[SuckerForHorses]

why would you reverse at gait ? the reverse is almost always preceded by a halt,and then the better trained horses would plant a pivot foot and come around

Tamara

You are contradicting yourself.

First you say the reverse is almost always preceded by a halt, and then a pivot to change.

Then you say don't halt, continue the gait that you're currently at.

[SuckerForHorses]

I'm out of money for the month on my account, but here's his sire.

Interesting. The horse today looked reining bred, but the sire's side is not so.

[Tamara in TN]

You are contradicting yourself.

First you say the reverse is almost always preceded by a halt, and then a pivot to change.

Then you say don't halt, continue the gait that you're currently at.

you are talking about two different kinds of classes,if you are commanded to reverse at a gait then you do it.

If you halt first then you can pop a 180 in there to impress the judge that you have a better broke horse than the one that takes 75 feet to turn in

Tamara

[SuckerForHorses]

you are talking about two different kinds of classes,if you are commanded to reverse at a gait then you do it.

If you halt first then you can pop a 180 in there to impress the judge that you have a better broke horse than the one that takes 75 feet to turn in

Tamara

If you are in a pleasure class, and you're walking, and they instruct you to "reverse" - if you halt first and then "pop a 180" then technically you have broken your walk (to halt), and that is not what they asked for. They just said reverse direction, and its implied that you keep the current gait because they didn't tell you to change it (i.e. halt and reverse).

I'm talking western pleasure class (maybe should've been specific about that in the beginning).

[saddleup]

I show in breed shows, and in a WP class you don't stop and do a turn on the haunches, you do a small half circle and go the other direction. It used to be that you did the turn on the haunches, years ago, but it's never called for anymore. "Reverse at the walk, reverse at the jog" are the only instructions I ever hear at shows.

[BayRoan]

Ditto what saddleup said.

Years ago, it was thought that a halt and 180 haunch turn to reverse showed a higher level of difficulty and "brokeness" and so that was rewarded.

For at least the past several years, a halt, or any cessation of forward motion when not called for, is considered a break in gait. Maintaining cadence and frame while reversing in gait, in that small circle is actually more difficult than the 180 haunch turn method, which is probably why it is now the standard.

You may find local open shows where the haunch turn reverse is still used. If you're interested in a particular show circuit, find out about the judges, or exhibitors that do well there, and figure out what they reward.

[CHT]

According to NSBA rules, the horse MUST reverse to the inside at walk or jog (not lope or halt)

Loss of forward momentum in the reverse is considered a fault.

Beyond that, when I am judging, I just want to see smooth, sensible changes of direction. I do not care if the reverse is bigger or smaller as long as the horse is obedient, and they aren't running a risk of running into another horse or me. Reverse is a sensible time to find a better spot on the rail.

[Burbank]

I think it depends on breed,stock and arabs do a small circle or tear drop, saddlebreds I think turn to the inside, even the western classes

[SuckerForHorses]

...
Loss of forward momentum in the reverse is considered a fault.
Beyond that, when I am judging, I just want to see smooth, sensible changes of direction. I do not care if the reverse is bigger or smaller as long as the horse is obedient, and they aren't running a risk of running into another horse or me. Reverse is a sensible time to find a better spot on the rail.

This is EXACTLY what the western pleasure trainers both said to me.

[quarters n paints]

The only time you do a turn on the haunches is if the reverse is called while you are at a halt. I was at a big show this weekend, and most of the time we reversed at either the walk or jog. In one class, they had us stop on the rail, back up, then halt. They then called the reverse, so in that instance I did a turn on the haunches, then stopped and waited for the next instruction, which in this case was the lope. That was a pleasure class, not a command class.

[SuckerForHorses]

That's what I was told was correct also. Thank you for the input! The question was to settle a "disagreement" about which was the accepted/correct way.

[Beverley]

What CHT said. Now, at the walk, I can make a pretty tight turn 'around' the haunches without loss of forward momentum- but as noted, it's also an opportunity to spread out a bit (and to me it never hurts to show the judge that your pleasure horse can do a nice correct half circle off of legs and seat alone).

If your horse is showing well, you do want to be sure judge has a clear view. If it's not horse's best day, well, you might accidentally find yourself obscured from the judge at key points.

[Plumcreek]

I've ridden enough turns showing in the WP pen to make up for missing the question! I've heard judges say a turn on haunches is their preference, but I've seen them pin all sorts of "WTF".

Depends if it is the rail portion of horsemanship, where a turn on the haunches shows more ability......or, a western pleasure class, where a small to medium circle, then very gradual leg yeild back to the rail will not only set you up for a lope, but open up space in front of you and bunch up those behind you. I spent a week at Congress one year, watching a very big BNT do this over and over.

[Go Fish]

It used to be that you did the turn on the haunches, years ago, but it's never called for anymore.

It has fallen out of favor because most trainers used a turn on the haunches as a schooling opportunity...to back the horse off and get them off the inside leg. You know that a ring-smart horse will start drifting to the inside in anticipation of the line up so a smart rider will use the reverse to their advantage.

I was just at a big QH show a couple of weeks go. I saw the winner of the junior WP class turn on the haunches to reverse. I'd say it was 50/50 on how the horses were reversed. Either it doesn't matter to the judges, or the judges choose to ignore it.

[ccoronios]

Sucker, "I have always felt that just because there may be 6 riders in a class, doesn't mean the judge has to give out all 6 placings!"

Years ago, I was videoing a QH show. The hunter (over fences) classes were pretty dismal. Judge and I walked back to the main ring together and he was commenting on how difficult it was to pin a class where NO ONE was any good.

I commented that we'd done a Paso Fino show the week before and they were really amazing. There could be a one-horse class and that one horse not get pinned if it wasn't correct. He looked at me and said very quietly, "Welllll....you COULD do that in QHs. [pause] But I don't have the juice."

[SuckerForHorses]

I think more judges should do that!

A few years ago at a small local fair horseshow, my close friend was in a halter class with her Appy gelding. She was the only horse in the class. Now, I know that halter classes are on how the horse is built...but I would NOT have pinned this horse!

My friend trotted in past the judge, then set up the gelding. Before the judge could even walk to the horse, he literally RIPPED away from her (chain was over the nose) and bolted from the ring (gate was open...hadn't even had a chance to close it yet, and nobody thought much of it with 1 horse and it being a halter class). The horse almost ran me over on his way out the gate at 100 mph, and flew into the warm up arena down below the main ring. We finally caught him, my friend brought him back up to the ring, and they allowed her back (I would not have) and then...1st place! Yay!

There is no way in H.E.L.L. I would've given her or that horse a 1st place ribbon even when they were the only ones in the class. In fact, I would've immediately dismissed her and her horse, and be on my merry way with the next class.

That horse was nuts - would strike and try to attack while lunging, bronc style bucking if you didnt' ride him every single day, would be a calm little puppy dog and then litterally throw his shoulder into you and run through you and take off. She traded him for a nice little QH gelding, and was 110% honest with the guy she traded with. A week later, the horse was advertised on the guy's website as a "4-H prospect, you can do anything with him!" Hmmm...