Open minded or confusing?

[TarrSteps]

This is another of my "a propos of a real life discussion" debate topics.

If you went back to a trainer you had been to previously and they give you different information on a later visit about how to deal with a problem, do an exercise etc. how would you react?

If they didn't explain the change, would you ask? Would you feel this is a sign of "weakness" or indecision?

It never occurred to me it would be a problem but I was recounting a story about a well known trainer who changed part of his very well documented system due to what he learned in the interim and met with a very cranky reception from his followers. It just made me wonder what the general thinking was.

 

[dianchi]

Its all a learning experience so if they have now learnt something new to try whats the harm?

I would assume (in make believe land ) that the orginal way has not worked for said horse so now has new solution to try!

 

[ihatework]

I have a memory like an elephant, so generally pick up on inconsistencies.
If I felt confused or if I had misunderstood something, then I would question it.
Depending on the response I got / rationale behind the change, this would then influence if I was happy to run with it or if it would make me fall into the 'cranky reception' clan.

 

[Teasel]

Hi TS... Your signature summarises my view on this very well....."‎It's a sign of intelligence and growth to change your mind. If you never change your mind, you're never learning anything new."

If the change was not explained to me I definitely would ask. I would want to understand - 'why the change?' The change may not just be because the trainer had changed their mind on how to deal with something - it could be that I as the rider... or the horse I was riding that day... or even the exercise .... had changed in some way. Even if it turned out they HAD changed their mind I would want to know why. If they had it would most likely be as the result of some experiece that they had - in which case it would be nice to gain the benefit of that experience from them!

With regards to the well known trainer..... if it was someone who had, lets say, published a very strict, rigorous and defined programme, that they had espoused and sold to people for years, which they then changed without explanation, and perhaps required me to fork out for another (lets call it) module - then I would probably give that individual a bit of a cranky reception too. I haven't got a clue who you are referring to by the way, but can imagine that given that scenario I would not be overly impressed!

 

[Supanova]

Interesting post as I have had this happen with my SJ trainer, who i think is brilliant by the way. I have wondered about why she has changed technique but i hate to admit i haven't actually ever questioned her on it! In my view, riding horses is a very dynamic thing and actually what works one day to solve a particular problem, may not always work another day. Therefore the more different advice i'm given to solve a problem the better as it will give me more tools in my tool kit.

However, on the other side of the coin, i do think there should be a rationale for changing the method.....sometimes i think its often because trainers have forgotten what they told you last time and they are just reacting to what is in front of them and how they feel on the day!

 

[MiaBella]

Most of the good trainers admit that they have learnt and developed and methods they used previously they no longer use (or they use differently) - have heard this in statements at demos by Carl Hester and Kyra K and Mark Rashid to name a few

I think its a good thing that a trainer develops and grows, I would expect them to explain though why they have changed something (particularly if its that obvious). It also means that what you read in books/if you watch recorded demos from a few years ago that you might not be seeing a true picture of what the trainer thinks and does now

 

[YasandCrystal]

My trainer does and I also expect them to impart the knowledge they learn from their trainers and clinics and experiences. I never expect this to be static and to be honest I would question if it was. We are all continually learning so why would my traner be any different. My trainer always explains clearly the suggested method and why anyway so I know and trust she would if things change.

 

[HotToTrot]

I'd ask why the change and I'd not see it as a sign of weakness, at all. I'd then probably have some further questions. In the past, some trainers have become defensive when I've asked too probingly, so I try to ask in as non-confrontational manner as possible. Don't want to sound as if I am disagreeing! Current trainer is used to me grilling him for ages over a small point and probably gets slightly frustrated with me, but manages to put up with me just the same.

 

[Goldenstar]

I think what I would do is let the session go on while I was riding the horse so I saw it through in the moment and then armed with the experiance of how the horse reacted ask the question at the end .
It would not worry me if I understood the explanation when I got it.
I am supposing in this make believe training land the horse is always clean , the lorry always starts and your favourite skinny breeches always fit .
If so I wish to go there ..... Please .

 

[TarrSteps]

Thanks all. I think I might ask the same question to a more diverse audience and see if I get the same response.

With regards to the well known trainer..... if it was someone who had, lets say, published a very strict, rigorous and defined programme, that they had espoused and sold to people for years, which they then changed without explanation, and perhaps required me to fork out for another (lets call it) module - then I would probably give that individual a bit of a cranky reception too. I haven't got a clue who you are referring to by the way, but can imagine that given that scenario I would not be overly impressed!

The trainer in question was one of the first big "NH" guys to have books, videos, "road show" clinics etc. He never seems to have crossed the pond but he was a big deal in the US. I wouldn't say his initial program was particularly rigid, but he was on the forefront of the movement so probably seemed very "different' to lots of people, which can breed a very enthusiastic following. The changes he later espoused were not radical but came, he admitted, from his own experiences getting older, recovering from injuries etc and so he understood that some of his original more athletic "cowboy" procedural recommendations were not that applicable to the average rider and possibly even a bad suggestion!

That was obviously quite an extreme example, and within a world known for its love of "debate". But I've heard other people over the years complain because they felt a trainer wasn't "consistent", although that obviously has to be taken in context. I've been quite interested to see how trainers/teachers I like have evolved over the years - sometimes quite radically - and had never considered it a "problem". In fact, I know from the other side, it's very frustrating when you learn something new that you feel would have benefitted someone you've taught in the past but no longer have access to!

 

[only_me]

I would see it as another possible answer to the question/problem.

I am a "outside the box" person so personally like any alternative methods to fixing something.

And also, if that way doesn't work then i would simply add it to my list of ways to solve

 

[Gamebird]

I think I would assume that either me or my horse had changed/come on/got worse and therefore his previous advice was no longer applicable due to the changed circumstances. As TD says - it's all about me. I probably wouldn't have considered that the guy's entire world view had changed as I would only be looking at it in relation to me/my horse. I have a very narrow field of vision...

 

[kc100]

My Spanish trainer who is well into his 60's now and has been riding at dressage GP level for decades always says he wishes he had another lifetime as he'll never learn enough in just one lifetime. He also says that he has never settled on just 'one' style/method of training, he was with the Spanish high school for a long time but also spent time with the Germans, he said he has taken bits away from each respective style and creates his own 'style' which then equally varies based on the horse he is dealing with at the time.

He told me you can never train with enough different trainers, as you will learn something new from each one. So I like to take his approach on board, I hold the view that you will never stop learning about horses and if you (as a trainer) experience something new which works better than something you used before then you would be foolish not to pass it onto your students.

However I can understand if in this case the trainer had a famous system that was rather rigid why it might have been met with some criticsim/backlash. I suppose when you have been loyally following one programme for a long time it would be hard to adapt to something new, after all change is not normally met with open arms especially if this trainer had students who had been following him for many years. I however as a student (I'm not a trainer) enjoy taking on new approaches, I like to learn and never want to stop learning so I hope my trainers will always pass on anything new they have learnt onto me.

Maybe in this case there is a cultural difference coming into it, I dont know if us UK folk are more receptive to change than people in the US? I know certain parts of the US can be seen to outsiders as stuck in their ways so perhaps culture has a part to play in our ability to have an open mind. Again maybe there are differences between the disciplines too - I personally have limited dealings with NH and my trainers are both dressage trainers, so perhaps as a dressage rider I look to learn constantly and appreciate there are developments within the sport at all times, whereas NH is more about horsemanship than it is one particular discipline, so maybe because they have been taking this one approach for so long to then shake it up with something new is a bit too much after all it is almost like asking you to change your beliefs. NH can be seen as more of a 'belief' whereas training for a particular discipline is just training to be better at your sport, a trainer wouldnt normally adjust the entire way you deal with your horses on a day to day basis (some might but most just focus on your riding and the horses way of going in your ridden lessons). Whereas a NH approach can adjust your entire way of thinking about horses so is more encompassing I guess?

Hope my ramblings have made sense in some way!

 

[TarrSteps]

I think the 'NH' (what ever that means. . ) crowd does tend to be rather more evangelical and 'herd oriented',definitely, and that's probably why the fellow in my example suffered such criticism.

I do think it depends a bit on the trainer, too. It can be hard to take from someone who has been very rigid and dismissive of other methods. But if a trainer has always been very open about the fluid nature of training and riding, then it's more to be expected that the students who favour him/her will be more accepting, even appreciative, of change

 

[Goldenstar]

I think perhaps it can be a bit to with the temperament of the pupil I would not be drawn to rigid my way or no way type trainers ,the attitude that peddles my way is the only way and everyone else is cruel unkind what ever switches me off so fast I would never be likely to have embraced the system in the first place.
Basically I don't do gurus .

 

[MiaBella]

I think its also hard for the followers if they aren't able to keep up (i.e. relying on old videos/books/clinics they saw years ago) so they will be saying 'well Mr GodTrainer said this is how you deal with situation X' and have faith and belief in that (and maybe if the method doesn't sit 100% with them they continue because Mr GodTrainer said this was THE way) and then find out that Mr GodTrainer no longer does that. He now deals with situation X using Method B. So if you have been working with Method A (and maybe preaching Method A to your friends/clients) even though you weren't convinced by Method A, you might feel a touch foolish or embarrassed or betrayed (if you take it that personally)

When you were at school (in the UK) you learnt to spell colour with a u. Without the u you were told off and so you could be very certain that colour was spelt like that. So you trundle along for a few years KNOWING that colour is spelt with a u. Then your teacher goes to the US and school changes its policy slightly and teacher comes back and says that actually colour can be spelt as color and that is equally correct. Some will go, ok, I prefer to spell it as colour (or color) but understand the option of spelling it differently is there, others will go, teacher says spell it color so I will do - colour no longer is an option, and the larger group will go 'but colour is how we have spelt it for years, color is incorrect, you can't change these things how dare you think color is equal to colour, its not correct, rant rave sack the teacher'.

I think it comes back to the fact that generally humans aren't keen on change (how many management books are there on dealing with change?) and some won't deal well with it no matter how well its communicated and managed.

 

[Tonks]

I think, for me, it would depend entirely on what they had changed their mind about.

If they had changed thier mind about say, how to deal with a spooking horse whereby, instead of immediately pushing the horse on towards the said spooky object, he was now stating that horses should be given 13 seconds to look at the said spooky object to assimilate the information - to result in less tension, I don't think I'd mind (esp, as research has now found exactly that.)

I suppose what they would be doing here, is simply using ADDITIONAL information (like another layer of icing on an already yummpy and perfect cake) to help solve a common problem and building on his knowledge and skills.

However, if he was now altering the basic tenets of training - say, shoulder-in should no longer be asked for with direct and indirect rein aids, but rather the rider should now soley use the inside and outside leg aids (sorry can't think of a better example here) - that would make me question him and his understanding of his approach/methods etc.

This is because he is not adding additional information to his repitoir of skills, (or not adding another layer to his already yummy cake.) Rather he is going against his previously held thoughts. This would make me think that his previous skills/knowledge couldn't have been very robust in the first place to warrent such a change of direction.

If you constantly feel the need to change things up radically, I think it shows a lack of understanding of the rudaments. Yes, we evolve but we don't do a complete 150.

Don't know if I'm explaining myself well enough - can you actually provide the example of the change you're talking about??

 

[TarrSteps]

I think, for me, it would depend entirely on what they had changed their mind about.

If they had changed thier mind about say, how to deal with a spooking horse whereby, instead of immediately pushing the horse on towards the said spooky object, he was now stating that horses should be given 13 seconds to look at the said spooky object to assimilate the information - to result in less tension, I don't think I'd mind (esp, as research has now found exactly that.)

I suppose what they would be doing here, is simply using ADDITIONAL information (like another layer of icing on an already yummpy and perfect cake) to help solve a common problem and building on his knowledge and skills.

However, if he was now altering the basic tenets of training - say, shoulder-in should no longer be asked for with direct and indirect rein aids, but rather the rider should now soley use the inside and outside leg aids (sorry can't think of a better example here) - that would make me question him and his understanding of his approach/methods etc.

This is because he is not adding additional information to his repitoir of skills, (or not adding another layer to his already yummy cake.) Rather he is going against his previously held thoughts. This would make me think that his previous skills/knowledge couldn't have been very robust in the first place to warrent such a change of direction.

If you constantly feel the need to change things up radically, I think it shows a lack of understanding of the rudaments. Yes, we evolve but we don't do a complete 150.

Don't know if I'm explaining myself well enough - can you actually provide the example of the change you're talking about??

An interesting and perceptive take on things, thank you.

The example I mentioned isn't really germane, as I just wanted some general answers from people based on their own thinking and experience, but basically It revolved around backing methods. As a relatively young man the trainer espoused doing a minimum of work on the ground then "riding through" whatever came during the first ridden work initially in the round pen. Little or no driving, more along the Monty Roberts demos where a 20 year old who rides 10 a day gets chucked up and is cantering in the first ten minutes. It was very "cowboy up". Later - older, creakier - he recanted this stance somewhat and developed a new fondness for having horses a bit more broke on the ground before he committed his safety to them completely. His original "Why walk if you can ride?" became a bit more "Why would you want to ride something you can't steer or stop?" Obviously there are trainers in both camps and many more on the spectrum in between, but some of his followers didn't take this adjustment well at all!

 

[Tonks]

An interesting and perceptive take on things, thank you.

The example I mentioned isn't really germane, as I just wanted some general answers from people based on their own thinking and experience, but basically It revolved around backing methods. As a relatively young man the trainer espoused doing a minimum of work on the ground then "riding through" whatever came during the first ridden work initially in the round pen. Little or no driving, more along the Monty Roberts demos where a 20 year old who rides 10 a day gets chucked up and is cantering in the first ten minutes. It was very "cowboy up". Later - older, creakier - he recanted this stance somewhat and developed a new fondness for having horses a bit more broke on the ground before he committed his safety to them completely. His original "Why walk if you can ride?" became a bit more "Why would you want to ride something you can't steer or stop?" Obviously there are trainers in both camps and many more on the spectrum in between, but some of his followers didn't take this adjustment well at all!

Could this shed some light?.....

There has recently been a piece of research which used a toy car in the round pen with a naive horse, using the same method as expoused by Roberts, NH, etc. The research found that the horse would exhibit the same behavioural repsonses as it did with a human.

This research therefore, does question the validity of the concept of 'leader', body language and so on expoused by NH. Basically a human was NOT needed to produce the same results. Therefore, it has questioned the basic validity of using the round pen and join up.

I know that equitation science has also heavily criticised the round pen method in recent years, for producing and escalating the flight response, which a) inhibits learning, b) produces tension c) basics are not installed (stop/go) which creates tension d) is this ethical e) produces 'dangerous' behaviour and is basically the anthesis of trying to eliminate tension to increase welfare in the equine industry.

Do you think this person is trying to modify his methods because he has got wind of these criticisms? That would be my thought..........he's merely responding to the fact we know a bit more about the round pen method.

To me, what he's saying is a good thing. He's thought about the ethics of it all for the horse. (But maybe I'm biased as I don't like the round pen for the reasons above.)

He may also be responding to market forces which are seeing these methods as a bit antiquated now.

 

[TarrSteps]

Could this shed some light?.....


Do you think this person is trying to modify his methods because he has got wind of these criticisms? That would be my thought..........he's merely responding to the fact we know a bit more about the round pen method.

To me, what he's saying is a good thing. He's thought about the ethics of it all for the horse. (But maybe I'm biased as I don't like the round pen for the reasons above.)

He may also be responding to market forces which are seeing these methods as a bit antiquated now.

This all happened some time ago - he was probably best known in the 80s and the change - progression - came more than a decade ago.

I think he just got dumped in the dirt or got someone else dumped in the dirt a little too often. Or maybe he messed up a horse or two, as one does, (as previously discussed the only people who can honestly say they have never messed up a horse by making mistakes are on HHO ) or had one get hurt or similar, and it got him thinking that maybe a few modifications were in order. I also think it occurred to him that no matter how much you tell people "don't try this at home if you aren't competent" if you put it in a book or on a DVD or show it in a clinic people WILL try it at home and a trainer has some responsibility for that.

I didn't see it as a radical shift. I've never felt that great about sitting on horses that don't know how to stop and steer, but I guess it was part of a particular ethos or way of seeing horse training, so going for a safer, more "traditional" path seemed like a let down. Don't get me wrong, I don't think many people were bothered but it did warrant a few magazine articles so didn't pass without comment!

Many texts get rewritten within the author's time and even after, as new thinking prevails. I just assumed everyone accepted that and it seems many do.

One of the great masters - might have been Boldt? Neckermann? - was asked at which point in his life he thought he had been/would be the best rider, optionally combining knowledge and strength. His reply was it would be the day before he died, because then he would know the most about horses and riding he would ever know and hopefully have no need of strength. Beautiful.

 

[nikkimariet]

For me, different approaches and methods are ok. As long as they are derived from the same theory and belief.

To suddenly change your entire teaching structure and expect acceptance would be bizarre, and not gladly welcomed I imagine.

Important to note though; it's not just the student who is learning, the trainer is too. If you want to progress, you must keep moving forward. If you try and stay still you'll end up moving backwards.

 

[spookypony]

If a teacher changed approach in some way, I wouldn't be angry; I would ask why, on the assumption that some new insight had been gained. I'm constantly evolving in my approach to lecturing; why shouldn't a horse trainer/riding instructor? A musician I respect enormously, just over retirement age, recently went on a course more usually frequented by postgraduate students. Upon returning, his whole approach to a type of music (that he had been playing for decades) had been transformed. That, in my opinion, at his point of his career, takes great humility and great musicianship. I'm sure the same is true in horsemanship.

 

[Tonks]

It can be hard to take from someone who has been very rigid and dismissive of other methods. But if a trainer has always been very open about the fluid nature of training and riding, then it's more to be expected that the students who favour him/her will be more accepting, even appreciative, of change

I think there's a general life lesson in there.....

This all happened some time ago - he was probably best known in the 80s and the change - progression - came more than a decade ago.

Owww...mind is ticking over......

I think he just got dumped in the dirt or got someone else dumped in the dirt a little too often. Or maybe he messed up a horse or two, as one does, (as previously discussed the only people who can honestly say they have never messed up a horse by making mistakes are on HHO ) or had one get hurt or similar, and it got him thinking that maybe a few modifications were in order. I also think it occurred to him that no matter how much you tell people "don't try this at home if you aren't competent" if you put it in a book or on a DVD or show it in a clinic people WILL try it at home and a trainer has some responsibility for that.

I didn't see it as a radical shift. I've never felt that great about sitting on horses that don't know how to stop and steer, but I guess it was part of a particular ethos or way of seeing horse training, so going for a safer, more "traditional" path seemed like a let down. Don't get me wrong, I don't think many people were bothered but it did warrant a few magazine articles so didn't pass without comment!

Many texts get rewritten within the author's time and even after, as new thinking prevails. I just assumed everyone accepted that and it seems many do.

One of the great masters - might have been Boldt? Neckermann? - was asked at which point in his life he thought he had been/would be the best rider, optionally combining knowledge and strength. His reply was it would be the day before he died, because then he would know the most about horses and riding he would ever know and hopefully have no need of strength. Beautiful.

I guess people never like change that much..........I just think it's important to be open, humble (there's one for me...) and no matter how much we like to think we have all the answers, there are always alternatives to our understanding and approach on things. But, like my lovely husband says..........opinions are like a**holes....everyone's got one, but some have have hemorrhoids..........

 

[TarrSteps]

If a teacher changed approach in some way, I wouldn't be angry; I would ask why, on the assumption that some new insight had been gained. I'm constantly evolving in my approach to lecturing; why shouldn't a horse trainer/riding instructor? A musician I respect enormously, just over retirement age, recently went on a course more usually frequented by postgraduate students. Upon returning, his whole approach to a type of music (that he had been playing for decades) had been transformed. That, in my opinion, at his point of his career, takes great humility and great musicianship. I'm sure the same is true in horsemanship.

That is very interesting about the musician! I find there are many paralells between the two worlds.

 

[TarrSteps]

I think there's a general life lesson in there.....



Owww...mind is ticking over......



I guess people never like change that much..........I just think it's important to be open, humble (there's one for me...) and no matter how much we like to think we have all the answers, there are always alternatives to our understanding and approach on things. But, like my lovely husband says..........opinions are like a**holes....everyone's got one, but some have have hemorrhoids..........

 

[siennamum]

I think there can be benefits to having a trainer who has established practices. (although I also agree that trainers should like mere mortals continue to learn and evolve)

trainer A, my SJ trainer has a toolkit of exercises and a fairly fixed model for bringing horses on. He is pretty old school & has been around horses for ever. I know what to expect, I understand what we are trying to achieve, I am sometimes surprised by a new exercise, but generally, he always makes complete sense to me and we see fantastic improvement. I expect that when we get to a certain standard we would hit a brick wall and he would run out of stuff to help with. When we start working on correcting issues in an established horse, things can get a bit repetitive, but always good discipline.
Trainer B, has lessons with a top trainer herself and sometimes is teaching me things which have recently been learned herself, She can be confusing, but they are always interesting.

With both trainers, its not so much what level they are at but what really matters to me is a general approach or style of training and that it reflects mine (not that I have anything as rigorous as a system)