PDA

View Full Version : Best ever photo of extended trot!



ESG
Jul. 14, 2006, 09:43 AM
Scroll down on the main page of COTH, and you'll see Yvonne Barteau's horse executing the most perfect example of an extended trot that I've ever seen. I know I can't pick it apart - anyone else want to try?

Or should we just enjoy something so rare - a beautiful example of what one of the loveliest movements in our sport should be?

JMO. :cool:

mazymind
Jul. 14, 2006, 11:08 AM
Agreed!!

class
Jul. 14, 2006, 11:46 AM
Rarely see a horse that uphill WITH a level fenceline in the background.

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 11:59 AM
very nice... :) but to be honest about the pic, you have to say that the front toe is a bit hyper mobile and i *think* that means there is tension. the front toe should point where it is going to land.

i would love to read what IDEA yoda would say about this pic.

on UDBB i did a thread (there was actually several) where we tried to come up with the "best" extended trot pic... it is SUPER hard to do... extended trot seems to be a very difficult movement to get correct. which was eye opening to me :)

egontoast
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:13 PM
Yes, it's sad that none of the top horses come up to your very high standards.

fiona
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:25 PM
extended trot seems to be a very difficult movement to get correct

in my experience all the movements are very difficult.

etk
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:30 PM
i would love to read what IDEA yoda would say about this pic.


I would love to read what AUNT esther would say about this pic.

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:33 PM
Yes, it's sad that none of the top horses come up to your very high standards.

they are not MY high standards. they are the FEI's high standards...

and if you read my post i did say it was very nice... i was just pointing out that it was not perfect.... and then i gave my guess as to what/why....

i guess i dont see the point of not seeing the good and bad in everything... ie: reality.

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:39 PM
in my experience all the movements are very difficult.

touche'


i guess i was talking about how i *assumed* that it was *just* an extended trot.... and then when we went looking for a god pic it was VERY difficult to find one that had most/all of the directives evident.

i dont know why i thought an extended trot would be (relatively) easy???

egontoast
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:42 PM
i dont know why i thought an extended trot would be (relatively) easy???

That explains a lot.

tarheelmd07
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:44 PM
The extended trot is also very hard to photograph -- your timing really has to be spot-on to get it at that perfect moment of full extension

it's easier to catch than the extended canter though!

fiona
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:53 PM
i dont know why i thought an extended trot would be (relatively) easy???__________________


me neither.

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 12:56 PM
That explains a lot.

yes, at one point in my life i assumed extended trot would be and "easy" (in the whole upper level work world kind of way) ..... but i am not sure what that fact explains about me other than i wasnt born a dressage genius.

<shrug> i dont mind saying i dont know something... or dont know it now... or didnt know it then....

egontoast
Jul. 14, 2006, 01:17 PM
shrug> i dont mind saying i dont know something... or dont know it now... or didnt know it then....

It's good to have humility when critiquing others. It may not be so simple as the nose must be here, the foot must be there.

retrofit
Jul. 14, 2006, 01:20 PM
i dont know why i thought an extended trot would be (relatively) easy???

Have you tried riding a few, and then looked at the results on video? In combination with everything else in a test? I'm not trying to be rude, but maybe that would help give you perspective. There's nothing like horses to take you (or me, or anyone) down a notch or 25.

Moll
Jul. 14, 2006, 01:54 PM
I agree - a great extended trot :) I'd let the horse's nose out a little and also let him lengthen his neck, but you cannot fault that energy and uphill movement :)

pinecone
Jul. 14, 2006, 01:56 PM
very nice... but to be honest about the pic, you have to say that the front toe is a bit hyper mobile and i *think* that means there is tension. the front toe should point where it is going to land.

i would love to read what IDEA yoda would say about this pic.

Oh for the love of god, isn't the udbb back up and running yet?

The only thing "easy" about dressage, it would appear, is criticizing it. (rolling eyes)

slc2
Jul. 14, 2006, 01:59 PM
i'm with you there, pinecone!

"when we went looking for a god pic"

Now certain posters AND God do better dressage than the topriders, :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Lambie Boat
Jul. 14, 2006, 02:05 PM
I want to see the picture- can somebody place it in this thread?

etk
Jul. 14, 2006, 02:32 PM
To see the photo (1) go here: www.chronofhorse.com and (2) scroll down.

SarMoniet
Jul. 14, 2006, 02:40 PM
Lovely picture. I'd kill for my lazy-assed horse to have that kind of power and scope.

I deleted the rest of what I wrote because hopefully the person it was directed at has gone "home."

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 02:44 PM
In my world all that matters is that i learn. and i try to see every thing as a learning opportunity. therefore, while i think it is a super picture (and i said so) , i would like to know *why* is it super? *what* makes it so wonderful and *how* could it be *better* ??

i would lOVE to hear what the judges around here would say and what the comments would be if this were on a test.

That creates a learning opportunity for all to learn from..

(edited because i know better)

SarMoniet
Jul. 14, 2006, 02:47 PM
Damn.... I was wrong.

StarDoozer
Jul. 14, 2006, 02:51 PM
what a lovely photo. Very, very nice.

WBLover
Jul. 14, 2006, 03:03 PM
I'd be THRILLED if I could ever get such a nice extended trot, let alone stay on the horse during it!!

Who is the horse? He looks very powerful--gorgeous!!!

nhwr
Jul. 14, 2006, 03:59 PM
Nice uphill extension.

mbm, if all that matters in your world is that you learn, you ought to read up a little more and critique a little less. It is easy to find the requirements for a good extended trot. But since in your world, it does seem to be the case that you are motivated to learn unless someone spoon feeds you, here are some things that make a good extended trot;

The trot should cover as much ground as the horse is capable of without losing balance, rhythym, engagement or purity.

Though the horse's strides lengthens, his frame should not. Lengthening of the frame reveals a tendancy to use the bit for support, falling towards the forehand and loosing engagement.

Diagonal pairs (hind and opposite front leg) should be parallel.

Front feet should touch the ground at the spot to which they are pointing (no toe flipping or hypermobilization of the fetlock).

One of the best ways to determine the quality of an extended trot is to evaluate the transition from extended to collected trot. If the horse is extending well, the transition will be smooth without any loss of impulsion or balance and the horse's quarters will obviously assume more weight in collection.

Here is another picture of a good extended trot

http://www.dressageworld.de/dressurgeschichte/4/bilder/abb16.jpg

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 04:24 PM
the pic you posted is the one i posted long ago on the UDBB - thanks for posting it again....

from the rules:
Article 404 THE TROT
1. The trot is a two beat pace of alternate diagonal legs (left fore and right hind
leg and vice versa) separated by a moment of suspension.
2. The trot should show free, active and regular steps.
3. The quality of the trot is judged by general impression, i.e. the regularity and
elasticity of the steps, the cadence and impulsion in both collection and
extension. This quality originates from a supple back and well-engaged
hindquarters, and by the ability of maintaining the same rhythm and natural
balance with all variations of the trot.
4. The following trots are recognised: Working trot, Lengthening of Steps,
Collected trot, Medium trot and Extended trot.

4.5. Extended trot. The horse covers as much ground as possible. Without hurrying, the steps are lengthened to the utmost as a result of great impulsionfrom the hindquarters. The rider allows the horse to lengthen the frame with a controlled poll, and to gain ground. The fore feet should touch the ground on the spot towards which they are pointing. The movement of the fore and hind legs should reach equally forward in the moment of extension. The whole movement should be well balanced and the transition to collected trot should be smoothly executed by taking more weight on the hindquarters."

so, you are incorrect that the horse should not lengthen its frame. but were correct that the front foot should land where it is pointed (ie not toe flipping) ....

to *me* it has been very benifical to hold the rules up against various photos and compare.... what is good ? what could be better? what is excellent?

there i SO much to learn and so little time. :)

(and if i spent any more time reading i wouldnt have time to ride ;), all joking aside, if you have suggestions to books i can add to my library that would be great)

nhwr
Jul. 14, 2006, 04:45 PM
checking the rules here is what I found.

US Equestrian Federation
Dressage Rules 2006
Section DR 104
Paragraph 4.d
"Extended trot. The horse covers as much ground as possible. Maintaining the same cadence as he lengthens his steps to the utmost as a result of great impulsion from the hindquarters. The riders allows the horse remaining on the bit without leaning on it to lengthen his frame and to gain ground....."

So to be more clear, it is my understanding that though a horse may lower its head and neck (and thereby lengthen its frame) in medium trot as compared to working trot, there should be no change from medium to extended trot, only the length of stride should change.

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 04:51 PM
interesting that the wording is different... i got my quotes from here:

http://www.horsesport.org/PDFS/D/04_01/NEWDressageRules2006-E.pdf

belambi
Jul. 14, 2006, 04:53 PM
Whilst that may be correct for USA..it is not in keeping with the FEI rules
go to page 9 of 87.extended trot
http://www.horsesport.org/PDFS/D/04_01/NEWDressageRules2006-E.pdf

Capriole
Jul. 14, 2006, 05:02 PM
"Extended trot. The horse covers as much ground as possible. Maintaining the same cadence as he lengthens his steps to the utmost as a result of great impulsion from the hindquarters. The riders allows the horse remaining on the bit without leaning on it to lengthen his frame and to gain ground....."

The last sentence is so poorly written as to be confusing. Bad USEF proofreader! IMO, the meaning is intended to be that the horse should lengthen his frame without leaning on the bit and while remaining on the bit. Not, as nhwr reads it, that the horse should not lean on the bit and not lengthen his frame.

I believe the sentence is missing commas which would make it clear that this is a clause. I'd rewrite the sentence as:

"The rider allows the horse, remaining on the bit without leaning on it, to lengthen his frame and to gain ground."

In other words, you could delete the clause and the meaning of the sentence remains "The rider allows the horse to lengthen his frame and gain ground."

This fits with my understanding of the extended gaits, which is that the horse's frame does lengthen along with the stride. Look at the definition for extended canter, for example.

I think the picture is lovely. I love the absolutely parallel cannon bones and the overall impression of traveling uphill. The only slight flaws I see are a minor toe flip/hyperextension of the joints and the rider appears a bit braced (this may be a trick of the photo and not reality).

Capriole
Jul. 14, 2006, 05:04 PM
FEI rules, from belambi's link: http://www.horsesport.org/PDFS/D/04_01/NEWDressageRules2006-E.pdf


Extended trot. The horse covers as much ground as possible. Without hurrying, the steps are lengthened to the utmost as a result of great impulsion from the hindquarters. The rider allows the horse to lengthen the frame with a controlled poll, and to gain ground. The fore feet should touch the ground on the spot towards which they are pointing. The movement of the fore and hind legs should reach equally forward in the moment of extension. The whole movement should be well balanced and the transition to collected trot should be smoothly executed by taking more weight on the hindquarters.

merrygoround
Jul. 14, 2006, 05:05 PM
Absolutely-- that careless photog should have waited a fraction of a second.

Capriole
Jul. 14, 2006, 05:07 PM
Whilst that may be correct for USA..it is not in keeping with the FEI rules
Is that a dig on the US? :lol:

nhwr
Jul. 14, 2006, 05:15 PM
Reading the FEI rules, I guess my question would be lengthen frame relative to what? If the comparison is to working or collected trot, that is consistent with what I have been taught and how I have ridden it. But if the comparison is to medium trot......I am not saying I have the creds to dispute what the FEI says but I think their definition is somewhat unclear.

Here is how I think of it; the trot (or any gait really) in order of the education of the horse

working trot, collected, medium and then extended trot.

In extended trot, the horse is to demonstrate the ability to lengthen its stride without losing engagement, impulsion or balance relative to the previous level of development (working, collected and medium trot). Extended trot a product of collection. Think of how a horse lengthens its frame. This is done by either less rounding through the back (loss of engagement/collection) or lower the head and neck (change in balance). An extended trot should demonstrate that a horse can further lengthen its stride, relative to medium trot without loss of engagement or balance. I take this to mean that the horse should not loose engagment (be less round through its back) or loose balance (lower its head and or neck). Medium trot is meant to be a transitional phase of development between collected and extended. This is why the horse is allowed to lower it neck and head in medium. It wouldn't make sense that in extended trot, where the developmental demands are higher, that the horse would be allowed to demonstrate a still lesser degree of balance, would it?

So the real question; in extended trot should the frame lengthen relative to medium trot? I don't think so. Relative to collected? Certainly. Relative to working? Yes. Relative to medium? No.

belambi
Jul. 14, 2006, 05:23 PM
lol..no..not meant as a dig to the USA..meant to say..whilst it is correct according to the US EF rule as was posted..;)

Capriole
Jul. 14, 2006, 05:56 PM
So the real question; in extended trot should the frame lengthen relative to medium trot? I don't think so. Relative to collected? Certainly. Relative to working? Yes. Relative to medium? No.
In tests, the extended gaits are always asked for out of a collected gait, right? So a lengthening of the frame makes sense in that respect. You wouldn't go from a medium to an extension.

I think I still disagree though: I think that the frame in a medium is slightly different from the frame in an extension. But it's OK if you and I disagree, no one cares. :winkgrin:

dressagediosa
Jul. 14, 2006, 08:15 PM
FYI, for those who don't subscribe to the mag, the horse is Liberty, a Dutch stallion. Not sure of his breeding, but his piaffe and passage are particularly impressive as well. He is also an incredibly beautiful color - very shiny chestnut. :)

Trakehners2000
Jul. 14, 2006, 11:06 PM
The only thing "easy" about dressage, it would appear, is criticizing it. (rolling eyes)


:yes: :lol: :winkgrin: ROFL

mbm
Jul. 14, 2006, 11:52 PM
:

The only thing "easy" about dressage, it would appear, is criticizing it. (rolling eyes)


:yes: :lol: :winkgrin: ROFL

now that i think about it..... i dont think it is so easy to critique correctly.... otherwise there would be many many more judges.... since they are the ultimate critiquers - yes?

i think that it is very hard to really *see* the fine details of what makes dressage dressage. its easy to say - yes that trot is the best ever! but it isnt as easy to then really LOOK at it and try to analyze *why* you feel that way and/or really look and see if it is indeed as good as originally thought.

each time i get into one of these discussions (critiquing photos) i learn something. *especially* if it is about something that i take for granted or that i *know* i am right about.

Sabine
Jul. 15, 2006, 01:20 AM
OMG- I just realized that YOU MBM- put that same thread on UDBB and pretty much got your behind kicked for suggesting that this was a really nice extended trot picture...now on COTH- the same thread appears and you find a much more positive response from trainers and riders...and you appear slightly critical of it?? What gives? No wonder you hang out here now...jeezus...quite amazed and :/?

sabryant
Jul. 15, 2006, 01:41 AM
OMG- I just realized that YOU MBM- put that same thread on UDBB and pretty much got your behind kicked for suggesting that this was a really nice extended trot picture...now on COTH- the same thread appears and you find a much more positive response from trainers and riders...and you appear slightly critical of it?? What gives? No wonder you hang out here now...jeezus...quite amazed and :/?

The funniest things happen on these boards! LoL

Moll
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:14 AM
Thank you all for responding to MBM:s reply which had me hyperventilating ;)

Just because you mainly see horses doing "extended trots" without changing their frame one centimetre, does not mean it's correct! Of course the horse should lengthen its frame. And of course it should be allowed to lengthen its frame more than in the medium trot. It's a whole different gait, so to speak :)

nhwr
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:18 AM
Of course the horse should lengthen its frame. And of course it should be allowed to lengthen its frame more than in the medium trot.
So can you all explain to me how this is done? Is there less engagement or does the horse lower its head and neck? Other options?

sabryant
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:53 AM
So can you all explain to me how this is done? Is there less engagement or does the horse lower its head and neck? Other options?


Nothing more than lightening your hands forward. If you've put the correct foundation your horse, he should know to always reach with his hind legs toward your hands. Should not lower head or neck...that is for first level lenthening.

nhwr
Jul. 15, 2006, 03:13 AM
Nothing more than lightening your hands forward. If you've put the correct foundation your horse, he should know to always reach with his hind legs toward your hands. Should not lower head or neck
I agree. That is my point.

Engagement (following with the hind legs) and elevation of the poll will be maintained. If the horse is capable of self carriage (and it should be by the time you are doing extended work), this won't change the length of the frame.

So how is the frame supposed to lengthen in extended trot relative to medium? I don't think it can. This is why extended work depends on collection. The horse must be strong and balanced enough to maintain the engagement and elevation of the head and neck (in other words maintain its frame), yet still lengthen its stride.

pinecone
Jul. 15, 2006, 08:03 AM
now that i think about it..... i dont think it is so easy to critique correctly.... otherwise there would be many many more judges.... since they are the ultimate critiquers - yes?

mbm, dear, there is VERY little in common between your "critiques" and actual judging.

Also, there are plenty of people who are qualified and knowledgeable enough to be judges, but who are not. There's more to becoming a judge than just "knowing your stuff", and not everyone even desires to BE a judge. But your statement seems to imply the people who are not judges are not judges because they COULDN'T be judges, and that is simply not a correct assumption.

If you would quit taking for granted that there are things you "know" you are right about (lol), you would learn much more. But charging into every discussion with a chip on your shoulder and ready to nitpick, and hoping primarily to have your thoughts validated by ideayoda, isn't going to help you LEARN anything.

As I know it, the extended trot should have a slightly longer frame than the medium trot and is a bit "flatter", while striving to maintain the same tempo and an uphill balance. The problem is that few horses can optimally BOTH lengthen the frame AND maintain the uphill balance, and so it is more typical to see horses which are EITHER in uphill balance but with minimal lengthening of the frame, or which have lengthened the frame but fallen off balance and onto the forehand (downhill). The horse which has maintained his balance but with less lengthening of the frame will generally have an easier and better transition back to collected trot than horse which has lost his balance and fallen onto the forehand.

kkj
Jul. 15, 2006, 11:53 AM
I really love that Liberty stallion. He looks more like he is shooting up then out but not really like he is lengthing his frame. He is so uphill and cool.

The other photo with the man riding that horse looks more like he is shooting out, lengthing his frame and stretching more to the contact, not so uphill.

Some one who knows (because I surely don't) which is better, more correct and would score higher?

Is the horse with the man younger and at a lower level because he is in a snaffle and doesn't look as uphill? To me though his front legs look more free and Liberty's almost looks a little stiff but more strong and powerful. Is this just a difference in how these horses move?

Thanks in advance

mbm
Jul. 15, 2006, 12:07 PM
first: i actually posted the thread over on UDBB after it was posted here.... i wanted to see what those folks thought. clearly i was incorrect in my opinion that this was a nice photo. i learned something.

second: i am not sure what comment i made that had someone hyperventilating? if my comment about the front leg and the quote of the FEI rules has you hyperventilating then i suggest that you keep your self in very safe spaces if *that* littel bit of interaction has you that upset.

i wasnt the one that made a comment about the horse not lengthening its frame - that was NHWR.

Third: as i have said OVER AND OVER - i dont know much and want to learn more. my comments about judging were meant as an example and nothing more..... (ie there is nothing wrong with looking and trying to see what is really there)

as for the comment about bitterness.... i am not bitter..... that isnt really how i operate. i love this sport and i love horses and i love learning. its amazing how some spin that out to ther liking.

oh, i forgot i am the monster of all time, known worldwide ;)

nhwr
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:06 PM
The goal of extension is to demonstrate a lengthened stride through greater impulsive energy without loss of engagement and balance. The goal of collection is to shift more weight to the hind quarters (elevate the shoulders) while increasing the amplitude of the stride.

kkj,

how can you tell this horse has lengthen its frame without seeing a series of photos?

This is a major problem I have with picking apart photos. They do not give complete information. Dressage is about movement. Photos don't show movement.

kkj
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:20 PM
nhwr, I agree it is hard to judge from photos and I make no claim to be an expert. I know the difference between collection and extension but... Liberty is doing what to me looks like an upper level extended trot. The big uphill ones you see on the Grand Prix horses. He is in a pretty tight frame and very "put together". The other horse looks like a lower level horse not as up hill and more stretching to the contact. His movement to me looks awesome. I don't know what these horses frames were like before. It just looks like this horse is stretching more and in a longer frame. It doesn't look like a Grand Prix extended trot to me... but I don't claim to know, I was asking a sincere question.

Which one do you think would score higher? What level do you think they are?

nhwr
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:36 PM
Personally, I think the second one is more correct because even though there is less uphill drama, the horse appears lighter in the bridle, the stride seems longer, there is no toe flicking, the shoulder appears more mobile and the co-ordination of the diagonal pairs is better.

But I think the first photo was taken at a less opportune moment. So I wouldn't stake much on that opinion.

mbm
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:45 PM
what is so wrong with looking at a photo and trying to see what is, and is not, there? how else are we to train our eyes?

i just do NOT understand why some folks are so against this type of activity.

must everything be thought of as negative? it IS possible to look at something and to critique it and to still enjoy what you are looking at. in other words - just because i look and try to see what is good and what could be better, doesn't mean that i dont like what i am looking at. Also how are we to *really* know when we are looking at something worthy of praise, or conversely that something needs work, if we dont have a basic set of tools to understnad what we are looking at.

i am really amazed at how NEGATIVE some of the people are here. everything to them is seem thru dark glasses. if someone is trying to learn these folks spin it to the person being bitter and envious and etc.

if someone asks a question it is spun to being challenging the other person.

<shakes head>

i just dont get it.

and, fwiw, i think on UDBB we came to the conclusion that the horse that NHWR posted was not an extended trot... i think we came to the conclusion that is was a medium.

nhwr
Jul. 15, 2006, 02:56 PM
Bernd Eylers identifies it as an extended trot. I think he'd probably know :lol:

But this is the problem with looking at photos. Dressage is a sport of motion. Looking at a single photo is like taking a comment totally out of context and assigning to it whatever meaning you want it to have. When discussing different phase of a gait, you need to see other phases and transitions to be able to adequately assess the quality. You need to determine the relative difference between them. This is why the comment "needs to show more difference" is so popular among judges :rolleyes: One of the best ways to determine the quality of an extended trot is to watch the transition to and from collected trot. That is why the tests are structured that way for the most part. Dressage- it is all about movement :yes:

kkj
Jul. 15, 2006, 03:02 PM
Thanks nwhr. You gave sound reasons and I don't disagree. I think he looks like a better mover but not as uphill. I just wanted to know what people think as to which would score higher just from what we can see from the pictures (realizing their shortcomings)

sabryant
Jul. 15, 2006, 03:13 PM
I agree. That is my point.

Engagement (following with the hind legs) and elevation of the poll will be maintained. If the horse is capable of self carriage (and it should be by the time you are doing extended work), this won't change the length of the frame.

So how is the frame supposed to lengthen in extended trot relative to medium? I don't think it can. This is why extended work depends on collection. The horse must be strong and balanced enough to maintain the engagement and elevation of the head and neck (in other words maintain its frame), yet still lengthen its stride.


I think the frame does lengthen slightly but not enough as to be noticable to the eye. If you give your hands and horse takes up with his hind legs what you give with your hands, then his frame does slightly lengthen. Personally, I ride the mediun and the extended about the same. Experimenting with it in tests, I've found that I get better scores on both rather than if I try to distinquish one from the other.

sabryant
Jul. 15, 2006, 03:22 PM
I agree. That is my point.

Engagement (following with the hind legs) and elevation of the poll will be maintained. If the horse is capable of self carriage (and it should be by the time you are doing extended work), this won't change the length of the frame.

So how is the frame supposed to lengthen in extended trot relative to medium? I don't think it can. This is why extended work depends on collection. The horse must be strong and balanced enough to maintain the engagement and elevation of the head and neck (in other words maintain its frame), yet still lengthen its stride.

oh, and one last point, I have always heard that a horse can not truly extend until he is schooling the highest collection of piaffe. More elasticity/amplitude/strength of haunches from work in piaffe would be a testament to this. If this be the truth (it makes sense to me it could be true but is food for thought on my part) why do they make the horse extended trot in 3rd/4th level.

aregard
Jul. 15, 2006, 03:28 PM
what is so wrong with looking at a photo and trying to see what is, and is not, there? how else are we to train our eyes?

What you said.

Critiquing is part of how people improve. It's not condemnatory. It's _informative_. I've never understood the old "why is everybody against (horse/rider/photograph)?" crap either.

Nobody's 'against' it. We're looking at something to learn from it. And here, we had a nice discussion on whether or not the frame does lengthen. There you go.

stolensilver
Jul. 15, 2006, 05:18 PM
I've read the thread on UDBB and been sickened by it. Some call it critiqueing. I call it bitching. :D

My opinion about a lot of the old adages of dressage such as the nose should point where the front leg will land are that they were written before slow motion cameras had been invented. It is true that when the front leg touches down it is never beyond the horse's nose. While the stride of the extension is happening though this is not the case, only when the leg lands does the leg/nose thing stay true. A difficult thing to see with the naked eye.

It's not all that long ago that no-one knew the stride sequence for canter and gallop hence all those funny paintings with the horses legs extended out like rocking horses. When the stride sequence was revealed with the first cameras it took a long time for it to be believed and even longer for painters to be allowed to paint things correctly because correct "looked wrong". The ODGs of dressage were in the same position. Technology has moved on and shown that some of the things they wrote were not correct. Except of course in bulletin board land where every word they wrote is enshrined in greatness and trotted out at every opportunity. ROFL!

mbm
Jul. 15, 2006, 07:24 PM
SS can you elaborate on why you think the ODGs were/are wrong?

and just for the record.....here is the first slo mo of a horse galloping- it is dated 1878... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge

mbm
Jul. 15, 2006, 07:55 PM
It's not all that long ago that no-one knew the stride sequence for canter and gallop hence all those funny paintings with the horses legs extended out like rocking horses. When the stride sequence was revealed with the first cameras it took a long time for it to be believed and even longer for painters to be allowed to paint things correctly because correct "looked wrong". The ODGs of dressage were in the same position. Technology has moved on and shown that some of the things they wrote were not correct. Except of course in bulletin board land where every word they wrote is enshrined in greatness and trotted out at every opportunity. ROFL!

SS - it looks to me that horsemen have known for a VERY long time what the sequence is for the canter.... i cant speak for what the artists were doing - but clearly the trainers knew. and please note that this was written *before* the first slo mo movie of a horse galopping)

"The Gallop:The gallop is the action a horse makes while running. It is a sort of jump to the fore: for the forelegs are not yet on the ground when the hind legs are raised., so that for an imperceptible moment all four legs are in the air. In the gallop there are two principal movements, one for the right hand, which one calls leading on the right leg, and another for for the left hand, which is termed leading on the left leg. In each of the two movements the inside foreleg advances and begins the rhytm of the gait, and the inside hind follows, in the order given below. When the horse gallops on the right hand, and when the two forelegs are raised, the right fore is put on the ground ahead of the left one, and the right one follows the movements of the foreleg, being also put on the ground ahead of the left hind. In the gallop on the left hand, the left fore leads the gait; the hind of the same side follows, also in advance of the right hind.

The sequence of the placement for the hooves is as follows: When the horse gallops on the right hand, after having collected the force of the haunches to chase, as it were, the forehand, the left hind strikes the ground first; then the right hind, placed further forward than the left hind, and in the same instant the left fore strikes the earth; so that in the position of these two hooves, which are diagonally opposite as in the trot, there is but one hoof beat perceptible both to the ear and the eye; and finally the right fore, which is advanced further foreward that the left fore, in a line with the right hind, strikes the third and final hoof beat. These movements are repeated with each rhythm of the gallop, and continues in alternation."

School of Horsemanship - Francios de le Gueriniere 1733 pg 95-98

(edited to quote SS for clarity)

egontoast
Jul. 15, 2006, 08:02 PM
The gallop is a completely different gait than the canter. For one thing, it is 4 beat and the canter is three beat. What is the relevance of your post, mbm?

mbm
Jul. 15, 2006, 08:15 PM
he *is* talking about the canter (because he is talking about a 3 beat gait) - and as far as i understand it many europeans call canter - galopp.

Karoline
Jul. 15, 2006, 08:40 PM
Galop: is the word for canter and refers to a 3 beat allure (gait?).

The french use Galop as we do Canter, example:

Le Galop de Travail: Working Canter
Le Galop Moyen: Medium Canter
Le Galop Allongé: Extended Canter
Le Galop Rassemblé: Collected Canter

The Galop a quatre temps - four beat canter - is considered incorrect.

pinecone
Jul. 15, 2006, 10:04 PM
It is true that when the front leg touches down it is never beyond the horse's nose.

I typically agree with you, but respectfully think there must be some error in this particular sentence, because if the front leg never touches down beyond the horse's nose, then LDR (hyperflexed) horses would be moving

backwards. (wink)


for mbm (not to answer in place of stolensilver):

"Technology" has taught us several things which are contradictory to what the ODG's thought. First to pop into my head are the canter pirouette (not 3 beats), the piaffe (lack of suspension), Diagonal Advanced Placement, and the weight bearing of the forelegs in collection, as well as a better understanding of biomechanics in general, and the understanding of physical problems such as Kissing Spines.

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 01:24 AM
pinecone - i think that some of what you mentioned- DAP, weight bearing on forelegs etc are the results of one persons research on horses that were winning at that time. to me, that does not equate good scientific research. i would prefer to see the research done on a variety of horses from a variety of trainers and a variety of times with a variety of researchers.

if you are talking about the research i think you are, it was based on a just a very few horses, and is contraversial.

As for the rest, i dont have an opinion but will do some research to see what i find.

fwiw, i just dont think the ODGs where stupid. and lets not forget that there are ODGs that are alive and kicking today (ODG = Old Dressage Gods) - and they DO have the benefit of all out technology. and so far i havent seen any radical literature coming out from these guys.

not that i dont think that we learn more and more each day. but i think that in general the ODGs were/are pretty darn spot on on most of the stuff they talked about.

in any case, i choose to believe what they say - because as a group they have probably trained more horses that any of us have ever seen. :) - once i get to he place of having trained my first GP horse i will let you know what my thoughts are.... who knows? i may change my mind about stuff.

It would be interesting to start a thread about the things that you brought up.... to see what others think (especially the folks that have some experience)

stolensilver
Jul. 16, 2006, 05:58 AM
Pinecone we think alike! I have a lot of respect for the ODGs. Actually I have a lot of respect for anyone who is a good rider, regardless of the label that other people have attached to them. But to say that everything that was ever going to be discovered about horses was discovered more than 200 years ago and that any developments since then must be wrong is, to my mind, lunacy.

Everything moves on, not because horses have changed, but because we now know more about them and their biomechanics. It is very clear that piaffe has no suspension and that passage occurs from the front legs pushing up harder (just like when a horse jumps, the most important part of those biomechanics are the action of the shoulders) and that a canter pirouette occurs in a 4 beat canter. Even dafter is that some ODGs know about the 4 beat canter. I used to be well known that there are 3 different canters: 3 beat, further collection leads to 4 beat and even more collection leads to 2 beat otherwise known as the terre a terre. Yet this is ignored/ called hooey if posted by someone who does not have the classical label. Sigh!

It may be of interest (or it may not!) that at least 2 posters on TOB have real, proper classical training with top notch classical trainers yet rarely post there any more because of being attacked for being "non-classical." Even TandGo who trains with WAZ doesn't call herself classical. You see all this purer than pure attitude drives the real classical riders away. I'm going way off topic here and will stop. IME there isn't much difference between different ways of training. Horses like fairness and clearness. Once you've got that the different schools become pretty similar in reality, just different on paper. Don't know about you but I'm not bothered about paper! :D

ESG
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:24 AM
To those of you who responded to the photo, thank you. :)

To those of you who felt the need to bitch about a canter and its footfall sequence instead of responding to the photo, you're sad, confused, and are to be pitied. :no:

nhwr and egontoast are, as usual, the voices of reason. A special thanks to you both. :yes:

mbm, go take some lessons if you want to know how to ride, and go rent some videos if you want to learn about movement. :rolleyes:

beeblebrox
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:33 AM
"ESG

Jesus freakin' WEPT! Can't ANYONE appreciate ANYTHING around here?!?!?!?
To those of you who responded to the photo, thank you. "

I like the photo and have followed the thread here and over on UDB and what is common and sad are most of the negative posts are made by those unable to attain upper level horses anyhow. They read, watch and navigate from a chair with popcorn slashing and burning what most of them can not or have not achieved themselves! Notice how many negative posters offered up pictures of themselves doing the movement correctly ;-) NONE Because god forbid they endure the same criticisms from armchair quarterbacks themselves. Oh how I would so love to see some of them riding, I think it would add a whole new side to the whole thing!

Is the picture my favorite? NO!
Do I enjoy and appreciate it YES. Beee-ewe-tiful ;-)

aregard
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:48 AM
"ESG

Jesus freakin' WEPT! Can't ANYONE appreciate ANYTHING around here?!?!?!?
To those of you who responded to the photo, thank you. "

I like the photo and have followed the thread here and over on UDB and what is common and sad are most of the negative posts are made by those unable to attain upper level horses anyhow.

Which kind of raises the question yet again. What, in your opinion, is the most USEFUL response to the original post?

This, perhaps?




Is the picture my favorite? NO!
Do I enjoy and appreciate it YES. Beee-ewe-tiful ;-)

Points for succinctness, but otherwise, hardly educational.

It seems to me like the original poster was inviting commentary. Some here hope to educate themselves toward the goal of riding upper level horses. One isn't born knowing. One learns through varying methods. Discussing what one sees is one of those methods.

Sheesh.

ESG
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:53 AM
Point taken, aregard. I did ask for opinions, but didn't think I'd get minute dissection of a photo by someone obviously not qualified to do that dissection. More fool me, I guess. :no:

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 11:21 AM
I like the photo and have followed the thread here and over on UDB and what is common and sad are most of the negative posts are made by those unable to attain upper level horses anyhow. They read, watch and navigate from a chair with popcorn slashing and burning what most of them can not or have not achieved themselves! Notice how many negative posters offered up pictures of themselves doing the movement correctly ;-) NONE Because god forbid they endure the same criticisms from armchair quarterbacks themselves. Oh how I would so love to see some of them riding, I think it would add a whole new side to the whole thing!

Is the picture my favorite? NO!
Do I enjoy and appreciate it YES. Beee-ewe-tiful ;-)

AMEN!

Because PUHLEEEEZE it's not about learning and training the eye, it's about trashing today's top competitors under the pretense of self edumacation. Hey, I saw the posts on the other place= sigh, no one truly understands the extended trot today. Bull roar.

If this is all just edumacation, why not critique some of the old masters for a change. I mean it's not negative, it's just to educate the eye. NEVAH!! Start with Photo 8 in Podhajsky's Complete Training of Horse and Rider and is that a flicking toe in photo 15. By the way, I like photo 15. It's not unlike the photo at the start of this thread, only down a notch. Both are wonderful.

fiona
Jul. 16, 2006, 11:57 AM
What, in your opinion, is the most USEFUL response to the original post?

One that points out the GOOD qualities. They are actually far more valid, any one can rip into a work of art or a work in progress very few can create one.

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 12:08 PM
One that points out the GOOD qualities. They are actually far more valid, any one can rip into a work of art or a work in progress very few can create one.

so, you are saying that it is only important to see what is correct? its not important to see flaws or know what the correct "ideal " looks like and hold all images up to that ideal?

interesting.

nhwr
Jul. 16, 2006, 12:14 PM
Picking apart photos may have some value for education if your goal is to be a spectator. But if your goal is to become a better rider, I believe it is actually counterproductive. Noting that a horse is flicking its toe in a photo is of no benefit to correcting, or better yet, preventing this from occurring in the first place. Dressage is about movement. Photos don't show movement.

If want to know how to correct problems under saddle, get on your horse. I guarantee you'll encounter some, everyone does. If you can find some good instruction, you will work them out. You want to get educated about dressage? Ride more, talk less :yes:

fish
Jul. 16, 2006, 12:19 PM
The photo's from p. 88 of Franz Mairinger's posthumously published book *Horses are Made to be Horses," and my favorite of an extended trot because it seems to show so clearly what is meant by allowing the frame to lengthen without the horse becoming heavy on the forehand. I meant to post it before this thread got to be about how little value there is to looking at photos, but perhaps can be forgiven because I'm only trying to point out things very positive. Certainly looking at photos can be very useful when they eloquently capture feelings we can strive for as we ride.

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 12:26 PM
I would call that a lengthened trot rather than an extension borne of collection, but what do I know.

ToN Farm
Jul. 16, 2006, 01:03 PM
Picking apart photos may have some value for education if your goal is to be a spectator. But if your goal is to become a better rider, I believe it is actually counterproductive.

Good point, and I agree. For example, I can't see how dissecting extended trot photos is going to help someone still working on sitting the working trot or getting their horse on the aids (if the shoe fits...).

Getting back to the subject of what is a correct Extended Trot, it seems that all will never agree as long as documentation is ambiguous. I would like to point out one thing, though, that is very clear. That is, that on the PSG test score sheet under 'directive ideas' the Extended Trot is judged on:
The lengthening of the frame
The extension
The regularity of the steps
The transitions in and out of the extensions are judged separately.

I believe the neck and the frame would have to lengthen in order to get maximum extension of the stride. I think that today's extensions might cover more ground due to air travel rather than length of stride. But hey, liked Egon, what do I know; I just have an opinion like everyone else.

Personally, in some ways I would consider that photo of Franz an extension. It looks balanced and is the horse looks like his stride is long and ground covering. To my eye, he is above the bit. I'd really like to see the downward transition to collected trot. In any case, I find the photo unappealing. Whether that is because I am used to seeing modern extensions, I don't know.

As for the photo ESG put up, I like it and I think it is a good extension, but it does not stand out to me a special. Why? Because I like more lift (knee action) in the front leg rather than straight.

You know, of all the complaining about bad extensions in competitive dressage, why can't someone produce some photos of modern classical extensions so that we competitive types can learn. All we keep seeing is ODG black/white photos or horses loose in fields. Don't any of you classical trainers have any students riding FEI that can show us some good extension photos? How about Tonja....let's see one of your extensions?

aregard
Jul. 16, 2006, 01:17 PM
Picking apart photos may have some value for education if your goal is to be a spectator. But if your goal is to become a better rider, I believe it is actually counterproductive.

Well, I don't know about that. Fer instance, the discussion on whether or not you let the frame lengthen for an extended trot. That came out of the discussion of this particular photograph.

If I were riding with my instructor, I'm sure she would have an opinion. I've not always ridden with the absolute top instructors, of course, so what if she said, "No lenghtening of frame" and I'm seeing here that one does allow a lengthening of frame? That might well lead to a discussion (between me and instructor as I work the horse) on degree of lengthening, or the example of lengthening with relation to a collected frame but not from a medium frame.

This is something I was first exposed to _here_. As a result of THIS discussion. This discussion was useful to me. Even if I never, ever, ever ride an extension well at all, let alone as well as the one in the photograph.

So, all you folks out there who get your panties in a knot about how "we" are "just bashing" for the sake of it, step back. Maybe this isn't useful to you, but it is to some of us.

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 01:54 PM
NO knots here. Too hot for anything but commando.

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 02:19 PM
ToN, do you see any collection in that photo?

evenstar
Jul. 16, 2006, 02:38 PM
Egontoast, what do you mean by that? It's an extended trot, so no, I wouldn't expect to see "collection". So I know you mean something else I'm not understanding. Engagement of the hind end? The maximum "pushing power" as well as carrying and lifting of the shoulders? Are you concerned because the horse is so much more in front of the vertical compared to photos we see of modern horses who are winning in the arena?
Please elaborate. I'm not at all sure I would look at this latest photo as the best of the best for an extended trot, but I'm also not real impressed with the original photo that started this thread. Almost a little too launched...here's where video whould be SO much better. Who knows what was happening in the instance before this photo was taken, and what the rest of the line was like.

fiona
Jul. 16, 2006, 02:41 PM
so, you are saying that it is only important to see what is correct? its not important to see flaws or know what the correct "ideal " looks like and hold all images up to that ideal?

I am saying if you want to replicate a work of art you need to know the qualities you want to reproduce.
If you are going to try and teach yourself to ride by looking at photos you would imho be better served by ensuring you can identify the positive with clarity and depth before you go focus on the faults.

bjrudq
Jul. 16, 2006, 02:42 PM
op posts a pic entitled "best extended trot ever" and invites everyone to pick it apart-

what was this, some kinda trap? as soon as anyone had the slightest criticism, everyone else jumped all over them!

maybe the post should have been entitled "beautiful extended trot" and the op warn that anyone who disagreed would be torn apart.

i myself think it's a darn nice pic but it's not, imho, "the best ever."

and no, i can't ride that well.

i suppose that makes me a know-nothing bitch.

pinecone
Jul. 16, 2006, 02:45 PM
once i get to he place of having trained my first GP horse i will let you know what my thoughts are.... who knows? i may change my mind about stuff.

I have no doubt, experience will change your mind about things. You'll learn you don't know everything, and neither did the ODG's, and things aren't black and white, and perhaps you'll learn a little respect and humility.

You may be the most arrogant beginner I have ever encountered. But enough about you.


fish, the photo you posted is interesting, although I agree it looks like more of a lengthening (by definition) than an extension. (Curious, do you remember how it was captioned in the book? It's much to tiny for me to read it myself lol.)

Call me a modern heathen (wink), but I'd prefer to see a rounder topline (rounder from both ends, rounder because of the haunches better engaging and also rounder because of the arching and rounding of the neck.) I'd also like to see the horse more uphill and with the hind legs stepping more under the horse with more CARRY, as opposed to being so far behind the horse and more pushing. However the freedom of the shoulder and the reach of the front leg is to be commended. And although the photo is tiny, the rider doesn't look like he's got that stiff braced look you see in so many of the old photos, he looks more relaxed and "with" the horse.

Thanks for taking the time to share.

fiona
Jul. 16, 2006, 02:50 PM
You know, of all the complaining about bad extensions in competitive dressage, why can't someone produce some photos of modern classical extensions so that we competitive types can learn. All we keep seeing is ODG black/white photos or horses loose in fields. Don't any of you classical trainers have any students riding FEI that can show us some good extension photos?

Good point.


Egontoast, what do you mean by that? It's an extended trot, so no, I wouldn't expect to see "collection".
my understanding of Egon's question is that she is referring to the horse taking weight back which is what collection referrs to. A collected trot is "collected" in terms of the horse being brought togther also in terms of the weight being considerably more on the hindlegs than you would ask in working trot for example. Extended trot should also demonstrate collection - it's confusing terminology which is why we all use the term "uphill"

pinecone
Jul. 16, 2006, 02:53 PM
ToN, do you see any collection in that photo?


I'm not sure what you meant either.

I'd be curious to see the transition back to collection from each of these "extensions". I suspect the transition back to collected trot would be better from the first extension (the original pic) rather than from the Mairinger photo, primarily because the uphill balance and engagement looks better in the original photo, and those qualities factor heavily into the quality of the transition.

jmho tho. (wink)

Patootie
Jul. 16, 2006, 03:30 PM
Should stay lurking, but here goes.

It appears to me that people assume their educated themselves by assuming they can recognize the fatal flaws in a still photo. I can teach my 94 year old grandmother to recognize the same flaws, with her knowing nothing about dressage. But on a web board, people go absolutely crazy pontificating about these flaws, and how terrible they are, yet it's quite clear that very very few of them, especially the really loud ones, actually know the true significance of the flaws. The loudest ones go ahead and assume they can judge as well as the judges do. But what they forget is that the judges do not only recognize the flaw but also can pretty much describe why it is happening.

So it's now been five pages discussing the horrors of an upturned toe. But no one's really mentioned the fact that this horse, who has a very very powerful engine in his hindquarter, has pushed himself a little on his forehand, and then braced against the riders rein. Does that make it bad? I would think that would just make it less than perfect.

The ODG photo is a gas. While the horse has indeed lengthened his frame and stride, he is completely strung out and on his forehand. Yes, this is the way they did it in the old days. Lots of things you read and see from the old days is very amusing. But that doesn't make it right!

aregard
Jul. 16, 2006, 03:38 PM
Call me a modern heathen (wink), but I'd prefer to see a rounder topline (rounder from both ends, rounder because of the haunches better engaging and also rounder because of the arching and rounding of the neck.)

You modern heathen you.

I agree that the second photo would qualify more as a lengthening than an extension, but I prefer the less round topline. I really dislike the modern penchant for a very upright arched neck and the 'nose had better NEVER be in front of vertical'. (No, you didn't say that. That's my take on it.)

And I'm not really sure why. It just looks more constrained to me, at a level of training when a horse is supposed to be even lighter. So often it seem to me that the horse is constrained in the withers/shoulders area, rather than released and lifted.

So I guess I'm an old fashioned pedant. Go ahead. You can call me that. You know you want to. :)

nhwr
Jul. 16, 2006, 03:41 PM
In my experience, dressage is pretty easy.... if you let one thing slide. The ODG photo is a perfect example. So is the one I posted earlier on this thread and so is the original photo. They all have flaws, OMGiH. But they are all good photos.

So which one is going to make someone a better rider? :lol:

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 03:42 PM
my understanding of Egon's question is that she is referring to the horse taking weight back which is what collection referrs to. A collected trot is "collected" in terms of the horse being brought togther also in terms of the weight being considerably more on the hindlegs than you would ask in working trot for example. Extended trot should also demonstrate collection

That explains it better than I can explain it. The horse has to be compressed for an extension just as it has to be compressed for collection. The ODG photo shows a horse flat out in a lengthened frame but without much compression. Think of the next transition, as someone mentioned.


I agree that the ODG is also an impressive photo, however.

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 05:18 PM
i suppose that makes me a know-nothing bitch.

OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

you and me both :)

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 05:26 PM
I have no doubt, experience will change your mind about things. You'll learn you don't know everything, and neither did the ODG's, and things aren't black and white, and perhaps you'll learn a little respect and humility.

You may be the most arrogant beginner I have ever encountered. But enough about you.
.


serious question: why do you say i am arrogant? because i dare to ask questions?

edited to add.... as for the beginner remark - i am more of a beginner than some and less than others.... (and if anyone wants to see how i ride please feel free to watch the vids on my website)

Karoline
Jul. 16, 2006, 05:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjrudq

i suppose that makes me a know-nothing bitch.


OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

you and me both :)


ANd me, makes three. Now all we need is a big cauldron so start a cozy covent.

stolensilver
Jul. 16, 2006, 05:57 PM
What gobsmacks me about all of these critiques (not just this one) is the assumption that being able to pull a photo to pieces will somehow imbue the critiquer with outstanding riding ability. What on earth?

That's just as true as saying that if you watch a lot of swimming and can recognise (while keeping your feet dry) why one competitor swims faster than another this will make you able to swim as well as either.

In order to be able to ride you have to get on and do it. No amount of looking at pictures will help in any way, shape or form. Riding is all about feel, nothing about sight.

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:02 PM
What gobsmacks me about all of these critiques (not just this one) is the assumption that being able to pull a photo to pieces will somehow imbue the critiquer with outstanding riding ability. What on earth?

That's just as true as saying that if you watch a lot of swimming and can recognise (while keeping your feet dry) why one competitor swims faster than another this will make you able to swim as well as either.

In order to be able to ride you have to get on and do it. No amount of looking at pictures will help in any way, shape or form. Riding is all about feel, nothing about sight.


interesting POV from someone who says they learned to ride from a book. (?)

edited to add: i think that for some people it is beneficial to have a minds eye picture of what you want to accomplish. also being able to look at something and see what is (and istn) there can help peope to articulate what is going on which can also help folks to learn.

i have learned a TON form all these discussions. i am sorry that SS and others have not.

nhwr
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:09 PM
serious question: why do you say i am arrogant? because i dare to ask questions?
I am a firm believer that any question is ok to ask, but that doesn't make the question relevent or meaningful. The whole posture that is assumed by many here, is arrogant,IMO. This is a public bulletin board, it doesn't take much to dare to ask or answer a question here. Let's not make asking a question an act of moral courage, OK. It is not :rolleyes: It is frequently that same passive-aggressive crowd that labels themselves know-nothing bitches. Those of us who disagree don't say that. It becomes tiresome. We just don't agree.



To address the issue of collection in extensions, think of it this way; they are opposite sides of the same coin. Ever seen that trick where a Slinky walks itself down stairs? It "collects" and "extends" seamlessly with great transitions. But the continuation of the process depends on the ability of the Slinky to remain in control. The same is true in dressage. In the case of a Slinky, since it is driven by converting potential energy in kinetic (harmonic) energy, this depends on the height of each step. Take away the bottom (the collecting phase) and the energy is disapated because the extension is overdone (losing balance between impulsion and engagement) and so the energy can't be re-collected. It is much the same with a horse.

Karoline
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:11 PM
What if we HYPOTHETICALLY said that this trot is worth a 9. Could we then look at it and analyze it (instead of criticizing it) and speak of what makes it a great trot, and what it would take to make it a 10. Would that remove the sting of criticism?

The hitch here is there is an assumption that the poster(s) who are asking questions are automatically dissing the horse, rider and movement. Why not consider that they are looking at the image against what theory,books, clinicians, etc...they know and are interrested in reconciling the two.

Perhaps the point is that there is no perfection but that this trot is still worth a 9 because it does XYZ so well that it overdides what ADC is could do better.

I think we can all agree that different folks, some with strong backgrounds look at the same images and have different reactions. I find the explanation of these differences educational. Dont everyone else?

nhwr
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:20 PM
Karoline,

Your suggestion belies a basic misunderstanding of scoring criterion. A 10 isn't perfect. It is merely excellent :yes:

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:22 PM
I am a firm believer that any question is ok to ask, but that doesn't make the question relevent or meaningful. The whole posture that is assumed by many here, is arrogant,IMO. This is a public bulletin board, it doesn't take much to dare to ask or answer a question here. Let's not make asking a question an act of moral courage, OK. It is not :rolleyes: It is frequently that same passive-aggressive crowd that labels themselves know-nothing bitches. Those of us who disagree don't say that. It becomes tiresome. We just don't agree.


so, what questions have I asked that are not relevant to what has been posted?

and i agree, it is easy to post anything when you are anonyomous, but when you arent (as i am not )then it is a different matter.

i find it interesting that you are so opposed to my questions or my posts.

i dont get that you, among others, have ANY interest in dialog. you just want to be right and you dont want to hear about anyone else's opinion.

this thread is a very good example of that in action. if I had posted that ODG pic no one would have liked it.

this board is VERY interesting. I learn so much about human nature here.

i guess when i post i try to talk to people as i would in real life. and i assume others will act the same. maybe that is where the differences begin??

nhwr
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:31 PM
You make an awful lot of assumptions, mbm.

I don't know (or much care) who you are, IRL.

I don't object to any of your questions.

I don't much care about being "right" either. I do what works for me and my horses. But if I were concerned with being right, why would I would to indulge the opinion of someone who identifies themselves as inexperienced?

I try to respond to people here the same way I do in real life too. So no difference there. I just don't suffer fools gladly ;)

Shadowsrider
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:39 PM
What if we HYPOTHETICALLY said that this trot is worth a 9. Could we then look at it and analyze it (instead of criticizing it) and speak of what makes it a great trot, and what it would take to make it a 10. Would that remove the sting of criticism?

The hitch here is there is an assumption that the poster(s) who are asking questions are automatically dissing the horse, rider and movement. Why not consider that they are looking at the image against what theory,books, clinicians, etc...they know and are interrested in reconciling the two.

Perhaps the point is that there is no perfection but that this trot is still worth a 9 because it does XYZ so well that it overdides what ADC is could do better.

I think we can all agree that different folks, some with strong backgrounds look at the same images and have different reactions. I find the explanation of these differences educational. Dont everyone else?

I always have. I have often found some of the most interesting and educational pieces of information from threads when people DO actually discuss the picture, compare it to an ideal, discuss why it is not and how it could improve and so on and so forth.

I've never understood why people automatically think that having a technical discussion about a horse/rider photo means that THAT horse/rider is being bashed or criticized (criticized as opposed to critiqued, that is). It's the discussion and the comparing and the different viewpoints and the different ideas of how to improve something that is where one finds help, information, and education.

As a matter of fact, I think a picture of a "perfect" ride of any sort of movement would be extremely rare, if not nonexistent........no rider and no horse is perfect. Dispite what some of us may think. ;) Therefore every picture would be a study in education and improvement, and a technical discussion about it (whatever the movement) would be of help to someone.

Isn't helping each other come to a better understanding of horses and riding in general what this board, and others like it, all about? :confused:

LarkspurCO
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:53 PM
First of all, every one of you who has crabbed about how useless it is to critique still photos has, in this very thread, done the same thing. Go back and read your own writing for crying out loud.

I guess it's okay for some people to critique photos but not for others. Is there a formal process for attaining this privileged status, some accrediting organization for certifying "photo picker aparters"?

The message I see here is: "Get these silly beginners out of my forum. Send them out to ride. Nevermind if they can picture their goals. We have egos to stroke here and pictures to coo over."

To be sure, watching a video or live performance holds certain advantages over looking at a single still photo. On the other hand, if photos aren't useful, why are books so sought after?

The fact is that photos don't lie. Flaws that might be missed in a moving image can be captured and studied in a photograph. A moment of brilliance can be captured and preserved for others to admire.

Think about what so commonly happens when a group of people are analyzing a video. What do they do? They PAUSE the motion, freeze the frame, take the time to study one instant in time.

Visualizing one's goals is a common and effective means of learning, especially in athletic endeavors. We all have our own way of "picturing" success (and failure). Feeling it is only part of the equation. We're not all blind, after all.


Holly

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 06:58 PM
You make an awful lot of assumptions, mbm.

I don't know (or much care) who you are, IRL.

I don't object to any of your questions.

I don't much care about being "right" either. I do what works for me and my horses. But if I were concerned with being right, why would I would to indulge the opinion of someone who identifies themselves as inexperienced?

I try to respond to people here the same way I do in real life too. So no difference there. I just don't suffer fools gladly ;)

i am not trying to make assumptions - i am trying to have a conversation. i dont know what i assumed by i apologize if i did.

what i meant about being anon is that my website is there for all to see.... so i cant just say anything.... you are "hidden" so to speak.

as far as being inexperienced : i started riding at 6 and have ridden most of my life from there (with some time off for few years in my late 20's) - so lets say 25 - 30 years. Once i had the $$, I purchased an FEI schoolmaster whom i rode and learned a TON on for 3 years. i am now training my mare by myself (with lessons now 2x/week ) and we are at 1st - beginning second now..... i also am lucky that i train with a SUPER well trained FEI instructor. People say that i ride better than they think i would based on my may questions. (?)

i try to be humble and not act (or think) like i know much - because i believe that there is so much to learn and i want to learn. and besides - if i said i had this or that experience you or someone else would slam me for arrogance.

i like to be able to point people to my website and say - that is me - the good and the bad. i have nothing to hide and all i want to do is learn. :)

edited to add that thank you to the posters that view critiquing as i do - an opportunity to learn. and i beleive too that this site and others are super resources as long as the egos stay at home. :)

as for this thread? i have learned a couple things. so it has been worthwhile for me.

AZ TD
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:12 PM
I don't think an extended trot should look so "uphill". It looks like the horse was pulled into collection prior to the extension so he exploded upward more than forward, lacking the suppleness and throughness. So he has more action in the front and pushing up from behind. It almost looks like the "uphill" in a canter stride. At the symposium in CA in Dec Klaus B had some of the riders demonstrate riding the horse tight in the neck and extending the trot which gave them the big stride in front with less behind. Then he had them demonstrate a longer neck with less tension and the horse extended evenly in front and behind.
Theresa

stolensilver
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:17 PM
There are many different sorts of book. I did indeed learn the nuts and bolts of riding from a series of books. They explained things and gave exercises to follow that no instructor had ever done.

What amuses me and saddens me about you mbm (because in many ways you remind me of me before I found those books, desperate to learn and throwning out lines in all directions. Difference is that I think I was/am more open minded than you and more willing to move out of my comfort zone) is that you've never asked WHICH BOOKS? HOW CAN I GET HOLD OF THIS INFORMATION? The capitals are done on purpose because that is how I felt when I heard such books existed. How can you really, really want to learn how to ride yet not explore an avenue that has worked for others?

Jeepers
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:22 PM
I don't think an extended trot should look so "uphill". It looks like the horse was pulled into collection prior to the extension so he exploded upward more than forward, lacking the suppleness and throughness. So he has more action in the front and pushing up from behind. It almost looks like the "uphill" in a canter stride. At the symposium in CA in Dec Klaus B had some of the riders demonstrate riding the horse tight in the neck and extending the trot which gave them the big stride in front with less behind. Then he had them demonstrate a longer neck with less tension and the horse extended evenly in front and behind.
Theresa

What you said made me think of maybe the rider had to collect so much as the horse would have really exploded in some direction. Who knows what happened before this picture or just after... Although if the horse was taking a bigger step with his hind he'd be gouging himself in the back of the leg. In this picture both pairs are paralell to one another, which is impressive to me considering, it is rare to see that.

bjrudq
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:27 PM
pinecone et al, who have informed us that we have no business critquing photos and should just go out and ride, wrote:

"Call me a modern heathen (wink), but I'd prefer to see a rounder topline (rounder from both ends, rounder because of the haunches better engaging and also rounder because of the arching and rounding of the neck.) I'd also like to see the horse more uphill and with the hind legs stepping more under the horse with more CARRY, as opposed to being so far behind the horse and more pushing. However the freedom of the shoulder and the reach of the front leg is to be commended. And although the photo is tiny, the rider doesn't look like he's got that stiff braced look you see in so many of the old photos, he looks more relaxed and "with" the horse."

gee, piney, i guess your rules for better horsemanship don't apply to YOU?

how arrogant can you GET?

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:37 PM
Difference is that I think I was/am more open minded than you and more willing to move out of my comfort zone) is that you've never asked WHICH BOOKS? HOW CAN I GET HOLD OF THIS INFORMATION? The capitals are done on purpose because that is how I felt when I heard such books existed. How can you really, really want to learn how to ride yet not explore an avenue that has worked for others?

i have about 50 books in my dressage library - and i have read all of them except maybe 4 or 5 of them. i even read the books you are talking about (mary wanless - not my style but i am glad they worked for you). i was reading podhjasky when i was 11.

I guess the internet is not very good medium for expressing ideas, since i am one of the most open minded people i know. i just happen to have always been a question asker. i read something or hear something and many questions pop into my head. (most teachers LOVE this quality)

as for out of my comfort zone.... i do the best i can - my mare can only do so much as she is young and learning (1st working on 2nd) i do ride race motocycles and i have done (managed, produced, done the security for etc) many many crazy and dangerous art projects that revolve around large scale fire and machine art (for many years) so being out of my comfort zone is old hat for me. I evented for many years. and still galopp my mare.

I would love to ride more horses but that istn possible right now....

as for searching for info: i moved my entire life to train with my current trainer, and my entire life revolves around riding/lessons etc. .

does that qualify?

edited to add AND i am always open and continually ask for critiques of my rides... i spend the time and effort to put new vidoes up on my website and then ask for critiques..... because i am OPEN to the ideas of others and want to hear what they say (even if i dont like it) i learn a lot this way.

I would be happy to watch some of your videos if you post them.... :)

Jeepers
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:39 PM
Is it really necessary to carry on the pissing contest??

fish
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:41 PM
fish, the photo you posted is interesting, although I agree it looks like more of a lengthening (by definition) than an extension. (Curious, do you remember how it was captioned in the book? It's much to tiny for me to read it myself lol.)

Thanks for taking the time to share.

The caption says "Extended trot, longer frame with maximum length of stride gaining tremendous ground in each stride. Horse remains balanced, without becoming heavier on the forehand, as is so often seen with the poll no longer being the highest pont. Franz Mairinger riding Gay Pam."

Franz Mairinger was invited to join the Spanish Riding School by Podjhasky, who asked him to ride one of the Lippizzans, and then to join the School, after watching him training at the Calvalry School in Hanover. Mairinger stayed with the Spanish Riding School for over 18 years, during 12 of which he was a Senior Rider. After retiring from the Spanish Riding School, he became the first trainer of an Australian Olympic Team, and is credited with bringing that country from total obscurity to become a top power in eventing.

On page 87ff. of the book, Mairinger explains in detail, using diagrams, the issues of toe-flipping, stiffening of the back, etc., when the horse is not allowed to lengthen the entire frame and put his/her nose in front of the vertical in extensions.

Thanks very much for asking.

For my own part, as a relatively unaccomplished dressage rider, the only thing that seems very clear is that what is considered desireable in the dressage arena, especially at the highest levels, has changed a great deal over the years. I've done a little showing in dressage, H/J, eventing-- even a little Western as a child. In the past, I've always thought dressage training was good for any horse, in any discipline, and the best sport horses and riders-- like Mairinger-- could easily cross train, going from one discipline to the other, with nothing but benefits acruing in all directions as a result. I find myself very confused by a lot of what's going on in dressage these days, to the extent that I (sadly) wonder whether this is still the case.

Jeepers
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:42 PM
Yep, Classical vs. competition dressage

stolensilver
Jul. 16, 2006, 07:51 PM
Your horse is 7, my youngster is 6. Mine is doing half passes and flying changes and has just competed at the National Championships for 6yo young dressage horses. (You bet I'm proud of her. We were one of only 2 amateur combinations in that class and I've done all her training myself.)

Horses are capable of a whole lot more than people give them credit for. 7 sadly is no longer a young horse. Sure there's no race to get to FEI, each horse and rider get there at their own speed. Many never get there at all. But to say "my mare can only do so much as she is young" is not true. You are learning and that is why your horse is not schooling higher than 1st/ 2nd. Your horse is more than capable of going further, faster. It's no crime. We've all been there. But the slow rate of progress is not down to the horse.

IMHO if you actually READ those books, did everything they said on every single page (it took me 3 years to work through them) both you and your horse would benefit. They aren't books that you can read at home. But everyone is different. They may not work for you or you may not want to put that much time and worry into moving from your comfort zone. Which seems strange as you say you've moved house to be near a good trainer.

And just for Jeepers I'll stop the pissing contest. You're right. It isn't big and it isn't clever.

nero
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:01 PM
pinecone et al, who have informed us that we have no business critquing photos and should just go out and ride, wrote:

"Call me a modern heathen (wink), but I'd prefer to see a rounder topline (rounder from both ends, rounder because of the haunches better engaging and also rounder because of the arching and rounding of the neck.) I'd also like to see the horse more uphill and with the hind legs stepping more under the horse with more CARRY, as opposed to being so far behind the horse and more pushing. However the freedom of the shoulder and the reach of the front leg is to be commended. And although the photo is tiny, the rider doesn't look like he's got that stiff braced look you see in so many of the old photos, he looks more relaxed and "with" the horse."

gee, piney, i guess your rules for better horsemanship don't apply to YOU?

how arrogant can you GET?

Sorry, did I miss something. How on earth is this arrogant??? The poster made a statement and then explained it with a logical thought process and a compliment to a rider they were analysing, a model of politeness I would have thought.

fish
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:30 PM
Good point.


my understanding of Egon's question is that she is referring to the horse taking weight back which is what collection referrs to. A collected trot is "collected" in terms of the horse being brought togther also in terms of the weight being considerably more on the hindlegs than you would ask in working trot for example. Extended trot should also demonstrate collection - it's confusing terminology which is why we all use the term "uphill"

I was taught "the best extensions come from the best collection, and vice versa," with the energy and spring of the hind legs being "collected" in the "collected trot", so as to send the horse's body and legs more upward, with a shortened, but more elevated stride, but then released in the extension so that the energy previously "collected" is allowed to send the horse emphatically forward into an "extension." Hence, as I read it, there is not (nor should there be) much "collection" in an extended trot-- "collection" and "extension" being, in fact, opposites... unless the terms have different meanings in different circles or different books-- which is entirely possible.

To me, the difference between a "lengthening" and an "extension" has to do with the increased "carrying power" developed through the greater gymnasticizing of the upper level horse, not "collection"'demonstrated' within the "extension."

Personally, I'm going to continue loving that Mairinger picture whether it's a "real" extended trot or not: I love the seat, hands-- everything about that rider-- and the way that horse moves so confidently, evenly, with such obvious power from behind (and exemplary parrallelism/diagonal unison of the legs) into the bridle. (I also feel this horse is quite "uphill," with the emphatic thrust of that hindleg clearly going through the back and lifting the whithers). I remember when I was first introduced to dressage principles some 30 years ago being told that it allowed one to play a horse like an accordion, opening, closing the frame, the stride, sending the horse up, forward, to the side. It's often been observed that the riders from the 50's ff. rode their horses in frames that would be considered "above the bit" now. It seems to me that now the opposite may be true: a lot of people think horses are being ridden too far "behind" or "below." It also seems to me that there may be advantages and disadvantages to both ways. I'm thinking that maybe letting the horse go a little more "above" may allow us to see a bit more of the the "opening of that accordion"-- and that's what I see in this picture.

Of course, it's highly likely that all this rambling is just an excellent illustration of my inability to understand dressage. There is no doubt that I'm still struggling with it, and had plently of "how could I have been so stupid!!" lightbulbs go off over my head on the subject!

Karoline
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:36 PM
Karoline,

Your suggestion belies a basic misunderstanding of scoring criterion. A 10 isn't perfect. It is merely excellent :yes:

I gave it a 9 knowing that some would see it as a critic if I gave it an 8 and some would see it as delusional if I gave it a 10.

My intent was to hypothetically give it a good score to desamorce all the discussion around the dissing and refocus on what is it that makes it good, and how it could be better. Clearly, you missed that part. Intentionally, I believe.

And yes, I am not well versed in judging in scores, hence my desire to learn?

bjrudq
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:39 PM
that was my point. it WASN'T arrogant, no more arrogant than what mbm posted(which was that it was a nice pic but what about the toe flipping, questioning if that indicated tension.)

however everyone jumped all over mbm, especially pine cone, and then she turns around and does the exact same thing!

there seems to be a double standard here.

again, the op was especially provocative in stating that this was the BEST picture EVER and inviting others to pick it apart.

but i guess unless you are a member of the inner circle, you best not even look at photos, much less comment on them. go out and ride instead, and leave the critiquing to your betters like pine cone.

whatever.

Karoline
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:40 PM
I always have. I have often found some of the most interesting and educational pieces of information from threads when people DO actually discuss the picture, compare it to an ideal, discuss why it is not and how it could improve and so on and so forth.

I've never understood why people automatically think that having a technical discussion about a horse/rider photo means that THAT horse/rider is being bashed or criticized (criticized as opposed to critiqued, that is). It's the discussion and the comparing and the different viewpoints and the different ideas of how to improve something that is where one finds help, information, and education.

As a matter of fact, I think a picture of a "perfect" ride of any sort of movement would be extremely rare, if not nonexistent........no rider and no horse is perfect. Dispite what some of us may think. ;) Therefore every picture would be a study in education and improvement, and a technical discussion about it (whatever the movement) would be of help to someone.

Isn't helping each other come to a better understanding of horses and riding in general what this board, and others like it, all about? :confused:

I should go and visit your forum. You sound....GASP, sane, rationale and interrested in having a polite and worthwhile discussion. Thanks.

Karoline
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:42 PM
There are many different sorts of book. I did indeed learn the nuts and bolts of riding from a series of books. They explained things and gave exercises to follow that no instructor had ever done.

What amuses me and saddens me about you mbm (because in many ways you remind me of me before I found those books, desperate to learn and throwning out lines in all directions. Difference is that I think I was/am more open minded than you and more willing to move out of my comfort zone) is that you've never asked WHICH BOOKS? HOW CAN I GET HOLD OF THIS INFORMATION? The capitals are done on purpose because that is how I felt when I heard such books existed. How can you really, really want to learn how to ride yet not explore an avenue that has worked for others?

if you are the Stolen Silver from the UK with the mare I really like, more so :-)

pinecone
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:43 PM
Fish, I don't think you're stupid at all. It's just that what you are seeing as "carry" (and hence extension, or a more advanced stage of training) is what I am seeing as "push" (and hence lengthening, and not as advanced of a stage of training.) It doesn't make either of us stupid, perhaps we're both a little bit right and a little bit wrong.

I do like the relaxed way the rider sits (though I said that already.)

As for bjrudg, I am baffled as to what you have tried to read into my post, or what makes MY post jump out at you as being arrogant, in a thread filled with TRULY arrogant statements. Thank you nero, you saw it the same way I did.

CanadianGolden
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:48 PM
So not going to enter the discussion, but I like this extended trot photo better.

http://www.ponydom.com/mb/trot.jpg

pinecone
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:55 PM
but i guess unless you are a member of the inner circle, you best not even look at photos, much less comment on them. go out and ride instead, and leave the critiquing to your betters like pine cone.

With 21 posts to my credit, I am a member of the inner circle? :winkgrin:

And for the record, just because I have more experience than mbm, I have never said I was "better" than she is. It is her ATTITUDE which I find offensive, not the fact that she is a beginner. I would happily answer questions all day for well intentioned KIDS even, if they seemed genuinely interested in the answers. But charging into every topic with a chip on her shoulder and looking to be validated by the likes of IDEAyoda etc., does not make me want to help her "train her eye" or "educate herself", and it also makes me suspect she really is NOT truly interested in "training her eye" and "educating herself".

nhwr
Jul. 16, 2006, 08:55 PM
The hitch here is there is an assumption that the poster(s) who are asking questions are automatically dissing the horse, rider and movement. Why not consider that they are looking at the image against what theory,books, clinicians, etc...they know and are interrested in reconciling the two.

Perhaps the point is that there is no perfection but that this trot is still worth a 9 because it does XYZ so well that it overdides what ADC is could do better.
Well Karoline, believe what you will about my intentions. But then why reference perfection, the comparison to theory? It is a common misconception that anything less the than adherence to the standards (perfection, theory etc) you reference is unworthy of a 10. If it is excellent, its a 10. That was my point.

You guys are too funny, now it is "provoctive" to share something that gives you pleasure :lol:

pinecone
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:06 PM
(Canadian Golden's photo)

What an impressively athletic horse! Good reach with the front leg, good stepping under with the hind leg. He looks to have gotten a little off balance in his effort (probably leading to the exaggerated raising of the hands of the rider), but I find MUCH more about this picture to like than I find NOT to like. AND he's maintaining an uphill look even with a background which may even be tilted DOWNHILL.

It is interesting (in light of the discussion), to note the difference between this photo and the Mairinger photo, in the way this horse is more uphill and more "under" himself (whereas Mairinger's was a bit out behind.) Of course, this also looks like a more naturally talented horse than Mairinger's, to be fair.

May I ask who this horse and rider are?

pinecone
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:08 PM
(Does anyone have the ability to put all three photos on one post, for quicker easier reference?) At this point I can't even remember which page the Mairinger photo was on.

Figured it was worth asking (wink).

Karoline
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:25 PM
Well Karoline, believe what you will about my intentions. But then why reference perfection, the comparison to theory? It is a common misconception that anything less the than adherence to the standards (perfection, theory etc) you reference is unworthy of a 10. If it is excellent, its a 10. That was my point.

You guys are too funny, now it is "provoctive" to share something that gives you pleasure :lol:

What would be more interresting to this discussion is to understand what makes you happy about this picture, and what it lacks in the eyes of others. And what shapes this opinions.

And it would be less inflamatory if we started with the premise that this is a great picture so that 10 pages are not devoted to the horrors of judging and dissing riders/horses/performances.

That was my point, but hey its easier to keep ignoring it, by all means, ignore.

bigdreamer
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:28 PM
I know what's wrong.


she didn't braid.

what on EARTH was she thinking?????? :lol:

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:36 PM
Just want to reply to Fish- your statement that you view collection and extension as opposites. This article explains quite well (better than I can explain what I meant:) )- that there is collection in extension, you need collection for extension and that collection is not the opposite of extension..

http://www.horsemagazine.com/CLINIC/D/DIERKS_CLEMENS/clemens_on_trot.htm

carry on!:)

pinecone
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:41 PM
bigdreamer, it was part of a fundraiser, the not braiding.

(wink)

fish
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:50 PM
So not going to enter the discussion, but I like this extended trot photo better.

http://www.ponydom.com/mb/trot.jpg

I also like this trot a lot, although I would like to see the rider's hands lower so the horse was reaching directly into them.

It seems to me that much of a nice trot picture is the phase of the trot it captures... I seem to like the ones that show one hind leg "out behind," suggesting the length and power of the push and extension.

Pp. 86-87 of de Kunffy's *Athletic Development of the Dressage Horse* has some exemplary (IMO) photos of Kottas riding medium and extended trot which I like very much (and show the horse in a more "rounded" frame than Mairinger's), but I didn't post that extended trot picture because it was taken a bit too soon to show the full extension of the push behind.

EqTrainer
Jul. 16, 2006, 09:57 PM
I'm sorry, I just cannot read all these pages so I hope this isn't redundant BUT....

yes the horse is supposed to lengthen the frame in an extended trot AND canter. And IMO, this is a big detail, that is often overlooked, which leaves us with toe flicking, hyper extended horses trailing their rear ends.

I have not seen the photo in question so this comment has nothing to do with it. I hope it is perfect :yes: the most perfect photo of an extended trot that I have ever seen, is on page 64 of The Athletic Development Of The Dressage Horse by Cdk. It's Elizabeth Ball of Bolshoj and it is perfect - and on a circle. Damn.

fish
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:02 PM
Just want to reply to Fish- your statement that you view collection and extension as opposites. This article explains quite well (better than I can explain what I meant:) )- that there is collection in extension, you need collection for extension and that collection is not the opposite of extension..

http://www.horsemagazine.com/CLINIC/D/DIERKS_CLEMENS/clemens_on_trot.htm

carry on!:)

I can't get this link to work-- probably one of the disadvantages of a Mac. When I tried cutting and pasting, I got a page saying there was no such URL (or something to that effect).

Computers are much more frustrating than horses.

PMU mom
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:08 PM
As far as the original picture is concerned, I think it is excellent.

These types of discussion that focus on the minutiae of what is or isn't perfect always seem to break into two camps; the first is composed of those who are trying to educate their eye while the second group gets annoyed and says that obviously those in the first group are not experienced riders. Then, everyone gets defensive.

I believe that, in general, the first group is trying to learn what is correct. What these posters do not understand, perhaps because they are not experienced riders, is that the movements are complex. Each horse and each rider have their own issues to work out. Typically, a rider does not begin extended trot by thinking "Hmm, let's try not to have that toe flick". Instead, the rider is focused on balance, collection in the corner before, straightness, rebalancing within the movement, and preparing for the next transition as well as many other things. If things go well, the rider will be pleased. Perhaps there was a slight loss of balance or some tension but that is relatively minor in the general scheme of things.

Perhaps it is experience in riding that allows one to view a photo that is not textbook perfect and see all that went well in the movement rather than a few small problems.

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:09 PM
Fish, if you can go to the horsemagazine site, it's an article about the Trot by Clemens Dierks but any article about the extended trot will probably address the issue of collection, I would think.

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:10 PM
And for the record, just because I have more experience than mbm, I have never said I was "better" than she is. It is her ATTITUDE which I find offensive, not the fact that she is a beginner. I would happily answer questions all day for well intentioned KIDS even, if they seemed genuinely interested in the answers. But charging into every topic with a chip on her shoulder and looking to be validated by the likes of IDEAyoda etc., does not make me want to help her "train her eye" or "educate herself", and it also makes me suspect she really is NOT truly interested in "training her eye" and "educating herself".

*MY* attitude??? my "chip" is because there are some people here who think they own the board and go out of their way to try to prove it by being rude and bullying to folks. i should ignore them i know.... but it makes me ill how they treat folks and so i have to speak up once in a while.

as for being a begginer as i said before - if my 25 years of riding, 3 of which were riding my PSG horse (at 4th) and my training of my mare to 2nd (so far) is a beginner then so be it.

my question to you would be: how on earth am i to learn if i dont ask? and why should i have to "take" being bullied and snarked at?

as for IDEAYoda - she is a judge and i was asking for a judge to give their opinion of the front leg thing... i would much rather have a judge give their opinion than to listen to anonymous people that i dont know what they know.... does that make sense?

edited to add: this is one of my fave trot pics : i really like the lightness the uphillness, the equitation - everythig about this pic is lovely.

http://www.buecher-zum-pferd.de/catalog/images/D-035.jpg

egontoast
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:19 PM
i would much rather have a judge give their opinion than to listen to anonymous people that i dont know what they know.... does that make sense?

So why not ask a judge instead of discussing it on a board with anonymous people whose opinions you do not value?

Sabine
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:22 PM
(Canadian Golden's photo)

What an impressively athletic horse! Good reach with the front leg, good stepping under with the hind leg. He looks to have gotten a little off balance in his effort (probably leading to the exaggerated raising of the hands of the rider), but I find MUCH more about this picture to like than I find NOT to like. AND he's maintaining an uphill look even with a background which may even be tilted DOWNHILL.

It is interesting (in light of the discussion), to note the difference between this photo and the Mairinger photo, in the way this horse is more uphill and more "under" himself (whereas Mairinger's was a bit out behind.) Of course, this also looks like a more naturally talented horse than Mairinger's, to be fair.

May I ask who this horse and rider are?

I used to train with this lady- a long time ago. She is a German dressage trainer/photographer and artist. The horse is hers and she trained it herself- I think to I1 or I2- not sure where she is now or where the horse is.

I'd like to see her hands lower too and I'd like to see her sit a bit deeper but I think the photograph captures just the perfect moment of this great horse- I think he is 18hds.

fish
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:45 PM
Fish, if you can go to the horsemagazine site, it's an article about the Trot by Clemens Dierks but any article about the extended trot will probably address the issue of collection, I would think.

Thank you. I got to the article, and the part I found most relevant to this discussion is this:
"In extension you look for a good overstep, the hind feet over the front footprint of the horse. You look for an extended frame, but not a long loose connection. The lightness of the horse to carry its extension with a minimum degree of support, depends on the level of collection.

Lightness is only self carriage."

My reading of this seems consistent with what I was trying to say before: that good extensions come from good collection-- and the higher level horse (i.e. the one who's achieved the most collection) will show more carrying power/self-carriage/lightness than the lower level one -- i.e., an extended trot as opposed to a mere "lengthening." I'm not at all sure this is the same thing as showing "collection" within the extension. I also think Mairinger is a long way from having anything resembling a "long, loose connection," although I do think the horse in the O.P's picture does look constrained in front by comparison.

Not to knock that trot either, though-- it does show wonderful reach, expression and power as well-- I just like horses to look like they have more freedom to reach forward into the bridle-- and less like they're all bottled up and ready to explode than I've seen in top places at the CDI's lately.

I do like the photo of the black horse at the clinic-- it just makes me wonder what was happening that the rider needed to raise her hands-- and if she was able to lower them and continue to ride the horse up.

It certainly would be fun to have videos of them all-- except that I have dial-up :(

mbm
Jul. 16, 2006, 10:58 PM
Thank you. I got to the article, and the part I found most relevant to this discussion is this:
"In extension you look for a good overstep, the hind feet over the front footprint of the horse. You look for an extended frame, but not a long loose connection. The lightness of the horse to carry its extension with a minimum degree of support, depends on the level of collection.

Lightness is only self carriage."



this is what i have understood about extended trots also.... it is interesting to note that many of the trots that are upheld as great examples in other discussions, are those very trots that are not going to overstep and that are tight in the front (at least that is how it looks to me) , and seem to be balancing on the riders hands with horizontal curbs. i do wish that there was more going back to this instead of the amazing front leg action that we see so much of nowadays... i guess i prefer harmony of the raw power....

is it possible for a horse to have that extravegant front leg action *and* overstep in the extended trot? i am not sure that i have seen both at the same time.... i also wonder if the seemingly out of balance-ness of some of the trots is part of what produces the high action?

Sabine
Jul. 16, 2006, 11:10 PM
now- what about these pictures...this is medium trot

http://www.anky.nl/anky/news.php?language=EN&id=2001

nero
Jul. 16, 2006, 11:10 PM
is it possible for a horse to have that extravegant front leg action *and* overstep in the extended trot? i am not sure that i have seen both at the same time.... i also wonder if the seemingly out of balance-ness of some of the trots is part of what produces the high action?

Yes, Warum Nitch has both, s does Weltall (so much so its scary), Painted Black, Lingh, Lord Sinclair, well many of the greats in fact, and whether people would care to admit it or not, while not his best movement by any stretch, even Salinero DOES overtrack in ext trot, its just quite modest.

CanadianGolden
Jul. 16, 2006, 11:12 PM
now- what about these pictures...this is medium trot

http://www.anky.nl/anky/news.php?language=EN&id=2001

The first horse appears to be toe flinging instead of reaching out. He looks hollow to my eye.

The second looks very nice.

Third also hollow and stiff.

Last one looks nice in front but it's just a frame it appears as he's not reaching up with his hind leg--it's nearly on the ground.

CanadianGolden
Jul. 16, 2006, 11:15 PM
(Canadian Golden's photo)

What an impressively athletic horse! Good reach with the front leg, good stepping under with the hind leg. He looks to have gotten a little off balance in his effort (probably leading to the exaggerated raising of the hands of the rider), but I find MUCH more about this picture to like than I find NOT to like. AND he's maintaining an uphill look even with a background which may even be tilted DOWNHILL.

It is interesting (in light of the discussion), to note the difference between this photo and the Mairinger photo, in the way this horse is more uphill and more "under" himself (whereas Mairinger's was a bit out behind.) Of course, this also looks like a more naturally talented horse than Mairinger's, to be fair.

May I ask who this horse and rider are?


I agree it's not PERFECT (the horse's neck looks a tad constrained) but the overall correctness of the movement is impeccable. You can easily tell how long the horse's stride is, and that his back is well up and round and that he's truly working through the aids. This is a true extension, not a false toe-fling.

fiona
Jul. 17, 2006, 02:32 AM
Great post PMU mom! (all of it)

belambi
Jul. 17, 2006, 05:02 AM
IMHO..it is possible to over track..and the legs to not be parallel..especially with such uphill horses..

nero
Jul. 17, 2006, 05:51 AM
IMHO..it is possible to over track..and the legs to not be parallel..especially with such uphill horses..

furthermore, I think given the immense shoulder freedom, reach and extravagance of some of the modern horses that is would be impossible for the hind to match the front end completely, lest the horse flip over backwards!!! lol, doesn't mean the horse is not trained correctly, overtracking or beautifully engaged.

ESG
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:29 AM
i have learned a TON form all these discussions. i am sorry that SS and others have not.

What, exactly, have you learned? Not much, from what I read.

ESG
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:42 AM
now- what about these pictures...this is medium trot

http://www.anky.nl/anky/news.php?language=EN&id=2001

JMO, but I don't care for any of them. Not nearly enough engagement behind, lots of flash in front,...........what I like to refer to as "all hat, no cattle". Very heavy on the bit also.

Of course, we're judging a photo here, a captured moment in time, so it's theoretically possible that each of these riders executed a half-halt after the photo was taken to correct his/her horse's frame. In theory. :p

ESG
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:44 AM
furthermore, I think given the immense shoulder freedom, reach and extravagance of some of the modern horses that is would be impossible for the hind to match the front end completely, lest the horse flip over backwards!!! lol, doesn't mean the horse is not trained correctly, overtracking or beautifully engaged.

Um, actually? It does. If a horse's back end doesn't match the front, it certainly DOES mean that they're NOT "beautifully engaged". Maybe not trained correctly, either.

And to think that a horse, like a tractor, would "flip over backwards" if asked to exert its full power? What a ridiculous statement. :no:

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 08:29 AM
JMO, but I don't care for any of them. Not nearly enough engagement behind, lots of flash in front,...........what I like to refer to as "all hat, no cattle". Very heavy on the bit also.



Um, actually? It does. If a horse's back end doesn't match the front, it certainly DOES mean that they're NOT "beautifully engaged". Maybe not trained correctly, either.

It appears to me that, according to what you're saying, all these horses are quite well engaged. Every single hind cannon is pretty much exactly parallel to the back one. I haven't got any drafting tools at the house, but I think I can eyeball this pretty good. The only SMALL flaw I would see, which is most likely because of a small balance issue that the rider is correcting with a half halt at the moment of the picture, is a teensy weensie toe flip and slighly braced neck in the first one.

But every single horse is balanced, through, softly connected, and stepping nicely under. And the poster did say they were MEDIUMS, not extensions.

Do people here not understand the difference between actually 'lightness' where the horse is carrying himself, and loose floppy reins, where the horse bounces around off his forehand, strung out, with no power coming through frome behind?

slc2
Jul. 17, 2006, 09:04 AM
the horse should lengthen his frame. but at this level, ALL you are going to see is a change in the angle between the neck and the head, you AREN'T EVER going to see a horse lay out like a show hunter or a western pleasure horse in an extended trot! why? because he couldn't possibly do that and keep his balance and provide this sort of activity.

no wonder you guys hate all the modern dressage so much. you're confusing 'all hat and no cattle' with shoulder freedom caused by something that is very classical - the hind and back working through and allowing freedom and lightness of the shoulder. MOST people would give their left (fill in the blank) to create this sort of extended trot, or to have a horse like that. MOST people would look at a photo like that, if they had any experience, knowledge or eye, and say 'Good God, that is awesome'.

there IS such a thing as all hat and no cattle, but you can't POSSIBLY claim that a horse that is this free in the shoulder and this engaged, is all hat and no cattle. you guys are just WRONG, that's all.

when the horse is 'all hat and no cattle', the hind legs are doing nothing. this is not the case here.

you can't just read something in a book and then go out and mis-apply it so grotesquely like this. it just doesn't work. you get yourself so far out in left field that you're going to have to run awful far to get back. when you convince yourself that you know it all...that's where you stop learning.

be open to learning, and changing your perceptions. the kind of dogmatism i see here, the 'my mind is made up, don't bother me with facts' - it's sad. this isn't 'a desire for classical standards' - this is plain old ignorance.

Ware Whip!
Jul. 17, 2006, 09:19 AM
All I can say is this..
*But I am a weenie*

Unless I could produce a picture
Of ,myself doing better..
My hat is off to these riders and horses!

On the personal side of this.
Two quotes come to mind..
One from The Bard..
"Me thinks thou dost protest too much"
The other from my Sainted Nana,
"A lady has no need to wear a sign"

WW

ESG
Jul. 17, 2006, 09:25 AM
It appears to me that, according to what you're saying, all these horses are quite well engaged. Every single hind cannon is pretty much exactly parallel to the back one. I haven't got any drafting tools at the house, but I think I can eyeball this pretty good. The only SMALL flaw I would see, which is most likely because of a small balance issue that the rider is correcting with a half halt at the moment of the picture, is a teensy weensie toe flip and slighly braced neck in the first one.

But every single horse is balanced, through, softly connected, and stepping nicely under. And the poster did say they were MEDIUMS, not extensions.

Do people here not understand the difference between actually 'lightness' where the horse is carrying himself, and loose floppy reins, where the horse bounces around off his forehand, strung out, with no power coming through frome behind?

No, you misunderstood me.

In the first photo, the horse is woefully uneven as far as angles of front and hind cannon. Also agree that it looks stiff and hollow.

In the third and fourth photos, the hind leg isn't even at the same stage of extension as the foreleg, which indicates a lack of connection and engagement.

The second photo is actually the best representation of the four, and it also lacks a bit of engagement behind, judging strictly from the angles of front and hind cannon. That said, this horse has the best demeanor, being by far the softest and most accepting of the aids, while still showing some engagement and lengthening of stride.

As always, JMO. :cool:

ESG
Jul. 17, 2006, 09:31 AM
the horse should lengthen his frame. but at this level, ALL you are going to see is a change in the angle between the neck and the head, you AREN'T EVER going to see a horse lay out like a show hunter or a western pleasure horse in an extended trot! why? because he couldn't possibly do that and keep his balance and provide this sort of activity.

no wonder you guys hate all the modern dressage so much. you're confusing 'all hat and no cattle' with shoulder freedom caused by something that is very classical - the hind and back working through and allowing freedom and lightness of the shoulder. MOST people would give their left (fill in the blank) to create this sort of extended trot, or to have a horse like that. MOST people would look at a photo like that, if they had any experience, knowledge or eye, and say 'Good God, that is awesome'.

there IS such a thing as all hat and no cattle, but you can't POSSIBLY claim that a horse that is this free in the shoulder and this engaged, is all hat and no cattle. you guys are just WRONG, that's all.

when the horse is 'all hat and no cattle', the hind legs are doing nothing. this is not the case here.

you can't just read something in a book and then go out and mis-apply it so grotesquely like this. it just doesn't work. you get yourself so far out in left field that you're going to have to run awful far to get back. when you convince yourself that you know it all...that's where you stop learning.

be open to learning, and changing your perceptions. the kind of dogmatism i see here, the 'my mind is made up, don't bother me with facts' - it's sad. this isn't 'a desire for classical standards' - this is plain old ignorance.

I think you also misunderstood me.

The four horses demonstrating medium trot were the ones I referred to as "all hat, no cattle". Just because a horse is free in the shoulder, doesn't mean it's properly moving through its back and connected from back to front. I can show you 100 horses that exhibit that same degree of shoulder freedom at liberty, with their back ends trailing behind in another county. The one does not guarantee the other.

Now, if you're looking at the photo I referenced in my original post, you're right - it's gorgeous. And it's my personal ideal (with the possible addition of a slightly longer neck) of what an extended trot should be - uphill, engaged, and reeking of power. Looking at that photo makes me remember what it feels like to ride that. Those are the moments I ride for. :yes:

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 09:32 AM
I don't think I misread you at all. I think I'm reading you quite clear, and you're way off base.


The first photo the cannons if you hold a pencil up to them are a teenie bit off, but from the braced back of the rider, braced neck of the horse, and toe flip, along with the fact that they're coming to the end of the diagonal, I would say that the youngster has fallen a tad out of ballance, and the rider is half halting to bring it back! But woefully uneven and hollow? LOL!

The third photo the legs are in EXACTLY the same phase. I don't know what you are looking for for better, but the cannons are parallel, and both feet appear that they will hit ground at precisely the same time.

The fourth photo is a tad unfortunate, as the horses neck is again slightly shortened. He has a very free shoulder, and has lost a tiny bit of engagement behind because of this. But it's still NOT HORRIBLE!

And you're right, that the second photo would probably be the best. Although I'm sure someone will come up with a reason why it really sucks.

Probably because it came from Anky's website!

:winkgrin:

nhwr
Jul. 17, 2006, 09:51 AM
The pictures Sabine posted were of medium trot, right? Differents requirements than for extension. I don't think there is a requirement for diagonal pairs to be parallel in medium. But there certainly is with extended trot. This has nothing to do with the "modern dressage horse". It demonstrates the higher requirement of connection and collection that are needed for extended trot.

fish
Jul. 17, 2006, 09:59 AM
now- what about these pictures...this is medium trot

http://www.anky.nl/anky/news.php?language=EN&id=2001

Am I the only one who believes (and is somewhat bothered) that none of these horses seems to have the poll as the highest point and only one is not distinctly BTV? I know I'm a completely inexperienced know-nothing compared to many on this board, but I thought a "through" horse was one ridden from behind up to the poll, not the 3rd cervical vertebra.

This is not to say that a little overflexing is completely without purpose, or that these very talented horses/riders don't exhibit many virtues to be envied and emmulated, but it does bother me when such deviations from what I thought were basic classical ideals start to become the norm at international championship events.

fiona
Jul. 17, 2006, 10:38 AM
hose are photos from the dutch young horse championships selection competition. The riders don't appear in competition attire so i'm guessing they were competing at the same show as Anky and one of her team/friends took the photos for her website.

This is not to say that a little overflexing is completely without purpose, or that these very talented horses/riders don't exhibit many virtues to be envied and emmulated,...
I suspect they were just working on those other qualities at the time.

knz66
Jul. 17, 2006, 10:53 AM
Thank god for slc2! fricken book worms! Eating up pages and pages and pooping this crap everywhere!

First, just tell me how ya all can tell that the horses are NOT using their back properly from a picture?? Come on now, are you all ODG's now or what??? Self proclaimed experts because you can use protractors and draw straight lines?

I'll be honest, sure you can see little things that might tell you its not 100% coming through, but unless you see it moving or here's a reality check, actually ride a trot like that, you guys are just plain picky and negative...

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder sure, but it seems you all forget one thing. We will never see perfect. We will see near perfection for that horse. Near perfection for that rider and every blue moon see near perfection for a horse and rider combo but text book picture perfect - never....

So instead of ripping these poor riders and horses apart, people were probably quite pleased with the performances, lets point out the good. Lets show others here what to strive for. Sure, add in some pointers of what to avoid but lets drop all this negativity unless your willing to back it up with your own "perfect" pictures of milliseconds of time.

eqipoize
Jul. 17, 2006, 11:08 AM
All I can say is the 4 medium trot photos are the test point. It is Clear that some here think they are all quite nice and very good examples of Medium trot. there are others here who see a disconnect between the action up front and the drive behind. regarding parallel cannons - that should exist in ALL trot work - really. Honest. Just because they don't bother to put it in the rules doesn't mean it isn't there - it is just when the rules were written, the only time it was a problem was in extended work. Now you see it in all levels and forms of trot work. Why? Because people are pushing horses for more than the horse can drive and the horse does what he can, and then he spends his life working in pieces. But it Sure Looks pretty! And the judges even seem to agree, so if winning dressage shows is your goal, look closely at those 4 photos - because that is the look you are aiming for. KYO.

Horsedances
Jul. 17, 2006, 11:14 AM
This is so funny.........

Look at these four pictures and decide which ones are trained LDR and which ones are trained the classical way.

Theo

knz66
Jul. 17, 2006, 11:19 AM
But the judges are not just seeing the cannons and if they are even. they see the back, how its moving, how and when the neck got shorter, just how much push that hind end is moving..... How even the cannons are is probably the LAST thing they see.

slc2
Jul. 17, 2006, 11:47 AM
if the forehand is lightened the cannons WON'T BE PARALLEL. IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

fiona
Jul. 17, 2006, 11:50 AM
And even if they were the poor judges don't have a chance to see they're staring at the feet through binoculars searching for DAP!

knz66
Jul. 17, 2006, 11:52 AM
and we all know why they are using binoculars....

cause all judges are blind! Dont ya know?

Tonja
Jul. 17, 2006, 12:26 PM
For those who are genuinely interested in developing an eye for engagement, here are a couple of pages with information on how to recognize signs of balance and imbalance in the horse’s movement.

Visual Points of the Moving Horse http://www.ridingart.com/visual-points.htm
Understanding the Horse’s Balance: http://www.ridingart.com/balance.htm

Earlier in the thread I was asked why I don’t have a photo of myself riding an extended trot. I put my extended trot photos away. While some might think they were impressive, I’m not satisfied with them. I have seen a photograph of Egon von Neindorff riding the most incredible extended trot I have ever seen and this image has been emblazoned in my brain. An extended trot like his is what I aspire to and when I produce an extended like that I will photograph it and write a book on how I accomplished it.

kkj
Jul. 17, 2006, 12:29 PM
Sabine thanks for that link. I just love Uptown. He looks incredible. Hans Peter Minderhoud does such a great job. I hope they do well.

eqipoize
Jul. 17, 2006, 12:47 PM
if the forehand is lightened the cannons WON'T BE PARALLEL. IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Boy, if I wanted to stoop to the usual conversive level of this board, I could Really say some things in response to this. Instead I will settle for saying that if this is what you really believe, I am sorry you have had such a limited exposure to horses with pure gaits.

fiona
Jul. 17, 2006, 12:57 PM
Thanks for those links Tonja.

ToN Farm
Jul. 17, 2006, 01:02 PM
Earlier in the thread I was asked why I don’t have a photo of myself riding an extended trot. I put my extended trot photos away. While some might think they were impressive, I’m not satisfied with them.
Well then, why did you leave up the other crappy photos of yourself? Are you impressed with them? You are a backyard crapola rider imo that keeps spouting off classical junk.

fish
Jul. 17, 2006, 01:13 PM
and we all know why they are using binoculars....

cause all judges are blind! Dont ya know?

IMHO, the problem is not so much with the judges as the way the tests have been written (and re-written). When I found myself frustrated by incidents like Bonfire's win over Balkenhol's kur at the Hague (where I understand the crowd actually booed), I finally sat down in front of the video with a copy of the test and tried scoring Anky myself. Sure enough, I couldn't help but put her into the 80's-- not because the horse has good gaits, or is a great example of the training pyramid at work, (I believe Bonfire was neither) but because Anky is dead-on in her execution of all the movements which reap the most points.

Not very encouraging for someone who still wants to believe that dressage is a training system with "relaxation" at its foundation and the production of CALM riding horses with improved gaits as its goal.

Despite enormous improvements in the quality of both the horses and the riding I see at the shows, I just plain don't enjoy seeing the top awards in the highest classes going to rides which keep me on the edge of my seat more out of suspense as to whether or when these obviously tense animals are going to explode than out of admiration for anything resembling harmony.

Also, when it comes to "lightness" proceeding from "collection," I think there's a perhaps subtle but crucial distinction between the desired elevation of the forehand characteristic of a relaxed and through horse and the climbing of a tense one crammed into an unyielding frame which has the horse breaking at the wrong cervical vertebra in the competition arena as well as in schooling. Was "calm" the word that was recently replaced with "happy" in some recent statement of the objectives of dressage-- almost explicitly so that a certain amount of tension could be allowed for the sake of "brilliance"? If so, it does seem to me that whatever organization made the change (the FEI?) decided to allow competitive dressage to depart from that taught at the classical schools with "calm, straight and forward" over their doors.

I do admire both the horses and the incredible skills of the riders I've seen at recent CDI's. I'm just not at all sure that either are being put to optimal use. IOW, it seems to me that, ideally, dressage training should not be making equine specialists capable only of winning dressage competitions, but rather truly versatile horses whose dressage training would enhance their ability to perform just about anywhere and do anything. Somewhat ironically, competitive dressage seems to be evolving into a distinct "art for its own sake" specialized endeavor, leaving those who simply want to gymnasticize horses to realize their greatest potential as riding partners to pursue their goals at home or in other arenas.

slc2
Jul. 17, 2006, 01:18 PM
"Boy, if I wanted to stoop to the usual conversive level of this board, I could Really say some things in response to this. Instead I will settle for saying that if this is what you really believe, I am sorry you have had such a limited exposure to horses with pure gaits"

so then...anyone who doesn't agree with you has 'limited exposure to pure gaits'

in other words, if i don't agree with you, i'm a moron.

actually, i liked it better in second grade, when instead of couching this sort of thing in clever language, kids just yelled out 'Toopid!' and hit eachother. at least it was a little more honest.

lovely. actually, i am a total fanatic about purity of gait and have turned myself inside out both to learn how to develop that and to seek someone who has that as the #1 priority in their training at all times.

and ACTUALLY...the highest goal of classical riding was and always has been, to develop the freedom and lightness of the forehand. the HIGHEST.

do we respect reiner klimke? has he been dead long enough? look in his book. he very carefully chose pictures of horses moving exactly like this one and explained in great detail what this represents and why it's good.

there are two possibilities, actually. a distinct possibility is that you are the one with the limited exposure.

of course THAT's impossible, isn't it. you couldn't POSSIBLY not know everything about dressage, have a perfect eye, etc.

ok, i'd like to see a photo of the amount of freedom your horses have in their shoulders when you are riding them in international competition.

slc

Tonja
Jul. 17, 2006, 01:38 PM
ToN Farm wrote:
Quote:

Well then, why did you leave up the other crappy photos of yourself? Are you impressed with them? You are a backyard crapola rider imo that keeps spouting off classical junk.

WOW!

I try to always answer posts in a way that others might find helpful. You may not like the way I ride or agree with my philosophy, nevertheless, I will not belittle you if you seem to see things differently. I don’t get involved in flame wars. I realize that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Personal attacks of this nature are completely inappropriate.

eqipoize
Jul. 17, 2006, 01:40 PM
This is so funny.........

Look at these four pictures and decide which ones are trained LDR and which ones are trained the classical way.

Theo
Trick question, b ecause according to the photos, they are ALL being ridden incorrectly - IF you believe a medium trot should have an uphill balance and the poll the highest point, and that the haunches should drive the movement, and Not that the front end should lead the dance. However, IF you are looking to score high marks in a dressage competition, then all 4 horses are being ridden 'spot on'.

It is amazing how the old benchmarks are being tossed aside - parallel cannons are not possible in extended trot, a horse CAN land in front of where his nose is pointing, And if a horse really pushed behind, he would flip over like an over revved dragster!

I can see why you tell others to just go out and ride, because clearly Everything that was written is old hat and out of date. Horses are an entirely New species, and what the old masters wrote has Nothing to do with modern dressage (Oh, wait, that last one might be true.)

SoEasy
Jul. 17, 2006, 03:17 PM
I do NOT have the time to monitor a second grade playground today.
So, either you all play nice, quit running with scissors, and stop the personal attacks, or I'll be back to lock this.

pinecone
Jul. 17, 2006, 03:32 PM
Visual Points of the Moving Horse http://www.ridingart.com/visual-points.htm
Understanding the Horse’s Balance: http://www.ridingart.com/balance.htm

Where did you find this site? What a bizarre assortment of information and misinformation, compiled in such a hodgepodge manner as to render the whole collection pointless.

I can't believe people have that much time on their hands and are THAT obsessively fanatical. Apparently a WESTERN rider came up with this? Strange. Now is everyone cashing in on this insanity?

I'm dumbfounded.

(Fiona, surely are teasing?)

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 03:40 PM
No don't stoop, if you do, someone could misinterpret it as human rollkur, and then you'll find your pictures posted all over the internet with lines and arrows drawn on them explaining how you're being so utterly cruel to yourself! Now schtooping, that's an entirely different matter. But I don't think this is the right web board for that topic.

Poll high. I guess it was only a matter of time before that fable reared it's ugly head.

To those of you who still strongly feel that a horses poll should be the highest point regardless of his conformation, sex, and breeding, then I suggest this solution:

Go find yourself a series of pictures of the riders in the drill at the Spanish riding school. You know, the true purveyors of REAL classical dressage, the ones who actually RIDE classical dressage because they have been trained by other classical riders, and not just learned classical dressage out of a book. Look at lots and lots of them. You will notice that some of these stallions are indeed not poll high. And for the same reason, that some of the stallions in the spanish riding school are not poll high, as they have great fatty crests, there are also other horses of other breeds that also have the same conformational trait.

No, a horse is not always NOT poll high because of his training. There are many horses out there who are not poll high because of their conformation as well.

Jeepers
Jul. 17, 2006, 03:42 PM
this is what i have understood about extended trots also.... it is interesting to note that many of the trots that are upheld as great examples in other discussions, are those very trots that are not going to overstep and that are tight in the front (at least that is how it looks to me) , and seem to be balancing on the riders hands with horizontal curbs. i do wish that there was more going back to this instead of the amazing front leg action that we see so much of nowadays... i guess i prefer harmony of the raw power....

is it possible for a horse to have that extravegant front leg action *and* overstep in the extended trot? i am not sure that i have seen both at the same time.... i also wonder if the seemingly out of balance-ness of some of the trots is part of what produces the high action?

http://www.geocities.com/dressagelynn/graphics/Shapiro3.gif

His leg out front has come down a teensy bit when the picture was snapped, but yes it can happen, he has overstride and a considerable amount of action up front, although he could be lifting up more through the shoulders. Happy horse in this picture :yes:

Tonja
Jul. 17, 2006, 03:58 PM
Side note: the standard for a balanced, engaged horse is that the poll is the highest skeletal point.

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 04:23 PM
Skeletal point yes. But that's not was being said. And if I remember, because I'm not scrolling back to look again, those horses ARE indeed all going with the poll at the highest skeletal point, and the are also all going with the hind leg cannon bone parallel to the foreleg cannon bone.

So, to sum this all up, I am still waiting to see someone demonstrate to me how these horses are not being ridden with proper engagement.

aregard
Jul. 17, 2006, 04:29 PM
And for the record, just because I have more experience than mbm, I have never said I was "better" than she is. It is her ATTITUDE which I find offensive, not the fact that she is a beginner. But charging into every topic with a chip on her shoulder and looking to be validated by the likes of IDEAyoda etc., does not make me want to help her "train her eye" or "educate herself", and it also makes me suspect she really is NOT truly interested in "training her eye" and "educating herself".

You're making a whole lot of assumptions.

Let me just give you an independent view. I don't know you. I don't know mbm, either. I went back and read over the thread from the beginning when comments about 'arrogance' were leveled. I didn't see it.

That's OK. Your opinion, my opinion, we get to have different opinions.

But going on and on and on about your opinion of her 'attitude'? And now you say, her 'attitude' doesn't make you want to help her train her eye. I'm thinking, "Geez, what it DOES make her want to do?" which, you will note, is more a reflection about you, not about mbm.

Not only are you unwilling to help her (which is understandable. Not everybody here helps everybody else here. I mean, who has the time?) BUT you _are_ going to spend time condemning her. I'm having a little more trouble understanding that.

Here I am, this third party who doesn't know either one of you. What conclusions am I going to draw? Whose attitude is more intransigent, more noticeable, more... you get the picture.

aregard
Jul. 17, 2006, 04:33 PM
So not going to enter the discussion, but I like this extended trot photo better.

http://www.ponydom.com/mb/trot.jpg

What I like best about this photograph is that the inverted V's created by the front legs and the hing legs are far more equal than those commonly seen. It may be a case of when the photograph is snapped, of course, but in this case, the timing certainly contributes to a sense that the horse is stepping well under.

aregard
Jul. 17, 2006, 04:48 PM
Do people here not understand the difference between actually 'lightness' where the horse is carrying himself, and loose floppy reins, where the horse bounces around off his forehand, strung out, with no power coming through frome behind?

I dunno. Do we have a photo of a horse bouncing around off his forehand, strung out, with no power? :)

When I compare the page of 4 photos with Canadian Golden's photo, I have to say that CG's horse looks like he has 'power coming through from behind' but these horses, less so.

Now, granted, they are doing mediums, not extensions. And maybe it's a timing thing about when the photo was taken. But none of the 4-photo horses are stepping under as well, IMHO.

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 04:55 PM
The 4 horses doing mediums would not be stepping under as well as a horse doing an extension by definition.

My problem with CG's photo, while the horse is pushing significantly and powerfully forward, he has actually fallen somewhat on his forehand if you can believe. I know this by looking at how far back the front leg has come back under the body. In my picture, the hindfoot is blurry, but I can almost assure you without seeing it that the rear hind foot stretched back is starting to leave the ground, where as the foreleg that is back under the body is still firmly planted.

If the horse were in proper balance, then both feet would be leaving the ground at the same time.

It also looks to me like the rider is aware of this, as her hands have become quite high. I would hope she does not always hold them quite so high, but is rather making an effort in this moment to help the horse get off the bridle a little bit and balance more on his hind legs.

But it is a wonderful picture of thrust. But if you look careful, you can also see that it is more thrust than balance.

aregard
Jul. 17, 2006, 05:12 PM
The 4 horses doing mediums would not be stepping under as well as a horse doing an extension by definition.


Pardon me. I wasn't clear.

I mean to say they are not, IMO, stepping under as well (as evenly) as I think would be ideal for the medium. Again, I am of the old school insofar as I like the front end and the hind end to look like they belong together. I don't like the look some horses have of traveling like Park horses with flashy action in front but less behind. This doesn't seem to bother other people as much.

I agree with some others here that the V's created by front legs and hind legs are supposed to 'match' in all phases of trot work.

So, maybe our discussion should really be: "How much of a roll does fashion play in modern dressage training and/or competition?" Oh, god, no, that would be a train wreck! :)




But it is a wonderful picture of thrust. But if you look careful, you can also see that it is more thrust than balance.

That's the ticklish difference, of course. Asking for as much thrust as you can get without sacrificing balance. A little one way or the other, and you tip off the pinnacle. We are supposed to favor balance over thrust, so that would tell us which direction in which to err.

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 05:34 PM
Since when does the type of movement come into play? It shouldn't matter whether it moves like a park horse, a show hunter, or a washing machine. A horse is a horse. I'm not talking personal preferences or styles. I am not enjoying any one horse here more than an other. They are all wonderful.

The V's should be equal, no argument. I would look again at CG's picture, because I see the front V being quite a bit larger than the hind, mostly due to the fact that the foreleg is so back under his body and not left the fround yet.

I really question why the purist factions overlook the hind leg in CG's picture which will indeed leave the ground before the foreleg. This is not only a sacrifice of balance, but also of purity, is it not? You will almost always lose purity when you sacrifice balance. But three of the other four pictures show to me what appears to be a pure trot. Granted different moments, and it's possible that they may suffer from the same problem, but general the more 'up' a horse is ridden, the more likely that the front leg will come off the ground with the hind leg.

pinecone
Jul. 17, 2006, 05:59 PM
aregard, how can I make this clearer to you, so you will let it drop.

I do not like mbm's attitude, her attitude does not make me want to help her, and I question the sincerity of her claims to only be oh so innocently merely looking to learn. Period.

You baffled me once in this thread by claiming one of my critiques was arrogant, only to recant a few pages later. Now you're baffling me again with your stubborn defense of mbm, and I don't even see the point. At this point it is really becoming old and unworthy of further discussion, and I am finished discussing mbm with you. PM me if you like, it would probably be more appropriate.

Patootie, DAP also comes into play in regard to the diagonal pairs landing/taking off together, and many of today's superhorses are being bred with gaits such as they have DAP naturally (in spite of the myth that it is rider created.) Just a thought to add. I am not disagreeing with you.

A question for everyone about the parallel cannons. If you've gotten the absolute maximum engagement and stepping under that you can get out of the horse from the hindend, and yet he is still able to offer more IN FRONT, what would *you* do about it? I ask, because I can't see inhibiting the front legs, even if they are able to offer "more" than the horse is able to offer from the hind legs, and so when viewed in this context yes I would sacrifice some of the parallel cannons quality if the horse was able/willing to offer even MORE expression from the front legs/shoulders.

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:14 PM
I don't think you will get a free-er shoulder than this one. But both cannons are still even. It is more likely that with a free shoulder the shoulder can escape the rider if not carefully ridden. However when properly connected, generally the cannons will still match no matter what the angle of the shoulder.

go to http://www.arnd.nl/ and type in image number 020902238.

slc2
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:16 PM
why you would slap that boy down and say no, bad horse, no freedom of the shoulders! knock it off!

eqipoize
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:21 PM
Since when does the type of movement come into play? It shouldn't matter whether it moves like a park horse, a show hunter, or a washing machine. A horse is a horse. I'm not talking personal preferences or styles. I am not enjoying any one horse here more than an other. They are all wonderful.

The V's should be equal, no argument. I would look again at CG's picture, because I see the front V being quite a bit larger than the hind, mostly due to the fact that the foreleg is so back under his body and not left the fround yet.

I really question why the purist factions overlook the hind leg in CG's picture which will indeed leave the ground before the foreleg. This is not only a sacrifice of balance, but also of purity, is it not? You will almost always lose purity when you sacrifice balance. But three of the other four pictures show to me what appears to be a pure trot. Granted different moments, and it's possible that they may suffer from the same problem, but general the more 'up' a horse is ridden, the more likely that the front leg will come off the ground with the hind leg.
Actually, I only think ONE of the four looks like the hind will push off at the same moment as the front. In the top photo, the left hind is already unweighted. In the next one if you compare the pastern angles, again, the right hind is not weight bearing, and the left front leg is. The chestnut in photo 3 looks better, but if I really wanted to pick nits, I might note that the pastern angles don't match, and the front leg is carrying more weight than the hind, indicating a possible dissociation - but honestly, I will say this one is 'pure'. The bottom black horse again shows an unweighting of the right hind while the left front is clearly still quite grounded.

Do I like the CG photo - a bit more than the others, but still a sense of being held together by the rider's hands. Have I seen worse - Oh Yes - but since someone remarked that the 'purists' were overlooking problems, I will say, this photo doesn't represent the 'best extended trot photo ever' either. Believe me, I KNOW it is hard to produce the wow trot photos, timing the shot is only One aspect - and the other is compromising between what a majority of dressage people think looks 'right' vs what might be correct for the education of the hrose. Of course, the complete ideal will meet everyones expectations, but when you have to say "what is the first thing I need, and what's the last thing I will require? " then the whole picture changes. It is always about priorities, and sometimes if you get them in the wrong order, then you just can't get them all, ever. Some stuff Must come first, that is why there is a training scale. But when you are showing, or even schooling for a photo shoot, you often slip over the limit. Then something important falls away. Thatis the problem with going over the limit. So you try not to make a habit of it, and when you do slip past the point, you analyse and sort out what went wrong - because that becomes useful information - lemonade from lemons. The Nuno photo represents my ideal medium trot, and Klimke at the 84 Olympics is the ultimate extended trot picture. There are some other very good ones, but those are well known. This other stuff just compromises a little too much for my tastes.

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:26 PM
LOL no you wouldn't slap him down. But again, if he was ridden properly through, the shoulder would not escape. As in that last picture on Bronhorsts website. She HAS Salinero right there. Cannons are parallel at the peak of the stride.

eqipoize
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:28 PM
I don't think you will get a free-er shoulder than this one. But both cannons are still even. It is more likely that with a free shoulder the shoulder can escape the rider if not carefully ridden. However when properly connected, generally the cannons will still match no matter what the angle of the shoulder.

go to http://www.arnd.nl/ and type in image number 020902238.
I am amazed that you think so. I am even MORE amazed at whom you chose to use as an example, because now if I don't just go OOOHH AAAHHH I am acused of Bashing AvG! Anyway, if you want to think that represents a good parallelogram, Okay Dokie. But don't expect everyone to agree with you. Mind you the angle of the photo makes it a little harder to see, but still.... oh, nevermind.

Patootie
Jul. 17, 2006, 06:38 PM
Oh the virgin mother cares who the photo is of?? The simple fact is that I KNOW that she has a hugely talented horse with a VERY free shoulder, and has photos of her where she has 'nailed' her extended. yes, there are also some as well where she's also lost him either in front or behind. But I simply wanted to show a horse with a VERY free shoulder who could perform the extended trot with the cannon bones parallel to one another. But why can't we look for good sometimes and even possibly admit it exists? It was a quick and easy search, rather than spending tons of times sorting through other pictures to find just one.

PERIOD.

As for the parallelogram, that is not something anyone is quite qualified to judge from that particular angle I think. Unless you're computer could some how magically rotate your perspective.

I don't have any expectations of anyone agreeing with me. I was making a statement, and threw up a photo to demonstrate. It IS possible. The fact that you may have a personal beef with the rider aboard is your problem not mine.

Maybe it's not exactly me that's looking for everyone to agree with me. I think possibly that you may want to check the mirror next time for that one. Or maybe perhaps I shouldn't try to have an open conversation with someone who's named themselves after a steroid....just a thought.

Erin
Jul. 17, 2006, 07:18 PM
You were warned...