Classical Vs dressage / non classical training?

I feel like there's so much confusion in dressage and it's made out to a big mystical secret by certain trainers/riders particularly classical dressage folks, IME that it all looks to be unachievable! All it takes is a little reading around the subject in regards to how a horse's body/muscles/skeleton actually works both at liberty and when carrying a rider to understand what it is you are trying to achieve and why. It all becomes clear when you do the research!

I've had so many "trainers" who, while they may be excellent riders, certainly are not excellent teachers! I've struggled to find someone who can accurately and in plain English describe what I have mentioned above even though this is vital to understand if you are to understand dressage.

To answer your question, I feel certain aspects of modern dressage have forgotten to do the above research, it's too much about having a flashy mover, rather than actually improving the horses way of going while carrying a rider from the inside out. For this reason I do believe there are some shortcuts taken as looks win out over correctness. There are still far too many people who think on the bit has anything to do with the actual bit! I think that classical dressage puts much more of an emphasis on doing things "the long way round" for correct muscle building and correct way of going through hard work and perseverance.

I once had a classical dressage trainer who made no sense. He would talk himself round in circles, made the whole thing a million times more complex than it needed to be and would seemingly take great joy in telling me that it would take many many years before I would understand and could progress! I gave up on him, as he was so discouraging but I've found this over and over with classical trainers. They need to calm down and stop keeping it a secret! It's not that complicated!
 
Unfortunately words and their meanings are getting very complicated these days so what I think of "classical" etc may be very very different to the next person's idea.

The principles of classical training as I see it (not just dressage, it's as valid for jumping, travelling at speed across country etc etc) are basically for the horse to understand and be able to respond to the rider's request, and for the rider to be able to position themselves upon the horse so that the horse is able to respond. That, to me, is the golden thread that runs through all training from the most basic to advanced.

Learning to do this well is never going to be easy and quick for most of us - which is where the long hours of lunge lessons for rider position and the gentle build-up of exercises for the horse come in, along with gleaning as much knowledge as possible about horse-psychology and biomechanics to help our individual understanding as well as honing our physical skills.
 
Ah, now there's a question, eh? I know what I think classical dressage is, but is it the same thing that everyone else thinks it is? My "day job" is giving displays of late 17th century riding and training at an historical site, so I am pretty well up on the teachings of Pluvinel, Duke of Newcastle, de la Guerinierre, et al, and we do train our boys from the original texts as far as possible. But what I have seen of the "classical" teachers out there, it's NOTHING like the historical original. So where are they getting their method? Beats me, but it won't make any sense to anyone, let alone A). a horse; B). a dressage judge.
 
I think the general/real meaning of classical, is as described by Cortez.

My interpretation of classical is more like 'correct', which can be found in traditional riding and which I think we have deviated away from in recent years in particular in dressage.

The strong theme in this style is the development of the horse to it's maximum potential, physically and mentally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top