Differences among Riding Styles- Please Read!

[RFT]

Hi,

I am a sociology graduate student who is interested in studying the subjective differences among the various riding disciplines and breeds. More specifically, I am interested in what professional show members who are not part of a certain riding style think of that style. For instance, what do dressage participants think of saddle seat? What do Western people think of dressage? Or, for example, what do dressage folks think of breeds associated with saddle seat (Morgans, saddlebreds, Arabians, even Tennessee walkers) and vice versa (warmbloods). I am interested in moral issues (i.e. people of specific disciplines treat their horses poorly) and aesthetics (i.e. horses of certain riding styles move artificially or the questioning of the objectives of a riding style in general). And, of course, I am interested in counterclaims (i.e. we do not treat horses as poorly as they think we do). I am not very interested in the differences within certain riding styles (i.e. saddle seat distinctions between saddlebred people and Morgan people), unless you all think I should be.

I grew up on a horse stable, went to quite a few shows as a spectator (actually, I was in a lead line class or two), and have worked at the Umass Amherst Equine Barn. I have sensed that there is some tension among the different disciplines and the associated breeds based on what I’ve heard from various people. So my question is: are my senses correct? Do you believe that there is tension among the different riding disciplines? What exactly? Do you think people would be willing to talk to me about this? I am mostly interested in talking to professional riders and trainers because they are probably more immersed in the show world to have a sense of the differences.

Thanks to all,

Ryan

[see u at x]

I am mostly interested in talking to professional riders and trainers because they are probably more immersed in the show world to have a sense of the differences.


Not to pick on you, but I don't think that people who are amateurs in the business aren't going to have good insight. There are a LOT of amateur riders who have YEARS of experience in their disciplines who can answer a lot of your questions and provide solid input. However, if you are using this for a paper or something, I hope that whoever you gleen information from provides you with reputable credentials. As most of us on here know, there are A FEW people posting on here who like to talk the big talk, but it is questionable as to how much they legitimately know.

[twofatponies]

I think plenty of people will have something to say about this. You may find it productive to use the search feature to browse things that have been said in the past (so you don't just have people telling you what you want to hear).

My own take on it is that it's got a lot of similarities to the brand-loyalty people show in other areas of life. For someone who is very into a specific equestrian discipline, it's the same as being into certain kinds of cars, sports, or fashion. People can be very loyal to their breed of horse, and to their discipline in an almost tribal way. The various disciplines are often very rooted in old traditions, and not very open to change - i.e. the type of clothing and equipment you use is regulated and defined by tradition or even rules; the breeds of horse used are not only used because they excel at that discipline, but because they are traditional for the discipline. There are often functional reasons for specific traditions, but over time they become simply "the way it's done" (i.e. the traditional stock tie worn foxhunting can be used as an emergency bandage or sling; but in some contexts, such as the show ring, people now wear a "false" stock tie, that gives the appearance of the traditional tie, without serving the traditional emergency purpose).

Innovations are sometimes taken in easily - the Friesian horse (which was very rare just a few decades ago) is now quite popular in the saddle seat and dressage rings - where other innovations are fussed about: although modern helmets are very functional to protect the head, in some disciplines people still prefer to wear the traditional cap or hat; traditional appearance is deeply valued there.

There are also plenty of people who dabble in a variety of sports, styles and breeds, of course, and are not as "tribal" about any one discipline being their favorite or the best.

Sounds like an interesting topic.

ETA: Take a look at this book: http://globalhorseculture.typepad.com/global_horse_culture/2008/02/marketing-horse.html

There may be some very interesting resources in the bibliography, and the author could be a very interesting person to consult with - it's a rare academic work about the sociology of horse breeds...

[MyGiantPony]

I also think ammys may have more exposure to other disciplines.

I know quite a few pros who are immersed in their discipline and think theirs is the only one worth doing...have a lot of disdain for other sports.

Ammys may have more opportunity to see more of other worlds.

Personally, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for other disciplines.

I don't think riders in other disciplines use abusive practices any more than what goes on in hunter/jumper land.

[equusvilla]

I am a total Ammy...and I LOVE all diciplines of riding..but HATE it when someone thinks they know how to ride because they rode some rent horse once on vacation 5 years ago...and worse..want to come and ride my Saddlebreds....ummmm - NO! That is the only time I consider myself 'prejudice' in the sense that you are questioning.

[JSwan]

I agree with MGP.

I'm an ammy that has participated in different disciplines and enjoyed all of them tremendously. And I like to think I'm a better horseman for it.

Never did understand those who think their chosen discipline is superior to any other. Very childish and short-sighted. All disciplines can learn from each other and apply that knowledge in their chosen field.

As far as abuse/inhumane treatment in a particular discipline...

Cases of true abuse or neglect reflect upon the individual and should not be used to characterize a group or discipline.

[mp]

Hi,

I am interested in moral issues (i.e. people of specific disciplines treat their horses poorly) and aesthetics (i.e. horses of certain riding styles move artificially or the questioning of the objectives of a riding style in general). And, of course, I am interested in counterclaims (i.e. we do not treat horses as poorly as they think we do).

Sociological study, huh? Sounds more like you're interested in a BB brawl. :lol:

[Guilherme]

Ryan

Please Don't Feed The Troll.

Thank You

The Management

P.S. On the outside chance that this is not a troll perhaps, as a graduate student, Ryan could formulate some questions that would elicite specific answers. Of course in today's Sociology maybe specifics are not of great value. If so, that's very sad. G.

[Bluey]

Please Don't Feed The Troll.

Thank You

The Management

P.S. On the outside chance that this is not a troll perhaps, as a graduate student, Ryan could formulate some questions that would elicite specific answers. Of course in today's Sociology maybe specifics are not of great value. If so, that's very sad. G.

Ditto.

That seems a set of open ended questions that can't be answered other than showing how little someone knows about other disciplines and how bigoted they are.;)

Some will believe, say, that such and such burns horses early, when they don't have any idea, just assume, "doesn't everyone know that?":rolleyes:
Of course that is not happening in their discipline, or won't see it if it does, as that is a sign of a bad trainer, not an xyz discipline and happens, thankfully rarely, everyplace.
How about racing, everyone also knows horses die all the time in races, as they do in eventing, right?

Seems that asking for what people know about what they don't know, just hear about in other disciplines, that is a good way to give those with a chip on their shoulder a forum to vent.
Not a good idea.:no:

[RFT]

Please Don't Feed The Troll.

Thank You

The Management

P.S. On the outside chance that this is not a troll perhaps, as a graduate student, Ryan could formulate some questions that would elicite specific answers. Of course in today's Sociology maybe specifics are not of great value. If so, that's very sad. G.

I was afraid that I might open up a can of worms with my post, but I can assure you that I am not a troll. I am a graduate student at Umass Amherst. I did not ask specific questions because I am trying to figure out if this project is worth carrying out. It's like a survey of sorts. I will ask specific questions during face to face interviews. This post is not research; I merely posted to reaffirm my belief that there is tension among the riding disciplines. I am not asking for people to bash other breeds and disciplines, but to acknowledge that some people do demarcate, either morally, aesthetically, or whatever, their riding style and preferred breeds from other styles and breeds. Would you like me to post a preliminary research proposal on horses and symbolic boundaries full of sociological jargon to prove that I am a student?

For the rest of you who recommended that I talk to amateurs, I will definitely keep that in mind! Thanks.

[Laytian]

I merely posted to reaffirm my belief that there is tension among the riding disciplines. I am not asking for people to bash other breeds and disciplines, but to acknowledge that some people do demarcate, either morally, aesthetically, or whatever, their riding style and preferred breeds from other styles and breeds.

My question is, why are you studying this subject? What if people do have prejudices/tension among riding disciplines? Are you offering a *solution* to it? Or is it a comparison to other areas of life that proves your sociological theory?

More colloquially, what's your point? ;)

I think most people who spent more an hour or so on this board would tell you that such tension exists, at least for *some* people. As Twofatponies pointed out, such prejudice exists among many groups who feel passionately about something, whether it be a car, a sport, or a horse breed or riding discipline. Why do you feel it's worth studying?

Just asking in genuine curiosity. :yes:

[Bluey]

Don't forget to ask if they prefer a Ford, Chevy or Dodge pickup to pull their horse trailer and why.:winkgrin:

[mvp]

Jesus, you guys, chill.

It's hard enough being a grad student without being accused of being a troll, too. And to have the misfortune of liking sociology.... just jerking your chain, OP.

I do take your post seriously.

I remember reading in the USEF magazine long ago (back when it was the AHSA) that some demographer found (or at least asserted) that whatever disciplines they try, they tend to return to and be most loyal to the one in which they began.

To start, you could being by putting in a call to the USEF. They will certainly have numbers that tell you the distribution of their membership across disciplines. They may also have that info measured through time.

I'll bet those guys, or peeps marketing tack have plenty of info about the (purported) types of people do ride this or that kind of horse and why they seem to choose the branch of riding they do.

[RFT]

My question is, why are you studying this subject? What if people do have prejudices/tension among riding disciplines? Are you offering a *solution* to it? Or is it a comparison to other areas of life that proves your sociological theory?

More colloquially, what's your point? ;)

I think most people who spent more an hour or so on this board would tell you that such tension exists, at least for *some* people. As Twofatponies pointed out, such prejudice exists among many groups who feel passionately about something, whether it be a car, a sport, or a horse breed or riding discipline. Why do you feel it's worth studying?

Just asking in genuine curiosity. :yes:

Thanks for the interest. I am not studying this to solve any problem. I am studying it to speak to or to generalize to existing sociological theory on symbolic boundaries, identity, and status beliefs. This is "pure" research. As Twofatponies pointed out, tensions among riding styles is one of many social processes through which groups make a set of distinctions. This "boundary-work" happens so frequently, yet sociologists have a little understanding of this, mostly because research on boundaries has rarely been pursued.

Part of the reason why I want to study this is because it involves two areas of my sociological interests: animals and culture (specifically cultural boundaries). Both areas (animals and boundaries) are relatively new in American sociology and I would like to contribute something to them. In addition, "leisure worlds" (not sure if this is the term I would use) are rarely studied by sociologists and I would like to show that people in these worlds accomplish something. In general, I've told a few sociologists about this project and they think it is very interesting, but they do worry that it will be hard to sell among other sociologists. This is something I am working on, but I will worry about it when and if the paper in finished.

[Laytian]

Thanks for the interest. I am not studying this to solve any problem. I am studying it to speak to or to generalize to existing sociological theory on symbolic boundaries, identity, and status beliefs.
[SNIP] This "boundary-work" happens so frequently, yet sociologists have a little understanding of this, mostly because research on boundaries has rarely been pursued.



Gotcha, loud and clear. ;)

[twofatponies]

My question is, why are you studying this subject? What if people do have prejudices/tension among riding disciplines? Are you offering a *solution* to it? Or is it a comparison to other areas of life that proves your sociological theory?

More colloquially, what's your point? ;)

I think most people who spent more an hour or so on this board would tell you that such tension exists, at least for *some* people. As Twofatponies pointed out, such prejudice exists among many groups who feel passionately about something, whether it be a car, a sport, or a horse breed or riding discipline. Why do you feel it's worth studying?

Just asking in genuine curiosity. :yes:

Dude, it's called graduate school! You do these research projects as intellectual exercises, not to solve the world's problems. :D It's not "worth" studying in some outside sense. But absolutely fascinating in a grad school context (I say this as a former anthropology grad student). Grad school is not about proving things or finding solutions and truths, it's about picking apart the complexities of social structures and cultural concepts. It's just fun, it teaches you to write and analyze. And then eventually you go get a job... :D

[Amwrider]

I am a professional and I specialize in saddle seat and also hunters (for the breed ring) and also do some driving. I show the Morgan, saddlebred and Arabian shows. I started out riding hunters for many years and did a little dabbling in dressage and western. I have a great deal of respect for a number of disciplines.

I love watching a good upper level dressage horse, I attend the American Invitational horse jumping each year, I occasionally pop in to watch a reining show.

I would have to say that the only problem I seem to have is within the realm of saddle seat, namely the big lick walking horses. I do not agree with what they do to their horses and my feeling is that they have "tainted" the discipline. I do a lot of "damage control" from people that think because I have horses that pick up their feet that I must do that cruel and crazy stuff also.

[Laytian]

Dude, it's called graduate school! You do these research projects as intellectual exercises, not to solve the world's problems. :D It's not "worth" studying in some outside sense. But absolutely fascinating in a grad school context (I say this as a former anthropology grad student). Grad school is not about proving things or finding solutions and truths, it's about picking apart the complexities of social structures and cultural concepts. It's just fun, it teaches you to write and analyze. And then eventually you go get a job... :D


:lol: ROTFLOL!! Oh yeaaaah. I DO remember. Been there, done that, got the sheepskin. :cool: Though my grad work was not in sociology, I DID do enough of it as an undergrad. :yes::cool: One of the reasons that I was asking...I really *do* prefer to see *some* kind of tie to reality.... Yeah, yeah, I know, that's too much to ask. (I've been out of that ivory tower too long, huh?) :rolleyes:

But on a more serious note, when I look back at all the time I spent on research that got me a grade but really has no intrinsic value to me now (other than as an exercise used to learn), I kinda wish I had spent all that time and energy on research that intrigues me NOW, with some kind of actual worth to me.

[Ambrey]

I am an ammy, but I really think everyone other than me is doing it wrong. Most people I know agree (that everyone other than them is doing it wrong, anyway).

[OkLurchers]

OP:
I think an appropriate approach to your research project would be to post a simple survey instrument that asks participants to rate equestrian disciplines. Including questions such as length/amount of involvement in particular disciplines as well as experience in competition would give you control variables more interesting than the usual age/gender, etc.
I have been interested in doing a project applying Bourdieu's concepts of sympolic capital to equestrian pursuits and horsepeoples' care of their horses since I was in grad school; just haven't gotten around to it yet.
FYI, you're not the first to combine an interest in horses with research--I served on an MFA committee a year ago of a student who did a study on students' reactions to the use of horses in advertisements and as sports team mascots. Her research was done through a survey posted online. We were surprised at the great response she got--and that was from a non-horsey population. (We did include a 'horsiness scale' but were unable to use it b/c of low no. of 'horsey' students in the sample.)
To those of you who responded with a question about academic sociological interest in equine pursuits, the beauty of an epistemology like sociology is that the study of people extends to their leisure pursuits; in fact, we need more creative ideas for student studies rather than the usual boring 'been there, done that' kind of pablum too often seen.
To the OP: if you are truly interested in pursuing your study, good luck.

[ReSomething]

Sociologist, I am not. You have a PM.

[beesknees]

Jesus, you guys, chill.

It's hard enough being a grad student without being accused of being a troll, too. And to have the misfortune of liking sociology.... just jerking your chain, OP.



hahaha! second that.

My friend managed to do a thesis on the fricken Dove tv commercials featuring "real women", I pretty much lost respect for sociology as a discipline at that point haha! I'm somewhat joking--no, not joking at all...if she can do that, I'm sure you can make this work. Plus, the equestrian world has some, um, "interesting" characters in it that would surely entertain you throughout the research process. Good luck :)

You'll find a lot of contrast between English and Western disciplines.

[gloriginger]

Interesting. FWIW I am a UMASS Alumni--:)

I think you are on to something, but I am not really sure how this is earth shattering news, seems to me this is more a basic human nature...

I would suggest that you consider 3 things:

1. Not only does this exist between disciplines, but within many of the disciplines, breeds etc. you will find division. For example- Main ring vs. sport horse in Arabians, Rolkur vs. a more purest approach to dressage training.

B. Not everyone who rides, is inolved with horses shares these opinions, predjudices etc.

Lasty, please know that you are opening Pandora's box - the extent of this research can and will be astronomical- really - you could do this comparison from the basic boarding stable (natural horseman boarder vs. saddle seat rider) to broad stroke- hunter riders vs. dressage riders

PS- with horse people you are certain of a few things- everyone has an opinion, they will feel very strongly about it. If you ask 3 horse people a question you will get 4 answers, none will be the same.

Good luck on your research- there are a lot of farms in the Valley that you could visit and interview folks.

[Bluey]

hahaha! second that.

My friend managed to do a thesis on the fricken Dove tv commercials featuring "real women", I pretty much lost respect for sociology as a discipline at that point haha! I'm somewhat joking--no, not joking at all...if she can do that, I'm sure you can make this work. Plus, the equestrian world has some, um, "interesting" characters in it that would surely entertain you throughout the research process. Good luck :)

You'll find a lot of contrast between English and Western disciplines.

Don't forget that English disciplines are considerably more homogenous in how they train and use horses, compared with the hodgepodge western is, that includes roping, barrel racing cutting, western pleasure, etc., much that demands an extremely versatile horse if it is to compete in more than one western discipline and at the highest levels a specialist.

You can take a hunter and make him a decent competitive dressage horse, but it would be much harder to get a top barrel racer to cut and win.

You may find out that, after all, you may want to narrow your reach to a more specific topic.

[pines4equines]

One thing I have found is that people under 10 years horse experience seem (to me) to be the most boisterous about their disciplines. People with more experience seem to be more open to others options. Maybe we made that mistake years ago and now adopt a more open attitude. If someone comes on real strong, I kinda let it go and go on to another topic.

I used to be a dressage rider, now I trail ride only. I can get my horse to shoulder in for about two strides then I poop out with laziness. I noticed that when the "Trrra" comes out of my mouth for trail ride, most other disciplines are already looking the other way with a yawn. I get the feeling that trail riders are on the bottom rung of the discipline ladder even if we 40 years experience...And we trail ride like we heading to the hunter ring, clean and sparkling.

Interestingly, I adopted a PMU and we really didn't know how big or little he'd be. As he was growing, I was constantly asked how big he was. At that time he was 15 some odd hands. WHen people heard the "fffifff" coming out of my mouth, their eyes would glaze over. Now that he is 16 hands, and they ask and I start to say "ssssii" of 16, all are interested, ears perked, heads turned toward me.

I think a lot of it does almost equate to cars. I drive a Chevy...I drive a Jaguar...There is some elitism within our sport. I also see elitism within our sport towards beginners. Not from instructors but between riders.

Not trolling but observing what I've noticed...

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

Also to add my two cents - though not a sociologist - in my field of research (neurobiology) I call this our q&d - you are amassing information to understand the contextual environment for what you will do, how it will promote the field, and how best to ask the questions. This isn't bias: this is how to design the actual experiment. So you play around with a bunch of things and see where it takes you, and then go from there.

Honestly - this is the way breakthroughs can happen - a "let's try this."

And I think bringing in the idea of "breed bias" could be very interesting, especially as disciplines evolve. That also brings a big element of tension! - whether real, or perceived.

[BarbB]

I am an ammy, but I really think everyone other than me is doing it wrong. Most people I know agree (that everyone other than them is doing it wrong, anyway).

And there it is in a nutshell....project over :lol:

OP, I think you will be able to find quite a lot of info on these boards, especially if you do some searching for past trainw......er....topics.

I am concerned that you said that you plan to formulate specific questions to be asked face to face. And that you are only going to use input from professionals. It may be very very difficult, if not impossible to get a good sample of professionals that you can meet face to face for this without extensive travelling and more time than allowed.
I would rethink those parameters.

[monstrpony]

Well, and an experimental physical scientist, I wish you luck because you have about 40 billion variables to deal with, each of which exists on a scale of 1 to 10 (or not). Makes me nervous just contemplating it.

But I would be very interested to hear what you are able to do with it!

Yes, tensions and prejudices exist. They are widespread, generally based on lack of information or on limited bad experiences, though some are more concrete and very valid. Though I suppose the validity of the prejudices aren't the issue, it's their existence that is of interest. But, yeah, there's enough out there for you to drown in, for sure. Good luck with it!

[Janet]

I was afraid that I might open up a can of worms with my post, but I can assure you that I am not a troll. I am a graduate student at Umass Amherst. I did not ask specific questions because I am trying to figure out if this project is worth carrying out. It's like a survey of sorts. I will ask specific questions during face to face interviews. This post is not research; I merely posted to reaffirm my belief that there is tension among the riding disciplines. I am not asking for people to bash other breeds and disciplines, but to acknowledge that some people do demarcate, either morally, aesthetically, or whatever, their riding style and preferred breeds from other styles and breeds. Would you like me to post a preliminary research proposal on horses and symbolic boundaries full of sociological jargon to prove that I am a student?

For the rest of you who recommended that I talk to amateurs, I will definitely keep that in mind! Thanks.

I am still completely confused. What is it you ARE asking ? Or asking for?

In particular "posted to reaffirm my belief " seems like a singularly poor way to start an invstigation.

[Bluey]

I am still completely confused. What is it you ARE asking ? Or asking for?

In particular "posted to reaffirm my belief " seems like a singularly poor way to start an invstigation.

It is called a theory in search of confirmation.
Depends on the skills, possible agenda and intellectual honesty of the scientist what comes out the other end.:yes:

Even the best tend to, at times, fail there.:(

[beesknees]

I agree, you should narrow it down--there are a lot of different areas of the horse world. There was a rant a few weeks ago on another board about chuck-wagon races and how dangerous they were and such, it was an odd topic because it was pinning english hunters, jumpers, dressage riders against chuck-wagons, not the normal pairing--it turned into a mess haha! This is a really huge topic, so it woud be worth it to narrow it down.

[Janet]

OK, but I think "to investigate my belief" would be MUCH better.

My personal observation (which is mostly in the area of eventers/hunters/dressage/ jumpers) fall in several areas.


1) Someone who is proficient in one discipline watches a low level competition in an "other" discipline, and notices a number of specific faults that are more prevalent in the lower levels of THIS discipline than in the lower level of his/her own discipline- and then ascribes that fault to ALL levels of the "other" discipline.
e.g.,
The hunter says "all eventers get left"
The dressage rider says "all jumpers are unbalanced"
The eventer says "all hunters perch"
The jumper says "all dressage riders overflex".

2) Within each discipline, generally for good reasons, there is a prioritization of the faults. For instance, both "getting left" and "jumping ahead" are jumping faults. But in hunters "getting left" is the "cardinal fault" and jumping ahead is a more minor fault. In eventing it is the other way round. People with experience in only one discipline don't understand WHY the other discipline orders things otherwise.

3) People undertand the nuances and difficulties of their own discipline, but only see the surface of other disciplines.

Eventers (and jumpers) say "Hunter courses are just 'inside outside outside inside'. They don't need to memorize a courses, they don't have bending lines, tight turns, or skinnies. It must be easy".

Hunters, conversely say "Eventers and Jumpers don't have to worry about flying changes, getting the exact number of strides, or the horse playing in the corner. It must be easy."

But once you actually TRY the other discipline, you discover that it is much harder than you thought.

[DressageGeek "Ribbon Ho"]

But Janet - you KNOW the truth - Dressage is the ONLY way.

And then only with OTTBs.

I rest my case.

[MyGiantPony]

One thing I have found is that people under 10 years horse experience seem (to me) to be the most boisterous about their disciplines. People with more experience seem to be more open to others options. Maybe we made that mistake years ago and now adopt a more open attitude. If someone comes on real strong, I kinda let it go and go on to another topic.


I wonder if age has something to do with it too? We older folks grew up going to shows where it was common to have multiple disciplines at one show. I think Devon and Harrisburg are now the only 2 left where you'll find gaited horses and hunters in the same barn.

[Tamara in TN]

Thanks for the interest. I am not studying this to solve any problem. I am studying it to speak to or to generalize to existing sociological theory on symbolic boundaries, identity, and status beliefs. This is "pure" research. As Twofatponies pointed out, tensions among riding styles is one of many social processes through which groups make a set of distinctions. This "boundary-work" happens so frequently, yet sociologists have a little understanding of this, mostly because research on boundaries has rarely been pursued.

Part of the reason why I want to study this is because it involves two areas of my sociological interests: animals and culture (specifically cultural boundaries). Both areas (animals and boundaries) are relatively new in American sociology and I would like to contribute something to them. In addition, "leisure worlds" (not sure if this is the term I would use) are rarely studied by sociologists and I would like to show that people in these worlds accomplish something. In general, I've told a few sociologists about this project and they think it is very interesting, but they do worry that it will be hard to sell among other sociologists. This is something I am working on, but I will worry about it when and if the paper in finished.

wouldn't it be easier to use dog people? there's a bunch more of them and they are just as obnoxious in their beliefs as horse people are ;)

best

[BlueEyedSorrel]

I'm also a scientist (of the cancer biology&immunology persuasion). There's nothing wrong with brainstorming and I agree with DGRH--some of the most interesting results come out of open ended questions. Of course, to people outside academia, this can look suspiciously like a BS session, especially when it involves long discussions over your alcoholic beverage of choice;)

Another variable to consider: geographic area. For most people, what discipline they ride initially is heavily influenced by what disciplines are most prevalent in their area. Not too many beginners start out saying "I'm going to do hunters/jumpers/reining/dressage/whatever," it's just they want to ride. Only later do they find out all the different "denominations" of riding and that all of them are convinced all the others are not following The One True Way and are therefore damned to H***. Plus, most people are not lucky enough to start out with really top notch instruction, so the quality of the information they get about their own discipline, let alone others, may or may not be legit. You start out with a barn that's "just OK" but you're too inexperienced to know it, and eventually move up or switch instructors. So people initially know whatever discipline they do and often whatever they think of other disciplines is based on hearsay about how "all those whatever riders" all do this or that.

The other law seems to be that in any given area, discipline excellence is a zero-sum game. If H/J instruction and riding are really good, then the western riders in the area tend to be yahoos riding underfed yearlings in shanked bits. If the western riding is top notch, then any jumpers in the area are inevitably running their horses at the fences and holding on for dear life as the poor creature chips/ducks/stops. The minority discipline always comes out looking worse by comparison, because in that geographic area they lack resources (clinics, experienced competent trainers, enough shows to really season horses, tack shops carrying their equipment, barns with arenas suited to their needs etc).

I wonder if the internet is a leveling force here. Now anyone with a computer can see youtube videos of top riders or streaming webcasts of national shows and mentally compare that to whatever poor examples they see locally. Personally, with the exception of truly abusive disciplines (big lick walkers), I think you can find something to admire in the highest levels of almost any discipline.

BES

[gloriginger]

wouldn't it be easier to use dog people? there's a bunch more of them and they are just as obnoxious in their beliefs as horse people are ;)

best

That's for sure!! I am relatively new to the world of dog showing- I compete in agility with my pooch- and wow- one venue vs. another venue- sports vs. conformation - I think the dog folks might be weirder than horse folks---or is it that I am a weird horse person, and not yet a weird dog person, IDK, tough call.

[RFT]

I am concerned that you said that you plan to formulate specific questions to be asked face to face. And that you are only going to use input from professionals. It may be very very difficult, if not impossible to get a good sample of professionals that you can meet face to face for this without extensive travelling and more time than allowed.
I would rethink those parameters.

Hi,

Are you concerned that I am interviewing people, or that I said I wanted to interview professionals only? What's wrong with interviews? The posters have definitely convinced me that ammys are worth interviewing.

Just out of curiosity what distinguishes an ammy from a pro? Does one just declare him or herself a pro? Seems too easy if that is the case.

[Tiffani B]

OK, but I think "to investigate my belief" would be MUCH better.

My personal observation (which is mostly in the area of eventers/hunters/dressage/ jumpers) fall in several areas.


1) Someone who is proficient in one discipline watches a low level competition in an "other" discipline, and notices a number of specific faults that are more prevalent in the lower levels of THIS discipline than in the lower level of his/her own discipline- and then ascribes that fault to ALL levels of the "other" discipline.
e.g.,
The hunter says "all eventers get left"
The dressage rider says "all jumpers are unbalanced"
The eventer says "all hunters perch"
The jumper says "all dressage riders overflex".

2) Within each discipline, generally for good reasons, there is a prioritization of the faults. For instance, both "getting left" and "jumping ahead" are jumping faults. But in hunters "getting left" is the "cardinal fault" and jumping ahead is a more minor fault. In eventing it is the other way round. People with experience in only one discipline don't understand WHY the other discipline orders things otherwise.

3) People undertand the nuances and difficulties of their own discipline, but only see the surface of other disciplines.

Eventers (and jumpers) say "Hunter courses are just 'inside outside outside inside'. They don't need to memorize a courses, they don't have bending lines, tight turns, or skinnies. It must be easy".

Hunters, conversely say "Eventers and Jumpers don't have to worry about flying changes, getting the exact number of strides, or the horse playing in the corner. It must be easy."

But once you actually TRY the other discipline, you discover that it is much harder than you thought.

Excellent excellent post. I have the hardest time trying to explain Saddle Seat things to people from other disciplines because they have based their assumptions on parameters and traditions learned for the discipline THEY ride. It is only after the person is educated (as in, rides a SS horse, spends time with a trainer or farrier, etc) that they understand the differences in the FOUNDATION.

It's like language. Most languages use the same/similar set of letters. Much can be done with those letters to make individual words, but moreso, even the sentence structure can vary! In English you say "the white horse" but in Spanish you literally say "the horse white" (el caballo blanco). Both are correct for THEIR language but incorrect for the other.

Without understanding the foundation of a sport - how the equipment is used, what the goals are, what things are important, etc. a person cannot understand the final product if they are only applying knowledge from THEIR sport to it.

[Guilherme]

Don't forget to ask if they prefer a Ford, Chevy or Dodge pickup to pull their horse trailer and why.:winkgrin:

And whether or not they drink Coke or Pepsi while hauling and Miller Lite or Bud Light at parties. And blondes, brunettes, or red heads, etc. ;)

Seriously, the question is so open-ended as to be nonsensical and will not generate anything like useable information. Even pure research in a social science must have some grounding in reality. Questions as asked, whether intended or not, ususally result in rhetorical "train wrecks" or extended flame wars. I would presume anyone who has achieved grad student status at a major university would understand that.

Or maybe this research is not at all about equine disciplines, but some attempt to sociologize about internet groups?

G.

[Across Sicily]

Fwiw, I happened to see where this discussion began on a breed-specific blog. A poster over there suggested coming to COTH and posting, and so if for no reason other than that I don't believe the poster to be a troll. Over there, it turned into a discussion mainly about Dressage vs Main Ring in the Morgans... cue spirited discussion.

I come from the Morgans and there are generalities that I will admit I've made about other disciplines. I really try to keep an open mind about it all, but I still will become annoyed with the dressage queens who insist that the classical way is the only way!! and Big Lick trainers who insist that soring the horse is the only way!! and western trainers who block tails... racehorse trainers who run lame horses... hunter jumper riders who canter around in half seat all the time and don't sit (what is that anyway?? We had a girl come to learn saddle seat at my barn and she was *amazed* we sit the canter... is that normal in h/j circles to not ever sit into the canter??). Just as a personal opinion, I don't like 90% of the western pleasure stuff (though the way some Morgans do it is okay, mostly because it doesn't look like they're utterly miserable) but I don't mind the working western stuff and would looooooooove to ride a reiner. I would like to RIDE dressage, but not in a dressage saddle, and I *hate* watching it unless it's the Kur. I'd love to do showjumping and eventing and often feel the call of the XC course. I don't care much for the hunters o/f, but they make people happy so I'm fairly apathetic as far as that goes... Saddle seat is my favorite, along with breed (Morgan) hunter pleasure, and I seem to spend half my life defending the OMG HEAVY SHOES and OMG CRAZY POSTURE!! and OMG MEAN BITS IN THE HORSE'S MOUTH and OMG OMG OMG... you get the idea.

Mostly, I guess my biggest problem is intolerance to a method another discipline uses. Perhaps because of my saddle seat background, I'm familiar with people bashing my chosen discipline due to ignorance. If you choose to use a twisted snaffle over a smooth one, the world should not fall down, but there are sure some folks who act like it will. If one uses a martingale, death will not immediately pass. And so on and so on.

[RubyLink]

Well, I can't really contribute to your study but I wanted to wish you luck in your research. As I am sure you can already tell from this thread, it's going to be a lot of hard work.