Dressage riders - those with classical leanings competing in BD

chestnut cob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your horse sounds a little similar to mine and you also seem to have had the same experience of the classical training as I did. I have actually gone back to using the flash as he is much more settled, not having it on seems to give him too much to think about which generally turns into naughtiness. I am certain I have not yet found the perfect bit/noseband combination but I would be hesitant to book another lesson with the classical trainer as I feel my use of the flash would be frowned upon as I would "Not be doing the right thing". However I do occasionally feel like this with a lot of naturally type horse people that if you're not doing it there way then you clearly want to hurt your horse and don't care about them quite enough.... BUT that's a debate for another day!!;)
 
Why would a classical instructor be a "natural" type person, per se? Nothing classical about NH, and the Old Masters were not exactly fluffy bunnies.....
 
Neither are the original 'nh' people (who would probably spit if you called them that!) like Tom Dorrance or Tom Roberts or even Henry Blake (to pick from three different areas of the world). They all came from backgrounds where horses had jobs to do and were expected to work hard at them.
 
TarrSteps said:
II 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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more with this! It really bugs me when someone who may (PK) or may not (DrH) be able to ride themselves spends most of their time criticising others for failing to understand the incredible insights of the ancients and perverting not just their own horses' way of going but also the entire sport by blinding all judges and trainers to their incredible faults.

I have to admit I struggle with some of the older texts. I find Baucher incomprehensible in either the older or the newer version (in print I find PK incomprehensible as well), nor do I clearly understand how his method is supposed to have changed (according to his own writings that is, not to what his 'true heirs' say on his behalf). Other bits of text are just giggle worthy, for example, the oft appealed to , ancient wonder that is Xenophone includes such lovely gems of advice as muzzling horses any time they don't have a bridle on because they bite. I am solely tempted to conclude that his modern day disciples have been too busy reviving his methods to bother with reading his texts in the first place!
 
Cortez said:
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"?
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was angling at at the beginning, because to me classical just means old or of a particular era. Because the word 'classical' itself is is a term used describe the era from about 1730ish to about 1820ish. So any theory of equitation that was common at a particular time that is not common now I would go as far as to describe as a 'classical' school.

Also, I think it is exceedingly erroneous to suggest that those with modern dressage leanings get to the top by using every gadget under the sun and having flashy dressage horses.
 
Booboos said:
I couldn't agree more with this! It really bugs me when someone who may (PK) or may not (DrH) be able to ride themselves spends most of their time criticising others for failing to understand the incredible insights of the ancients and perverting not just their own horses' way of going but also the entire sport by blinding all judges and trainers to their incredible faults.
Click to expand...

Very well put :)
 
That made me laugh, Booboos, and that takes a bit of doing today. :)

Although I was wondering if we'd get through the whole thread without invoking Dr. H.;) I'm still waiting to find out where the super duper dressage horse WAZ is developing with the Parellis is. . .
 
But then you see I don't think Baucher is at all classical, very much the modern, Jean-y-come-lately according to the theories I am studying. PK is a bit Baucherist, and a lovely rider, but mostly incomprehensible when he opens his mouth/tries to write it down. To me, the classicism is in the outcome required, so before 1810 it was all about a Baroque type of horse, highly disciplined for war or court riding, all about collection and "dancing about the hocks", no extension, no flying changes. Into the 19th century and the horse itself has changed with the advent of the hot Thoroughbred, so it's more ameliorative, less demanding in the collection and more forward exercises. Today we have the hugely elastic "back moving" warmbloods, all change again with the riding and training goals. Not "wrong", just different.
 
Cortez said:
But then you see I don't think Baucher is at all classical, very much the modern, Jean-y-come-lately according to the theories I am studying. PK is a bit Baucherist, and a lovely rider, but mostly incomprehensible when he opens his mouth/tries to write it down. To me, the classicism is in the outcome required, so before 1810 it was all about a Baroque type of horse, highly disciplined for war or court riding, all about collection and "dancing about the hocks", no extension, no flying changes. Into the 19th century and the horse itself has changed with the advent of the hot Thoroughbred, so it's more ameliorative, less demanding in the collection and more forward exercises. Today we have the hugely elastic "back moving" warmbloods, all change again with the riding and training goals. Not "wrong", just different.
Click to expand...

I think you've hit the nail on the head.
However, if the training and riding is adapted to the style of the Warmblood in modern dressage, why did they start breeding dressage warmbloods in the first place? Or has the style of training morphed with the development of the breeding. (Just general musings)
 
The modern sport of dressage has developed along warmblood lines, in the last 50 years going in the direction of the German horses' huge elasticity (so lots more emphasis on extensions and jump in the canter, flying changes, etc. - all things warmbloods are good at, and have been selectively bred for since). But if you're really, really good at boinging along, you're probably not so good at sitting on your hocks and talking the energy upwards for piaffe/passage, sitting in the canter and really crisp transitions (all things which the Baroque horse was born to do). So again, different horses for different jobs. And, for me, Classical means "original" - not "nicer" or better. But perhaps that's just my interpretation, after all I slice up melons on a pole with a sword for a living (whilst performing a veeery slow canter pirouette).
 
Last edited:
Cortez said:
But then you see I don't think Baucher is at all classical, very much the modern, Jean-y-come-lately according to the theories I am studying. PK is a bit Baucherist, and a lovely rider, but mostly incomprehensible when he opens his mouth/tries to write it down. To me, the classicism is in the outcome required, so before 1810 it was all about a Baroque type of horse, highly disciplined for war or court riding, all about collection and "dancing about the hocks", no extension, no flying changes. Into the 19th century and the horse itself has changed with the advent of the hot Thoroughbred, so it's more ameliorative, less demanding in the collection and more forward exercises. Today we have the hugely elastic "back moving" warmbloods, all change again with the riding and training goals. Not "wrong", just different.
Click to expand...

And goes to the idea of training for the individual. Which gets even more confusing when not every horse in every breed conforms to a standard so you can't always say, "X breed, Y method."

I think you've hit the nail on the head.
However, if the training and riding is adapted to the style of the Warmblood in modern dressage, why did they start breeding dressage warmbloods in the first place? Or has the style of training morphed with the development of the breeding. (Just general musings)
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a seesaw - the kind of horse shaped the sport and then the sport has shaped the way the horses have been developed. The speed with which the warmblood books have progressed is amazing in many cases - there are very modern types around now whose grandparents looked lonely without their ploughs. That's the triumph of custom breeding and an attrition based approach!
 
I wasn't suggesting the genuine classical trainers such as the ones quoted were the fluffy bunny types from what I have read and seen quite the opposite seems to be true. But my experience of a classical trainer was very much a one sides view and I do feel that I would get a my way or no way type reaction (in reality it would probably be a disappointed look of oh so you want to hurt your horse do you - or maybe my over active imagination) which I was likening to the new nh people where unless you do things that one particular way you are cruel and uneducated. I personally feel it is best to take bits of everything, but now I seem to have thought about this so much I've forgotten what the question was :)
 
I think you have well illustrated our discussion though! Trainers can CALL themselves all sorts of things but the reality is those titles don't mean much - at best they are a clue to how the trainer sees him/herself. "Classical" is the current buzzword but in terms of what it means as far as a training system . . .hard to predict!
 
I am loving this discussion, thank you all, really interesting reading. I think the problem is that when most people nowadays use the term "classical" they dont really know what they mean by it. As far as i can make out its generally used to mean a lack of rollkur/draw reins/harshness etc, which as far as i am aware isnt "classical" just good correct riding! Carl and Charlotte are often used as an example of "classical" riding/training within the modern sport, and I just see them as wonderful examples of modern competitive riding.
The development of the warmblood breed is also interesting, and as others have said, progressing very rapidly, possibly too rapidly in my opinion. The current love of the extremely long legged elegant modern type is very far from the short, stumpy warmblood that was used only three or four generations back, and i do wonder if things have gone too far the other way. How this long legged model will fare at GP is still unproven, and i am not entirely convinced, after all if we take Valegro as the best competitive GP horse at the moment, he is not the uber long legged youngsters that we are seeing now.
 
Yes, I was just about to say 'returning to the original question then...';)

While there is a lot to learn from 'classical' riders and trainers it is almost certain that their methods were not designed for the modern type of dressage horse that has to a certain extent shaped the top end of the sport.
 
There was a programme on not so long ago about the training of Spanish horses (at least from memory it was) Either way they were using almost the exact same methods as had been used for hundreds and hundreds of years - I'm almost certain they used side reins though. But they are also breeding the same kind of horse they had been doing for hundreds of years so the same methods were still relevant and as others have said with the dressage horse so quickly evolving the very true classical training may no longer be relevant and may have to evolve with the horses. From what I saw though they were very much 'getting on with the job' and the horses were treated when well behaved and cared for to the highest standard. To me that is just normal horsemanship
 
Love this thread. I see myself at a similar stage to the op. I'm currently reading through pk's book the twisted truth of modern dressage which seems rollkur = wrong pk = right. I think we all agree rollkur isn't great and I think I like pk's methods, although it does get lost in translation somewhat but isn't there an enormous distance between the two? My knowledge on the subject is minuscule so I'm trying to read loads too.

I've taken note of the suggested reading and ill plough through the list.

As an aside, op if you're planning to breast feed I can recommend a kindle. Easy to hold and turn the 'pages'. A lot if these books are massive hardbacks but available in kindle form. You'll end up twisted trying to read them and feed at the same time.
 
I don't know Carl Hester at all, but from what he says in his public demos he does not follow any one school or think of any one school as clearly right or clearly wrong. At the BD convention for example he specifically said he uses ideas from all schools and is interested in what they all have to say but doesn't see himself as part of one tradition to the exclusion of any other.

Google says that Le Guieriniere invented the flying change and the counter counter around the 1730s.
 
I think the points about scoring are interesting. When I've watched top level dressage over the last few years I have occasionally been rather disenchanted. A huge emphasis seems to have been placed on paces/extension with less on correctness/collection. I don't really see why a Spanish type who rides a very accurate test and collects beautifully should get worse marks than a warmblood who extends extravagantly but looks tense and comparatively on the forehand. I should add that I've been enjoying watching dressage a bit more recently as things seem to have changed a little. Evidently, what is in fashion with dressage judges changes over time, sometimes for the better, perhaps sometimes for the worse. I'm not sure why there is this variation though and I don't know how top level dressage is judged, is there just one mark for paces?

Great thread btw, I'm learning a lot and have been youtubing like mad!
 
If you look at old video from the 70's and before, you see a very different type of horse (and riding) to nowadays. Some lovely collected work, not so extravagant extension, overall a softer picture, and some things that would be considered wrong today. If there is that much difference in 40 years, imagine how much there is after 400 years! I used to compete at a fairly high level, but I cannot bear to watch most of the top rides today (with, of course, the exception of Mr Hester and occasionally his protégée).
 
Just a thought, could this emphasis on extreme paces/extension be partly because dressage had nowhere else to go? I mean show-jumping and eventing have evolved so much over the last 20 years or so. Jumps get bigger and more technical, where does dressage go from here? Perhaps it's time to bring back the airs above the ground :D

I do worry that dressage will become a bit like racing - dependent on genetic freaks (with weird extendy shoulder joints). Breeding will always be hugely important but surely training should play a far greater role than genetics.

It would be so interesting to put the top 'classical' riders on the modern warmbloods and the most 'modern, competitive' riders on Spanish horses and see how different the training methods really are and how the horses respond.
 
I have just read this thread with interest as I have my first lesson on Saturday with someone described as a classical dressage trainer .i was bored and decided to do this on a whim .
Whether I willbe able to throw any light on this question after Saturday is another matter.
 
lindsayH said:
Just a thought, could this emphasis on extreme paces/extension be partly because dressage had nowhere else to go? I mean show-jumping and eventing have evolved so much over the last 20 years or so. Jumps get bigger and more technical, where does dressage go from here? Perhaps it's time to bring back the airs above the ground :D

I do worry that dressage will become a bit like racing - dependent on genetic freaks (with weird extendy shoulder joints). Breeding will always be hugely important but surely training should play a far greater role than genetics.

It would be so interesting to put the top 'classical' riders on the modern warmbloods and the most 'modern, competitive' riders on Spanish horses and see how different the training methods really are and how the horses respond.
Click to expand...
I believe that Carl Hester had a Spanish horse at his yard a while back (a horse that I know), and described riding it as one of the most difficult experiences of his training career; totally different to the warmbloods.
 
Cortez said:
But perhaps that's just my interpretation, after all I slice up melons on a pole with a sword for a living (whilst performing a veeery slow canter pirouette).
Click to expand...

May I also point out that sliced melon is aviable at all good supermarkets, this may make your life easier.
 
See, but slicing melons is at least a useful job, like chasing cows or invading countries. Very much in the historical tradition of horsemanship!
 
How do you know which school of thought a particular instructor follows unless they specifically advertise it - I've never been told by a trainer who's principles they follow or like and have never once discussed anything such as this in a lesson despite having lessons with good, well respected trainers who are out competing at GP themselves. Is it one of those things that's not really discussed?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top