The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 398
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jul. 11, 2006
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Mickeydoodle: Possibly, "unloved?"



  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2004
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    634

    Default

    So your the one to blame for all this mess bronte! Would you like one last cigarette before sent off to the gallows?

    BTW, I agree with your assessments!



  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug. 26, 1999
    Location
    Concord, California, USA
    Posts
    8,041

    Default

    Well, I like the "good" older pics better, but of course, the quality of horses has improved quite a bit - but that seems to have inspired short-cuts, since the natural quality is already there - it doesn't have to be worked for quite as hard as in the "good old days."

    That being said, I've always liked most of the pictures I've seen of Chammartin and Wolfdietrich, especially the ones in Neil Ffrench Blake's "World of Dressage" where he particularly remarked about the ease with which Chammartin extended and collected this horse. I remember one picture in that book where the horse was SO round and engaged, without being behind the vertical. This is the only good picture I could find of them that I could post:

    http://70.85.102.94/netpub/server.np...0&site=horse05

    In Podhajsky's book he talks about Nero - the discarded, "sausage" horse upon which he won the bronze medal. Certainly, one could say dressage accomplished it's true purpose of IMPROVING a horse in that case. With today's superhorses the talent is already there: It needs to be developed, which is certainly not a negligible talent on the part of the riders, but one might say the older riders accomplished more with less.

    I kinda like this one of Filatov and Absent, the gold medal winning (1960 - Rome) Akhal teke, too:

    http://70.85.102.94/netpub/server.np...0&site=horse05



  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan. 31, 2006
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Sandy M, I like the first pic you posted. That is a nice old picture.

    Bronte You go. Great assessment. You must be a good judge.



  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jun. 14, 2006
    Location
    here, there, everywhere
    Posts
    530

    Default

    Sandy M, the first photo you posted is quite nice. It too could pass as a modern photo if it were in color (wink). Interesting to see things were NOT always so different! That horse/rider would still be competitive today.

    In reference to the second photo, I suppose I could direct you to the other toe flicking thread (lol, grinning.)


    mbm wrote:
    and finally i want to say that this is kind of an unfair comparrison... we are looking at the top modern riders/horses and random pics from the past - we dont even know if they were thought of as good at the time the were taken. .....

    becuase some of the old images are not so good and i dont think it is fair to compare good modern images with bad old images. (does that make sense??)
    No, this doesn't make any sense. What we are comparing are old images WHICH WERE DEEMED WORTHY OF A BOOK, and new images compiled randomly and informally for an "on the scene" type of thing with little (or no) real review by anyone "expert" (vastly different from the careful process and selection for a BOOK.)

    Why is it that an unflattering classical photo is a fluke, a mistake, a bad moment in time, random............ Yet a modern unflattering photo is considered indicitive of the fact that all of dressage apparently is going to hell in a handbasket. How fair is that?



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2004
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    634

    Default Oh this should be good! (rubbing hands together)

    Quote Originally Posted by pinecone
    Sandy M, the first photo you posted is quite nice. It too could pass as a modern photo if it were in color (wink). Interesting to see things were NOT always so different! That horse/rider would still be competitive today.

    In reference to the second photo, I suppose I could direct you to the other toe flicking thread (lol, grinning.)


    mbm wrote:

    No, this doesn't make any sense. What we are comparing are old images WHICH WERE DEEMED WORTHY OF A BOOK, and new images compiled randomly and informally for an "on the scene" type of thing with little (or no) real review by anyone "expert" (vastly different from the careful process and selection for a BOOK.)

    Why is it that an unflattering classical photo is a fluke, a mistake, a bad moment in time, random............ Yet a modern unflattering photo is considered indicitive of the fact that all of dressage apparently is going to hell in a handbasket. How fair is that?
    On pins and needles waiting for this answer!



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Aug. 26, 1999
    Location
    Concord, California, USA
    Posts
    8,041

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mbm
    we are looking at the top modern riders/horses and random pics from the past - we dont even know if they were thought of as good at the time the were taken.
    Not necessarily disagreeing, but in the case of the picture I posted (Chammartin), he was the individual gold medallist at the '64 Tokyo Olympics, and on the silver medal Swiss team at the 1966 World Championships. He was, indeed, "thought of as good" at the time [the picture] was taken.

    When he won the Olympic Gold in '64, the bronze medallist was Filatov ('60 gold medallist) and the silver medal went to Harry Boldt.



  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jun. 6, 2005
    Location
    The Big Mitt
    Posts
    1,714

    Default

    Well, I recently watched videos of some of the classic riders of long long ago (taken off old movies). Some were awful. One rider in particular who's considered a name sat on his horses like a brick. Another of the classical riders was just amazing. There was a section of collected trot into extended trot that was jaw droppingly lovely.

    I agree with those that say it's just like today, some poeple were great and others weren't



  9. #49
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2004
    Posts
    7,536

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pinecone

    mbm wrote:

    No, this doesn't make any sense. What we are comparing are old images WHICH WERE DEEMED WORTHY OF A BOOK, and new images compiled randomly and informally for an "on the scene" type of thing with little (or no) real review by anyone "expert" (vastly different from the careful process and selection for a BOOK.)

    Why is it that an unflattering classical photo is a fluke, a mistake, a bad moment in time, random............ Yet a modern unflattering photo is considered indicitive of the fact that all of dressage apparently is going to hell in a handbasket. How fair is that?
    well considering i never said that a bad pic was a mistake or fluke, i will pass that comment right by..... as for the pics being in a book: i have no idea what the comments on those pics said.... i have plenty of books that have good and bad old (or new for that matter) images with corresponding subtitles and explanations. in other words - just becuase it is in a book doesnt make it good. (shrug) .. we *do* know what the judges thought of the horses that were listed on that web site since they were winning comps.

    that is all i meant. and still, i think it would be interesting to take the BEST of the old and the BEST of the new in the same position and compare - THAT would be interesting.



  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jul. 16, 2006
    Posts
    66

    Default Excuses excuses

    You have no idea what the comments for the pictures from the books was?

    How 'bouts:

    1.) Upside down horse.
    2.) Horse not using back.
    3.) Undermuscled.
    4.) Clearly not engaged because NO part of the hind leg is even close to parallel to the foreleg.
    5.) I want my mommy.

    Etc. I think you get the point.

    Since when does classical equal perfection? They were only human, and better training is available today through the education of the classical riders than ever before. Dressage in general, and especially what we see in the show arena has MUCH improved. However, the only people I hear complaining about it is the dinosaurs who have been passed by.



  11. #51
    Join Date
    Aug. 7, 2005
    Location
    Southern California/Muenchen
    Posts
    2,987

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by pinecone

    Why is it that an unflattering classical photo is a fluke, a mistake, a bad moment in time, random............ Yet a modern unflattering photo is considered indicitive of the fact that all of dressage apparently is going to hell in a handbasket. How fair is that?

    Because it is safe to say that XYZ classical trainer, published author and competitor is deserving of respect and - on the other hand ABC- new and upcoming (dutch) rider without training history, book or other major accomplishments- is not deserving and a young, uncontrolled hotshot- that abuses horses....
    It's because we are all very insecure about this- because there is no finite recipe on how to make a succesful horse and how to compete it successfully and make history in the dressage world....
    my prediction will be though- that if Anky once in the future does sit down and write a comprehensive book- she will truly begin - even maybe in her lifetime - to enter the ODG world and become classical...
    you know- it's like it is with cheese- it has to ripen and age before it's really good....



  12. #52
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2003
    Posts
    2,529

    Default

    " Dressage in general, and especially what we see in the show arena has MUCH improved. However, the only people I hear complaining about it is the dinosaurs who have been passed by."

    I don't believe this dinosaur comment would hold up, to name a few: Ingred Klimke, Balkenhol and company on http://www.xenophon-classical-riding.org as well as George Morris' recent comments in his COTH article (excerpted on posts #29 and #34).

    Even so, Lendon Gray is doing amazing work with her DressageForKids program, teaching young riders dressage as well as overall care and understanding of the horse. It's really a wonderful contribution to the world of dressage.



  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jul. 11, 2006
    Posts
    1,374

    Default

    Dinosaur? Possibly. But, having done other riding disciplines before I got serious about dressage, I can tell you that I am beginning to see elements in dressage that are akin to Saddleseat. These elements were not there some years ago, but are fairly new to the scene. I am also seeing more riders hanging on the curb rein of the double bridle which in yesteryear would have been punished. I am not saying that all was rosey back when the ODGs were not ODGS. What I am saying is that dessage has changed, and developed new faults, or perhaps, I should say, things to which a dinosaur would point as a fault. Yes, I can see problems in the old pictures as well...dinosaur or no.

    What is really funny was a disparaging remark made to me about Saddleseat years ago. Whether there is any truth to it or not, I do not know. I was told that immigrants coming to this country wanted riding such as they had seen in Europe. However, these immigrants had not been trained in the "classical" method of horsetraining. So as they trained horses toward what they thought they had been watching, they focused purely on the front end of the horse. The results became Saddleseat, a discipline created by unknowledgeable folk trying to duplicate what they perceived that they had seen.



  14. #54
    Join Date
    Jan. 4, 2000
    Posts
    24,408

    Default

    but you're not biased at all about saddleseat, ROFLMAO.

    the idea that something is always perfect because it's old...well, how about applying that to me, lol. i'm old.

    slc



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Jun. 14, 2006
    Location
    here, there, everywhere
    Posts
    530

    Default

    mbm, the old photos were of Olympic medalists so they were also "winning comps" as you say.

    sm, the two dressage riders you listed, while they may not be dinosaurs, could easily be perceived as having a motivation to take the stands they're taking. R. Klimke was a legend, I. Klimke is building on her father's fame, and he's an icon of many classicists, although whether his riding looks more like 1920 or 2000 is a matter for another debate. As for Balhenhol, and what motivates him...............

    Sabine, I have no doubt Anky has firmly established herself as a legend in the history of dressage, even if she were to retire entirely tomorrow.



  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jun. 13, 2001
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    6,056

    Default

    I think you must ask people who saw both periods in real time. It also depends upon what you are looking for in the horse.

    Interesting thing about Filitov's horse, there is a movie which shows the horse with a newspaper blowing by and wrapping around the horses legs while he is piaffing (in a snaffle warming up on the lightest of contact) and then blowing on.....no change in tempo or anything...stilll relaxed and working!

    Calhoun...Dux is Klimke, Piaff is (mama) Linsenhoff and won the 72 games in Munich. Piaff was sired by Gaspari ridden by Viebke (head of the national school in sweden) in Rome (60) and got the highest scores even given for one tempis at that point (9 for 15 which entirely filled up the diagonal correctly).
    I.D.E.A. yoda



  17. #57
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2003
    Location
    Charles Town, WV
    Posts
    6,637

    Default

    And not ALL upper level horses were babied and pampered and did nothing but dressage. Klaus Balkenhol's Goldstern was a working police horse throughout all his competition life! I find it hard to believe that the older horses didn't 'work' as well.
    Tranquility Farm - Proud breeder of Born in the USA Sport Horses, and Cob-sized Warmbloods
    Now apparently completely invisible!



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Aug. 7, 2000
    Posts
    3,941

    Default

    Goldstern was way too spooky to be a police horse and was basically useless for any such work. Most of the other riders used to hiss (politely under their breaths coz this is dressage, after all) when KB rode into the arena in his policeman's uniform.
    yes--Goldstern was originally BOUGHT for that job, but that did not turn out to be his 'real' job. Goldstern was not good hacking on the streets, even with another horse.

    Filatov's horses DEFINITELY worked, no matter what else was going on, but I think the word 'relaxed' is not what comes to mind<g>.



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Mar. 1, 2001
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    Being a GP competition horse and especially a top International Olympic calibre GP horse is working! I don't understand why people think it's nothing and that the horse should have a 2nd or 3rd career.



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Jun. 4, 2001
    Posts
    1,357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiona
    Being a GP competition horse and especially a top International Olympic calibre GP horse is working! I don't understand why people think it's nothing and that the horse should have a 2nd or 3rd career.
    It is "work" in that it involves physical activity, but no it's not a "real" job. Never has been and never will be. The only reason dressage exists is to make the real job easier. Sorry, but an "international level" GP horse who cannot be hacked down the road is nothing but a failure!



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 57
    Last Post: Mar. 14, 2011, 03:45 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: Nov. 2, 2010, 03:11 PM
  3. Replies: 14
    Last Post: Aug. 22, 2010, 01:53 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Aug. 5, 2010, 04:12 PM
  5. Replies: 40
    Last Post: Dec. 12, 2008, 09:50 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •