FrodoBeutlin
Well-Known Member
Yes I think so Ester -- St Georg magazine once published a picture of Salinero with a blue tongue after completing a test (so when he had been ridden more or less on the vertical & poll-high)
In defence of Rollkur...
- Thread starter Booboos
- Start date
Peacelily
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand why everyone is making this issue so complicated.
No novice horse should be asked to work rollkur - the muscle strength and flexibility isn't there. You wouldn't ask an athlete who is just beginning his training to perform an advanced stretch - they'd injure something.
However, horses trained to grand prix have muscle strength and flexibility of top athletes, which technically they are. Momentary rollkur simply stretches muscles which they'll be using throughout their work. The PROBLEM is that these horses are being subjected to lengthy sessions in rollkur. Again, no top athlete would perform a stretch and hold it for two hours - that has to hurt.
Anky herself has admitted that rollkur should only be used in short bursts, but that she loses track of time when she's "having fun". It's the fact that these riders put their own enjoyment before their horses' welfare that needs to be addressed.
If rollkur is not banned (which I doubt it will be), there needs to be a lot more education to prevent amateur riders trying to copy what these top riders are doing, and much stricter guidelines preventing on the excessive use of this training method.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree munchkin, is it similar to when people over face their horses with massive fences as that's what the professionals are doing? - some of that promotes hyperflexion & extension of the legs/joints muscles - expecting novice/untrained horses to do a lot of things is doing to induce pain as they're not trained to do, if some one asked me to do the splits I'd certainly be in a lot of pain! but not the athletes on the telly - they do it for fun.....
thanks for the interesting points raised by the post starter...
I don't understand why everyone is making this issue so complicated.
No novice horse should be asked to work rollkur - the muscle strength and flexibility isn't there. You wouldn't ask an athlete who is just beginning his training to perform an advanced stretch - they'd injure something.
However, horses trained to grand prix have muscle strength and flexibility of top athletes, which technically they are. Momentary rollkur simply stretches muscles which they'll be using throughout their work. The PROBLEM is that these horses are being subjected to lengthy sessions in rollkur. Again, no top athlete would perform a stretch and hold it for two hours - that has to hurt.
Anky herself has admitted that rollkur should only be used in short bursts, but that she loses track of time when she's "having fun". It's the fact that these riders put their own enjoyment before their horses' welfare that needs to be addressed.
If rollkur is not banned (which I doubt it will be), there needs to be a lot more education to prevent amateur riders trying to copy what these top riders are doing, and much stricter guidelines preventing on the excessive use of this training method.
[/ QUOTE ]
I agree munchkin, is it similar to when people over face their horses with massive fences as that's what the professionals are doing? - some of that promotes hyperflexion & extension of the legs/joints muscles - expecting novice/untrained horses to do a lot of things is doing to induce pain as they're not trained to do, if some one asked me to do the splits I'd certainly be in a lot of pain! but not the athletes on the telly - they do it for fun.....
thanks for the interesting points raised by the post starter...
Rouletterose
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think Dr H makes these points in his book (although I have not read it for a while, so apologies if I remember wrong) and some of them seem mutually exclusive, e.g. can't breathe and hyperventilates (which requires rapid or deep breathing), while others sound physically very difficult to bring about, e.g. the back is pulled up over the withers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, that's meant to say the horse cannot breathe 'properly'.
Read the book again or go onto Gerd's website, he is a vet as well as a beimaster, and has done masses of research into this subject and lectures/holds clinics regularily. As I have said go and read the website!!!
I don't think Dr H makes these points in his book (although I have not read it for a while, so apologies if I remember wrong) and some of them seem mutually exclusive, e.g. can't breathe and hyperventilates (which requires rapid or deep breathing), while others sound physically very difficult to bring about, e.g. the back is pulled up over the withers.
[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, that's meant to say the horse cannot breathe 'properly'.
Read the book again or go onto Gerd's website, he is a vet as well as a beimaster, and has done masses of research into this subject and lectures/holds clinics regularily. As I have said go and read the website!!!
lauraandjack
Well-Known Member
Whatever your views on Rollkur as a practice in general, surely we are all agreed that working a horse in this manner for 90 mins without a let-up (as claimed by the video) is downright unacceptable?
Can you imagine being made to run round with your chin on your chest for 90 mins, never being allowed to lift your head?
Can you imagine being made to run round with your chin on your chest for 90 mins, never being allowed to lift your head?
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, that's meant to say the horse cannot breathe 'properly'.
Read the book again or go onto Gerd's website, he is a vet as well as a beimaster, and has done masses of research into this subject and lectures/holds clinics regularily. As I have said go and read the website!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
No problem! I think I may have to re-read the book on that as I can't find it on a quick skim. Is the website http://www.gerdheuschmann.com/ ? It seems very brief and doesn't claim much. Does he have another website with more info?
Sorry, that's meant to say the horse cannot breathe 'properly'.
Read the book again or go onto Gerd's website, he is a vet as well as a beimaster, and has done masses of research into this subject and lectures/holds clinics regularily. As I have said go and read the website!!!
[/ QUOTE ]
No problem! I think I may have to re-read the book on that as I can't find it on a quick skim. Is the website http://www.gerdheuschmann.com/ ? It seems very brief and doesn't claim much. Does he have another website with more info?
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Whatever your views on Rollkur as a practice in general, surely we are all agreed that working a horse in this manner for 90 mins without a let-up (as claimed by the video) is downright unacceptable?
Can you imagine being made to run round with your chin on your chest for 90 mins, never being allowed to lift your head?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think that any really demanding work should not go on for 90 mins. I think horses should have regular, sufficiently long breaks, where they are able to stretch.
I do think though that any method of training can be subject to this kind of abuse, i.e. doing too much for too long without a break.
Not sure what I think about the human comparisons in general as I can't imagine what it feels to do a collected canter either, but yes, doing the same thing for such a long period of time must be stressful.
Whatever your views on Rollkur as a practice in general, surely we are all agreed that working a horse in this manner for 90 mins without a let-up (as claimed by the video) is downright unacceptable?
Can you imagine being made to run round with your chin on your chest for 90 mins, never being allowed to lift your head?
[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I think that any really demanding work should not go on for 90 mins. I think horses should have regular, sufficiently long breaks, where they are able to stretch.
I do think though that any method of training can be subject to this kind of abuse, i.e. doing too much for too long without a break.
Not sure what I think about the human comparisons in general as I can't imagine what it feels to do a collected canter either, but yes, doing the same thing for such a long period of time must be stressful.
Natch
Well-Known Member
Please could somebody post a link to the blue tongue video? I didn't want to watch it at the time but think I should to know what people are talking about!
FrodoBeutlin
Well-Known Member
Booboos
Well-Known Member
If anyone is still interested after a long day, I just came across a really interesting discussion piece by Anna Ross Davies at http://www.horsehero.com/editorial?feat=27798&page=4
and one of the comments summarizes the studies other people have referred to:
"David Marlin 10 Sep 2009
Amaretto asked about the science of Rollkur.
From an entirely scientific perspective, the questions that are of interest with respect to Rollkur should be: 1) does it cause pain?; 2) does it cause distress?; 3) does it cause lasting harm (physical or psychological)? Lets take these one by one.
1) Why might Rollkur cause pain? Extending a joint or series of joints (e.g. the neck) beyond its normal range of movement may be uncomfortable. It may lead to a greater range of movement in the long term but initially it will be uncomfortable or even painfull. Try it on yourself. 2) Does it cause distress? We know that bringing the head behind the vertical impairs the function of the larynx (throat) and may produce some sensation if difficulty in breathing (dyspnoea). And finally (3), with respect to lasting harm, is there a specific type of injury that develops with respect to the technique and its repeated use or do we see perhaps abnormal behaviours or aversion in horses trained in this way?
At this stage I have not passed any judgement on Rollkur and I am specifically keeping clear of the equitation question; that is, is it an effectvie training aid?
As far as injuries, if there were acute injuries resulting from Rollkur and if these were relatively common they would likely have been documented in the veterinary and or scientific literature by now. To some extent this would depend on how easy the clinical signs/injury was to spot and the proprotion of horses affected. For example, if Rollkur resulted in immediate left-sided facial paralysis in 99% of horses in which it was used, then we would know about it very quickly. If Rollkur is associated with arthritis of the neck but it takes a minimum of 10 years to develop, then its also conceivable that we would perhaps not become aware of this for another 5-10 years.
So what scientific information is there concerning Rollkur?
In 2006, one of the first papers was published by a group in Holland lead by Dr Marianne Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan. This study showed that heart rate (which is a conposite indicator of effort +/- stress +/- body temperature +/- blood pressure +/- hydration) was slightly higher when horses were ridden Rollkur. The stress hormone cortisol was not different between horses ridden Rollkur and "free". The authors also stated "No signs of uneasiness or stress could be determined when the horses were ridden 'rollkur'. Subjectively, all horses improved their way of moving during 'rollkur' and were more responsive to their rider". However, these last two lines are not very scientific or objective. But the bottom line of this study is that Rollkur was not stressful or damaging, at least when performed once! This article is available free online to view: http://www.knmvd.nl/uri/?uri=AMGATE_7364_1_TICH_R41001038475199
The second study, also published in 2006 by Dr Eric van Breda (also from Holland), compared "stress" in elite Grand Prix horses being trained with Rollkur and recreational riding horses and found no differences at rest or after exercise. However, I would be critical of this study and its conclusions.
Also in 2006, highly respected locomotion scientist and vet Dr Rene van Weeren (again from Holland) investigated how horses move when ridden in Rollkur. He described the range of motion permitted by individual vertebrae when the head and neck are in varying positions. When the neck was lowered and flexed and the head considerably behind the vertical, as it would be in Rollkür, there was significant flexion in the thoracic region and extension in the lumbar region. Stride length was also shorter and range of motion increased with Rollkur.
Finally, the most recent study was by von Borstel (a Swede working in Canada) and co-workers this year (2009). They tried to investigate if horses being ridden Rollkur experienced stress, discomfort and or fear and if given the choice, whether horses would choose regular poll flexion over Rollkur. Space and time prevents me from describing the experiment in full, so please forgive me. Here are the conclusions from this study:
"Horses moved slower and showed more often behavioural signs of discomfort, such as tail-swishing, head-tossing or attempted bucks, and 14 of the 15 horses chose significantly more often the maze-arm associated with normal poll flexion rather than Rollkur. Subsequently, eight of the horses were also subjected to two fear tests following a short ride in normal poll flexion as well as a ride in Rollkur. During Rollkur horses tended to react stronger to the fear stimuli and to take longer to approach them. These findings indicate that a coercively obtained Rollkur position may be uncomfortable for horses and that it makes them more fearful and therefore potentially more dangerous to ride. Further studies need to assess horses reaction to gradual training of Rollkur, as opposed to a coercively obtained hyperflexion, in order to decide whether the practice should be banned"
So, there is limited scientific understanding of Rollkur at this time based on scientific papers published in peer-reviewed literature. This does not include the many "opinion" articles, which are just that. Opinion and no data. There may be further scinetific papers in other languages which I have not found, but these are the ones in the main scientific and veterinary databases. On this basis, the evidence is conflicting and there is no evidence that Rollkur causes long term harm - but then again no one appears to have looked at this aspect yet.
I hope this helps to put the science of Rollkur in perspective,
Dr David Marlin"
and one of the comments summarizes the studies other people have referred to:
"David Marlin 10 Sep 2009
Amaretto asked about the science of Rollkur.
From an entirely scientific perspective, the questions that are of interest with respect to Rollkur should be: 1) does it cause pain?; 2) does it cause distress?; 3) does it cause lasting harm (physical or psychological)? Lets take these one by one.
1) Why might Rollkur cause pain? Extending a joint or series of joints (e.g. the neck) beyond its normal range of movement may be uncomfortable. It may lead to a greater range of movement in the long term but initially it will be uncomfortable or even painfull. Try it on yourself. 2) Does it cause distress? We know that bringing the head behind the vertical impairs the function of the larynx (throat) and may produce some sensation if difficulty in breathing (dyspnoea). And finally (3), with respect to lasting harm, is there a specific type of injury that develops with respect to the technique and its repeated use or do we see perhaps abnormal behaviours or aversion in horses trained in this way?
At this stage I have not passed any judgement on Rollkur and I am specifically keeping clear of the equitation question; that is, is it an effectvie training aid?
As far as injuries, if there were acute injuries resulting from Rollkur and if these were relatively common they would likely have been documented in the veterinary and or scientific literature by now. To some extent this would depend on how easy the clinical signs/injury was to spot and the proprotion of horses affected. For example, if Rollkur resulted in immediate left-sided facial paralysis in 99% of horses in which it was used, then we would know about it very quickly. If Rollkur is associated with arthritis of the neck but it takes a minimum of 10 years to develop, then its also conceivable that we would perhaps not become aware of this for another 5-10 years.
So what scientific information is there concerning Rollkur?
In 2006, one of the first papers was published by a group in Holland lead by Dr Marianne Sloet van Oldruitenborgh-Oosterbaan. This study showed that heart rate (which is a conposite indicator of effort +/- stress +/- body temperature +/- blood pressure +/- hydration) was slightly higher when horses were ridden Rollkur. The stress hormone cortisol was not different between horses ridden Rollkur and "free". The authors also stated "No signs of uneasiness or stress could be determined when the horses were ridden 'rollkur'. Subjectively, all horses improved their way of moving during 'rollkur' and were more responsive to their rider". However, these last two lines are not very scientific or objective. But the bottom line of this study is that Rollkur was not stressful or damaging, at least when performed once! This article is available free online to view: http://www.knmvd.nl/uri/?uri=AMGATE_7364_1_TICH_R41001038475199
The second study, also published in 2006 by Dr Eric van Breda (also from Holland), compared "stress" in elite Grand Prix horses being trained with Rollkur and recreational riding horses and found no differences at rest or after exercise. However, I would be critical of this study and its conclusions.
Also in 2006, highly respected locomotion scientist and vet Dr Rene van Weeren (again from Holland) investigated how horses move when ridden in Rollkur. He described the range of motion permitted by individual vertebrae when the head and neck are in varying positions. When the neck was lowered and flexed and the head considerably behind the vertical, as it would be in Rollkür, there was significant flexion in the thoracic region and extension in the lumbar region. Stride length was also shorter and range of motion increased with Rollkur.
Finally, the most recent study was by von Borstel (a Swede working in Canada) and co-workers this year (2009). They tried to investigate if horses being ridden Rollkur experienced stress, discomfort and or fear and if given the choice, whether horses would choose regular poll flexion over Rollkur. Space and time prevents me from describing the experiment in full, so please forgive me. Here are the conclusions from this study:
"Horses moved slower and showed more often behavioural signs of discomfort, such as tail-swishing, head-tossing or attempted bucks, and 14 of the 15 horses chose significantly more often the maze-arm associated with normal poll flexion rather than Rollkur. Subsequently, eight of the horses were also subjected to two fear tests following a short ride in normal poll flexion as well as a ride in Rollkur. During Rollkur horses tended to react stronger to the fear stimuli and to take longer to approach them. These findings indicate that a coercively obtained Rollkur position may be uncomfortable for horses and that it makes them more fearful and therefore potentially more dangerous to ride. Further studies need to assess horses reaction to gradual training of Rollkur, as opposed to a coercively obtained hyperflexion, in order to decide whether the practice should be banned"
So, there is limited scientific understanding of Rollkur at this time based on scientific papers published in peer-reviewed literature. This does not include the many "opinion" articles, which are just that. Opinion and no data. There may be further scinetific papers in other languages which I have not found, but these are the ones in the main scientific and veterinary databases. On this basis, the evidence is conflicting and there is no evidence that Rollkur causes long term harm - but then again no one appears to have looked at this aspect yet.
I hope this helps to put the science of Rollkur in perspective,
Dr David Marlin"
FrodoBeutlin
Well-Known Member
Yep, had read that -- he doesn't mention Heuschmann at all!
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
I found some interesting video. You don't need to understand German, read the captions on screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jF4E4QnAg&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jF4E4QnAg&feature=player_embedded
Sussexbythesea
Well-Known Member
Agree with you - can't see why scientific evidence is required -its plainly obvious that the practice of forcing a horses chin to its chest for considerable amounts of time is barbaric.
I'm a scientist (at least I have a BSc and MSc) and some things just don't need lots of bl**dy studies they are plainly and obviously morally wrong.
I thought dressage was supposed to be a beautiful art with horse and rider working in harmony?
I'm a scientist (at least I have a BSc and MSc) and some things just don't need lots of bl**dy studies they are plainly and obviously morally wrong.
I thought dressage was supposed to be a beautiful art with horse and rider working in harmony?
chestnut cob
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
human athletes in various disciplines will use certain hyperflexions in different muscle groups-they arent allowed to hold them more than a few seconds and go ahead and ask them how much they hurt.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is true. I used to do martial arts and our instructor used to have us do antagonistic stretches but we could only hold each for 10 seconds. It was excruciating! My dad was a Tae KwonDo instructor (3rd dan black belt) and he still does a lot of stretching but again, the extreme stretching is limited to very short periods because it's so painful. The issue about rollkur has more to do with the length of time the horses are asked (forced) to hold the stretch for - 90 mins, as in the blue tongue video, is just plain cruelty. I couldn't have held the stretches we used to do for that long without being crippled!
human athletes in various disciplines will use certain hyperflexions in different muscle groups-they arent allowed to hold them more than a few seconds and go ahead and ask them how much they hurt.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is true. I used to do martial arts and our instructor used to have us do antagonistic stretches but we could only hold each for 10 seconds. It was excruciating! My dad was a Tae KwonDo instructor (3rd dan black belt) and he still does a lot of stretching but again, the extreme stretching is limited to very short periods because it's so painful. The issue about rollkur has more to do with the length of time the horses are asked (forced) to hold the stretch for - 90 mins, as in the blue tongue video, is just plain cruelty. I couldn't have held the stretches we used to do for that long without being crippled!
chestnut cob
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I am not sure the tongue was blue, it looked pretty pink underneath and if the tongue was OK all that video did was show Rollkur not explain why it is wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the look in that horse's eyes *didn't* show you how rollkur is wrong?! The horse in that video was beaten (as in broken spirit), pure and simple. The muscles he was using were all wrong and it looked painful. That in itself should be enough to show you how it is wrong.
I suggest you read GH's book Tug of War. It's is a good basic explanation of equine physiology and will show you why rollkur is wrong. The science is a bit basic but then it's not aimed at academics, IMHO it's written so everyone can understand it.
I am not sure the tongue was blue, it looked pretty pink underneath and if the tongue was OK all that video did was show Rollkur not explain why it is wrong.
[/ QUOTE ]
And the look in that horse's eyes *didn't* show you how rollkur is wrong?! The horse in that video was beaten (as in broken spirit), pure and simple. The muscles he was using were all wrong and it looked painful. That in itself should be enough to show you how it is wrong.
I suggest you read GH's book Tug of War. It's is a good basic explanation of equine physiology and will show you why rollkur is wrong. The science is a bit basic but then it's not aimed at academics, IMHO it's written so everyone can understand it.
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Yep, had read that -- he doesn't mention Heuschmann at all!
[/ QUOTE ]
Dr H does not appear to have any publications other than the book (or any that I can find - I don't have access to a veterinary database, but Google scholar is not throwing up anything which is odd), so perhaps this is why he is not mentioned?
Yep, had read that -- he doesn't mention Heuschmann at all!
[/ QUOTE ]
Dr H does not appear to have any publications other than the book (or any that I can find - I don't have access to a veterinary database, but Google scholar is not throwing up anything which is odd), so perhaps this is why he is not mentioned?
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Agree with you - can't see why scientific evidence is required -its plainly obvious that the practice of forcing a horses chin to its chest for considerable amounts of time is barbaric.
I'm a scientist (at least I have a BSc and MSc) and some things just don't need lots of bl**dy studies they are plainly and obviously morally wrong.
I thought dressage was supposed to be a beautiful art with horse and rider working in harmony?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's interesting the different perspectives! I'm a moral philosopher and we just won't accept something as morally wrong without some kind of evidence!
As I said, I don't practice Rollkur, nor have any wish to do so, but I would imagine that if something was so obviously wrong (I accept the psychological harm is tough to demonstrate, but the physiological should be fairly straight-forward), why isn't there any evidence?
Agree with you - can't see why scientific evidence is required -its plainly obvious that the practice of forcing a horses chin to its chest for considerable amounts of time is barbaric.
I'm a scientist (at least I have a BSc and MSc) and some things just don't need lots of bl**dy studies they are plainly and obviously morally wrong.
I thought dressage was supposed to be a beautiful art with horse and rider working in harmony?
[/ QUOTE ]
It's interesting the different perspectives! I'm a moral philosopher and we just won't accept something as morally wrong without some kind of evidence!
As I said, I don't practice Rollkur, nor have any wish to do so, but I would imagine that if something was so obviously wrong (I accept the psychological harm is tough to demonstrate, but the physiological should be fairly straight-forward), why isn't there any evidence?
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
Because it's so obviously wrong?
Booboos
Well-Known Member
Thanks I have read the book and found it very interesting. If you see my original post, part of the questions relate to why we focus on rollkur, when Dr H claims that absolute elevation is a more detrimental way of training than rollkur.
Interestingly Anna Ross Davies mentions that riding hollow and above the bit must also be uncomfortable for the horse, but this is not generally picked up on.
Anecdotary and observationally then there appear to be many practices that seem harmful to horses.
The other thought is that studies on the effects of rollkur should be fairly easy to set up. Off the top of my head you could have:
- comparisons of the levels of training achieved by rollkur and conventional horses
- comparisons of the levels and types of injuries occuring in rollkur and conventional horses
- comparisons of the revovery times of rollkur and conventional horses
- post-mortem anatomy comparisons of rollkur and conventional horses
I suppose my conclusion is that I would rather petition and put pressure (as much as I can!!!) for these studies to be done than for Rollkur to be banned.
Interestingly Anna Ross Davies mentions that riding hollow and above the bit must also be uncomfortable for the horse, but this is not generally picked up on.
Anecdotary and observationally then there appear to be many practices that seem harmful to horses.
The other thought is that studies on the effects of rollkur should be fairly easy to set up. Off the top of my head you could have:
- comparisons of the levels of training achieved by rollkur and conventional horses
- comparisons of the levels and types of injuries occuring in rollkur and conventional horses
- comparisons of the revovery times of rollkur and conventional horses
- post-mortem anatomy comparisons of rollkur and conventional horses
I suppose my conclusion is that I would rather petition and put pressure (as much as I can!!!) for these studies to be done than for Rollkur to be banned.
chestnut cob
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
As I said, I don't practice Rollkur, nor have any wish to do so, but I would imagine that if something was so obviously wrong (I accept the psychological harm is tough to demonstrate, but the physiological should be fairly straight-forward), why isn't there any evidence?
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't need lots and lots of studies and published papers to prove it. Rollkur goes against equine physiology. It works all the wrong muscle groups, prevents the horses from breathing properly, stops them from being able to see properly. It's just physiology, pure and simple. I am a scientist (PhD) and if you look at how the equine body works, at a basic level, rollkur goes against all of that.
The reason those riders work in rollkur is because it's so hard for the horses - it makes holding a "competition outline" during a test easy in comparison.
As I said, I don't practice Rollkur, nor have any wish to do so, but I would imagine that if something was so obviously wrong (I accept the psychological harm is tough to demonstrate, but the physiological should be fairly straight-forward), why isn't there any evidence?
[/ QUOTE ]
You don't need lots and lots of studies and published papers to prove it. Rollkur goes against equine physiology. It works all the wrong muscle groups, prevents the horses from breathing properly, stops them from being able to see properly. It's just physiology, pure and simple. I am a scientist (PhD) and if you look at how the equine body works, at a basic level, rollkur goes against all of that.
The reason those riders work in rollkur is because it's so hard for the horses - it makes holding a "competition outline" during a test easy in comparison.
ester
Not slacking multitasking
bb, just did a quick paper search on web of knowledge for you and nothing for a G heuschmann that is relevant (I dont think ceramic burner tubes count!)
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I found some interesting video. You don't need to understand German, read the captions on screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jF4E4QnAg&feature=player_embedded
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I don't understand German so all I got from this is someone demonstrating mild Rollkur and a caption saying it is wrong.
I appreaciate you think it is wrong and obviously so, and that is perfectly fine. For me, I was just wondering if there was more to it, as you can substitute any practice with Rollkur, film it and then write "obviously wrong" underneath.
I found some interesting video. You don't need to understand German, read the captions on screen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jF4E4QnAg&feature=player_embedded
[/ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately I don't understand German so all I got from this is someone demonstrating mild Rollkur and a caption saying it is wrong.
I appreaciate you think it is wrong and obviously so, and that is perfectly fine. For me, I was just wondering if there was more to it, as you can substitute any practice with Rollkur, film it and then write "obviously wrong" underneath.
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
Actually does it depend on what you accept as evidence? I mean I've found loads of stuff on the horses muscles and skeleton that make it blatently obvious to me that it's got to be wrong to hold a horse in that position. Why does everything have to be "proved" in a study? What's happened to common sense?
It makes me sad to see so many people justifying this, trotting out the excuses and justifications that have allowed us to get to this sorry state. Yes, the horses are atheletes but no, they can't hold these positions without extreme discomfort. Yes the riders are experienced and skillful (at what they do!), but no, that doesn't mean they can somehow administer this punishment in any more sensitive or less painful way than anyone else.
I don't have a label, I'm just a very straightforward person who says it how I see it.
Sorry we crossed. Can't you see for yourself how much better the horse goes when it hasn't been subjected to the extreme flexion? Surely you don't need to understand german to see that?
It makes me sad to see so many people justifying this, trotting out the excuses and justifications that have allowed us to get to this sorry state. Yes, the horses are atheletes but no, they can't hold these positions without extreme discomfort. Yes the riders are experienced and skillful (at what they do!), but no, that doesn't mean they can somehow administer this punishment in any more sensitive or less painful way than anyone else.
I don't have a label, I'm just a very straightforward person who says it how I see it.
Sorry we crossed. Can't you see for yourself how much better the horse goes when it hasn't been subjected to the extreme flexion? Surely you don't need to understand german to see that?
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Interestingly Anna Ross Davies mentions that riding hollow and above the bit must also be uncomfortable for the horse, but this is not generally picked up on.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess that depends on who you ride with. To me that's common sense as well, and the real reason why we should help our horses to work well. Lots of trainers, for example Heather Moffet, have a lot to say on the subject.
Interestingly Anna Ross Davies mentions that riding hollow and above the bit must also be uncomfortable for the horse, but this is not generally picked up on.
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess that depends on who you ride with. To me that's common sense as well, and the real reason why we should help our horses to work well. Lots of trainers, for example Heather Moffet, have a lot to say on the subject.
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
You don't need lots and lots of studies and published papers to prove it. Rollkur goes against equine physiology. It works all the wrong muscle groups, prevents the horses from breathing properly, stops them from being able to see properly. It's just physiology, pure and simple. I am a scientist (PhD) and if you look at how the equine body works, at a basic level, rollkur goes against all of that.
The reason those riders work in rollkur is because it's so hard for the horses - it makes holding a "competition outline" during a test easy in comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the spirit of pursuing the discussion and not in any way wanting to be an annoying pain in the ****, I am still not convinced!
Wrong muscles: different equine disciplines work different horse muscles, e.g. the show jumper's bum, the dressage horse's neck, the endurance horse's radically different outline. Different ways of warming up and training regimes also aim to develop different muscles: I have a horse who is naturally on the forehand and one who is naturally behind the bit - I ride them completely differently. Rollkur horses do manage to compete (spectacularly successfully) in dressage, which they probably would not be able to physically do with the wrong muscles?
- stops them from being able to see properly: so do blinkers used in driving - why is this a welfare issue in itself?
- prevents them from breathing properly: I think this is the one I have the most sympathy with, but again it would be really easy to do some studies on this, examining respiratory rate and blood oxygenation and PROVE that rollkur causes this problem.
You don't need lots and lots of studies and published papers to prove it. Rollkur goes against equine physiology. It works all the wrong muscle groups, prevents the horses from breathing properly, stops them from being able to see properly. It's just physiology, pure and simple. I am a scientist (PhD) and if you look at how the equine body works, at a basic level, rollkur goes against all of that.
The reason those riders work in rollkur is because it's so hard for the horses - it makes holding a "competition outline" during a test easy in comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the spirit of pursuing the discussion and not in any way wanting to be an annoying pain in the ****, I am still not convinced!
Wrong muscles: different equine disciplines work different horse muscles, e.g. the show jumper's bum, the dressage horse's neck, the endurance horse's radically different outline. Different ways of warming up and training regimes also aim to develop different muscles: I have a horse who is naturally on the forehand and one who is naturally behind the bit - I ride them completely differently. Rollkur horses do manage to compete (spectacularly successfully) in dressage, which they probably would not be able to physically do with the wrong muscles?
- stops them from being able to see properly: so do blinkers used in driving - why is this a welfare issue in itself?
- prevents them from breathing properly: I think this is the one I have the most sympathy with, but again it would be really easy to do some studies on this, examining respiratory rate and blood oxygenation and PROVE that rollkur causes this problem.
chestnut cob
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Wrong muscles: different equine disciplines work different horse muscles, Rollkur horses do manage to compete (spectacularly successfully) in dressage, which they probably would not be able to physically do with the wrong muscles?
[/ QUOTE ]
This comes back to the question of whether what they produce in tests is correct though. Most of these horses produce piaffe in tests that is totally incorrect, on the forehand and forced. Huge leg flicking extended trots are not correct. Their back ends don't match their front ends so are incorrect. So the question is, why do the judges mark incorrect flashy movement higher than horses with correct but less flashy movement? So I think, as well as considering the welfare issue, we need to consider why judges mark these tests so well when they are classically incorrect.
I also replied to your other response re. Anna RD but HHO had a paddy and wouldn't let me post. But I agree - hollow and above the bit is just as bad.
Wrong muscles: different equine disciplines work different horse muscles, Rollkur horses do manage to compete (spectacularly successfully) in dressage, which they probably would not be able to physically do with the wrong muscles?
[/ QUOTE ]
This comes back to the question of whether what they produce in tests is correct though. Most of these horses produce piaffe in tests that is totally incorrect, on the forehand and forced. Huge leg flicking extended trots are not correct. Their back ends don't match their front ends so are incorrect. So the question is, why do the judges mark incorrect flashy movement higher than horses with correct but less flashy movement? So I think, as well as considering the welfare issue, we need to consider why judges mark these tests so well when they are classically incorrect.
I also replied to your other response re. Anna RD but HHO had a paddy and wouldn't let me post. But I agree - hollow and above the bit is just as bad.
Booboos
Well-Known Member
To be honest on that video I see a man trying mild rollkur without sufficient impulsion, and yes the horse goes tonnes better afterwards.
But I would say two things:
- this is not how Anky did the rollkur the one time I saw her at the BD convention. She rode Krack C with enormous impulsion in the rollkur and Sjef pointed out more than once that the rider has to have the horse really active from behind before they attempt rollkur. What I will agree with is that botched rollkur where the hand merely yanks the head in with no forwardness seems problematic as a training method because of the lack of impulsion.
- if rollkur is a training method then the horse does not need to display its best work in it. For example, I have a horse who is tight to one side and I sometimes do an exercise where he is in travers with too much inside flexion - I would not ride a test like this, but it is a way of suppling him up.
I do think that I am looking for something out of this that most people don't seem to need, which is fair enough. I just don't find that looking at Rollkur convinces me it is wrong, but if this is what it comes down to I think that is fair enough, some people will then think it is wrong and some will not.
But I would say two things:
- this is not how Anky did the rollkur the one time I saw her at the BD convention. She rode Krack C with enormous impulsion in the rollkur and Sjef pointed out more than once that the rider has to have the horse really active from behind before they attempt rollkur. What I will agree with is that botched rollkur where the hand merely yanks the head in with no forwardness seems problematic as a training method because of the lack of impulsion.
- if rollkur is a training method then the horse does not need to display its best work in it. For example, I have a horse who is tight to one side and I sometimes do an exercise where he is in travers with too much inside flexion - I would not ride a test like this, but it is a way of suppling him up.
I do think that I am looking for something out of this that most people don't seem to need, which is fair enough. I just don't find that looking at Rollkur convinces me it is wrong, but if this is what it comes down to I think that is fair enough, some people will then think it is wrong and some will not.
chestnut cob
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Yes the riders are experienced and skillful (at what they do!), but no, that doesn't mean they can somehow administer this punishment in any more sensitive or less painful way than anyone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I would say is this... people who ride their horses hollow and above the bit may tend to be less experienced, more novicey riders (I would assume?). If you visited a load of riding schools I would imagine you'll see more people riding like that than you will in rollkur. However, as you improve you realise that it isn't good for the horse to be ridden this way and you start to learn how to ride it properly. Eventually, hopefully, you get your horse going correctly as you learn.
Riders like Anky and the rest don't have the excuse of ignorance for riding their horses incorrectly. They DO know better, they just choose to be cruel.
Yes the riders are experienced and skillful (at what they do!), but no, that doesn't mean they can somehow administer this punishment in any more sensitive or less painful way than anyone else.
[/ QUOTE ]
What I would say is this... people who ride their horses hollow and above the bit may tend to be less experienced, more novicey riders (I would assume?). If you visited a load of riding schools I would imagine you'll see more people riding like that than you will in rollkur. However, as you improve you realise that it isn't good for the horse to be ridden this way and you start to learn how to ride it properly. Eventually, hopefully, you get your horse going correctly as you learn.
Riders like Anky and the rest don't have the excuse of ignorance for riding their horses incorrectly. They DO know better, they just choose to be cruel.
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
This comes back to the question of whether what they produce in tests is correct though. Most of these horses produce piaffe in tests that is totally incorrect, on the forehand and forced. Huge leg flicking extended trots are not correct. Their back ends don't match their front ends so are incorrect. So the question is, why do the judges mark incorrect flashy movement higher than horses with correct but less flashy movement? So I think, as well as considering the welfare issue, we need to consider why judges mark these tests so well when they are classically incorrect.
I also replied to your other response re. Anna RD but HHO had a paddy and wouldn't let me post. But I agree - hollow and above the bit is just as bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was kind of hoping to avoid the can of worms that is the judging of these horses!!! But I suppose it's unavoidable!
I found Dr H's book brilliant in explaining how the back end has to match the front end (the diagrams and photos were great) and I would expect any dressage judge to understand this, be able to see it and mark accordingly - whether it happens in reality or not is another matter!
I suppose I find some of the rollkur horses to be great, e.g. Totillas (I see the extravagant front end movement which exceeds the back end, but in this case the back end looks as engaged as possible). I don't know how Werth trains Salinero ( I assume non-rollkur) , but I find Salinero and Satchmo very comparable in that one gains marks on one kind of movement while the other gains marks on another.
I don't have enough experience of top horses competing (only what is shown on TV) to see a trend either way (either Rollkur equals back ends not matching front, or the other way round).
This comes back to the question of whether what they produce in tests is correct though. Most of these horses produce piaffe in tests that is totally incorrect, on the forehand and forced. Huge leg flicking extended trots are not correct. Their back ends don't match their front ends so are incorrect. So the question is, why do the judges mark incorrect flashy movement higher than horses with correct but less flashy movement? So I think, as well as considering the welfare issue, we need to consider why judges mark these tests so well when they are classically incorrect.
I also replied to your other response re. Anna RD but HHO had a paddy and wouldn't let me post. But I agree - hollow and above the bit is just as bad.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was kind of hoping to avoid the can of worms that is the judging of these horses!!! But I suppose it's unavoidable!
I found Dr H's book brilliant in explaining how the back end has to match the front end (the diagrams and photos were great) and I would expect any dressage judge to understand this, be able to see it and mark accordingly - whether it happens in reality or not is another matter!
I suppose I find some of the rollkur horses to be great, e.g. Totillas (I see the extravagant front end movement which exceeds the back end, but in this case the back end looks as engaged as possible). I don't know how Werth trains Salinero ( I assume non-rollkur) , but I find Salinero and Satchmo very comparable in that one gains marks on one kind of movement while the other gains marks on another.
I don't have enough experience of top horses competing (only what is shown on TV) to see a trend either way (either Rollkur equals back ends not matching front, or the other way round).
Rouletterose
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't need lots and lots of studies and published papers to prove it. Rollkur goes against equine physiology. It works all the wrong muscle groups, prevents the horses from breathing properly, stops them from being able to see properly. It's just physiology, pure and simple. I am a scientist (PhD) and if you look at how the equine body works, at a basic level, rollkur goes against all of that.
The reason those riders work in rollkur is because it's so hard for the horses - it makes holding a "competition outline" during a test easy in comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the spirit of pursuing the discussion and not in any way wanting to be an annoying pain in the ****, I am still not convinced!
Wrong muscles: different equine disciplines work different horse muscles, e.g. the show jumper's bum, the dressage horse's neck, the endurance horse's radically different outline. Different ways of warming up and training regimes also aim to develop different muscles: I have a horse who is naturally on the forehand and one who is naturally behind the bit - I ride them completely differently. Rollkur horses do manage to compete (spectacularly successfully) in dressage, which they probably would not be able to physically do with the wrong muscles?
- stops them from being able to see properly: so do blinkers used in driving - why is this a welfare issue in itself?
- prevents them from breathing properly: I think this is the one I have the most sympathy with, but again it would be really easy to do some studies on this, examining respiratory rate and blood oxygenation and PROVE that rollkur causes this problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Put yourself in the horses position,
The rider is kicking you in the sides/ribs, you are responding and going forwards, but then the rider pulls you in the mouth hard... and leans back...(many pictures of Anky and others practically lying down doing this) your chin is pulled hard into your chest. your mouth hurts, your tongue is squashed, you hang it out the side (if you can) to escape the pain/squashing, you can't see where you are going, you can only see your own feet, you can't see anything else, you are totally dependant on the rider, you are full of fear, your back hurts, your hind legs cannot engage although the rider is jabbing and kicking at you. You start to sweat, full of tension, your neck hurts so badly, the nuchal ligament is breaking half way down your neck, it hurts, you try desperately to please, you cannot swallow,masses of foam escapes from your mouth, this rider on your back that causes so much pain, you know if you perform you will get let free from this pain. Learned helplessness.
[ QUOTE ]
You don't need lots and lots of studies and published papers to prove it. Rollkur goes against equine physiology. It works all the wrong muscle groups, prevents the horses from breathing properly, stops them from being able to see properly. It's just physiology, pure and simple. I am a scientist (PhD) and if you look at how the equine body works, at a basic level, rollkur goes against all of that.
The reason those riders work in rollkur is because it's so hard for the horses - it makes holding a "competition outline" during a test easy in comparison.
[/ QUOTE ]
In the spirit of pursuing the discussion and not in any way wanting to be an annoying pain in the ****, I am still not convinced!
Wrong muscles: different equine disciplines work different horse muscles, e.g. the show jumper's bum, the dressage horse's neck, the endurance horse's radically different outline. Different ways of warming up and training regimes also aim to develop different muscles: I have a horse who is naturally on the forehand and one who is naturally behind the bit - I ride them completely differently. Rollkur horses do manage to compete (spectacularly successfully) in dressage, which they probably would not be able to physically do with the wrong muscles?
- stops them from being able to see properly: so do blinkers used in driving - why is this a welfare issue in itself?
- prevents them from breathing properly: I think this is the one I have the most sympathy with, but again it would be really easy to do some studies on this, examining respiratory rate and blood oxygenation and PROVE that rollkur causes this problem.
[/ QUOTE ]
Put yourself in the horses position,
The rider is kicking you in the sides/ribs, you are responding and going forwards, but then the rider pulls you in the mouth hard... and leans back...(many pictures of Anky and others practically lying down doing this) your chin is pulled hard into your chest. your mouth hurts, your tongue is squashed, you hang it out the side (if you can) to escape the pain/squashing, you can't see where you are going, you can only see your own feet, you can't see anything else, you are totally dependant on the rider, you are full of fear, your back hurts, your hind legs cannot engage although the rider is jabbing and kicking at you. You start to sweat, full of tension, your neck hurts so badly, the nuchal ligament is breaking half way down your neck, it hurts, you try desperately to please, you cannot swallow,masses of foam escapes from your mouth, this rider on your back that causes so much pain, you know if you perform you will get let free from this pain. Learned helplessness.
Tinypony
Well-Known Member
To be honest Booboos, and don't take offence at this, I'm not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince anyone. I feel that either people are going to believe what they are told because they want to believe that this is OK. Or they are going to believe what they see, and be brave enough to question what "top" riders do, and what has been accepted as excellence for too long.
Bearing in mind that this is just what is done when the horses and riders are in the public eye. I have friends who have worked with some of these top riders, one with Anky, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
If this is what has to be done to get to the top, then it's just not worth it.
Bearing in mind that this is just what is done when the horses and riders are in the public eye. I have friends who have worked with some of these top riders, one with Anky, and this is just the tip of the iceberg.
If this is what has to be done to get to the top, then it's just not worth it.