Mark Rashid Aibado Clinic

Yes he is a very thoughtful and reflective horseman and more than anything he teaches people how to think and problem solve. There is no one size fits all set of exercises or techniques.

I really liked Tik Maynard's approach he discusses in his book: he wanted to learn from as many people as he possibly could. He opened his mind to all sorts of different approaches. Not in the sense of uncritically lapping up everything but of trying to understand how the great horse-folk around the world do what they do - what are the common themes, what is unique to each horseman, what does he (Tik) want to hang onto or adapt, what does he want to discard as not the way he wants to work. He said he had attended a few clinics with Mark Rashid and greatly admires his horsemanship.
 
Just to add re 'there is noting new under the sun' - Tik also said he came to see that all good horse-folk have an underlying philosophy, a set of theories about how horses learn/behave and techniques they prefer.

The techniques and the philosophy can be very different but the set of theories are remarkably similar from person to person. Horses are horses and great horse-folk all 'get' horses.

What seems to change is the narrative or explanation used to try and describe the theory, the methods used and most of all the philosophy. He gave the example of Buck Brannaman being one end of the 'pretty harsh, very exacting standards' spectrum with various others I had not heard of at the other end who may take a year to achieve what Buck can in 4 days! He was at pains not to criticize Buck though because he said that although those 4 days were pretty intense for a young horse, the end result was very easy on horses.

My own concern with Buck is that people see him being harsh and believe it's ok. With Buck a horse knows what he is expected to do and is always offered the 'good deal' first before he 'wishes he had taken it'' whereas ordinary mortals like me often generate confusion in our horses. That's why I really like Tik's focus on communication not on obedience. Buck demands obedience but a horse can't obey if he does not understand. I am confident the horse understands what Buck is asking for but that is not necessarily true of his students.
 
JFTD-WS said:
I am proud to have shared a petri dish with you!

Good training is the foundation of good horsemanship - and good training is largely about being open to new ideas and new ways of doing things. That's not accepting any old idea, but you do have to engage with it enough to understand it before you dismiss it out of hand.
Click to expand...
Well said! A lot of people instinctively do the right thing, but many need help to visualise what they need to achieve. You are never too old to learn something, and the horse will be all the better for it.
 
I had the opportunity to meet Amber in the midst of all the drama. That was lovely.

What makes Mark and Crissi stand out to me are their communication skills with humans as well as their approach to horse training. Mark himself would tell you he hasn't invented anything new. It's just horsemanship. I suppose the martial arts helped him conceptualise it in a different way, and he's passing it on to students. It's not a bad way of conceptualising horsemanship and it probably helps people. It's not like a training system an amateur can balls up and ruin their horse with, like some other trainers are selling. A lot of people really do struggle with the self-awareness and bodily awareness horses would like us to have and the whole 'light but solid' thing. When I was teaching, I had a baffled student ask me, "How am I supposed be soft and allowing and move with the horse, but at the same time, not brace against her, and not let her throw me all over the saddle? Those are completely opposing things."

Perhaps not helpfully, I said, "Yeah, that's kind of a lifetime of study. Unless you're Carl Hester. But the rest of us are all on a continuum of trying to figure out how to do that well."

When I did a clinic a few years ago, Mark and Crissi could say something and I found it easy to follow their instructions and get a response from the horse. Bloody expensive, but it's hard to find good instruction, so worth it as a one off, though obviously going to another clinic with them isn't happening unless they find another yard. Most of the trainers I've encountered are very much of 'yank its head into a frame and keep it there' philosophy. Not really what I'm wanting.
 
Ambers Echo said:
Just to add re 'there is noting new under the sun' - Tik also said he came to see that all good horse-folk have an underlying philosophy, a set of theories about how horses learn/behave and techniques they prefer.

The techniques and the philosophy can be very different but the set of theories are remarkably similar from person to person. Horses are horses and great horse-folk all 'get' horses.

What seems to change is the narrative or explanation used to try and describe the theory, the methods used and most of all the philosophy. He gave the example of Buck Brannaman being one end of the 'pretty harsh, very exacting standards' spectrum with various others I had not heard of at the other end who may take a year to achieve what Buck can in 4 days! He was at pains not to criticize Buck though because he said that although those 4 days were pretty intense for a young horse, the end result was very easy on horses.

My own concern with Buck is that people see him being harsh and believe it's ok. With Buck a horse knows what he is expected to do and is always offered the 'good deal' first before he 'wishes he had taken it'' whereas ordinary mortals like me often generate confusion in our horses. That's why I really like Tik's focus on communication not on obedience. Buck demands obedience but a horse can't obey if he does not understand. I am confident the horse understands what Buck is asking for but that is not necessarily true of his students.
Click to expand...
I wonder is it a personality thing too? I''m not very exacting/demanding with horses or people because I'm more chilled out by nature. I like to hack on a loose rein and go exploring strange places. I think horses that are happy to do things without a lot of directions suit what I like to do.
 
Last edited:
I once had an argument with a trainer. She asked me what I wanted to do with my horse? My answer was find out what it was good at and work on that. A concept she could not understand.
The idea that what ever the animal is bred for it should be good at it, and by drilling it will become better what ever discomfort to the horse appals me. There are enough ‘failed’ racehorses that have been produced from group 1 winners to disprove this theory. I have made money from buying other people’s so called failures, which was really just the owners lack awareness of their horses strengths and weaknesses, I never was a good rider.

My aim has always for my horses to be happy in what they do, with basic schooling, usually without a formal schooling area, obedient and a pleasure to be with.
My pony of a lifetime I was told on several occasions would have been very successful at dressage, but she would have been miserable, and I and my children would be bored and stressed. She was so well attuned to me I could ride her by weight aids alone, but could be ridden by my young daughters with safety and they did PC with her.
I think one of my concerns is that in the obsession with getting a horse on the bit, a much abused phrase, that the idea of accepting the bit an being obedient to rein pressure/resistance how ever small is ignored, and the use of the weight aids are completely ignored all together. Even small children can be taught weight aids.
Every generation has to interpret to a new audience but unless there is a basic understanding of what is realistically achievable by the horse and rider, which will be individual, and basic transferable language/ terminology, it’s open to miscommunication.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top