Jean Luc Cornill & Chazot ADD OPINIONS HERE,NOT MICHEN'S TREA

[Ample Prosecco]

Hi

Resurrected this thread as recently I stayed with my mum whose neighbour has 2 horses. She normally hacks one and leads the other but offered me a ride. I have never ever ridden such a light, responsive horse. He was amazing even though still young. I asked her how she schooled him to be like that and she said she was a student of Jean Luc and directed me to the Science in motion website. I can't understand a word of it!

I searched on here and pretty much agree with the views expressed by some that he is a talented trainer and also that his writing is totally inaccessible. And that he is not unique in terms of what he actually does. So can anyone direct me to 'JL Made Simple' book/articles or to a writer who can express similar ideas more clearly. There is no point in me trying to read stuff if it is dressed up in sciencey sounding gibberish and makes no sense to me and/or if there is no practical application offered. Eg if you are;t supposed to work long and low anymore (though horses graze long and low so I doubt it can be that harmful!) then what are you supposed to do instead?

TIA!

 

[tallyho!]

Hi

Resurrected this thread as recently I stayed with my mum whose neighbour has 2 horses. She normally hacks one and leads the other but offered me a ride. I have never ever ridden such a light, responsive horse. He was amazing even though still young. I asked her how she schooled him to be like that and she said she was a student of Jean Luc and directed me to the Science in motion website. I can't understand a word of it!

I searched on here and pretty much agree with the views expressed by some that he is a talented trainer and also that his writing is totally inaccessible. And that he is not unique in terms of what he actually does. So can anyone direct me to 'JL Made Simple' book/articles or to a writer who can express similar ideas more clearly. There is no point in me trying to read stuff if it is dressed up in sciencey sounding gibberish and makes no sense to me and/or if there is no practical application offered. Eg if you are;t supposed to work long and low anymore (though horses graze long and low so I doubt it can be that harmful!) then what are you supposed to do instead?

TIA!

He's classical but clearly has put a "science" spin/technique on his work - it is hard to read, I agree.

If you like biomechanics then why not try Mary Wanless' books? She has a new one on Rider Biomechanics and I found it easy to follow.

You can't really go wrong with Sylvia Lochs books, you have a selection to choose from... Dressage in Lightness, The classical Rider, The balanced Rider, her DVDs...

Sally Swift Centred riding.

Phillipe Karl has aseries (maybe 2?) of DVDs that I found easy to follow and his techniques have translated into real life pretty well.

 

[ester]

I do still think a lot of it is spin, I am not sure his latest on 'forces' fits with the concepts of actual forces and physics.

 

[tallyho!]

I do still think a lot of it is spin, I am not sure his latest on 'forces' fits with the concepts of actual forces and physics.

Ah well, who really cares, I wouldn't get bogged down in his detail. His hearts in the right place and he means no harm - his whole philosophy is actually admirable; that he trains to preserve the horses' lightness - exactly what all riding should be about, and is indeed what the other "classical masters" aim for, and with that I mean both the old masters (e.g. Colonel Alois Podhajsky) and the new (e.g. Reiner Klimke, Phillipe Karl). It's such a shame he loses so many people by making himself unfathomable by the lay-rider...


It's such a shame that mastery of the horse went in two different directions in the first place - the common dressage that's getting so much attention for all the wrong reasons, and the classical. IMHO there should never have been any difference. The former seems to aim to use as much force as humanly possible, and the latter the least force as humanly possible.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Thanks. I do like Mary Wanless so I'll dig out my old books and try again! I ended up giving up as I could never get the 'feel' of what she was saying - eg popping up, bearing down, plugging in etc plus I never knew if I had corrected myself correctly, made no difference or made things worse!

 

[ester]

I care I think if you are going to use such principles to explain things you ought to have them right. But then I always get bogged down in the detail

Also I think it is a great shame that given what you say he makes himself so impenetrable, but also that he seemsto leave a lot of people thinking they just aren't good enough/sciencey enough to understand it when actually that isn't the case at all because even the science/biomechanics people struggle to understand what he is trying to say. I guess we should be thankful that there are people that seem more keen to bring people along with them and explain in simpler terms .

 

[tallyho!]

Thanks. I do like Mary Wanless so I'll dig out my old books and try again! I ended up giving up as I could never get the 'feel' of what she was saying - eg popping up, bearing down, plugging in etc plus I never knew if I had corrected myself correctly, made no difference or made things worse!

LOL! That is so funny! Yeah I felt like that too when I first started reading her books years ago, I did give up for quite a while - however, I gave her another chance chance with rider biomechanics and a penny has dropped somewhere

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I agree really. I did sciences at A Level and Undergraduate level and it's still beyond me! Plus I am a staunch believer in the best teachers being able to explain things very very simply. Think Richard Feynman for example. So I am frustrated by people who seem to want to blind me with 'Science'. I do like what little i do understand though.

 

[tallyho!]

I care I think if you are going to use such principles to explain things you ought to have them right. But then I always get bogged down in the detail

Also I think it is a great shame that given what you say he makes himself so impenetrable, but also that he seemsto leave a lot of people thinking they just aren't good enough/sciencey enough to understand it when actually that isn't the case at all because even the science/biomechanics people struggle to understand what he is trying to say. I guess we should be thankful that there are people that seem more keen to bring people along with them and explain in simpler terms .

I know ester, I felt the same frustrations as you. He doesn't get it right and so infuriates people. I had to stop caring because I got upset. I realised that actually, he was overcomplicating something simple... I'd got sucked in by mistake.

I still like the science, the biomechanics etc of riding - but now I've found sane people that I actually understand

I respect and admire what he stands for, and thats as far as I can go with him and I don't read his articles anymore... I can't be arsed

 

[Puddleduck]

I’m glad this has been resurrected as I posted asking about JLC’s clinics I need Tack Room this morning but got no replies.

I’ve been following his FB posts and am using some of his principles with my rehab as a big part of his issues are from his off fore pastern & hoof conformation and foot balance resulting in soft tissue injury including a torn DDFT and navicular bone roughening. He’s transitioned to barefoot and is sound but I’m conscious that I need to make sure that I help him physically to overcome compensation issues. Most of it makes sense when I consider the issues I’m with dealing with and I’m getting results from what I’ve been using in groundwork on long lines.

The reason I posted was that I’ve been offered 2 lessons with JLC on one of his UK clinics so was wondering if anyone had first hand experience of his teaching either as a rider or a spectator before I committed to the costs.

 

[tallyho!]

I'm afraid I have no direct experience puddleduck, only that I followed him for quite a while as above and still use some of his techniques that work well.

However, I've found someone with a style that resonates with my understanding in PK, SL etc.

You should follow your own instincts - we all are on our own journey.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

LOL! That is so funny! Yeah I felt like that too when I first started reading her books years ago, I did give up for quite a while - however, I gave her another chance chance with rider biomechanics and a penny has dropped somewhere

That's reassuring. I'll try again!

 

[npage123]

I haven't browsed his internet site for quite some time, but I'm quite revved up now to have another go at it. I know the last time I read his articles and watched video's, I SO wished I could speak French.

Puddleduck, if I was you I would definitely go to the two lessons. It looks as if he's very approachable and just ask ask ask until you understand what he's trying to bring across. You'll probably understand him more and more as the lesson progresses. He's a legend I'm sure it would be an experience of a life-time.

If you do have the lessons, please come back on here to give us a report of how it went. It would be very interesting to hear how you found his lessons!

 

[{97702}]

Thanks. I do like Mary Wanless so I'll dig out my old books and try again! I ended up giving up as I could never get the 'feel' of what she was saying - eg popping up, bearing down, plugging in etc plus I never knew if I had corrected myself correctly, made no difference or made things worse!

FWIW I attended my first Pilates class last week and the explanations we were given about engaging the pelvic floor etc reminded me immediately of Mary Wanless.

I had one of her books but personally I could never understand what she was trying to explain - for me her phraseology was really meaningless when she went on about ‘bearing down’ etc! The Pilates instructor was asking us to do what i interpreted as similar things, which was really interesting to me

 

[tallyho!]

FWIW I attended my first Pilates class last week and the explanations we were given about engaging the pelvic floor etc reminded me immediately of Mary Wanless.

I had one of her books but personally I could never understand what she was trying to explain - for me her phraseology was really meaningless when she went on about ‘bearing down’ etc! The Pilates instructor was asking us to do what i interpreted as similar things, which was really interesting to me

Her latest book makes a lot more sense and I think resonates with pilates rather a lot as they both use the myofascial "lines" in the body... having given up MW as above, I decided I needed to give it one more try and actually, in the saddle, it makes a difference - I still hate the phrase "bearing down" though

 

[ester]

I went to a demo of MW's very early on (when I was about 14 and only riding wooden RS horses ) we had a RS trip to the local college. I think it made a lot more sense in person than the books would without that.
She also amusingly took the college instructors to task by asking the demo riders who taught you that? with regards to them kicking with alternate legs in walk. The second demo horse was dead lame so they had to use the same one twice which was a shame, mostly because if she mentioned 'his cotton socks' one more time I might have screamed . It was my first ever intro about how much difference seemingly small changes could make, even though it took me a long time to have the opportunity to try it.