Natural vs Classical Riding/Horsemanship-

I actually really hate labels being attached to the training of horses.

Classical, as it is commonly understood, is not as wonderful in it's foundations as everyone seems to believe. I watch videos of some of the highly revered trainers and wince at the form of the horse and the method of training.

NH, as it is commonly understood is the fluffy bunny approach, yet encourages methods that I find to be abhorrent sometimes.

Both have merits, both have faults in my opinion but the biggest fault of all is to assume that any one method is the best or that any one method, used exclusively is always going to be good because to do that requires a person to shut down the opportunity they have to actually listen to the horse they are in front of or on top of.

If you make the horse the basis for your training, you will always be met with success. If you make a training method the basis for your training, you will find it works perfectly for some horses and not for others.

To me, as a trainer of horses, there is a clear choice to be made:-

Listen to a system, when it fails, have to retrain a horse.

Listen to a horse, tailor a system to fit it and get it right first time.

I know what I would choose if I were a horse!
 
_GG_ said:
Listen to a horse, tailor a system to fit it and get it right first time.
Click to expand...

I would also add to this: be willing to acknowledge if you got it wrong and try something else. With the best will in the world, no one gets everything right first time, no matter how hard you try. If you can realise and acknowledge quickly that you made a mistake then try to find another way to approach the problem, horses are pretty forgiving in general I think.
 
chestnut cob said:
I would also add to this: be willing to acknowledge if you got it wrong and try something else. With the best will in the world, no one gets everything right first time, no matter how hard you try. If you can realise and acknowledge quickly that you made a mistake then try to find another way to approach the problem, horses are pretty forgiving in general I think.
Click to expand...

Absolutely....it just increases your chances. Horses are the most forgiving animals...mistakes happen and so long as we recognise them quickly and change, they will forget about it and move on with us :)
 
What do you think about an idea that there is no "classical" or "natural", that they are just labels, just names, as human being likes to name everything he can see? Do you think we can put equal sign between these two names? If yes- why, and if not- why not??
 
Well humans might like to name things but a name doesn't necessarily tell you everything you need to know. Take the colours blue and green, we all know what we think these colours are but if you went round and collected lots of different objects in those two colours, we could probably sort most of the objects into two piles but there would be some disagreement over objects that were blue/green in colour and lots of variation in tone etc in both piles. Perhaps trying to distinguish between classical and Natural horsemanship is rather artificial because there will be elements of both in each camp and actually does it matter? I like to think of riding as a long journey (well it is for me) when I set off I was very confident that I knew where I was going and it seemed very simple. Many years down the road, I'm no nearer to the end of my journey and actually with every step I take i seem to be further from the end. I'm lucky to have had some really good trainers travelling with me others have not been so good, i couldn't have told you whether they were classical or natural but I could tell you if they helped or hindered my journey. I did have one who was "centred riding" she helped enormously with my position and convinced me that I was hindering my horse and that's why he was so lazy. Actually when I persuaded her to ride him he was even worse with her so clearly there's a lot more to know than just how to sit properly!
Magda Mucha said:
What do you think about an idea that there is no "classical" or "natural", that they are just labels, just names, as human being likes to name everything he can see? Do you think we can put equal sign between these two names? If yes- why, and if not- why not??
Click to expand...
 
oldie48 said:
Perhaps trying to distinguish between classical and Natural horsemanship is rather artificial because there will be elements of both in each camp and actually does it matter?
Click to expand...
I have started this topic as it does matter to me ;) it is good to read so many answers saying, that it is just the marketing, because "good horsemanship is good horsemanship". And then the topic changes- so if we know that the difference between NH and CH is rather artificial, so it might just look rather different (especially for someone who knows little about riding) but the principles are the same- achieve lightness, perfect connection (and than collection) with the horse via body language via perfect seat which might not look perfect at all, but it is understandable for the animal... I think it does matter to know that there is no difference.
 
So yes, think I agree with you, there's good horsemanship and there are good trainers and it's not about how they describe themselves but it is about, to put it simply, how they ride and train others.
Magda Mucha said:
I have started this topic as it does matter to me ;) it is good to read so many answers saying, that it is just the marketing, because "good horsemanship is good horsemanship". And then the topic changes- so if we know that the difference between NH and CH is rather artificial, so it might just look rather different (especially for someone who knows little about riding) but the principles are the same- achieve lightness, perfect connection (and than collection) with the horse via body language via perfect seat which might not look perfect at all, but it is understandable for the animal... I think it does matter to know that there is no difference.
Click to expand...
 
They are very different to me.

NH is training the horse using observations that you have made about how the horse acts and communicates in the wild.
CH is using methods from past masters (methods can vary a great deal).

Of course everyone wants to achieve a light, responsive forward going horse, but here the techniques to reach this goal vary. Both NH and CH techniques can be harsh on the horse, but I would tend to say NH is generally harsh psychologically as you are putting pressure on the horse mentally. CH can be super variable, some of the masters using very harsh bits for example.
One principle of CH I like very much and I think it is a kind way to get a horse to accept a contact is to always take before you give. There is a similar approach in NH of "pressure and release". In both cases it's the release that teaches the horse, not the pressure.
 
_GG_ said:
Listen to a system, when it fails, have to retrain a horse.

Listen to a horse, tailor a system to fit it and get it right first time.

I know what I would choose if I were a horse!
Click to expand...

GG, have you ever thought about writing a book? Because you seriously should!
 
Magda Mucha said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think it's not so much a case of knowing what good horsemanship is as much as knowing what it isn't. There seem to be plenty of different approaches which yield a happy well trained horse but most unhappy and/or badly trained horses are victims of the same failings - impatience, attempting to force the horse to be a certain way, lack of regard for the horse's comfort/welfare.

I also think you have to be aware that things aren't always what they seem. Go and visit the Spanish Riding School and watch a training session - you can't get more classical dressagey than the Spanish Riding School but all their training is done with patience, sympathy and sugar lumps.
 
armchair_rider said:
I also think you have to be aware that things aren't always what they seem. Go and visit the Spanish Riding School and watch a training session - you can't get more classical dressagey than the Spanish Riding School but all their training is done with patience, sympathy and sugar lumps.
Click to expand...

You can achieve an awful lot with sugar lumps! Or little pieces of carrot, in the case of my horse! ;)
 
armchair_rider said:
I think it's not so much a case of knowing what good horsemanship is as much as knowing what it isn't. There seem to be plenty of different approaches which yield a happy well trained horse but most unhappy and/or badly trained horses are victims of the same failings - impatience, attempting to force the horse to be a certain way, lack of regard for the horse's comfort/welfare.

I also think you have to be aware that things aren't always what they seem. Go and visit the Spanish Riding School and watch a training session - you can't get more classical dressagey than the Spanish Riding School but all their training is done with patience, sympathy and sugar lumps.
Click to expand...

Saw this today. Caveat...a photo is just a moment in time and all that jazz...have a look though

http://hippocampus-nl.com/fileupload/SpanischeReitschuleRollkur.pdf
 
I personally would love to know what each of those "methods" really are but in my 25 years with horses I still don't have the clarity! The definitions change with each year, each book, each celebrity, each gold medal won. The correctness changes. The definition of "cruelty" changes.

I watch a lot of training of various trainers from very many "schools" so I can tailor approaches to particular horses.
Funnily enough, the biggest difference I personally see is in contact. Classical methods (as in Podhajsky, Belasik et al, Iberian trainers) are all about constant connection (reins), firm and fluid - especially at lower to medium level of training, constant recycling of energy - bit to hind leg.
Natural dressage methods, Karen Rohlf, Manolo Mendez are often about mental and physical balance with not much mouth influence from the start.

To me, the classical method the Belasik et al way is one that is less forgiving in the hands of a less skilled, less body aware rider. The "natural dressage" (for lack of better words) is much more applicable to many amateur riders and much more "pleasant" to teach to non professional riders.
 
I saw these pics earlier yesterday on FB, I am actually quite bothered by it as the SRS were always thought of highly in terms of education. If it is a moment n time then there are too many of those moments if they managed to get so many photos on camera - these are the performance horses if the tack is anything to go by so should be well trained!
 
[.

I also think you have to be aware that things aren't always what they seem. Go and visit the Spanish Riding School and watch a training session - you can't get more classical dressagey than the Spanish Riding School but all their training is done with patience, sympathy and sugar lumps.[/QUOTE]


I think this idea has been debunked over the past few days with photos being taken of several riders using rollkur....already mentioned, thanks guys :)
 
Last edited:
I cannot comment on classical/modern dressage as I haven't gone into it in great detail....however I have done quite a bit of study of 'natural horsemanship'. I studied a number of different practitioners, Monty Roberts, Clinton Anderson etc before starting on Parelli Natural Horsemanship. In the very first clinic that I attended as an auditor (spectator) it was said that nh is so old it's new again, and sure enough many of the tenets that were spoken were echoes of my childhood (1950s !) instructors :) I must clarify the idea of 'negative reinforcement' it is the removal of pressure - like applying a right leg which comes off when the horse moves away from it....not always followed through in 'dressage' training as the pressure is kept on until the end of the movement....with nh we apply an aid that is LIGHTER than we know will be effective and increase the pressure gradually until we get a response when we release immediately (learning timing is basic :) ) This is how we get a horse to respond to a light aid....and I must reiterate that I started studying this method in 1998 and over the years have moved away due to various 'incidents' that imo do not conform with Pats original keys, principles, responsibilities etc......
 
viola said:
Opps apologies for posting the same link _GG_! Only just noticed you posted it earlier!
Click to expand...

No apology needed....shows it is doing the rounds :)

Alyth said:
I cannot comment on classical/modern dressage as I haven't gone into it in great detail....however I have done quite a bit of study of 'natural horsemanship'. I studied a number of different practitioners, Monty Roberts, Clinton Anderson etc before starting on Parelli Natural Horsemanship. In the very first clinic that I attended as an auditor (spectator) it was said that nh is so old it's new again, and sure enough many of the tenets that were spoken were echoes of my childhood (1950s !) instructors :) I must clarify the idea of 'negative reinforcement' it is the removal of pressure - like applying a right leg which comes off when the horse moves away from it....not always followed through in 'dressage' training as the pressure is kept on until the end of the movement....with nh we apply an aid that is LIGHTER than we know will be effective and increase the pressure gradually until we get a response when we release immediately (learning timing is basic :) ) This is how we get a horse to respond to a light aid....and I must reiterate that I started studying this method in 1998 and over the years have moved away due to various 'incidents' that imo do not conform with Pats original keys, principles, responsibilities etc......
Click to expand...
Just to be clear, for me, in dressage, I train horses to go off a light aid and continue as they are until I give them a new instruction. So, if I want leg yield I will set the horse up, apply my leg and when the horse moves away from it, I will keep my leg in the same position, but not applied. I don't want to have to hold me leg on in an active sense for the whole movement, just keep it there in case I need to re-apply. A horse should be able to stay in the movement you have put it in until you ask it to change.
Caveat being, as the movements get more demanding and complex, so the aids may need to be rhythmically repeated, as in pirouettes, piaffe, passage etc. For most though, it is aid on - correct movement achieved - aid neutral and only re-applied if necessary.

I've not commented much on this thread as it really is a case of perception/experience/knowledge/exposure etc all rolled into one for each individual, shaping their own views of both NH and CH so there will never be a common consensus on either in this context.
The opinions of each that I have developed over the years will be very different to the next person because my experiences are different.

What I will say again though is that in general, I have a problem with ANY system that says "this is the way to do it" and is strict in its methods. To agree with that is to agree that a horse can and should be at our mercy. I am very uncomfortable with that. I am no fluffy bunny, but I certainly have the capacity to be able to tailor my training to suit the horse and not the other way around.

So, I am not against any school of training, but I am not for any school of training either. I lean more towards classical but not entirely.
 
Seconding GG, according to the French masters you drop the aid when the horse responds, this is called "descente de mains" (letting go of the hands) and "descente de jambes" (letting go of the leg, for rider)

http://www.cousyndressage.com/descent-de-maines-et-descente-de-jambes.html

Personnally I don't believe of the "you need to keep the energy from going up the front door", the horse can learn to hold himself properly on a semi loose rein.
 
Last edited:
Palindrome said:
They are very different to me.

NH is training the horse using observations that you have made about how the horse acts and communicates in the wild.
CH is using methods from past masters (methods can vary a great deal).

Of course everyone wants to achieve a light, responsive forward going horse, but here the techniques to reach this goal vary. Both NH and CH techniques can be harsh on the horse, but I would tend to say NH is generally harsh psychologically as you are putting pressure on the horse mentally. CH can be super variable, some of the masters using very harsh bits for example.
One principle of CH I like very much and I think it is a kind way to get a horse to accept a contact is to always take before you give. There is a similar approach in NH of "pressure and release". In both cases it's the release that teaches the horse, not the pressure.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your comment! If CH is using methods from past masters (which the first master would be Xenophon) it means that they were all, after him, observing how the horse acts and communicate!
On the other hand, if we will look at other "classical master"- F. Baucher and his methods of training (the horse's jaw is the source of all resistance), we would say that maybe he is known as "classical" as he invented one-tempi flying changes BUT is the jaw of the horse the source of resistance at all? With today knowledge I would disagree with him.
So of course, methods can vary great deal, but I think that this is the point- if the methods are not following horse's biomechanics, when we skip the knowledge about the horses' conformation and its psychology, than the methods will not give us lightness and responsive horse. Doesn't matter if the person with >methods< wears big cowboy hat or polished smart boots ;)
I am not talking about being harsh- from experience and observation being harsh will take you nowhere, I want to talk about correct training, which I hope everyone could see or be part of :)
About the pressure- that is again taken form the observation and the technique would be different depends who is putting the pressure. As you wrote- the release teaches the horse, not the pressure. And again- I could see videos on YT, ABUSING VIDEOS with titles "Natural Horsemanship". I would name it differently.
 
I think a lot of them are do as I say not as I do, look at those pics of Gerd heushman (sp?)that emerged! I guess when the old classical masters everyone quotes were around there also werent any camera phones to catch their less than perfect moments &#128521;
 
Last edited:
viola said:
I personally would love to know what each of those "methods" really are but in my 25 years with horses I still don't have the clarity! The definitions change with each year, each book, each celebrity, each gold medal won. The correctness changes. The definition of "cruelty" changes.
Click to expand...

What do you think, Viola- the correctness changes or the knowledge is wider and deeper? So we are able to add as many possible explanations and new, correct techniques to the old same correctness which is a happy horse?
And the definition of cruelty- does it change really? The rollkur was not a cruelty issue couple of years ago, now it is banned by law in Switzerland. And when we skip law, Olympics, GP and see a horse being abused by a child or by a trainer you will not have doubts.
 
Farma said:
I think a lot of them are do as I say not as I do, look at those pics of Gerd heushman (sp?)that emerged! I guess when the old classical masters everyone quotes were around there also werent any camera phones to catch their less than perfect moments &#55357;&#56841;
Click to expand...

I do not know anybody who is perfect from the beginning to the end. Learning means making mistakes, we all pull on the reins due to lack of balance or we kick when we forget about pressure-RELEASE, etc. etc.... They are not pleasant moments, failures.. And I think it is absolutely normal if we are aiming for the lightness, if we are willing to learn constantly..
And about clinics and Mr Gerd- it is tricky to run clinics when you have difficult horse to deal with. LEarning takes time.
 
I would love to know where the perception of "classical" training as all nicey-nicey, sweetness and light came from? Has anyone actually read the original texts? Yes, it is about understanding the horse, his mind and his shape, but it is also about bending the horse's power to the rider's will and making him a useful piece of kit for the battlefield, or for showing off the riders' expertise in front of the King. The methods, the tack and the requirements are nothing to do with the modern interpretation that seems to have taken hold in recent years. Strange. And as for NH, utter marketing/branding/advantage-taking disgrace.
 
Cortez said:
I would love to know where the perception of "classical" training as all nicey-nicey, sweetness and light came from? Has anyone actually read the original texts? Yes, it is about understanding the horse, his mind and his shape, but it is also about bending the horse's power to the rider's will and making him a useful piece of kit for the battlefield, or for showing off the riders' expertise in front of the King. The methods, the tack and the requirements are nothing to do with the modern interpretation that seems to have taken hold in recent years. Strange. And as for NH, utter marketing/branding/advantage-taking disgrace.
Click to expand...

Have been hoping you would come along as I think you have a better grasp on the history CH than most on here.
 
Well, thank you GG :-) it is part of the Day Job. I am surprised at the modern interpretation that seems to be out there, and quite erm......."amused" at what seems to pass for a whole separate discipline (especially, but not exclusively, in the UK). There is really just good training, bad training, and all variations in between. Giving things a name doesn't really add any clout or effectiveness.
 
Cortez said:
Well, thank you GG :-) it is part of the Day Job. I am surprised at the modern interpretation that seems to be out there, and quite erm......."amused" at what seems to pass for a whole separate discipline (especially, but not exclusively, in the UK). There is really just good training, bad training, and all variations in between. Giving things a name doesn't really add any clout or effectiveness.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
Totally agree and a much clearer and simpler comment than my long winded blues and greens post!
Cortez said:
Well, thank you GG :-) it is part of the Day Job. I am surprised at the modern interpretation that seems to be out there, and quite erm......."amused" at what seems to pass for a whole separate discipline (especially, but not exclusively, in the UK). There is really just good training, bad training, and all variations in between. Giving things a name doesn't really add any clout or effectiveness.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top