Natural vs Classical Riding/Horsemanship-

[Magda Mucha]

Hello All,
a while ago I had a long discussion with my trainer about Natural and Classical approach to training and riding. We were talking about being open-minded when it comes to train our horses and to search for any answers to help horses perform better. Today I would like to start a discussion with H&H website visitors- what is your personal view? What do You think, is there any difference between these two "methods of training" or maybe they just use different type of equipment to achieve lightness, collection and harmony in training?

 

[Pigeon]

It seems to be a marketing ploy. Ever noticed how Natural and Classical trainers seem to cost significantly more, for a service that isn't any different from that of a stand-alone trainer's?

Classical and Natural do seem to have an emphasis on being kind to the horse, taking it slow and so on, which can only be positive, although I have seen both schools spend too long on principles and theory and not really achieve anything.

I think a good trainer is a good trainer regardless of what they call themselves, and you can't be a good trainer without empathy and patience

 

[Magda Mucha]

I very much agree with you saying that Classical/Natural is a marketing ploy... But how does it affect horse training these days? I came across trainers and riders calling themselves "classical", making jokes about "natural horsemanship" as something worse and even funny... As well as "natural horsemanship trainers" taking off bridles, using halters but forgetting about basic balance in movement and Scale of Training..
As you said, it is all about being kind to the horse.. and a good trainer is a good trainer.. So I will ask new question to the topic- what does it mean "a good trainer" to you? What does it mean a good teacher? Teaching good basics and taking their riders to higher levels? When I watch lessons/trainings here in the UK and abroad, I ask myself over and over again- where are "good trainers" and "good teachers"? And what do you think- can we observe "good horsemanship", not divided by names and equipment used, often at competitions, warm up arenas or just at the lessons?

 

[dogatemysalad]

Both Natural and Classical horsemanship work on the principles of gaining cooperation through partnership using kindness and positive reinforcement. However, Natural horsemanship largely targets the market of inexperienced or over horsed owners who are looking for solutions to handling and riding problems.

Classical horsemanship is aimed at riders who already have the basics of balance and control and want to train a horse and rider through the scales, in sympathy with, and never forcibly against, the natural movement of the horse.

More simply put, those who don't understand horse language look towards NH for answers, and those that do, look towards CR.

 

[The Fuzzy Furry]

To throw something else in, where do you put centred riding then?

 

[DiNozzo]

Directly in the middle to start with!

Although, my riding instructor is very good and combines centred riding with classical as the rider progresses. I'm not there yet, but I have seen her teach others like that!

 

[SpottyMare]

More simply put, those who don't understand horse language look towards NH for answers, and those that do, look towards CR.

Disagree. I use anything that I feel is appropriate for the horse, no matter where it comes from. Good horsemanship is good horsemanship, and I get slightly fed up with various factions trying to get one over on the other, so I generally try to keep quiet and just get on with it...

 

[Wheels]

There are many different types of NH and of classical and of traditional, there are good and bad trainers in all types of horsemanship. NH is something I've come into quite recently, I learnt a few groundwork exercises when I was training my youngster and since then I've read more about the methodology and had a few groundwork lessons. I wish I'd had access to some of this about 10yrs ago when dealing with a few tricky horses as I think some of the stuff I now know would have helped then.

I now have a couple of trainers, one who is NH AND classical dressage and a lot more besides and the other is an international dressage rider. Both are great, both bring a different element to my training, both are aiming for the same thing but might go a very different way about getting there.

Do not discount any method, they all have great bits, take and use what you do like and leave what you don't.

 

[dogatemysalad]

Disagree. I use anything that I feel is appropriate for the horse, no matter where it comes from. Good horsemanship is good horsemanship, and I get slightly fed up with various factions trying to get one over on the other, so I generally try to keep quiet and just get on with it...

I agree, good horsemanship is good horsemanship. I'm not saying that NH isn't good, it's just meeting a different need. The two are not the same.

 

[catkin]

Perhaps we should start by defining what we mean by 'classical' or 'natural' - and I bet what I understand by these labels is different to what the next person understands. It all depends on our own training and outlook.

for example what school of 'classical' are we talking about? French classical dressage, German school, the various Iberian methodologies? are we defining as just dressage-y type things or looking wider - would you describe a good well-trained jumper/hunter/riding horse etc as classically trained? I would - think of what older books called the Campaign school or a campaign horse, where does the development of the forward seat for cross-country riding come in?
Add the NH label into the mix and it becomes even more confusing - using body-language to communicate with a horse happens in all good training methods IMHO (think of how your stance and attitude affects a young horse being lunged, if you have seen/done any long-reining or in-hand training positioning of the handler is key, when riding we are always striving to place our bodies so that we make it easy for the horse to move in the correct way)

 

[dominobrown]

Do not discount any method, they all have great bits, take and use what you do like and leave what you don't.

This ^^^ it's all about tools to help you.
You say about open-mindness (if that's a word!), I think problems occur when people won't think out of the box and try and see things differently. what works for one horse might not work for another.

 

[Doublethyme]

Both Natural and Classical horsemanship work on the principles of gaining cooperation through partnership using kindness and positive reinforcement

Err actually most NH work is negative reinforcement and not many (any?) classical are pure positive reinforcement.

I agree with the first reply in that a lot is clever marketing. A good trainer is just that no matter what they follow.

A fair bit of NH is actually pretty hard on the horses and some of the classical masters held up as paragons looked pretty hardline too!

 

[PaddyMonty]

Personally I think to follow any one Brand is doing both horse and rider a dis-service. It is far too easy to get locked in to one way of training and miss what the horse (and often Rider) really need. Horsemanship looks at what is in front of them, takes each horse as an individual and uses methods most appropriate for that individual.
Perhaps if people stopped putting labels to different training techniques and just practiced horsemanship then the life of equines the world over might just be a little bit better.

 

[dogatemysalad]

Err actually most NH work is negative reinforcement and not many (any?) classical are pure positive reinforcement.

I agree with the first reply in that a lot is clever marketing. A good trainer is just that no matter what they follow.

A fair bit of NH is actually pretty hard on the horses and some of the classical masters held up as paragons looked pretty hardline too!

Yes, its a myth to think that NH is fluffy bunny stuff, or any type of training for that matter. The best trainers ask a lot from the horse but do it sympathetically and fairly because they have the knowledge to understand how to gain cooperation without bullying. Some experts marketing a technique are pretty awful but then anyone can set up a school of training and take money for it.
I agree with PaddyMonty, its better to be open minded and not to get sucked into one method.
But my general interpretation of the difference between NH and CR, is that NH is largely for problem solving and helping clients to understand horse behaviour, while CR centres using on training in harmony with the horse to improve its ridden (working) life.

 

[Magda Mucha]

Both Natural and Classical horsemanship work on the principles of gaining cooperation through partnership using kindness and positive reinforcement. However, Natural horsemanship largely targets the market of inexperienced or over horsed owners who are looking for solutions to handling and riding problems.

Classical horsemanship is aimed at riders who already have the basics of balance and control and want to train a horse and rider through the scales, in sympathy with, and never forcibly against, the natural movement of the horse.

More simply put, those who don't understand horse language look towards NH for answers, and those that do, look towards CR.

Why do You think the target is different? We all know for example Karen Rohlf- she does teach teachers, also she does say in her book/articles that "Dressage, naturally" is for more experienced riders, having their balance established.. Her point of view and connecting these two, we would say, separated worlds- Classical and Natural horsemanship/riding is something what will not stop surprise me... From marketing point of view

 

[Magda Mucha]

Disagree. I use anything that I feel is appropriate for the horse, no matter where it comes from. Good horsemanship is good horsemanship, and I get slightly fed up with various factions trying to get one over on the other, so I generally try to keep quiet and just get on with it...

What does it mean for You "good horsemanship"? Sorry that I am so nosy but I was reading a discussion here, H&H forum, about some lady watching her niece riding lesson and being totally disappointed with the level of teaching, that I just needed to start this topic.. As many of us have children having lessons, we all are having lessons with different instructors/different methods and "schools" used.. So if we all know that "good horsemanship is good horsemanship" and basically EVERYONE knows that................. What does it mean? Because maybe we all have different understanding and that is why we go to for example the riding schools, were children and adults are thought to pull and kick?

 

[Magda Mucha]

both are aiming for the same thing but might go a very different way about getting there.

Do not discount any method, they all have great bits, take and use what you do like and leave what you don't.

I do agree with this (of course if we are talking about Classical/Natural training done correctly, and by this I mean horse and rider in harmony with a human)- both are aiming for the same! But why the ways to getting there (where?) are different for you?

 

[chestnut cob]

Another who thinks it's mostly all just clever marketing.

"Natural" horsemanship seems to be mainly about rope headcollars, wearing a cowboy hat and waving ropes at your horse. Joking aside, I've used a NH trainer in the past to help me deal with a particular problem and learned a lot from it. I do agree with the poster who said NH tends to be geared towards the less experienced horseperson, which I was at the time I guess. Had a horse I was struggling with and the NH was great at going right back to basics in my handling technique to help me resolve the issue. I also did bits of it with my current horse when he was younger and a bit bargy, but I wouldn't call it "natural horsemanhip", I would just call it "teaching manners", which is exactly what he needed to learn.

I don't really think the term "classical" is actually very helpful TBH. Surely no one sets out to be cruel and harsh on horses. Doesn't every trainer set out with the aims of achieving harmony and lightness, and to train their horses correctly? Some people seem to have this view that "classical" is right and anything else is wrong and cruel. I disagree. Have seen some pretty awful "classical" riding and training, but I've also seen some pretty awful BHS teaching and riding, and some pretty awful "modern dressage" training and riding. Doesn't make any system wrong or right. There is nothing wrong with trying everything and taking what works for you, disregarding what doesn't. I've also found that people who label themselves "classical" tend to be rather blinkered and single minded that theirs is the ONLY way to train, when I do think you need to look around at other methods. Horses don't read the books and one very rigid system won't suit every horse. Some of the NH people can be the same I think too.

What is a good trainer? For me a good trainer is someone who helps me to improve so that I can get the best from my horse. Someone who helps me understand what I am doing well and how to change things that aren't working. Someone who can ride my horse better than me, and get on to demonstrate something when I don't understand. Someone who can explain things in a way that makes sense to enable me to practise that when I'm schooling on my own. I want someone who has a logical process of training the horse so he becomes stronger and more supple, but who can think about things differently when something isn't working. And I do not want one of those "yep that's fabulous, yep wonderful, you're amazing" trainers, when clearly you're doing something quite wrong because it's not improving. someone who is honest but constructive, and also someone who isn't afraid to say they don't know how to improve or resolve something, so we need to look elsewhere for answers.

 

[ihatework]

My honest view is that trying to pigeon hole training methods into a 'box' is ******s.

Over the years I've trained with a variety of people. Some have labelled themselves, some haven't. Some have been excellent some haven't. I've had good & bad in all price brackets.

At the end of the day if a trainer explains things well, improves the horses way of going, is willing to adapt to what is in front of them and does this all in a way that I feel comfortable with from a welfare perspective then I'm happy.

 

[Magda Mucha]

Perhaps we should start by defining what we mean by 'classical' or 'natural' - and I bet what I understand by these labels is different to what the next person understands. It all depends on our own training and outlook.

for example what school of 'classical' are we talking about? French classical dressage, German school, the various Iberian methodologies? are we defining as just dressage-y type things or looking wider - would you describe a good well-trained jumper/hunter/riding horse etc as classically trained? I would - think of what older books called the Campaign school or a campaign horse, where does the development of the forward seat for cross-country riding come in?
Add the NH label into the mix and it becomes even more confusing - using body-language to communicate with a horse happens in all good training methods IMHO (think of how your stance and attitude affects a young horse being lunged, if you have seen/done any long-reining or in-hand training positioning of the handler is key, when riding we are always striving to place our bodies so that we make it easy for the horse to move in the correct way)

Thank You for this comment and for trying to define words Classical and Natural first.. For me "classical horsemanship/riding" comes from Xenophon and his "On Horsemanship", through Antoine de Pluvinel/ la Gueriniere/ Steinbrecht/ Podhajsky methods. So "classical" comes from using horses for the battles and these gentleman's above were cultivating similar, gentle approach to training- horse being light and responsive to be successful in the battle; introducing and cultivating exercise like shoulder in and understanding the impact it has on the horse... To put it together- "classical" means for me "cultivated through centuries by masters of riding art".
And "natural horsemanship", as we can read in the internet- "The techniques vary in their precise tenets but generally share principles of developing a rapport with horses, using communication techniques derived from observation of free-roaming horses, and rejecting abusive training methods"/ "The idea of working in sympathy with a horse in order to obtain cooperation is not new, with documented instances as far back as the two part treatise On Horsemanship by Xenophon (c. 430 – 354 BCE), which amongst other points, emphasised operand conditioning and emphasized reassurance over punishment. Later classical dressage practitioners such as Antoine de Pluvinel (1555–1620 CE) and François Robichon de La Guérinière (1688–1751) also emphasized gentle techniques."
And for me with my words- "natural horsemanship" is horsemanship based on observing horse's behaviour and using horse language (language which he will easily understand) to communicate with him effectively. Not talking about the sounds the horse is making but about body language and psychology of course....

 

[chestnut cob]

So "classical" comes from using horses for the battles and these gentleman's above were cultivating similar, gentle approach to training- horse being light and responsive to be successful in the battle; introducing and cultivating exercise like shoulder in and understanding the impact it has on the horse...

Shoulder in isn't exclusive to those labelling themselves "classical". I am currently taught by someone who is BHS qualified and who is, I would say, more Germanic (and not terribly "classical") in their approach. We use SI at times. And I said, surely everyone sets out to train their horse to be light and responsive? That also is not exclusive to "classical" trainers.

 

[chestnut cob]

Duplicate post, forum had a wobbly.

 

[Wheels]

I do agree with this (of course if we are talking about Classical/Natural training done correctly, and by this I mean horse and rider in harmony with a human)- both are aiming for the same! But why the ways to getting there (where?) are different for you?

The 'there' I talk about is to reach the potential of the horse and rider combo.

There are some big differences between my 'classical' trainer and my competition trainer and some more subtle differences which is normal between trainers too. The biggest difference for me is the groundwork / in hand work I get to do with the 'classical' trainer and I only ever get to ride with my competition coach.

The in hand work is very beneficial for helping to straighten my horse, help him to keep supple, teaching him to yield different parts of his body, all without the extra weight of the rider. Gives me as the rider the opportunity to actually watch the horse and see how he moves, his strengths and weaknesses, proves just how one sided I am given that he is naturally better on the left where ridden he is better on the right because I am so much better on the right. I find the in hand work enjoyable and useful in equal measure. I really do feel like I understand more about the locomotion of the horse, the way the footfalls and placement of feet can have such an impact on posture (mine and his)

The other big difference is that my 'classical' instructor really works on me, minute changes to my position that the competition trainer either doesn't see or doesn't tell me about, I suspect the former.

The competition trainer is very much focused on the horse, has some wonderful training exercises and huge experience so I gain a lot from these lessons too.

I have an hours riding lesson with the competition coach, at least two hours, sometimes 4 hours with the classical trainer working on anything and everything, sometimes going right back to basics before moving on again, groundwork, in hand, lunging, riding with plenty of down time and breaks. Works really well for us

 

[Magda Mucha]

Shoulder in isn't exclusive to those labelling themselves "classical". I am currently taught by someone who is BHS qualified and who is, I would say, more Germanic (and not terribly "classical") in their approach. We use SI at times. And I said, surely everyone sets out to train their horse to be light and responsive? That also is not exclusive to "classical" trainers.

SI is not exlusive exercise, of course. It was just an example. What do You mean by "not terribly classical"? Surely everyone sets out to train their horses to be light and responsive, but why so few are responsive and light? Maybe these trainers are not "classical" then?

 

[Magda Mucha]

Duplicate post, forum had a wobbly.

Sorry, I have not noticed that!

 

[Caol Ila]

I think some of the methods used to train war horses could be pretty rough. Your average cavalry soldier was unlikely to be half-passing with the horse in a beautiful outline in the midst hacking at people with a sword. Sure, they needed the horse to move sideways off leg and seat aids, but it didn't have to be pretty. I doubt it was. "Proto-dressage" and the airs above the ground were gentleman's past times, a way for the officers, the elite, to entertain themselves and show off.

You don't need to affix a label like "classical" or "natural" to good horsemanship. Any halfway decent trainer understands how pressure and release works, how to use it effectively, and understands equine body language. It was me who whinged about my niece hitting her pony in the mouth over fences while the instructor said nothing about contact, but you don't need a classical dressage instructor to deal with that. You just need an instructor who isn't useless.

The one thing that sets classical dressage trainers apart from trainers who simply have a clue and understand horses are the flat caps. I'm pretty sure you need a flat cap to be classical trainer.

 

[cundlegreen]

Not so, airs above the ground go back to medieval times, when horses were trained to fight in battle to aid their riders, hence capriole, levade and courbette. When you were surrounded by foot soldiers, it was necessary for your horse to help you out, difference between life or death! There are still accounts of William Marshall's training of his destrier (tourney champion, went on to be Lord High Marshall of England). I think people forget just how long dressage has been about, but, at the end of the day, it is still about harmony between horse and rider, and at its highest level, invisible aids and extreme lightness. That my opinion anyway!

 

[Morgan123]

I'm confused by this thread, what the hell is "Natural" dressage? if we're talking about "natural horsemanship" that's not REALLY comparable with classical dressage is it, it's a different thing....

Assuming we're talking about classical vs modern dressage (which looks like the way it's going above), I agree with Wheels above; my classical trainer focusses on my position and what I'm doing and how that is affecting my horse - more traditional/modern (haha - it's impossible to describe them! I mean 'normal' dressage people - you could say more competetive ones....) dressage trainers do indeed seem to focus on my horse's way of going.

also, talking of way of going, I think there's a difference there too - in my experience the Classical approach is always working towards the ideal soft swinging back, and therefore things like stretches are featured far more than in the modern (I'm just going to call it modern). I would actually go as far as to say that classical dressage focusses on the back whereas I think modern dressage focusses more on the legs and neck.

 

[chestnut cob]

The one thing that sets classical dressage trainers apart from trainers who simply have a clue and understand horses are the flat caps. I'm pretty sure you need a flat cap to be classical trainer.

And a cowboy hat to be a NH trainer.

 

[Caol Ila]

Yeah, William Marshall, exactly. Not really peasant cannon (or sword) fodder, was he?

Any good dressage focuses on the swinging back and in my view, any decent trainer focuses on how the rider affects the horse's way of going, since the horse can't use its body properly if the rider is stiff and braced, blocking its movement. You can call it classical if you like.

It is clearly all about the flat caps.