How much of riding is. . .

[Steorra]

I think one can make up for the other to some extent, and which is more important depends on the rider and the situation. For example, one rider might be able to ride tempis by giving an aid when it feels right, without necessarily being aware of the footfall sequence. Whilst another rider might consciously time their aid with their horse’s stride to achieve the same result.

So perhaps there is a point of cross-over, where the physical aspect is informed by riders understanding of the theory, but the correct aid or response becomes ingrained and doesn’t require conscious thought. Probably we could all theoretically describe aids for canter but don’t need to think right leg here, left leg there etc in practise.

Also I think there are two sides to the mental aspect of riding: understanding the theory and being in the right frame of mind. For years I struggled with motivating horses who aren’t forward-thinking. I’d watch other riders get the same horses going, I knew I should be able to do it, I knew in theory how to do it, and was fit enough to do it. But my attitude was that if the horse isn’t enjoying it and I’m not enjoying it why are we bothering? And I’d make a half-hearted effort then go back to riding my forward, responsive horse with a sigh of relief.

Nowadays it's more a case of taking what I'm offered, but with a bit of an attitude adjustment I get lots of satisfaction from coaxing a bit of sparkle from the steady neddies too. Not by doing anything technically much different but just being determined to get something out of every ride I can beg/borrow/afford!

 

[TarrSteps]

^ I think you have just hit on an important point, too - the number of horses you ride and the reason you ride them can inform a lot of your riding. If you have to ride what is offered then you don't always have the luxury of playing to your strengths but neither do you necessarily have the emotional involvement that seems to paralyze some riders. . .

 

[khalswitz]

Aha! What level DR do you do? See, I would say that, at its roots, jumping probably is about getting on with it and not thinking about it. But as you encounter different types of fence, as the dimensions and technicality increase, well then you really need to know the theory behind what you're doing.

Is it the same with dressage? If I did pure dressage, I'd be at about prelim level. But because my DR level is dictated by eventing, I find myself at Elementary level. So, is it the case that I think jumping involves more theory because I jump at a higher level than I dressage, and you think the opposite, because you do the opposite? And is that the answer to Tarrsteps' question; that, the more advanced it gets, the greater the theory component becomes?

By the way, I don't have a strong point.

We're not really comparable level wise, just meant in terms of how we prioritise I guess!! I don't compete at any real level - my last horse was a schoolmaster, and he had competed at medium, and we were schooling flying changes/canter half pass etc but only at home (no transport). He's what got me into dressage theory as he had all the buttons, and when I was shown how to push them and how to school to improve the things he found hard (keeping engagement was always tough as he was a little long for example) I suddenly got it.

Current horse only competing bd prelim, taking him out for his first novice in a fortnight (although he's going very well in training and my regular dressage clinician reckons he'll be out at elem before next year). He's been a real challenge - an exracer that didn't even know what the buttons were! So theory became even more important than interesting as suddenly I was actually having to explain a whole different language to him. Scales of training suddenly made sense as I could see what I was starting with, and know where I'm heading (to what my schoolmaster was like), and am piecing together how to train towards that by improving rhythm, contact, suppleness, straightness, and engagement, and how each of those apply to the movements we work on.

However my jumping is shocking. I've got a horrid defensive position, as he does very dirty stops on me very regularly. He even had a very highly respected sj pro coach round his neck last November... So whilst I do make it worse it isn't just me. I'm more worried about survival in sj (although we love XC) than anything else, so theory doesn't really seem to apply... And every trainer I've had reverts to 'sit back and keep kicking' so it's been hammered home!!

Would be interesting to see what some higher level dressage peeps (Sparkles?) would think as a better foil to you h2t. I think your idea definitely has merit though.

 

[TarrSteps]

See, I would say dressage/riding on the flat is more technically demanding both from the point of view of competition, there is so little margin for error or individual way of going, and it terms of the physical development of the horse. Flatwork is essentially physio so it matters a great deal, in the long run, how the horse is using each part of its body.

Jumping is much more individual - there are lots of ways of 'doing it right' and you can't micromanage the horse's way of going too much, even the point that some horses have very idiosyncratic styles and you have to let them get on with it to some extent so as not to take away their try.

Ditto riders. So long as jumper riders do the bits that matter to the horses well, they can have quite individual styles. As far as the technical knowledge, you should learn most of what you need to know early in the game, then it's just about refining. And since has to bring a quite a lot to the party, it's possible for the rider to be a bit behind the horse in skill and the horse well make up for it within reason. This is much less true on the flat and even less in a test.

As far as knowing distances, how to ride certain fences etc, that's mostly just rote learning and not that complicated to learn, although obviously it takes experience to be able to put it to good use.

Making horses is a different skill set again, although of course there is lots of overlap.

 

[NZJenny]

I find I can learn the "theory" from a book, but given that so much of riding is about feel, the application is a totally different thing.

I also believe that horses mirror their riders. You can use it as a training technique and make it work for you, but mostly it seems to work against people as they seem unaware that it is going on.