Do untalented horses make bad riders?

Perfect_Pirouette said:
QR-



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...

This is true, but it's not difficult to stir up a lazy horse and get it going, if you take advantage of the small window of opportunity right at the start of the session to get the horses attention and get it off the leg. Riders constant nagging/kicking is my biggest bugbear, and I will happily spend an entire session in halt and walk, helping the rider and the horse to reach an understanding about who does all the work.
 
I agree entirely. However, sometimes it is not difficult to get them going and they will 'react' when asked, but if they are not very well schooled, it is more difficult to get them forward and through and round at the same time. Sometimes, with these types of horses, you have to not care what the head is doing for a while and just concentrate on getting them straight and forward. Fine, but then for a while the horse can go around doing a slight (if intermittent) giraffe impression and I feel then too that that doesn't help to make the rider look 'good'
 
Perfect_Pirouette said:
I agree entirely. However, sometimes it is not difficult to get them going and they will 'react' when asked, but if they are not very well schooled, it is more difficult to get them forward and through and round at the same time. Sometimes, with these types of horses, you have to not care what the head is doing for a while and just concentrate on getting them straight and forward. Fine, but then for a while the horse can go around doing a slight (if intermittent) giraffe impression and I feel then too that that doesn't help to make the rider look 'good'
Click to expand...

I'd be tempted to substitute "Always" rather than "Sometimes" at the start of the second sentence! Being sharp off the leg is an absolute basic requirement, without which, no horse, talented or otherwise, is going to achieve anything. I don't give a monkeys ass where the head is, as long as it goes when I ask it to.

And Yeah - I know! I'm having a soapbox moment, and it's not really relevant to the original post. I'm getting back in my box now!
 
I am amazed how many people say they can't shift an idle horse. I am not much cop but even I can move a lazy sod. Surely anyone who learned on a lazy pony as a kid knows how to get them going (I admit I have an electric arse but even so?!). Is that lesson really so easily forgotten? I would never claim to be able to ride well but my balance isn't so horrendous that I need the horse to pull me along to keep it :confused:

And to get on my soap box a bit now, to ride well is to understand what you are on. If you concentrate on forward and don't worry about frame for a bit anyone watching and assessing you really ought to be able to see you are riding well rather than badly as you are clearly riding the horse you are on, rather than what is ideal.

Are we seriously maintaining that Carl Hester ( or whoever you want to insert at this point) would look scrappy on a lazy horse? I really, really don't think that is the case. It might not feel nice but the chances are that he wouldn't be flailing around like a limp fish trying to move the creature surely?
 
Last edited:
Jesstickle said:
I am amazed how many people say they can't shift an idle horse. I am not much cop but even I can move a lazy sod. Surely anyone who learned on a lazy pony as a kid knows how to get them going (I admit I have an electric arse but even so?!). Is that lesson really so easily forgotten? I would never claim to be able to ride well but my balance isn't so horrendous that I need the horse to pull me along to keep it :confused:

And to get on my soap box a bit now, to ride well is to understand what you are on. If you concentrate on forward and don't worry about frame for a bit anyone watching and assessing you really ought to be able to see you are riding well rather than badly as you are clearly riding the horse you are on, rather than what is ideal.

Are we seriously maintaining that Carl Hester ( or whoever you want to insert at this point) would look scrappy on a lazy horse? I really, really don't think that is the case. It might not feel nice but the chances are that he wouldn't be flailing around like a limp fish trying to move the creature surely?
Click to expand...

Well I would imagine the majority of posters on the HHO forum or at least in CR are capable of moving a lazy horse, no, it is not that hard, however how stylish you will look in doing so is anyone's guess.

He wouldn't be flopping about like a limp fish no, obviously. But I still don't think he'd look as good on a stiff, lasy, unschooled cob as he does floating around on Uti. Let's face it, he'll never look *bad* will he, not in a million years, but the whole picture wouldn't look as elegant or effortless.

And yes, anyone with any knowledge whatsoever that would be worth working for would/should recognise that in driving (a lazy, unschooled horse) forward and not worrying about the front end is actually you doing the correct thing and what it takes in order to get that horse (eventually) working correctly.
 
Perfect_Pirouette said:
He wouldn't be flopping about like a limp fish no, obviously. But I still don't think he'd look as good on a stiff, lasy, unschooled cob as he does floating around on Uti. Let's face it, he'll never look *bad* will he, not in a million years, but the whole picture wouldn't look as elegant or effortless.
Click to expand...

But the original question was would a pro rider still be able to look polished and professional on such a horse. OP said they felt they were just wobbling about on top

I really think the answer is yes. I think you would see a different picture but that is due to the horse. It probably isn't going to float around granted. I really wouldn't expect a seriously excellent rider to look much different in terms of balance/position on any horse though. I certainly wouldn't expect them to wobble about or struggle to catch their balance.

I do that all the time but I am naff. Would I expect a pro to do it? No.
 
Last edited:
People like Carl will (probably) maintain their balance and position on any horse yes. They are naturally exceptionally gifted and amazing.

There are plenty of 'pros' out there though that I am sure rely on a horse making them look good and many of their faults would shine through on something very lazy/unschooled.


It really depends on the person doesn't it. If we were paying someone to ride our horses then I expect we would all want the Carl version of a pro rather than the one described in my second paragraph.

I think this thread's gone off on many a tangent :p
 
Perfect_Pirouette said:
People like Carl will (probably) maintain their balance and position on any horse yes. They are naturally exceptionally gifted and amazing.

There are plenty of 'pros' out there though that I am sure rely on a horse making them look good and many of their faults would shine through on something very lazy/unschooled.


It really depends on the person doesn't it. If we were paying someone to ride our horses then I expect we would all want the Carl version of a pro rather than the one described in my second paragraph.

I think this thread's gone off on many a tangent :p
Click to expand...

It is off tangent but that's HHO for you.
To throw into the mix rider develop skills based on what they have done .
So some riders are very good with lazy horses and some very good with hot ones .
If you have learned balance and position it will work on any horse but the skills you learn are very affected by want you have done and what you have ridden .
And of course talent some people have amazing talent however I think there's a lot of not good teaching going on that holds people back.
 
I hadn't read the OP carefully enough. In a job interview situation (or when riding a new horse) I think what helps a lot is to ride a horse of a type you are familiar with. Sometimes I get on a horse and think "well that's just like R" so then I know what I need to do; I know where he is stiff and why, what types of exercises to try, what evasions to look for, etc. I am sure there are some people who can do this naturally, but I need to learn the correct response to different types of horses. I literally have to remember how to place my body and what mistakes in myself to correct with different types of evasions, so coming across a horse type I recognise is an enormous advantage.
 
I actually find riding a plod a lot easier than a very forward horse - I learned to ride on ponies you had to work bloomin' hard to get moving. My first horse of my own was an absolute plod (when not bolting, but different story) and yet I could get him going like a Lipizzaner - I had strong legs, and strong seat, and independent hands. Admittedly moving onto forward horses meant I had to learn to tone everything down, and was a bit messy at first, but at least I had to core strength to carry on over. Now, I've gotten used to my sensitive ex-racer so I do find it hard work riding my sister's ploddy cob, but I still have the skills to ride him and to get a decent tune out of him.

I've ridden a lot of sh** horses in my time, with little to no talent, that have been wooden, stiff etc - but every single one of them is improvable, even if not hugely. And personally I think learning to ride those horses meant that I didn't race up the levels and become a competition pro, but it taught me to train horses, and it taught me to read when and how to push them, and when not to! From that I worked for years reschooling difficult horses with decent success, and from that breaking in and producing young stock. I'm no great shakes competition rider - strictly RC/PC - but that doesn't matter to me. I am often complemented on my sympathetic riding style by new instructors, and it's something I learned from riding horses who couldn't do it, and helping them along. I don't think lack of talent can't teach riders, but it takes a different attitude, and a lot of patience.
 
With regards to the OP, perhaps they put you on a difficult horse to see how you managed? Anyone can look pretty on a supple, well schooled horse, but it's getting the horse to that point that takes the skill.

I always thought it was a shame how quickly people sold stuff on if it started refusing or wasn't great at flatwork. I think what little skill I have is acquired from riding very far from perfect horses, and being stuck with them longterm. If I wanted to do dressage, for example, it meant teaching my horse to do dressage and persevering with strengthening and schooling a horse to whom it didn't come naturally - I would never in a million years have the opportunity to go out and buy a pre-made dressage horse. But then perhaps that is why I am competing at lower levels and will never be a pro. :p
 
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...

My schoolmaster showjumper has competed and won at 1m30 and his flat work is incredible. Could I get any sort of tune out if him the first few time I rode him? No. Not at all. He clearly thought I was an idiot and plodded around barely trotting with his head stuck out like a giraffe!
He also will stop at a fence, any fence at any height, not dirty or spooky but he will run straight past if I drop my hand or leg. It's like he says "well if you can't be bothered to ride me properly then neither I can't be bothered either!"
Having said that when I ride him correctly he's incredible, but I also assumed schoolmaster to mean more 'push button' than 'grumpy old git' and I was wrong lol!
 
TableDancer said:
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!
Click to expand...

Very true and totally different from the more general question of how to educate riders. I've worked with older schoolmaster types who were great for this as they go only as well as the are asked to go and can often produce surprisingly good performances when suitably motivated but look like beach donkeys in between.
 
Auslander said:
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...

As I said, "good" doesn't mean super fantastic, expensive, good-at-everything, it just means the horse has strengths and the rider has to know enough to recognise this and take away the right feel.
 
slumdog said:
My schoolmaster showjumper has competed and won at 1m30 and his flat work is incredible. Could I get any sort of tune out if him the first few time I rode him? No. Not at all. He clearly thought I was an idiot and plodded around barely trotting with his head stuck out like a giraffe!
He also will stop at a fence, any fence at any height, not dirty or spooky but he will run straight past if I drop my hand or leg. It's like he says "well if you can't be bothered to ride me properly then neither I can't be bothered either!"
Having said that when I ride him correctly he's incredible, but I also assumed schoolmaster to mean more 'push button' than 'grumpy old git' and I was wrong lol!
Click to expand...

I sniggered! If you saw Alf warming up, or out hacking, you would never in a million years think he was what he is. At best, he looks like a smart middleweight hunter, at worst, a rather large, common plod. He likes going along with his nose in one county, and his hindlegs in another - I'm sure people think I'm lying about what he's capable of!
 
slumdog said:
My schoolmaster showjumper has competed and won at 1m30 and his flat work is incredible. Could I get any sort of tune out if him the first few time I rode him? No. Not at all. He clearly thought I was an idiot and plodded around barely trotting with his head stuck out like a giraffe!
He also will stop at a fence, any fence at any height, not dirty or spooky but he will run straight past if I drop my hand or leg. It's like he says "well if you can't be bothered to ride me properly then neither I can't be bothered either!"
Having said that when I ride him correctly he's incredible, but I also assumed schoolmaster to mean more 'push button' than 'grumpy old git' and I was wrong lol!
Click to expand...

I think this is more what I was getting at. Some of those types can be very "tricky" but the whole point is if you know what to do, they go, and by learning that you add to your knowledge for the next horse. I would never say a horse like that is "bad" - quite the opposite!!

My point before was that if you are schooling or reschooling horses, how do you know what you are going for if you have never felt it (even without knowing what you are feeling) and don't have good input from the ground? It's true, some things are obvious - the horse goes where you point it and doesn't buck you off - but it's the expectations and the subtleties that make for good riders rather than just average ones. Don't get me wrong, I've ridden a lot of difficult horses but if I had relied on them to tell me what I wanted from a horse, I would have very low expectations!

As an example, I recently rode a horse that apparently "would not canter". I got on the horse and it was pretty clear the horse was disinclined not unable to comply. So we had a "chat" about listening to the leg that probably lasted all of a minute. Voila, cantering horse. And then it cantered for its person, too, and now she know that the horse CAN do it and what to do when the horse tells her it can't. But if I had got on that horse and accepted its way of going, I might have been able to improve things but I would likely not have been able to change them. It was only by know how the horse COULD feel, judging by what I felt initially, that I was able to make a quick and concrete change. So, yes, those are two different aspects of riding but hardly unrelated.
 
I think another point from this (which is miles from where the OP started, sorry...) is if your horse can't tell you you need someone who can.

It took 18 months of fruitless struggle for Al to start having proper lessons with someone who'd shout at her exactly what she needed to do, and what should be happening, and would get on Reg and show that when she did something, he'd respond in a particular way. And then this year she started having lessons with another person who took that base of knowledge and turned it up into a "what happens when this happens?" and "what's happening now?" series of lessons, which in turn took Al up into a different level of how she rode. And while Reg is lovely she'd never have been able to start riding well if she hadn't had those people to turn around and tell her what to do and how to do it I don't think. She's now surrounded 24/7 by insanely talented people and horses (and is definitely not out of place on her 15.2hh polo pony with her BE100 experience... Definitely not.) and it's pushing her more. At no point has she had a horse who has been able to teach her but through good instructors has been able to teach the horse whilst learning herself.

I'm not using my words well, sorry!
 
TarrSteps said:
My point before was that if you are schooling or reschooling horses, how do you know what you are going for if you have never felt it (even without knowing what you are feeling) and don't have good input from the ground?
Click to expand...

See, that's another point again. Having someone good on the ground changes the whole stakes.

ETA Lolo makes it better than me!!!
 
I think that a talented horse makes a good rider because you have to step up to the mark. Talented horses are very athletic and unless you have a really good seat it can be hard to sit to them and control the power. It's why a lot of average joes struggle with well bred wb's born to be elite dr and sj horses. They have so much ability, life and brains about them you have to be decent or learn to be decent in order to train them.
Average horses with more cold blood breeding, less athletic and more ameneable are easier to ride (generally) and don't place as many demands uponthe rider and therefore don't encourage as much improvement. Thats why average nice safe horses are sort after. A lot of people don't want to be an amazing rider on a talented horse. They just want an easy life on something pleasant that is fun and enjoyable with no stress or pressure.
 
Some interesting comments on this thread. I'd agree with those posters who said the choice of horse for the assessment lesson was very deliberate on the part of the prospective employers. They will have wanted something safe, that wasn't so sharp or responsive that it would have dumped their prospective employee, but would have also shown them how well the prospective employee could ride. How well you did remains to be seen - your prospective employers are the ones who know how well or badly that horse normally goes with different abilities of rider. How did you feel the instruction that they gave you went? Were they giving you any helpful tips on how to get the horse a bit more 'with' you?

PS Don't call the horse untalented. He may have been a bit older and past his prime, but if he was the sort of horse who can come out day after day teaching beginners and experienced people something new about riding, who will tolerate rookie mistakes with nothing more than a patient sigh, but will also up his game a bit if he gets someone who knows their onions, that is not an untalented horse. That is the sort of horse that most riding schools would give their back teeth for. It's just a different sort of talent to that which is needed to do a grand Prix dressage test.
 
this is an interesting one, I have a lovely, ordinary mare who is nicely schooled but at 19 is good at work avoidance.

She is easy to ride and safe BUT she is hard to ride well. She will highlight a rider who doesn't sit properly as she is very responsive to seat and weight aids. If a rider grips she will simply go like a snail, if someone sits correctly she is much more forward. I've seen this with a relatively novice older lady with a natural seats who had horse striding out beautifully. More experienced riders who are crooked struggle to get her to move in a straight line, it's very interesting. If you ride at all hand to leg, she will do a very good sewing machine impression and I've seen some well qualified riders unable to get her to work over her back getting very frustrated.

I have ridden RS horses though who are a pain as they need pretty tough riding to get them motivated and I think it's a shame, I'm not sure it teaches about riding good horses to have to learn to put a rocket under a 'bad' horse.

When I have been in Germany at the riding school, the kids have immaculate seats, and can ride at a high level on the flat. They would potentially be scared stiff galloping in an open space on a naughty pony. It is horses for courses I suppose, but those German kids will make far better dressage riders than kids on ponies will, as a rule. Kids on ponies may never feel or understand what 'correct' riding is -however brave they may be.

I suspect that the younger members of the Whittaker clan have ridden no RS type ponies or horses. They will have had a course of 'good' animals and it has shaped their riding and success.
 
I'd really love to see a definition of "untalented" . . . green? inexperienced? backwards thinking? unbalanced? dead to the leg? And, no, I don't think untalented horses make "bad" riders . . . nor do I think that schoolmasters necessarily always teach more than riding school plods.

I think this article: http://dressagedifferent.com/2013/10/07/the-school-master/ describes perfectly the vital role of the instructor in getting the best out of ANY horse . . . with good instruction and the use of brain over brawn, it is possible for riders to get a decent tune out of all but the most dangerous/recalcitrant horse.

I have to say, that I really bridle (pun intended) at the idea that a horse could be labelled "untalented" . . . horses give us what they have if we ask them in the right way and if they are correctly schooled/physically able. The idea that an unschooled horse (or a badly schooled horse) should be dismissed as being talentless makes me a little sad.

P
 
But ultimately, you have to know the horse's limitations and accept them, at any level. Some horses cannot produce the lift in front because they're very downhill, or are physically limited. Al most likely won't ask Reg to jump more than BE100 because the SJ asks more than he could happily give. He's not untalented, just limited. You can do a lot with what you've got but ultimately asking them to do more than they are physically comfortable with just doesn't work- it's teaching a pig to sing. No one wins.

Untalented is I think the wrong word- unable is more likely. In the same way I could, with lots of good training and careful management, eventually run a marathon. I'm never going to be able to run it fast or comfortably and long term it wouldn't be very sustainable to do regularly. My sister, with her much longer legs and slimmer body (even if I lost a lot of weight, my body type is still short and curvy) would be much better and easier doing that. And a horse that can't do one thing can be exceptional at something else...
 
This is an interesting thread .
I too dislike the word untalented in the thread title because when you read the original post you can understand why the horse was used in that context because he could do enough to test but was not too sharp , riding trials at interviews can be a bit of a nightmare because you may get people who can barely ride .
But you can only ever train a horse within the limits of its physical ability it not possible for them exceed their design specification and that's where the better horses teach you much it's easy for them to learn so you learn lots from them.
A rider whose learnt indoors on the lunge in a dressage focused way may have a great core and fab balance but might be hopeless at coping with say a days hunting where a rider who grew up being throw onto and off ponies out hunting might struggle to get a GP horse to canter .
Riders are good at different things that's driven by what you have done and the horses you met along the way .
Some riders of course possess the ability to be good at everything That's talent .
But hard work and the right training develops feel and good horses help that.
 
I would say – “no, but untalented riders certainly make bad horses” but don’t take this as unsympathetic I too have ridden horses at riding schools/ training centres etc that I simply didn’t make a good job of for whatever reason.
In reality I think that variety makes the best kind of riders, I think you need to ride everything (excluding the truly dangerous) if you want to be a good all round rider. If you only ever ride unschooled horses you will only every ride a horse like it’s unschooled and you will probably develop a somewhat effective but inelegant style which is limited in what you can produce. But if you only ever ride super well schooled horses you won’t know what to do when the ‘right’ aid fails to work on an untrained horse. On the whole the better the rider the better job they will make of ANY horse – schooled or unschooled.
 
It works both ways. I have seen Mary King looking less than elegant when coaxing a baby horse round a course of show jumps at an event years ago. Gave me great hope. Of course I took my hat off to the fact that while it didn't look glorious, she managed to work with and get a tune out of said baby and I would have been out of the front door quite early on. I have learnt more from riding co-operative horses, even if they weren't uber talented and they in turn have helped me sit on and work with trickier customers.
 
Of course they do something thats lazy and stiff with no suppleness is going to make you ridigid with legs and whip constantly flapping! It will also teach you bad habits as you see with riding school children (classic pony club kick and pull riding). Dont be to hard on yourself!
 
MorganExpress said:
Of course they do something thats lazy and stiff with no suppleness is going to make you ridigid with legs and whip constantly flapping! It will also teach you bad habits as you see with riding school children (classic pony club kick and pull riding).
Click to expand...

I'm sorry - but I don't agree with this statement at all. A lazy horse, ridden properly doesn't automatically make the rider rigid and "flappy" . . . as I said before, it's all about instruction and brain rather than brawn.

P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top