Dressage riders - those with classical leanings competing in BD

Orchardbeck

Orchardbeck

Well-Known Member
Joined
3 December 2010
Messages
1,299
Visit site
I am relatively new to the world of dressage and whilst I have been off games Waiting for this baby to arrive, I have been trying to educate myself by reading as much as possible, and have come across a few books concerning classical riding.

What I wondered was, for those who compete in affiliated BD competitions, does following the 'classical way' have any reflection on the marks you receive, good or bad? I know there are specific 'classical'dressage competitions but I wondered if they had come about due to certain elements not being accepted in general competition, or is it more a way to demonstrate the higher level movements or 'airs'?

I apologise for the rather crude way of putting this question across - it is not intended to cast negativity on any specific way of training - I am very interested in the classical way as a result of my reading but I just wondered now far it was accepted in to regular dressage practice, particularly with Carl Hester and Charlotte Dujardin's success at the Olympics, who I believe are supporters.
 
Can you define your terms, please. What - or who - do you define as 'Classical'?

I think Carl and Charlotte are fantastic riders and Carl, especially, is probably one of the best trainers in the world, at least in the group of people also still riding competitively. But I, personally, would not call them 'Classical' more just a good example of the Modern Competitive School. They ride Modern horses in a Modern way, use Modern tack, and obviously train for the purpose of competition. I don't know enough about their system to know if they skew towards a more 'French Light' approach (Anky is quite far along that spectrum, btw) but they seem to favour quite electric horses (which most of us could probably not ride one side of. . .) so it's possible. Carl certainly has some very traditional German influences but I don't know enough about his current trainer to judge.

Basically though, I don't know where this idea came from they are doing something new or different. Certainly no one in the International community seems to think so.

Anyway, my point is only that I don't see them as Classical, in the way that I see people who ride, say, Spanish types in a very ' old masters' kind of way. I think the latter are probably less likely to do very well on a purely marks/placing basis in standard competition but then that's not what they are training for so I assume they're not bothered. :)

I do think somewhere along the line Classical has become a synonym for 'good' as in 'not done by force' and 'empathetic' but frankly that's just good horsemanship. I've seen good and bad in every School. . .
 
Tarrsteps - thank you for taking the time to respond. I think my question demonstrates my ignorance about it all somewhat but I'm just beginning this journey of no longer being a passenger and learning how to actually influence the horse. Anyway (and to answer DabDab's question), the authors I have read so far are Sylvia Loch, Heather Moffett and Nuno Olivierez, haven't ventured any further forward than that yet.

The Carl Hester comment came from watching the Olympic tests and the commentator (Judy Harvey?) mentioning the sympathetic way Carl and Charlotte ride - then seeing his association with the Spanish riding school and Sylvia Loch, so perhaps I have put 2 & 2 together and got 3...
 
Good question! I've been doing a bit of reading about this too (I am relearning the basics in a fairly classical orientated way) and the way they talk about the modern way you'd think everyone was riding around stiff and wooden and hauling the horses head around (that's when its not adorned with 'gadgets'), haven't seen much of that myself!

From what I understand in my reading, the classical way just takes a bit longer and focuses quite a lot on building good foundations, suggesting that modern people might favour a quick fix. I have no idea if this is true or not but interested in the replies :-)
 
If you have some more spare reading time, look for some books by phillipe karl, who sets out well what he sees as some of the problems in modern day competitive dressage as compared to French classical.

Even in the classical schools there are differing views though! Anja Beran is classical but uses the hand in a different way to what you might call French classical.

As for competition riders that are classically trained, well to be honest imho the end result of a classically trained horse should get you as many marks as a modern one (i would be biased and say more marks as you should have a trot always in true diagonal pairs, etc). Do a u tube search for Philippe Karl and watch him ride! Also pk is about to release a DVD of him training a hanovarian so don't think that classical is not for warmbloods for one minute!).

However, modern methods offer many quick fixes (draw reins for an outline, etc) so seems to me that's what people go for and that has more to do with it than anything else (and if course there aren't many classical instructors out there now so that cycle feeds itself in terms if what you see out competing, etc....).

In terms of training time overall though, actually if you are as good as pk you would have a horse up to go level and beyond without necessarily arguing that classical takes longer than modern - my feeling is the basics may take longer but actually from start to gp, not necessarily so.
 
I think part of the issue though is PK, whatever one thinks of him personally, is a brilliant horseman and rider. They exist in EVERY school!

I guess what winds me up about this idea of "Classical" is it's divisive. It's about tribes and that guy being wrong so I can be right. I agree there are differences at the extreme ends of the spectrum but it seems fashionable to point at those extremes and say, "Look! All those people are evil horse abusers!" It also lets people who, frankly, don't ride very well, believe they are doing good simply because they are not doing a particular wrong.

Also if you read real old style Classical texts - Baucher, Fillis etc - I don't think it IS particularly horse friendly. They didn't produce for competition, true, but they produced for performance and, in some cases, clearly for ego. One taught him horse x so another taught his horses y. Their patrons paid them to go bigger and better. . .just like modern competitive dressage. This doesn't mean they weren't also great horsemen but I don't get where this idea came from that they were artists starving in garrets for the love of their craft.;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm distinctly French Light in my own approach, although more from the other ways I've been taught than because I consciously follow that school. I just think the slapping labels on things is potentially harmful because it makes it about people rather than horses. Seek as you find with trainers, rather than assuming someone is "good" because they belong to a specific camp. I think ego is dangerous in horses - that's one of the big complaints with the Modern school, that ego overrides empathy - but ego comes in many forms.
 
TarrSteps said:
Also if you read real old style Classical texts - Baucher, Fillis etc - I don't think it IS particularly horse friendly. They didn't produce for competition, true, but they produced for performance and, in some cases, clearly for ego. One taught him horse x so another taught his horses y. Their patrons paid them to go bigger and better. . .just like modern competitive dressage. This doesn't mean they weren't also great horsemen but I don't get where this idea came from that they were artists starving in garrets for the love of their craft.;)
Click to expand...

Ah, but that's the wonderful thing about history - you can just remember the bits you want to remember ;) There's a lot of romantic notions about the period that Baucher and Fillis were around - throw horses into the mix and it's hard to resist the romanticism.

The problem with the term 'classical' for me is always seems to embody that 'in the good old days' mentality. I think if you are a good horseman you should be able to find a way to train a horse to high level dressage, but I don't think that there is one particular training method or ideology that is predominant.
 
True enough, Dd. All those men in their curtly wigs on their prancing ponies! :)

Can you imagine if someone turned up at a modern show in one of those bits. . . .:eek:
 
What's the phrase? "Advice is a form of nostalgia, of fishing the past out of the rubbish, brushing off the cr&p and recycling it for more than its worth" ?? Something like that.

I think TS and DD are both correct in the idea that there is such division and that classical is bandied as nearly godly in comparison to modern.

I'm not a dressage person as such, I am not knowledgable on the different schools, but I do think there must be things to learn from all, that its highly unlikely one school is "better" than the other- I jut think that with horses there are so many roads to Rome, that we probably can't bracket an entire school as wrong or right.

I think Kelpies point on time is very interesting, and not an angle I had thought of but I think could be accurate- the concept that classical is slower and more thorough and modern is about quick fixes; overall, I wonder whether as kelpie said, the time really is any different to GP??
 
The other thing about 'modern' techniques is that a lot of modern dressage riders/trainers seem to do a lot of riding horses of all levels in different outlines (long and low etc.), whereas as haven't seen that so much in classical texts. Correct me if I'm wrong though :).
It's very hard to tell how much difference that sort of thing would make in the long term though - just so many variables.
 
TarrSteps said:
............

I guess what winds me up about this idea of "Classical" is it's divisive. It's about tribes and that guy being wrong so I can be right. I agree there are differences at the extreme ends of the spectrum but it seems fashionable to point at those extremes and say, "Look! All those people are evil horse abusers!" It also lets people who, frankly, don't ride very well, believe they are doing good simply because they are not doing a particular wrong.

Also if you read real old style Classical texts - Baucher, Fillis etc - I don't think it IS particularly horse friendly. They didn't produce for competition, true, but they produced for performance and, in some cases, clearly for ego. One taught him horse x so another taught his horses y. Their patrons paid them to go bigger and better. . .just like modern competitive dressage. This doesn't mean they weren't also great horsemen but I don't get where this idea came from that they were artists starving in garrets for the love of their craft.;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm distinctly French Light in my own approach, although more from the other ways I've been taught than because I consciously follow that school. I just think the slapping labels on things is potentially harmful because it makes it about people rather than horses. Seek as you find with trainers, rather than assuming someone is "good" because they belong to a specific camp. I think ego is dangerous in horses - that's one of the big complaints with the Modern school, that ego overrides empathy - but ego comes in many forms.
Click to expand...

Re Baucher ... the modern light French approach is based on his 2nd manner after a disabling accident.. he had to learn a way that didn't require human strength to force the horse... (as per his first manner)... so it is important to differentiate between Baucher's first and second manners as they are chalk and cheese.

Re divisive .. how I understand is that some contemporary exponents of classical have been / are extremely critical of the FEI and judging of said FEI competitions as well as some training methods. PK goes further and proposes a different set of Scales of Training (the accepted version being of Germanic origin.). Reiner Klimke was probably one of the best exponents of the German Scales and his book is excellent as well as that of PK. I personally prefer to work with those that will stand up for classical principles. To my mind appeasement (in this context) doesn't work it just muddies the water.

I think there has been and probably still is a debate within the classical school about Germanic v Latin (French / Portuguese) approaches. Which I think is a sign of healthy questioning of principles / scales of training as it is important to realise that training (whatever school) has to fit the horse in front of you and much of the historic classical texts are based on baroque horses not our modern warmbloods and TBs. Which is where the good horsemanship comes in.. a good trainer (classical or otherwise) will always work with the horse.

Another excellent book if you can get is Horse Training Out-door and High School by E Beudant (the version I have was translated by Lt Col John A Barry of the US Cavalry)
 
DabDab said:
The other thing about 'modern' techniques is that a lot of modern dressage riders/trainers seem to do a lot of riding horses of all levels in different outlines (long and low etc.), whereas as haven't seen that so much in classical texts. Correct me if I'm wrong though :).
It's very hard to tell how much difference that sort of thing would make in the long term though - just so many variables.
Click to expand...

Both Reiner Klimke and Philippe Karl use both "outlines" (forward extended neck and open head carriage and in a collected / Ramener frame) as modern classical they are as relevant as those in historic classical textbooks.. see my post above re Baroque horses and modern warmbloods / TBs
 
Whilst I would never claim to be competing to a high level (or even competing at all at the moment) I have more recently had a trainer who uses "classical training methods" - infact there are a group of people from which she is one, I presume they all went to the same school of teaching and also training from a very good event rider who used what I would consider more modern methods....

The "classical trainer" (not using apostrophes to be ironic just that this is what they describe themselves as and not really sure if this is their correct term) was much more of a let the horse come to you type of training. I was to remove the flash and martingale I had been using and instead of using these to get a quick outline result I had to try and get my horse to relax enough with me and using gentle tactics to soften him into an outline rather than force him. She is against the use of things like side reins and when I asked if I should be using the equi-ami to help develop the correct muscles to enable him to come under from behind she said she wouldn't bother as that would come with the work we were doing and there was no point forcing him to do something to build the muscle when he wasn't yet strong enough.

The event rider was quite different. She would occasionally lunge my horse in side reins (flexible and not too tight). The lessons were also much more pressurised at getting results by the end of the session and making the horse do as you wish rather than asking nicely and hoping they would say yes. Horse saying no wasn't really an option you would work through tenseness or naughtiness until you got the desired result. I must point out nothing done to the horses was cruel but there was certainly no element of the horse just not wanting to work that day, this was her job and she would have to do it when I asked.

While I actually would really like to be able to use all the methods I learnt in the classical lessons I really don't feel they worked for me. My horse is very cheeky and learns quickly and I felt the classical method was a little to slow for him, while we were doing one thing he was already thinking of ways to get out of it. I did feel I got better results from the event trainer, the pressure worked well for me and my horse and was certainly still kind even though I would say it was a little more forceful. I guess the classical training would possibly get me where I wanted in the end but much much a long term project and I felt a little like I had come out the session and not achieved anything in some cases we had got worse but with the event ride I always came out feeling buzzed and like we had really improved.

Guess different methods work for different people - this is just my experience.
Hope that makes an element of sense.
 
Wow, thank you very much for all the contributions. When I first started this thread I had a bit of an 'oh my god, everyone will think I'm such a numpty' moment, but the discussion is exactly at the level I was hoping for - I especially welcome the other reading suggestions! It seems to me that there a whole realm of methods to help you achieve what you want to, whether competitively or not, it is just a case of educating yourself on how and which to try - when.

Having battled for many years with just the standard BHS/ pony club manuals, it is just so interesting to find about the different schools of thought - some I never knew existed, and it has really helped me to open my mind.

I have up to three weeks to go before my due date, plus lots of b feeding time to while away so it will be nice to put it to good use!
 
StoptheCavalry said:
Whilst I would never claim to be competing to a high level (or even competing at all at the moment) I have more recently had a trainer who uses "classical training methods" - infact there are a group of people from which she is one, I presume they all went to the same school of teaching and also training from a very good event rider who used what I would consider more modern methods....

The "classical trainer" (not using apostrophes to be ironic just that this is what they describe themselves as and not really sure if this is their correct term) was much more of a let the horse come to you type of training. I was to remove the flash and martingale I had been using and instead of using these to get a quick outline result I had to try and get my horse to relax enough with me and using gentle tactics to soften him into an outline rather than force him. She is against the use of things like side reins and when I asked if I should be using the equi-ami to help develop the correct muscles to enable him to come under from behind she said she wouldn't bother as that would come with the work we were doing and there was no point forcing him to do something to build the muscle when he wasn't yet strong enough.

The event rider was quite different. She would occasionally lunge my horse in side reins (flexible and not too tight). The lessons were also much more pressurised at getting results by the end of the session and making the horse do as you wish rather than asking nicely and hoping they would say yes. Horse saying no wasn't really an option you would work through tenseness or naughtiness until you got the desired result. I must point out nothing done to the horses was cruel but there was certainly no element of the horse just not wanting to work that day, this was her job and she would have to do it when I asked.

While I actually would really like to be able to use all the methods I learnt in the classical lessons I really don't feel they worked for me. My horse is very cheeky and learns quickly and I felt the classical method was a little to slow for him, while we were doing one thing he was already thinking of ways to get out of it. I did feel I got better results from the event trainer, the pressure worked well for me and my horse and was certainly still kind even though I would say it was a little more forceful. I guess the classical training would possibly get me where I wanted in the end but much much a long term project and I felt a little like I had come out the session and not achieved anything in some cases we had got worse but with the event ride I always came out feeling buzzed and like we had really improved.

Guess different methods work for different people - this is just my experience.
Hope that makes an element of sense.
Click to expand...

This brings up some interesting questions..

Use of gadgets / training aids... generally the Classical approach steers away from these .. (an exception being a drop noseband) particularly at lower levels and uses lateral work and flexions... particularly in the latin school.. neither of which are forced (as per Baucher and his 2nd manner) ... Klimke (exponent of the German Classical approach) doesn't really deal with these in his book at all and the German Scales of training don't either.. quite different parameters.

With the "cheeky" / intelligent horse the use of lateral work I have found is key.. as I find I need to do lots of different movements, school figures and transitions in quick succession.. and in combination.. it is mentally exhausting keeping it going tho.. ;) which means our schooling sessions are short otherwise my brain fries... :rolleyes: (no brain frying smilie) I have found sticking a small jump / trotting pole/s in can help to keep my horse focused on me as well..

I know at least one trainer who is not too concerned with the quality of a movement but will use it to develop another .. all the exercises / movements etc are tools and not an end in themselves.. but this approach does need a shed load of experience / knowledge to be effective and not set the horse and rider up for a fight..
 
I don't have anything to add but this thread is fascinating so I'm following it with great interest.

TarrSteps - I'm particularly interested to read more about the French Light training school as I've never heard of it before - can you recommend anything for me to read to learn more?
 
Zuzan said:
This brings up some interesting questions..

Use of gadgets / training aids... generally the Classical approach steers away from these .. (an exception being a drop noseband) particularly at lower levels and uses lateral work and flexions... particularly in the latin school.. neither of which are forced (as per Baucher and his 2nd manner) ... Klimke (exponent of the German Classical approach) doesn't really deal with these in his book at all and the German Scales of training don't either.. quite different parameters.

With the "cheeky" / intelligent horse the use of lateral work I have found is key.. as I find I need to do lots of different movements, school figures and transitions in quick succession.. and in combination.. it is mentally exhausting keeping it going tho.. ;) which means our schooling sessions are short otherwise my brain fries... :rolleyes: (no brain frying smilie) I have found sticking a small jump / trotting pole/s in can help to keep my horse focused on me as well..

I know at least one trainer who is not too concerned with the quality of a movement but will use it to develop another .. all the exercises / movements etc are tools and not an end in themselves.. but this approach does need a shed load of experience / knowledge to be effective and not set the horse and rider up for a fight..
Click to expand...


I'm not sure I would always describe my horse as inteligent but he certainly has his moments - One scenario sticks out for me.... My horse decided he would rather not stand while we were discussing how to move forward and what it was I wanted to achieve (it was only my second lesson using these methods). So he took off trotting occasionally breaking into canter, I know if this was with my old instructor I would have been made to pull him up and am fairly confident I could have done this. In this lesson I had to keep him on a circle and wait for him to choose to slow down. This did eventually happen but had used my whole lesson trotting/cantering rather erratically in a circle. I went into the session wanting to improve both my riding and my horses way of going and felt that I achieved neither of these things, and long term I don't feel like this has improved as now each time I have been in the school he has done the same thing in the same place and it feels frustrating for me to just wait for him to decide to stop, which generally takes quite some time. I really loved the classical idea - but it just didn't really seem to work for us. The event rider didn't always use gadgets it was probably only a handful of times but she was more results driven and I certainly felt we got those results.

I do really struggle to focus my horse - he has often been described as a bit of an air head. He might see an interesting leaf and will look at that then there could be an interesting bit of hedge in the distance and that will be more interesting than me. This is why I feel a more fast paced (not in speed obviously) would work best for him. To try and get him to stop the taking off issue I have been trying the lateral work so moving him on a bigger - smaller circle. His walk is nice and his canter is nice but quite often short of pulling his head off keeping a nice steady trot is quite a problem. I realise this will be a strength issue which is when I think the occasional gadget can be useful.
 
Last edited:
Zuzan said:
Re Baucher ... the modern light French approach is based on his 2nd manner after a disabling accident.. he had to learn a way that didn't require human strength to force the horse... (as per his first manner)... so it is important to differentiate between Baucher's first and second manners as they are chalk and cheese.

Re divisive .. how I understand is that some contemporary exponents of classical have been / are extremely critical of the FEI and judging of said FEI competitions as well as some training methods. PK goes further and proposes a different set of Scales of Training (the accepted version being of Germanic origin.). Reiner Klimke was probably one of the best exponents of the German Scales and his book is excellent as well as that of PK. I personally prefer to work with those that will stand up for classical principles. To my mind appeasement (in this context) doesn't work it just muddies the water.

I think there has been and probably still is a debate within the classical school about Germanic v Latin (French / Portuguese) approaches. Which I think is a sign of healthy questioning of principles / scales of training as it is important to realise that training (whatever school) has to fit the horse in front of you and much of the historic classical texts are based on baroque horses not our modern warmbloods and TBs. Which is where the good horsemanship comes in.. a good trainer (classical or otherwise) will always work with the horse.

Another excellent book if you can get is Horse Training Out-door and High School by E Beudant (the version I have was translated by Lt Col John A Barry of the US Cavalry)
Click to expand...

While i am no dressage expert i agree with ^^^^ This a good trainer will work with the horse and rider to create a balanced horse and rider, allowing development of the horses musculature and education over a period of time without the hoiking in of the horses head, blocking the back and hind movement which is to often seen in the dressage world today.There is also a prevelance in modern dressage for flashy horses with big movement which although not classically "correct" in the movement, eg. Totilas, flashy, beautiful to look at but not correct in the angles of his movement, all up front with little happening behind and in some cases judges being so in awe of the flash losing sight of the correctness of the movement. Also some of the piaffe shown by some of the top riders show the weight on the forehand not behind again incorrect but still being highly scored.
I wonder When did the skiing position in the saddle become so acceptable ? with shoulders so far behind the vertical pushing the horse along with the seat continuously and balancing on the hands show softness, elegance and harmony ? Im not saying all dressage riders, there are some beautiful riders out there one of my favourites is Gonçalo and Rubi AR but somewhere along the line in dressage the correctness has been lost and if billing it as classical brings things back around to looking for correct moving, balanced, supple horses with light riding producing a harmonious pair all the better
 
I'm no expert, but I am lucky enough to have had lessons with a chap who has spent many years in Spain training with the top schools, he's also trained in Germany and Vienna so has had experience on both sides of the coin. He's now in his 60's and still lives in Spain, has his Iberians but also has warmbloods - he competed up to GP but now just trains others. Thankfully he is bringing a book out soon, we all miss him sorely when he's over in Spain!

When I asked him about the different learnings and schools of thought around dressage he said that neither was right or wrong, but learning only one to him felt wrong - a combination was what worked best. So he never liked gadgets and tack to force a horse into a shape, however he would not ask you to canter round and round in a circle until the horse 'chose' to stop. He said you can learn something from every trainer you have, and the best thing to do is take elements from each trainer that work best for your horse until you have almost created your own style.

I like to school my horse on these rules - I have tried a number of different trainers never really finding 1 that suits perfectly (apart from the above trainer but he only visits about 3 or 4 times a year!), so I take elements from each and combine them in my schooling sessions.

Try both schools of thought, get a trainer for both and see how it suits your horse - dont worry about what is right and wrong, there are pros and cons to both!
 
I think the successful/best riders are obviously incredibly talented individuals no matter what methodology they use, then mere mortals who aspire to their level of ability adopt their ideologies but usually less successfully (in my case anyway!) I try to differentiate only between good dressage and bad dressage as I think a lot is down to the skill of individual rider.

However saying that I do differentiate in some ways...I see classical training's main focus as being on lightness and collection to the degree that piaffe is a preparatory exercise for the levade and other airs above ground rather than being a movement performed for it's own sake as it is in competitive dressage - that would soon root out the horses that are actually pulling their rider's arms off or incorrect bouncing hind leg piaffers as they'd never get off their front-ends off the ground! :eek:

Competitive dressage however seems to be more about collection AND extension - There also seems to be more of a focus on breeding & what the horse brings to the table in terms of their paces - dressage horses seem to move a lot more extravagantly than the ones competing 30 years ago.

Classical dressage seems more about training & correctness only perhaps because the aim is often simply get the best out of the individual horse/rider rather than compare it against other horses/riders where you may need to rely more on your horse's natural flair to set you apart...?

Okay I'll stop rambling :o I am clearly interested but lacking actual knowledge
 
Last edited:
kc100 said:
I'm no expert, but I am lucky enough to have had lessons with a chap who has spent many years in Spain training with the top schools, he's also trained in Germany and Vienna so has had experience on both sides of the coin. He's now in his 60's and still lives in Spain, has his Iberians but also has warmbloods - he competed up to GP but now just trains others. Thankfully he is bringing a book out soon, we all miss him sorely when he's over in Spain!

When I asked him about the different learnings and schools of thought around dressage he said that neither was right or wrong, but learning only one to him felt wrong - a combination was what worked best. So he never liked gadgets and tack to force a horse into a shape, however he would not ask you to canter round and round in a circle until the horse 'chose' to stop. He said you can learn something from every trainer you have, and the best thing to do is take elements from each trainer that work best for your horse until you have almost created your own style.

I like to school my horse on these rules - I have tried a number of different trainers never really finding 1 that suits perfectly (apart from the above trainer but he only visits about 3 or 4 times a year!), so I take elements from each and combine them in my schooling sessions.

Try both schools of thought, get a trainer for both and see how it suits your horse - dont worry about what is right and wrong, there are pros and cons to both!
Click to expand...


I like this - good to try a bit of everything. In all honesty with my new(er) horse I think he could do with someone in the middle between the pressure and more relaxed. Ideally I would like him to be soft enough to have no need for gadgets and for him to carry himself nicely but I think if I wait for him to do it myself I will be old and grey!!:D
 
kc100 said:
I'm no expert, but I am lucky enough to have had lessons with a chap who has spent many years in Spain training with the top schools, he's also trained in Germany and Vienna so has had experience on both sides of the coin. He's now in his 60's and still lives in Spain, has his Iberians but also has warmbloods - he competed up to GP but now just trains others. Thankfully he is bringing a book out soon, we all miss him sorely when he's over in Spain!

When I asked him about the different learnings and schools of thought around dressage he said that neither was right or wrong, but learning only one to him felt wrong - a combination was what worked best. So he never liked gadgets and tack to force a horse into a shape, however he would not ask you to canter round and round in a circle until the horse 'chose' to stop. He said you can learn something from every trainer you have, and the best thing to do is take elements from each trainer that work best for your horse until you have almost created your own style.

I like to school my horse on these rules - I have tried a number of different trainers never really finding 1 that suits perfectly (apart from the above trainer but he only visits about 3 or 4 times a year!), so I take elements from each and combine them in my schooling sessions.

Try both schools of thought, get a trainer for both and see how it suits your horse - dont worry about what is right and wrong, there are pros and cons to both!
Click to expand...

You would love tim brindle at hope farm then as he sounds very similar to your trainer in spain! He also trained in Vienna, Maybe that is why.
 
susieoci said:
You would love tim brindle at hope farm then as he sounds very similar to your trainer in spain! He also trained in Vienna, Maybe that is why.
Click to expand...

I just had some lessons with him last week! He's fab - I'll be going back to him as soon as I can afford to :)

I've found a lot of people who are more modern/competitive in their ways & goals want me to push my gelding ... and push.... and push! He is not naturally flashy, he does like to be very 'safe' in his trot & canter naturally. But I honestly feel that running him ragged & booting him along doesn't help one bit. All it does is tire us both out & make him on the forehand.
The instructor who teaches me on him though will tell me to make him more forwards when he's pootling about, but there's no 'kick it!' or forcing, no 'bend him left, then right, then left!' or having to hold him together. We work on exercises that help him find his own balance & remain soft. He still tries to evade occasionally, but we find ways around it. We do a lot of flexions & ground work also to help :)
I would also love to take him for lessons with Tim some time, but that will require a lot of saving up as I don't have transport! :(
 
In recent years, I've had lessons from someone who describes themselves as "classical", someone who I'd imagine would describe herself as "German" and modern/ competitive (training purely for results), a SJ and now an eventer. My initial experience of the classical trainer was good but I found it became rather cult-like eventually; if you didn't do it this way you were doing it wrong and harming your horse, if you were struggling to get results it was because you were doing it wrong, confusing your horse, teaching him bad habits, had been watching heretical "modern competitive dressage" and trying do it that way.

I've just tried different things with my new horse until I've found what he likes and responds to. He prefers the way the eventer rides him, and teaches me, at the moment. The classical trainer did teach me a lot of really useful in hand and lungeing/long reining stuff, so I am continuing that work with him. I'd go back to that person for the ground/IH work but I don't get on with the ridden methods so well. The pony is bolshy, very "busy" in his brain, typical clever pony/native type brain and he just didn't settle in a very relaxed, softly softly "classical" lesson atmosphere. I think you have to take what works with for your horse at that particular moment. Elements of classical training work for mine so I use them and I used to be v pigheaded and say I'd never do it another way, but I realised it wasn't working and had to try another way which has proven more successful.
 
Some very interesting points of view here, but I'm still searching for what "classical" actually means. Part of my work involves presenting a Baroque riding demonstration to the public at an historical site (yes, I actually do wear a curly wig, and a sword), so I have a keen interest and do extensive research. The horses are all Spanish or Friesian and most of our training for these events involves primary source material; texts by Pluvinel, the Duke of Newcastle and de la Gueriniere among others. I have very rarely seen anyone purporting to be a classical trainer working horses according to these principles, so what is "classical"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top