin" (in the context of the word being used in this thread) that schoolmaster. If you buy a solid Grand Prix horse that scores consistantly at 65% and you are a first level rider, after five years of you and only you riding that horse, is it ever going to be correct enough to ever do a 65% GP test again? Perhaps, not likely, unless a good trainer has been riding it several times a week all along. I think that context might be the only way I can see a horse as "ruined" because he probably is ruined for GP.

[mjhco]

I used to always here in the horse training business in general that you would 'ruin the first 10 horses you trained'. Dressage or not.

I don't take that to mean brutalizing them, breaking them down, etc. I take it to mean just making major mistakes.