Classical instructors?

I have most of my training with an English trainers with continental training but have had occasional lessons with a classical trainer .
I prefer my usual trainer I have worked with her for more than ten years and we have a lot of history together .
I enjoy my lessons with the other trainer it's not that different and it makes me think through things a bit differently which is always a good thing to question what you do now and again.
But there's a tad of everyone else is wrong my way is the most ethical best way to train to the classical trainer and I dislike this intensely and gets in the way of my enjoyment.
To often I think people compare not good traditional ( for want of a better description ) trainers with classical ones good position training should be given by all dressage trainers but I think a bit of a habit of just working with the horse and ignoring the riders basics happens a fair bit now a days.
Horses are always horses and good training is always good traing no matter what 'school ' the trainer is from.
 
To me the big difference is how the rider effects the horse is taken as paramount whereas bhs instructors are more keen on training the horse and pretty much ignoring the rider and ime have no idea how to teach a rider who isn't a natural

If you look on the oh I wish is been taught to ride properly thread there are some good eg s of this.
Best thing is to find an instructor who makes sense to you and who you get on with and see progress with :)
 
I think it's a bit of sweeping statement to say Bhs qualified people don't teach position some don't but I certainly do in fact that's probally my speciality but is true than many teachers now do ignore developing the rider but the good ones do spend time doing this.
However if the riders brief for the lesson is indeed to teach the horse to do x its altogether surprising that's what the trainers do and many trainers don't have the luxury of being able to long term plan training for people .
I was Bhs trained and I had a lot of training in how to teach people the physical side of riding perhaps I was just lucky with whom I worked with .
 
Just from my experience - my classical instructor was the first one to focus on my position and how it affects my horse. Classical seems to focus more on this whereas all my other insructors (BHS riding school, dressage instructors etc) have just focused on the horse. Any comments that were giving to my position would just be things like "turn your toes in", whereas my classical instructor would say "your toes are out because your thigh is rotated out and your pinching with your seat bones, this is affecting your horse by...". My instructor is good and explains WHY I'm doing what I'm doing.

But then again, maybe I just had bad instructors before!
 
Elbie said:
But then again, maybe I just had bad instructors before!
Click to expand...

This is probably likely :)

I teach both classical and 'normal' lessons. They are both exactly the same; teaching people how to ride in a quiet, sympathetic manner with the aim of developing a real understanding of how the smallest actions on the part of the rider can influence the horse.
The only difference is that some people like to use the word 'classical' in all honesty :)
 
This is interesting as I sometimes have lessons with a 3* event rider, who's fab! But there is a classical rider who is local to me who rides at Grand Prix level and I was interested in lessons, but the event rider charges £25 for 45 mins and the classical instructor charges £50 which is quite a lot! So interesting to hear there's not much difference.
 
Elbie said:
Just from my experience - my classical instructor was the first one to focus on my position and how it affects my horse. Classical seems to focus more on this whereas all my other insructors (BHS riding school, dressage instructors etc) have just focused on the horse. Any comments that were giving to my position would just be things like "turn your toes in", whereas my classical instructor would say "your toes are out because your thigh is rotated out and your pinching with your seat bones, this is affecting your horse by...". My instructor is good and explains WHY I'm doing what I'm doing.

But then again, maybe I just had bad instructors before!
Click to expand...

I would agree with this, also the things that were most different for me were that in the bhs/competition lessons the horse was taught the school movements as and when was required for the level you needed to compete at, whereas the classical instructor used specific school movements as an exercise to gain straightness, power and self carriage not as an end in themself if that makes any sense
 
Thanks for your replies everyone. My current BHS instructor focuses a lot on my position and how it affects the horses way of going. We also use school movements and things to encourage her to self carry and achieve a more natural outline so I don't think I'm missing out on anything really by not having classical lessons. Thanks again everyone
 
Bexx said:
Thanks for your replies everyone. My current BHS instructor focuses a lot on my position and how it affects the horses way of going. We also use school movements and things to encourage her to self carry and achieve a more natural outline so I don't think I'm missing out on anything really by not having classical lessons. Thanks again everyone
Click to expand...

In my totally honest experience, from an insiders point of view......the main difference between a good regular lesson, and a good 'classical' lesson is.......







.......*whispers* about an extra £30.....
 
I have had classical lessons in the past and stopped because in all honesty, they were making me feel bad. I got fed up with snide comments about how everyone else was rubbish, that if you didn't follow their advice to the letter you were cruel and your horse was suffering. Sometimes you'd spend an entire hour working on flexions on the ground, analysing every little move the horse made, with no noticeable improvement and I'd be £45 worse off.

I've been to bad BHS instructors in the past too. Currently taught by a BHSAI who events at Int, does BD at Med/ AM. This weekend I have a lunge lesson, with the sole aim of working on some issues with my position and balance. My last lesson was all about my position - we spent a long time working on my hands, seat and balance. I'd gone along and said horse was doing such and such, and I felt something in position wasn't helping but I couldn't work out what. She watched for 5 mins then made minor changes to my position, and we worked on my hands. Once that was sorted, my issue with the horse was resolved. So I think it is unfair of people to say BHS instructors never work on the rider. My lessons with this instructor look at my riding and position, how I affect the horse, and improving me to improve his way of going, along with looking at improving his suppleness and strength. And all of this without preaching to me that if I don't follow her methods, I am cruel and ruining my horse.
 
Not being facetious here, but I do actually use the books of de la Gueriniere and the Duke of Newcastle, William Cavendish. These are the original classical masters; most modern "classical" instructors seem to be making it up as they go along.
 
Cortez said:
Not being facetious here, but I do actually use the books of de la Gueriniere and the Duke of Newcastle, William Cavendish. These are the original classical masters; most modern "classical" instructors seem to be making it up as they go along.
Click to expand...

I do aggree with this and classical ought always be used italics as there is not as far I can see a clear definition to what a modern classical teacher does .
Trainers define themselves as classical as far as I can see ,and and I have only been to one so it's based on one the experiance has confirmed the stereotype I had before I went .
Lots of walking less wieght given to the horse always going forward ( I won't take one of mine because of this) and while I have enjoyed the experiance and it makes me think outside my comfort zone which is good.
I went wondering if a different approach would help with a difficult horse ,it did not ,but did clear in my mind that dressage is not the career for him so I have sent him hunting which has calmed him down a lot so it was worth it for that.
The type of training in Spain and classical is often grouped together and although I understand why I don't think this the case .
 
Cortez said:
Well, if someone could actually define "Classical" then that would help?
Click to expand...

I've never met anyone so far who can.

Cortez said:
Not being facetious here, but I do actually use the books of de la Gueriniere and the Duke of Newcastle, William Cavendish. These are the original classical masters; most modern "classical" instructors seem to be making it up as they go along.
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
IMO, labelling lessons as 'classical' lessons is all just a bit of a fad.
Some of my clients call our lessons 'classical' or will ask for a 'classical' lesson as they just seem to like the word. That's fine by me - as long as they're keen to learn they can call it what they like.

You get good instructors, and you get bad instructors. A good instructor will always teach harmony between horse and rider and promote an understanding between riders position and horses way of going. If people want to call that 'classical' then fine :)

But no, I've never met a so called classical trainer who can satisfactorily tell me the difference.
 
Goldenstar said:
I do aggree with this and classical ought always be used italics as there is not as far I can see a clear definition to what a modern classical teacher does .
Trainers define themselves as classical as far as I can see ,and and I have only been to one so it's based on one the experiance has confirmed the stereotype I had before I went .
Lots of walking less wieght given to the horse always going forward ( I won't take one of mine because of this) and while I have enjoyed the experiance and it makes me think outside my comfort zone which is good.
I went wondering if a different approach would help with a difficult horse ,it did not ,but did clear in my mind that dressage is not the career for him so I have sent him hunting which has calmed him down a lot so it was worth it for that.
The type of training in Spain and classical is often grouped together and although I understand why I don't think this the case .
Click to expand...

I have trained quite a bit in Spain and Portugal and do agree with this ^^, but there are several different disciplines in Spain. There is "regular" dressage, or competition dressage - same as here; there is Alta Escuela or High School dressage (which is my interest), including the airs, and which I would define as "classical", and there is Doma Vaquera, or "cattle work" which is also dressage, but performed in a curb, one handed and without trotting (walk & canter only). There is also Working Equitation which includes much dressage training also. Spoilt for choice, really! (and much more fun than just "dressage")
 
Is it the same as the difference between competition and classical dressage? That difference has been talked of a lot and it is generally accepted that there is a difference.
 
Well, in Spain there is a whole discipline of "classical" competitive Alta Escuela; one of the most popular competitions too. And yes, it is quite different to FEI dressage competition.
 
TigerTail said:
To me the big difference is how the rider effects the horse is taken as paramount whereas bhs instructors are more keen on training the horse and pretty much ignoring the rider and ime have no idea how to teach a rider who isn't a natural
Click to expand...

^^^^This - I started classical lessons last year and for the first time it was made clear to me how my own position/balance/aids is directly affecting my horse!
 
Jingleballs said:
^^^^This - I started classical lessons last year and for the first time it was made clear to me how my own position/balance/aids is directly affecting my horse!
Click to expand...

But surely any competent instructor would/should be teaching this? I don't see how this makes an instructor "classical" exactly?
 
Cortez said:
But surely any competent instructor would/should be teaching this? I don't see how this makes an instructor "classical" exactly?
Click to expand...

I've asked this question / made the same point on both of these current "classical" threads and no one has answered. I really can't see how simply being a good instructor who improves both rider and horse is exclusive to being "classical". In most cases I'd just say that riders have now found a decent instructor who teaches and explains things well, rather than receiving some sort of classical revelation.
 
chestnut cob said:
I've asked this question / made the same point on both of these current "classical" threads and no one has answered. I really can't see how simply being a good instructor who improves both rider and horse is exclusive to being "classical". In most cases I'd just say that riders have now found a decent instructor who teaches and explains things well, rather than receiving some sort of classical revelation.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you. It's more of a revelation to find out that there are seemingly a majority of instructors who DON'T teach this!
 
chestnut cob said:
I've asked this question / made the same point on both of these current "classical" threads and no one has answered. I really can't see how simply being a good instructor who improves both rider and horse is exclusive to being "classical". In most cases I'd just say that riders have now found a decent instructor who teaches and explains things well, rather than receiving some sort of classical revelation.
Click to expand...

This is it a nutshell.
 
There just seems to be some sort of myth being perpetuated which suggests that "classical" equals "kind, sympathetic & explains well", and "non classical" therefore equals "cruel, harsh, encouraging hard hands, constant kicking resulting in miserable horses". I've seen miserable horses and terrible riders taught by both classically and non classically labelled trainers.
Essentially if you and horse are improving and you understand how to progress then the label doesn't matter.
 
chestnut cob said:
There just seems to be some sort of myth being perpetuated which suggests that "classical" equals "kind, sympathetic & explains well", and "non classical" therefore equals "cruel, harsh, encouraging hard hands, constant kicking resulting in miserable horses". I've seen miserable horses and terrible riders taught by both classically and non classically labelled trainers.
Essentially if you and horse are improving and you understand how to progress then the label doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

This in a nutshell.
A good instructor is a good instructor.
I mix my training with someone who claims to be 'Classical' and someone more of 'BD trainer' orientation. I use the former for their great variety of suppling exercises and overall way of going, and the latter to fine tune aspects for the competition arena whilst complimenting the work of the former. It's actually a tricky thing to balance and it's also okay to acknowledge that maybe a single instructor isn't the complete package.

FWIW my 'Classical' is £15 a lesson cheaper than the 'BD'
 
ihatework said:
This in a nutshell.
A good instructor is a good instructor.
I mix my training with someone who claims to be 'Classical' and someone more of 'BD trainer' orientation. I use the former for their great variety of suppling exercises and overall way of going, and the latter to fine tune aspects for the competition arena whilst complimenting the work of the former. It's actually a tricky thing to balance and it's also okay to acknowledge that maybe a single instructor isn't the complete package.

FWIW my 'Classical' is £15 a lesson cheaper than the 'BD'
Click to expand...

I do like the in hand and targeted suppling exercises you get from the more "classical" side and miss that now. But I can do enough atm on my own for the level my horse is at. I can't complain tho because current instructor, who also schools my horse weekly, is v hot on ridden suppling work. With her it is all about bending and getting horse loose and soft so the rest follows. If you asked she would probably say she was more germanic in style than anything else tho...
 
Goldenstar said:
Lots of walking less wieght given to the horse always going forward ( I won't take one of mine because of this)
Click to expand...

I had lessons with a classical instructress last year (who came from Portugal) and it was the opposite to this, because she said I was doing too much walking work and boring my horse and we concentrated entirely on him going forward off the leg for the first 3 months! That was definately what my horse needed though, I have seen her do more walking and suppling when watching her teach others. TBH I think it is just a good instructress as a lot of what she taught reminded me of when I was a teenager and taught by Barbara Ripman (dressage rider) at college - a concentration on finding the underlying cause of problems and on progressive learning (rather than just trying to do it right from the start and then fix all the problems) that I have missed in the intervening 10+ years.
 
Cortez said:
Well, if someone could actually define "Classical" then that would help?
Click to expand...

lol
define happy, define beauty
scientists can't even define 'life' good luck defining Classical riding.
definitions can be helpful, but sometimes limiting a great thing to a wordy definition robs the feeling from it. if you defined beauty you'd take away the wordless joy inside when you experience it.

timely question too as just today on Sylvia Lochs classical page on facebook there's a debate going on trying to 'define classical' if you search there you'll see what Sylvia has just posted know, wonderful answer but still doesn't 'define classical'

if she can't in a nutshell, no-one can, but her explaination is still worth googling :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top