Philippe Karl

good question, Tarrsteps - I wish I knew the answer......

...... my take from hearing PK's lectures is that it wouldn't take that much in terms of changes to FEI rules to stop some of the "so called" abusive practices in some aspects of competitive dressage and certainly that is one of PK's goals - I don't think he can give up hope in terms of campaining to make changes and trying to prove that dressage training doesn't need to involve said practices. However, that's of course my take after hearing him, I wouldn't like to pretend to know exactly how he feels about this.

When you hear him speak, it's quite clear that he sees a lot in the competitive dressage world that really isn't what it should be..... stress fractures in jaws/ soap in the mouths so the judges can't hear the teeth grind, etc, etc..... but anyway, that stuff is another thread, I think.....
 
I'll QR a number of points (and the reason I keep at this is because I find some of PK's approach hypocritical and that bugs me):

1. If you are a successful, proven trainer, everyone flocks to you, you'll have them beating down your door. People like Hubertus Smidt and Jans Bemelmans have produced over 50 horses each to GP, this is not a 'I produced my one and only horse to GP and can't bear to part with him' area of expertise. The thought that he is 'not interested' in training these people is disingenious.

2. To attend his clinics you need to be vetted and you need to pay at least 50 euros a day. If he was serious about disceminating knowledge he could at least make attendance free to anyone who is interested.

3. He is not interested in top competition...other than criticising others and attempting to advise the FEI. If he is really not interested then he should leave those who are interested to get on with it. If he wants to contribute to the process he should be part of it. He is so knowledgeable about competitions WITHOUT competing? That is quite a feat! What is his competition record? How many horses has he competed to GP and with what results?

4. He doesn't compete, he doesn't judge, he doesn't train...because it is all done wrongly! There is an Aesop's fable about the fox that couldn't reach the grapes so said they were sour.

5. From the little I have seen all trainers train all types of horses, it's just that some types of horses are more likely to be competitive and are the naturally choice of the competition rider. I completely agree that the messure of a trainer is not just how he rider but how his students ride - where are his students? A couple of years I ago I looked at his website and he had no training clinics in France - where did this idea that he is a well known name in France come from? The guy is in his 50s-60s? He should have hundreds (if not thousands) of pupils around - at least some of these would compete even by default!

6. Top names go to him for specific problems: fair enough, who would that be? Where do they talk about it?
 
Kelpie said:
ok, Booboos, you don't like him..... so fine, that's your perogative. I try and avoid internet arguments nowadays :)
Click to expand...

Oh no I don't know him, but I don't like his approach. He is not just a trainer who goes about his business and makes his ideas available through books and DVDs. He actually seems to spend a lot of his time, effort and publications trashing everyone else. Other trainers, riders and judges appear to be quite useless at best, or harmful to their horses at worst according to him. If you are going to be THAT critical of other people, start up petitions, expect to be consulted by governing bodies, and generally set up yourself as an expert, you need to have some justification for adopting that position. When someone claims to be a horse expert and know better than others I would want to see evidence to back it up, i.e. they are a great rider themselves and/or a great trainer of horses and/or a great trainer of riders. Failing that why exactly should I believe he knows what he is talking about? Riding is a practical pursuit and the proof of the pudding is in the eating so to speak! If he has never actually rider a GP test in competition, never trained a horse or a rider that has done so, in what sense exactly is he supposed to be an expert?
 
Booboos said:
Oh no I don't know him, but I don't like his approach. He is not just a trainer who goes about his business and makes his ideas available through books and DVDs. He actually seems to spend a lot of his time, effort and publications trashing everyone else. Other trainers, riders and judges appear to be quite useless at best, or harmful to their horses at worst according to him. If you are going to be THAT critical of other people, start up petitions, expect to be consulted by governing bodies, and generally set up yourself as an expert, you need to have some justification for adopting that position. When someone claims to be a horse expert and know better than others I would want to see evidence to back it up, i.e. they are a great rider themselves and/or a great trainer of horses and/or a great trainer of riders. Failing that why exactly should I believe he knows what he is talking about? Riding is a practical pursuit and the proof of the pudding is in the eating so to speak! If he has never actually rider a GP test in competition, never trained a horse or a rider that has done so, in what sense exactly is he supposed to be an expert?
Click to expand...

Do you have to compete or have trained someone that has competed to be exceptionally good at something though?

Isn't the point of what he teaches is that a lot (but not all) of competition dressage training is not always in the horses best interest? The whole RK debate being a prime example. The manufactured gaits of these horses (such as Totillas) seem to wow the judges but from a classical perspective the way these horses are trained is considered cruel and not born from a partnership between horse and rider but achieved through force. PK would not do well infront of the judges that award the higher marks to these horses because he works the horse in what he considers a correct and productive way and not in a way that would damage the horse long term.

If he did compete now, it would probably be counter productive for him. Imo (and it is only my humble opinion) i think he's doing the right thing. He's training teachers who educate young and new riders in the classical ways and he's trying to stop these young riders aspiring to be like the RK riders within the sport. He may not be able to change the system now (but he obviously is trying) but if he changes the views of up and coming riders then potentially the future of competition dressage may change and we may see competition dressage go back to being about a partnership between the horse and rider and the horse working in it's optimum and correct way and not just to create a pretty picture for the judges.
 
PooJay said:
Do you have to compete or have trained someone that has competed to be exceptionally good at something though?

Isn't the point of what he teaches is that a lot (but not all) of competition dressage training is not always in the horses best interest? The whole RK debate being a prime example. The manufactured gaits of these horses (such as Totillas) seem to wow the judges but from a classical perspective the way these horses are trained is considered cruel and not born from a partnership between horse and rider but achieved through force. PK would not do well infront of the judges that award the higher marks to these horses because he works the horse in what he considers a correct and productive way and not in a way that would damage the horse long term.

If he did compete now, it would probably be counter productive for him. Imo (and it is only my humble opinion) i think he's doing the right thing. He's training teachers who educate young and new riders in the classical ways and he's trying to stop these young riders aspiring to be like the RK riders within the sport. He may not be able to change the system now (but he obviously is trying) but if he changes the views of up and coming riders then potentially the future of competition dressage may change and we may see competition dressage go back to being about a partnership between the horse and rider and the horse working in it's optimum and correct way and not just to create a pretty picture for the judges.
Click to expand...

Yes I would expect someone who claims to be an expert trainer to be either an accomplished rider himself, or have horses or students competing at the top level - otherwise how do you know he is any good? I don't have any competition experience past medium, nor have I trained horses to any decent level nor do I have any students working at top level...could it be that I am a top trainer?!!! I could collect my CC comments from HHO and publish them (I would probably end up with more text than PK's book which is very heavy on photos and general ranting), would that make me a top trainer?!!!

The "I am brilliant, but others fail to see my brilliance, so I won't bother" is not an argument I find very convincing. There are plenty of not rollkured horses doing very well, with no problems from the 'prejudiced' judges, e.g. Uthopia, Mistral Hojis, Valegro, Fuego, to name but a few. Or does PK contest that these horses are not well trained and happy athletes either?
 
Booboos said:
Yes I would expect someone who claims to be an expert trainer to be either an accomplished rider himself, or have horses or students competing at the top level - otherwise how do you know he is any good? I don't have any competition experience past medium, nor have I trained horses to any decent level nor do I have any students working at top level...could it be that I am a top trainer?!!! I could collect my CC comments from HHO and publish them (I would probably end up with more text than PK's book which is very heavy on photos and general ranting), would that make me a top trainer?!!!

The "I am brilliant, but others fail to see my brilliance, so I won't bother" is not an argument I find very convincing. There are plenty of not rollkured horses doing very well, with no problems from the 'prejudiced' judges, e.g. Uthopia, Mistral Hojis, Valegro, Fuego, to name but a few. Or does PK contest that these horses are not well trained and happy athletes either?
Click to expand...

But he is a very accomplished rider, he has trained horses past "medium" but medium wouldn't apply to him because he's not competitive. I have only watched his first DVD and some snippets of him riding here and there and i have to say i am impressed and would really love to train with him. I think at the end of the first dvd there's a clip of him riding a horse that he's trained for a number of years (if this is wrong, i stand corrected, i lent the dvd out and haven't seen it back so it's been a while since i've seen it! :)) but that level of work was beautiful and so harmonious to watch.

If he wasn't a good trainer, why on earth would people be fighting to get on these courses with him - equally, why would they be paying 50 euro's a day to train with him? Surely we would've heard just how rubbish he actually is if people were coming away from the training they'd paid for dissatisfied?

I don't think he contests that ALL competition dressage involves force (i did mention that in my original post) but that there is a lot of room for improvement within the sport - which he clearly is fighting for and i think that's a real positive and should be admired.

I'm afraid i'm not up to date on how he feels about Carl Hester and friends but i would be very interested to hear about it if anyone knows :)

I am not hugely competive at all, i do the sport for the love of it and equally i do not seek out trainers who have a proven track record within competition because good competition results don't always follow a good solid training regime.
 
PooJay said:
If he wasn't a good trainer, why on earth would people be fighting to get on these courses with him - equally, why would they be paying 50 euro's a day to train with him? Surely we would've heard just how rubbish he actually is if people were coming away from the training they'd paid for dissatisfied?
Click to expand...

I refer you to my earlier Monty Roberts comment. ;) :D

I'm actually quite pro PK's methods (well, not "his" but of that school) as they dovetail more with what appeals to me, BUT I don't make the mistake of thinking that training in an "alternative" system will necessarily make one more competitive in the dominant system. It MIGHT but let's face it, if the point is to win, then you go to the trainer who is producing winners.

What I find interesting about "classical" riding now (leaving aside definitions) is that the people who train that way say they don't care about the status quo but then get upset that it's not they way they want it to be in the ring and they're not always competitive. I understand that it's upsetting to think horses are being trained in ways that you personally find repugnant but the fact remains you can only ever control your own situation (and horses), you can't force other people to share your views. If competition is not the benchmark then why compete or even care what happens in competition?

I also see people (NOT PK) who take refuge in their "classical" approach to explain lack of success when that's not really the issue, but more to do with generally not up to snuff riding. I'm sure PK would address these people accordingly but it's what many of us on the lower rungs SEE and it informs opinions.
 
TarrSteps said:
I refer you to my earlier Monty Roberts comment. ;) :D

I'm actually quite pro PK's methods (well, not "his" but of that school) as they dovetail more with what appeals to me, BUT I don't make the mistake of thinking that training in an "alternative" system will necessarily make one more competitive in the dominant system. It MIGHT but let's face it, if the point is to win, then you go to the trainer who is producing winners.

What I find interesting about "classical" riding now (leaving aside definitions) is that the people who train that way say they don't care about the status quo but then get upset that it's not they way they want it to be in the ring and they're not always competitive. I understand that it's upsetting to think horses are being trained in ways that you personally find repugnant but the fact remains you can only ever control your own situation (and horses), you can't force other people to share your views. If competition is not the benchmark then why compete or even care what happens in competition?

I also see people (NOT PK) who take refuge in their "classical" approach to explain lack of success when that's not really the issue, but more to do with generally not up to snuff riding. I'm sure PK would address these people accordingly but it's what many of us on the lower rungs SEE and it informs opinions.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the monty roberts comment but i can guess what you mean by it :D

I like to think i could take a mixture of classical and "competition"??? and use what works for my horse. I also don't find competition dressage repugnant, hyperflexion and force however i do and i find it an insult to the sport.

I can certainly see that some people do take refuge in the classical approach, but there are always going to be people that make excuses for themselves in any sport, in fact in any walk of life. They can't admit that they're actually, just a a little bit **** at what they do! :D However, i don't believe PK falls into that category and just because he doesn't compete, it doesn't make him any less of a trainer or rider.

i imagine that the "classical" riders probably feel so strongly about the way some competition horses are trained purely because they don't like to see horses in the industry abused for the glory of winning....i should imagine they'd all like to compete but not at the cost of the horse which makes it probably a tad hard to swallow when horses that are trained using hyperflexion (or whatever they call it now) win.

Incidentally, i don't think all "classical" trainers are quite so sensitive and softly softly either....but the end to the approach usually ends up with the horse working properly over it's back and moving as it should without the exaggerated gaits of some of the horses we see in competition nowadays.
 
I agree with you TarrSteps. We have to remember that dressage competitions are sport, and if you want to win you have to fit the picture.

The Spanish Riding School and the Cadre Noir train horses in dressage, up to and including the Airs Above the Ground, for art's sake, not for sport, for displays and to keep the art of classical riding alive. Dressage was not envisaged as a "sport" but to have a well trained, horse for its own sake, when riding horses was only for the rich and those with time to spend perfecting their art. The common man didn't ride horses, mostly.

The sport of dressage started out to test the training of horses, but it has developed so that riders want a horse that will fill the "picture" of what the judges are looking for. So you might have a perfectly trained horse, but doesn't have natural paces, particularly extensions, or conformation then it won't gain high places in competition. For instance,you might have a cob that is doing excellent, correct dressage, and is capable of doing all the movements, but how would it get on in an international dressage competition? The sport of dressage has gone past just correctness. Also the sport of dressage has fashions. Didn't one famous horse tend to bolt in the collecting ring? Yet its power was then considered the correct way to go. In otherwords, a powerful warmblood is bred to be able to do well in modern dressage competitions.

Would it be too simplistic to say that it is like comparing ballet to dance theatre?

What PK teaches is the training for any horse to be able to be taught dressage, which should be like physiotherapy for the horse to enable him to carry the rider with ease for many years, not necessarily win competitions. His horse Odin who features in the Art of Riding, had reached the age of 29 when the book was reprinted in 2009.

Sorry, a bit of a ramble!
 
Orangehorse said:
I agree with you TarrSteps. We have to remember that dressage competitions are sport, and if you want to win you have to fit the picture.

The Spanish Riding School and the Cadre Noir train horses in dressage, up to and including the Airs Above the Ground, for art's sake, not for sport, for displays and to keep the art of classical riding alive. Dressage was not envisaged as a "sport" but to have a well trained, horse for its own sake, when riding horses was only for the rich and those with time to spend perfecting their art. The common man didn't ride horses, mostly.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that classical dressage came about through war and the need for riders to be agile :)
 
I think it looks very interesting and that it looks like it has a lot to offer for the average rider or serious competition rider alike. One thing I often find about trainers is that they don't teach a system. In many respects I always felt that what I needed was to be taught how to teach the horse, not just a lesson once a week where we work on improving things but I don't actually learn how to train the horse.

However I would be very suspicious of riders that say they go there for a year and train their horses to GP. I mean - that sort of training doesn't happen in the space of 12 months :eek: The physical strength and flexibility of the horse required to do some advanced movements correctly would be difficult to build in 12 months - so is some of this 'GP' work more of a circus trick as such? Genuinely asking not being bitchy. For example if the horse understands the question, I can see it is possible to teach passage - but would this actually be a correct passage? Now maybe this leads a fight into what is correct or not between competition and classical dressage which is not really my aim. And also remembering that many horses may produce a passage that is the best they will ever produce but would be a 1 or 2 in competition as they simply do not have the athleticism.

I can see many reasons why students would not compete at top level. Lack of horsepower to be competative, money etc etc. Very few horse and rider combos can produce all of the GP movements and put them TOGETHER within the scope of a test. In an advanced test movements come up very, very quicky and it may seem to the non competitive schooling at home 'yes my horse is at GP I can do half pass, changes etc' - but in reality the rider has done about 5 circuits of the school to get them!
 
I had a trainer who used PKs approach when I was 15, this trainer told me that in 4 yrs time my horse and I would be at a level to start Piaffe, not 4 months....
a friends trainer watched the end of this lesson and told me I could do it in 4months, so I left my trainer, and trained with the other one, being young and nieve. Unfortunately that wrecked my horse, and my riding. :rolleyes:
2 yrs later I returned to the PK method trainer, before she passed her work on to someone else who I continued to train with, guess what, 4 years later my horse and I could piaffe... :rolleyes:

Its not about achieving quick fixes and results....
 
What sorts of numbers of people attend his demos?

Off the top of my head I think Anky had about 4k at the BD convention, Schmidt slightly less I would say at 3.5k, Bemelmans had low numbers the first year at about 2k but then word got round that he was very good and he had a lot more the second year, about 3.5. The Bartles I didn't attend but watching it on TV numbers looked low-ish, maybe 2k?
 
Booboos said:
What sorts of numbers of people attend his demos?

Off the top of my head I think Anky had about 4k at the BD convention, Schmidt slightly less I would say at 3.5k, Bemelmans had low numbers the first year at about 2k but then word got round that he was very good and he had a lot more the second year, about 3.5. The Bartles I didn't attend but watching it on TV numbers looked low-ish, maybe 2k?
Click to expand...

To be fair though, especially in your first example, I'm not sure everyone came to pay homage to Ceasar. ;) Being successful AND contentious will put bums in the seats better than anything, especially the first year. I know some people go to George Morris clinics just to see if he'll make someone cry. :)

Also, people charge wildly different rates which can affect venue size, ticket prices and promotional effort. Although, again in your first example, I know exactly what they were charging at the height of their fame as my bosses looked into getting her (you pay for them both) but they decided they couldn't sell enough tickets in Canada to cover the fee and the long list of "green room extras". The clinician also stipulated a minimum audience size, which we could not guarantee, with the proviso she could pull out if sufficient tickets were not sold even on the day of!

I know that PK is contentious but he's not the right "sort" of contentious to pull huge numbers. That is true of lots of people who give very good value for money. How many people does Stephen Clarke usually bring in? Mark Todd? We got maybe 1.5 k over three days the last time he came to Canada. Monty Roberts did that in one evening when he came just after his bestseller came out. George Morris always brings them in but again, I think you're usually talking sub-2k. I would be VERY surprised if the Mark Rashid (even with a spiffy new book) clinics in May do the sorts of numbers you're talking about but I'll be happy to be wrong.

And some big names prefer to teach "closed" clinics open only to the participants and their connections. (I once had a complete fit because our FN bankrolled one and I was very annoyed our membership money was used to bring a big name trainer to Canada specifically without allowing members of the public to benefit. :) ) The reasoning is it allows them time and space to do things the way they want and doesn't make the paying participants nervous. I can kind of see that, especially if you can get enough money from the riders to not have to have auditors.

I don't think you can necessarily correlate gate proceeds and "success" on other fronts.
 
Last edited:
No, not necessarily but as previous posters suggested that people flock to PK I was wondering what sorts of numbers they had in mind (since he doesn't have high profile riders, or high profile horses, or high profile results, if he doesn't have high numbers of followes why exactly should he have any influence and demand change?).

Anky was very interesting to watch. I do agree with you that many people went because she was controvercial, but I think she changed the mood of the crowd. With the guinea-pigs she (and Sjef) advised very reasonable stuff (some of which has made its way into BD tests, like the give and retake inside rein) and she got massive applause from the crowd - if they weren't with her at the start they were with her at the end.

Bemelmans had low attendance because he was lesser known (this was pre Spanish team transformation) but was, in my mind, the best value for money. Very good trainer, but also very good at putting his point across to the rider and the audience - enteraining without being disparaging, encouraging without becoming disinteresting, talkative without becoming boring. When he rode it was just incredible fun (I don't know if you have heard of this already but he did flying changes while lying backwards on the horse to push his tail down so that he could get more engagement - trememdous fun!).
 
Booboos said:
Yes I would expect someone who claims to be an expert trainer to be either an accomplished rider himself, or have horses or students competing at the top level - otherwise how do you know he is any good? I don't have any competition experience past medium, nor have I trained horses to any decent level nor do I have any students working at top level...could it be that I am a top trainer?!!! I could collect my CC comments from HHO and publish them (I would probably end up with more text than PK's book which is very heavy on photos and general ranting), would that make me a top trainer?!!!

The "I am brilliant, but others fail to see my brilliance, so I won't bother" is not an argument I find very convincing. There are plenty of not rollkured horses doing very well, with no problems from the 'prejudiced' judges, e.g. Uthopia, Mistral Hojis, Valegro, Fuego, to name but a few. Or does PK contest that these horses are not well trained and happy athletes either?
Click to expand...


PK was ecuyer at the cadre noir saumur for thirteen years, it is one of the most prestigious horsemanship schools in the world. Some of the riders have reached the highest levels of international sport being olympic or world champions.

PK spends 4 or 5 months of the year all over the world teaching, he hasn't the time to keep his horses at top level training now as he is away so much.

Watch every one of his cd's and read his books. When watching his cd's just look at the master and see how his horses perform for him, no tension, no tightness.

There are so many teachers around and a lot of them charge around the same as PK, but they are not as good as him, he has to earn a living why should he put in a days work teaching and not charge? would you? His aim is to teach riders how to achieve lightness and balance and harmony without rollkur,tight nosebands, side reins, draw reins etc, that is only a good thing surely?

As for why should you believe in him? who cares whether you do or not? it's a free country and he has plenty of followers.
 
Kelpie said:
good question, Tarrsteps - I wish I knew the answer......

...... my take from hearing PK's lectures is that it wouldn't take that much in terms of changes to FEI rules to stop some of the "so called" abusive practices in some aspects of competitive dressage and certainly that is one of PK's goals - I don't think he can give up hope in terms of campaining to make changes and trying to prove that dressage training doesn't need to involve said practices. However, that's of course my take after hearing him, I wouldn't like to pretend to know exactly how he feels about this.

When you hear him speak, it's quite clear that he sees a lot in the competitive dressage world that really isn't what it should be..... stress fractures in jaws/ soap in the mouths so the judges can't hear the teeth grind, etc, etc..... but anyway, that stuff is another thread, I think.....
Click to expand...

Exactly^^^^^well put, he will never give up trying to stop the abuse by some of the 'so called' top riders.
 
For those arguing about competition VS just talking about others, PK did compete at a high level (on Odin, who is/was a French-bred Lusitano, at Intermediaire level) many years ago, and either won or placed very highly. This was whilst he was at the Cadre Noir. FWIW I like a lot of what he says re the abusive methods now seen at some dressage competitions, but without instruction to back up his methods I find a lot of his writing a bit incomprehensible.
 
Rouletterose said:
As for why should you believe in him? who cares whether you do or not? it's a free country and he has plenty of followers.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the OP cares which is why she asked for opinions on PK! But feel free to start a new thread in which you point out how much you don't care for my opinions, it is indeed a free country.
 
Booboos said:
I would imagine the OP cares which is why she asked for opinions on PK! But feel free to start a new thread in which you point out how much you don't care for my opinions, it is indeed a free country.
Click to expand...

I am interested in opinions! In my opinion being a part of the cadre noir for so long plus competing is a fair background to begin 'on his own'. I agree on your point of high level competitors though. If in his position I would want a high level competitor or to compete myself just to show it can be done, classical dressage is relevant today and can present horses of top level in a better way than 'conventional' training always keeping horse welfare as a priority. However, perhaps he and his instructors do have top level competitors? I am not in a position to say!

Regarding FEI and judging etc can you or would you want to be a part of something you don't agree with? Plus it would take so much time away from what he actually wants to achieve. The welfare of the horse as a priority, the FEI guidelines adhered, to resulting in incorrectly trained horses marked down, promoting correct classical training. Competition dressage after all originated from classical roots. Do we see this now? RK, tight nosebands etc. Short cuts, harsh methods and all going against biomechanics of the horse. Top level dressage should be something to aspire to. It should be near perfect not have horses constantly behind the vertical. How can you train a horse over bent then go into the arena and expect it to be in front of the vertical and in self carriage? No not all do BUT a lot do. Dressage: training the horse to do what it does naturally on command... PK wants to bring back the real dressage, the beauty and harmony.

No one gets everything right but that was the way he chose to do things. I'm not judging his business ethics I'm more interested in his actual methods. Maybe it would be better to do larger demos for free to allow more people to be educated or at least see his methods in real life? But he has to earn a living and to a point can see the view of limiting as many people will go to one and become an 'expert'. The main point of the 'vetting' is to educate a small amount of people very correctly especially regarding the instructor courses.

I think any input in improving the sport, training methods and horse welfare is a great thing. It doesn't matter who does it and how they do it but changes need to be made and why not start with the FEI? They are the ones with the power to change things not a few 'top riders' or one man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top