Do untalented horses make bad riders?

D

DonkeyClub

Well-Known Member
Joined
1 July 2013
Messages
238
Visit site
Have just had a jumping lesson on a old horse and he was very stiff and dead to the leg which made me ride so badly. I feel a horse like that just gives you nothing to sit into or balance into, you kind of just wobble around on top. Not like a well balanced, well schooled horse that reacts to your leg , stays straight and engaged without any effort for the rider who can just sit there in a good spot looking perfect.
do you think good riders/ pro riders can ride a stiff/ backwards horse well and still look like the ultimate professional ? Or not? Obviously these sorts of horses can be improved but there's only so much you can do in one session.
Just feeling so despondent and embarrassed after my lesson today, I know that I can ride well but it's just so embarrassing to find yourself wobbling like a sack of spuds iin front of future employers :-(
Am I rubbish or do you think all pro riders would be the same on such a horse?
 
Short answer yes, I would expect a pro to ride a horse like that fine. But then, it's their job so of course they ought to be able to. I can do my own job when it gets difficult just fine, but I can't do anyone else's. No need to feel despondent, we all have a type which suits us and a type which doesn't :)

Long answer, I would also expect them to be able to help the horse be less stiff and backwards given a bit of time :p
 
Bad horses make bad riders, is often said on here. And actually, I agree. How can you ride well when you've got no idea what 'well' feels like. Learning on the go is one thing- Al has a pretty solid idea of what is and isn't right through learning on Reg as they found how to make the bad good. But a horse that physically can't produce the good, you can't learn how to produce it well or easily.

But then I do think a reasonably experienced rider should be able to get on most horses and get a relatively good tune out of them.
 
Its why you have to feel desperately sorry for really lovely riders who have a good reputation with tricky horses. Its all very well for so long but an average trier will get you a lot further than talented and tricky.
 
Auslander said:
In my opinion, the ability to get a decent tune out of a less talented horse is the sign of a really good rider.
Click to expand...

I agree, but also think asking someone to do so without knowing what a tune is is asking the near impossible. The horse doesn't have to be easy, or made, but until you know what you're asking for it's not going to happen.
 
Yes, definitely.

Doesn't matter how amazingly talented you a rider you are, there are some horses who just make riding difficult. Usually lazy fat wide horses who are hard to sit well on and even harder to motivate. A good rider will get some performance out of the horse but it's not easy and can sooooo demotivating with a horse like that.
 
One of the most important components for improving as a rider is "feel". In order to know what it feels like to ride "good" horses then, I'm sorry, you have to sit on a good horse. This doesn't have to be an expensive horse, or a competitively successful one, or even a particularly well trained one, and it doesn't have to be a horse that does all things well. But it has to do something well and the rider has to be educated or well directed enough to recognize that desirable feel when it happens. Some people luck out and have a good experience early on, often without knowing they are having it, and then spend the rest of their riding lives trying to make other horses feel like that horse they assumed was "normal" but was in fact very good, at least in limited ways.

As a very good trainer once said to me, riding only bad horses only teaches you to ride bad horses. This is, of course, a useful skill, but it's very hard to improve the feel of the horse you are sitting on unless you know what you hope to accomplish. Rather like trying to find your way out of the woods without a map.

I think it's fashionable for people who do not have a lot or resources to believe they are "better" riders because they ride more difficult horses but I haven't seen this borne out. In fact, I have seen people who have had very good horsey educations, riding lots of very nice horses, then ride very difficult ones well because they simply expect the horse to go the way they are used to and they "shape" the horse in that desirable way. Not popular but true. BUT, as I said, it's not necessarily about always riding the most expensive horse, it's mostly about being smart about what you do ride, and really assessing what it going on when you ride. Almost every horse has good and bad to teach so you have to pick out the bits you want and need from each horse you ride.
 
I completely agree with TarrSteps.

Sitting on a well balanced horse gives you a feel for what you are trying to achieve that is impossible to put into words, you just have to experience it, keep it in your mind and try to recreate it. Without it you don't really know what you are aiming for in a less well balanced horse. It also allows you to place your body in the correct position, which is not always something that comes naturally. A poorly balanced horse will unbalance the rider who will then contort her body in all sorts of weird positions to compensate. A very good rider can keep her position regardless of what the horse does, which then helps rebalance the horse, an upward spiral of success, while a poor rider will become more twisted by an unbalanced horsem in turn unbalancing the horse more and exaccerbating problems, a downward spiral.
 
The thing is I do know exactly the feel I want from the horse, I have ridden plenty of good horses and I've always been told that I ride them well and I ride on a fairly professional basis . But on that horse yesterday my riding fell apart which made me feel like a total fraud, my legs and heels and hands were everywhere and apparently I have no security in the lower leg at all!! The horse was very tall and wide which did not help my very short legs. But a workman does not blame his tools!
 
The way I read this is that OP has gone for an interview with prospective employers who, as part of the assessment, have given her a lesson on the aforesaid horse. So while I don't disagree with a lot of what has been said about needing to ride good horses to learn feel, in that situation I can see the benefits of an older, stiff horse. The employers no doubt know his limitations all too well, but might well find it useful to assess riders on him, however uncomfortable for them, as they will see the difference between those who cope well and those who don't - as the OP stated, it is easy for everyone to look good on a supple, responsive, well-schooled horse. It may well be, OP, that you did well compared to how others might do, even though it felt horrible to you.

Many yards have elderly, stiff schoolmasters who know all the tricks in the book and it is fascinating to see the difference in how they go for different people: where I did my stage 4/Int training, there was one horse that literally none of the stages 1-3 students could ride in a correct outline, he looked as though he had no idea, yet with a more advanced rider he would win at BD Elementary!
 
Last edited:
Auslander said:
In my opinion, the ability to get a decent tune out of a less talented horse is the sign of a really good rider.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

OP didn't ask whether it was better to learn on a good horse. OP asked if a pro could ride this particular horse. I suspect the answer is yes. It is much easier to sit on a nice horse but if you are claiming to be able to ride you need to be able to ride the difficult ones too (especially if it is your living!!)

OP, not getting at you at all, as TD says you may have done better than anyone else/the owner expected so don't be down heartened.
 
Just to add - I wasn't meaning to have a dig at the OP, and I'm sorry if it looked that way. I've ridden a lot of very good horses, and enjoyed the experience enormously, but the ones that taught me to ride were the stiff, resistant, argumentative ones. I've now got a combination of both - he's competed to Inter1 and is trained to GP, but he's an absolute bone shaker to ride, and knows all the tricks in the book. I haven't had much opportunity to ride him in the school, as he's a bit crocked - but when I do, he teaches me something every time.
 
Auslander said:
In my opinion, the ability to get a decent tune out of a less talented horse is the sign of a really good rider.
Click to expand...

Mmm. Up to a point but in my addmittedly rose tinted world a really good rider says this horse is stiff/ lame and I am not jumping it being a good rider is not about dragging the lame and stiff and unwell to do stuff.
 
Goldenstar said:
Mmm. Up to a point but in my addmittedly rose tinted world a really good rider says this horse is stiff/ lame and I am not jumping it being a good rider is not about dragging the lame and stiff and unwell to do stuff.
Click to expand...

To be fair, the words in the OP were "stiff and dead to the leg" - I don't think she is claiming the horse is lame and unable to do as it was being asked? I think possibly you and I have different pictures in our head when we read the OP: I picture the old schoolmasters (some of whome were ex 4* eventers and GP SJers) we had at Waterstock and Porlock who were well-cared for but definitely challenging to ride, stiff and slow to respond to start with, needed warming up really well plus a bit of cajoling plus clear and assertive aids once they were ready for proper work. Then they were more than capable of performing the job they were doing, which was teaching us numpties to ride better (not calling you a numpty, OP, referring to myself... :p)

I think you are picturing a very different scenario, GS, and it is impossible to know which of us is nearer to the truth on the information given so far on the thread :)
 
TableDancer said:
To be fair, the words in the OP were "stiff and dead to the leg" - I don't think she is claiming the horse is lame and unable to do as it was being asked? I think possibly you and I have different pictures in our head when we read the OP: I picture the old schoolmasters (some of whome were ex 4* eventers and GP SJers) we had at Waterstock and Porlock who were well-cared for but definitely challenging to ride, stiff and slow to respond to start with, needed warming up really well plus a bit of cajoling plus clear and assertive aids once they were ready for proper work. Then they were more than capable of performing the job they were doing, which was teaching us numpties to ride better (not calling you a numpty, OP, referring to myself... :p)

I think you are picturing a very different scenario, GS, and it is impossible to know which of us is nearer to the truth on the information given so far on the thread :)
Click to expand...

Yes I aggree we are looking at it from different sides .
Of course some schoolhorses are canny and give very little untill they get faced with a rider they feel they have to up their game for.
But I really really believe its good horses ( not necessary easy ones ) that train you the most like the first time you feel a horse really lift its front sit down and extend or collect you never forget the feeling and you strive to get back on every horse you sit on or the horse that looks see its stride from the corner way before the fence that sort of horse teachs you what to look for when choosing horses good horses teach you to seek and strive for the desirable.
 
TableDancer said:
To be fair, the words in the OP were "stiff and dead to the leg" - I don't think she is claiming the horse is lame and unable to do as it was being asked? I think possibly you and I have different pictures in our head when we read the OP: I picture the old schoolmasters (some of whome were ex 4* eventers and GP SJers) we had at Waterstock and Porlock who were well-cared for but definitely challenging to ride, stiff and slow to respond to start with, needed warming up really well plus a bit of cajoling plus clear and assertive aids once they were ready for proper work. Then they were more than capable of performing the job they were doing, which was teaching us numpties to ride better (not calling you a numpty, OP, referring to myself... :p)

I think you are picturing a very different scenario, GS, and it is impossible to know which of us is nearer to the truth on the information given so far on the thread :)
Click to expand...

Agree - the picture I had in my head was off a similar sort to the schoolmasters we had at Talland, horses like Welton Louis and Talland Blazeaway, who were very capable horses, who needed warming up properly, and to be ridden correctly. I still remember spending several lessons with a pair of chestnut ears in my mouth, while I learned a useful lesson about expecting to get on an advanced schoolmaster and just sit there and look pretty!

Whilst it's lovely to ride a really good horse, and to learn how the good stuff feels - a lot of people will never get the opportunity to sit on a great schoolmaster, but are still very good riders. It speeds up the voyage of discovery, but don't think that it's an essential part of being "good". If you're a thoughtful rider, who is in tune with whats happening underneath you, 9 times out of 10,you will achieve a good feeling from a horse who may not be any great shakes, but responds to correct aids and a connected rider, by upping his/her game, and offering good quality work.
 
Auslander said:
Agree - the picture I had in my head was off a similar sort to the schoolmasters we had at Talland, horses like Welton Louis and Talland Blazeaway, who were very capable horses, who needed warming up properly, and to be ridden correctly. I still remember spending several lessons with a pair of chestnut ears in my mouth, while I learned a useful lesson about expecting to get on an advanced schoolmaster and just sit there and look pretty!

Whilst it's lovely to ride a really good horse, and to learn how the good stuff feels - a lot of people will never get the opportunity to sit on a great schoolmaster, but are still very good riders. It speeds up the voyage of discovery, but don't think that it's an essential part of being "good". If you're a thoughtful rider, who is in tune with whats happening underneath you, 9 times out of 10,you will achieve a good feeling from a horse who may not be any great shakes, but responds to correct aids and a connected rider, by upping his/her game, and offering good quality work.
Click to expand...

Great post!

Schoolmaster doesn't mean push-button, otherwise they wouldn't teach you anything.

P
 
The picture in my mind was not the type of horses they have at great places like Talland but what you get at the not so good .
It's very difficult to learn feel on that type of horse.
I had my first feelings of the higher movement on a school horse like you describe he was know to be very naughty because he was even in old age very forward and a bit of a bully .
He decided he liked me , the first lesson I had on him was pivotal in my life I can still remember the feeling when I first got piaffe ( ok I was half halting preparing for a corner ) it was still magic .
 
Yes they do... I can go to the local riding school... be plonked on a fat lazy wide cob, and I cant ride. I cant get them to canter, I end up arms and legs everywhere, and do not enjoy the experience.
 
TableDancer said:
To be fair, the words in the OP were "stiff and dead to the leg" - I don't think she is claiming the horse is lame and unable to do as it was being asked? I think possibly you and I have different pictures in our head when we read the OP: I picture the old schoolmasters (some of whome were ex 4* eventers and GP SJers) we had at Waterstock and Porlock who were well-cared for but definitely challenging to ride, stiff and slow to respond to start with, needed warming up really well plus a bit of cajoling plus clear and assertive aids once they were ready for proper work. Then they were more than capable of performing the job they were doing, which was teaching us numpties to ride better (not calling you a numpty, OP, referring to myself... :p)

I think you are picturing a very different scenario, GS, and it is impossible to know which of us is nearer to the truth on the information given so far on the thread :)
Click to expand...

And i pictured nothing of the sort. I've had the misfortune to ride horses who make ANYONE into a shoddy looking rider.

Two stick in my mine. Both very fat, unfit and both extremely lazy. Both were very wide but fairly small (so extremely difficult to get your leg on and sit well) and both lack any good schooling. They could just about canter round the school if really pushed.
I'm usually a fairly neat and competent rider and can make most school masters go reasonably well. But on these horses I felt I could barely ride and know EXACTLY how a beginner RS rider feels when faced with a lazy RS cob. That's the kind o horse I pictured and they make even the professionals feel (even if they don't look) incompetent.
 
QR-

I don't think *untalented* horses make bad riders, I think *unschooled/badly schooled* horses make bad riders, or *can* make bad riders.

Even if a horse isn't particularly talented, all horses can be schooled up to their limit and all should be able, if correctly trained and ridden to be able to school WELL, even if it's within their own limitations.

Plonking someone on a badly schooled, lazy, stiff and unyielding horse will make that someone probably look a BIT of a worse/sloppier rider than if they were plonked on a well schooled, forward and supple horse. HOWEVER, I agree with Booboos in that a true pro and the best riders will keep their position and balance whatever the horse and amend the horses way of going from under them and probably make it look with minimal effort!!

I do stand by the fact though that put anyone on a very lazy, backward horse and they will look less tidy/glamorous as it's very hard to keep your core engaged when you are having to kick, kick and constantly drive something forward.
 
Goldenstar said:
The picture in my mind was not the type of horses they have at great places like Talland but what you get at the not so good .
It's very difficult to learn feel on that type of horse.
I had my first feelings of the higher movement on a school horse like you describe he was know to be very naughty because he was even in old age very forward and a bit of a bully .
He decided he liked me , the first lesson I had on him was pivotal in my life I can still remember the feeling when I first got piaffe ( ok I was half halting preparing for a corner ) it was still magic .
Click to expand...

That must have been a pretty big half halt ;-)

I'm pretty convinced that you have to have a degree of feel anyway - it can't be trained into you. It can be improved by riding horses who respond correctly to the aids, but if you don't have it, you can ride GP horses til you're blue in the face. You might get the hang of riding all the party tricks, but you won't improve the horse, and the horse won't improve you. I still stnf by my belief that you don't need to ride fantastic horses to be a good rider. You just need to ride the ones you're given to the best of your ability, listen to the feedback you're getting from them, and learn from it.
My first experience of a horse that was truly through, engaged and totally "with" me, was a rather common grey Irish mare. She'd had very little schooling, and I was a raw 17 year old, who hadn't ever sat on a proper dressage horse. I recognised instantly that there was something a bit special going on - despite not having experienced the feeling before.
 
Perfect_Pirouette said:
QR-

I don't think *untalented* horses make bad riders, I think *unschooled/badly schooled* horses make bad riders, or *can* make bad riders.

Even if a horse isn't particularly talented, all horses can be schooled up to their limit and all should be able, if correctly trained and ridden to be able to school WELL, even if it's within their own limitations.

Plonking someone on a badly schooled, lazy, stiff and unyielding horse will make that someone probably look a BIT of a worse/sloppier rider than if they were plonked on a well schooled, forward and supple horse. HOWEVER, I agree with Booboos in that a true pro and the best riders will keep their position and balance whatever the horse and amend the horses way of going from under them and probably make it look with minimal effort!!

I do stand by the fact though that put anyone on a very lazy, backward horse and they will look less tidy/glamorous as it's very hard to keep your core engaged when you are having to kick, kick and constantly drive something forward.
Click to expand...

Good point, I think we might be arguing over the wording. The most conformationally challenged, least talented LlamaCamel of a horse can be correctly trained to be responsive and easy to ride. But a badly schooled horse who's lazy makes most feels useless, even if they look ok and get the horse going better than most. Talent is not the same as schooling.
 
Goldenstar said:
The picture in my mind was not the type of horses they have at great places like Talland but what you get at the not so good .
It's very difficult to learn feel on that type of horse.
I had my first feelings of the higher movement on a school horse like you describe he was know to be very naughty because he was even in old age very forward and a bit of a bully .
He decided he liked me , the first lesson I had on him was pivotal in my life I can still remember the feeling when I first got piaffe ( ok I was half halting preparing for a corner ) it was still magic .
Click to expand...

But then, in a job interview you're not supposed to be developing feel but proving you've got it...

I think there are two conversations going on atm and it's all a bit cross wires! IMO, you don't learn to ride well by riding horses who don't give when asked. It doesn't even need to be the right answer... Like, a lot of the time Al would ask Reg something and get a completely different response to the expected one. But also, when she rode better, lifted her hands, sat better, balanced herself more, worked out where her weight should be and all that, he responded positively.

But then when you're up in a job interview for a riding position, you need to have developed that feel or acknowledge you can't. I literally cannot get a tune out of a horse who isn't forwards because it highlights how insecure I actually am, how I lack core strength and makes me flap and lose balance. On a forwards horse a lot of my faults are very well hidden and I can look pretty competent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top