ye-es... to a point. but what kind of 'outline' do you mean? because i know from experience that letting a horse, from backing onwards, work in nice balance to a light elastic contact UNTIL it happily WANTS to seek the hand and develops the correct outline, results in a horse who is VERY easy to get into a correct dressage outline, totally secure and light and easy for anyone. whereas i've seen and ridden quite a few who were asked into an 'outline' (i.e. not poking nose, to be as blunt as possible!) far too early and worked out all sorts of evasions because they found it difficult. when they're learning to rebalance themselves with a rider on, the last thing they need as an added complication is 'keep your nose in!' imho... but this is where 'outline' is such a vague term - there are a lot of different variations which are acceptable at different stages (as shown in pics above). 'in balance' - yes, definitely, but that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with outline (see Western horses etc).
Yes, but I think a lot of people don't really look at, or feel, what the hindquarters and the back are doing, to be blunt! I did say "you could think a curved neck is the be-all-and-end-all"... obv there are exceptions!
- two different things Of course they need to be ridden away and learn balance and forwards etc first, what I'm talking about is the idea that because they are young you should not touch the mouth/ask for any kind of engagement, but then suddenly when they are 6 (or whatever age!) they should work 'in an outline'. Quite rightly the horse has an opinion on that and it often isn't pretty!!
I mean that if you spend 3 years doing everything with no contact at all because it's a youngster it results in a horse with incorrect muscle development that often is on the forehand. Whereas if you have a light consistent contact from the outset, they learn to work over the back and never develop that inverted neck muscle.
I didn't say 'just backed' I said 'youngster'
Re letting a horse slop along on no rein contact because it is "kinder" and the rider is not capable of riding with feel (I am generally with SC on this) - that's perhaps all right, up to a point, on a straight line, but once said rider wants to do pseudo-schooling it becomes a different matter. How many mystery leg injuries ("he must have done it in the field") are down to such a chronic lack of straightness that just one unfortunate tweak of the overloaded limb is enough to bring on serious injury? It does seem often the case that forelimb injuries correspond to the shoulder the horse prefers and is allowed to load.
More out of curiosity than to start a debate. . .you said earlier, CI, that you leaned towards the "German" end of the training spectrum but that clip from Buck (who I think very highly off, for what that's worth) is positively "Baucherist"!
The discussion of how Western horses vs dressage horses go is quite and interesting one but very difficult without having sat on both. It's true Western riders are not big on "contact" but they are big on "self carriage" and sometimes, quite frankly, go about getting what they want (correct or not) in ways that would cause the aforementioned hairs to stand on end.
Also, even very good Western horses do not have the SORT of power behind than dressage horses. It's not better or ŵorse, just not the same. While I think there are useful things to be learned from other schools of thought, it's not always easy to make direct comparisons, especially as the work becomes more advanced. I've made that mistake many times!!
As far as horses being a pleasure to ride, I'd say my personal experience is probably that all the various groups have similar percentages. I can say I've sat on some "good" - read successful - Western horses that were no pleasure to ride even if they weren't hard in the hand.
As a point, for dressage purposes yes, there are really only the two main schools of thought but, of course, there are other schools of riding - Caprilli/Italian military, English "hunting" seat, a couple of Western branches, American jumping style (mix of French, Hungarian and some English), and more I know nothing about - all of which have their own "rules" for riding the horse to the hand and how it's "best" for horses to go. I actually think some of the problems come from people chopping and changing, and leaving out big chunks of the system, as much as from people adhering too rigidly to one method. If, for example, a system is based on regular use of cavalletti then working the horse by the rules of that system on the flat but NOT using the cavalletti work will not produce the desired result. Systems are whole cloth and it takes time and experience to learn which bits can be swapped out into other systems without causing problems down the line.
All of which is in no way pertinent to the OP.
Re successful riders' methods . . .some very good riders do some things wrong. They get away with it - if they do - because they do other things well enough (or so well) that they make up for what isn't so good. That doesn't make that wrong bit good practice or indeed, even an option for the rest of us mere mortals.
One point that hasn't been given enough press on this thread, if you ask me (which no one has but that's the beauty of Internet forums) is that it's actually the rider's job to "shape" the horse with their WHOLE way of riding, not just by doing x with the leg and y with the hand. That includes sitting in such a way that the soft rounded back has a space to come in to (even if that's metaphorical) which doesn't mean a light seat (although that may be the starting point) as that decreases connection. It means having the thigh relaxed enough not to block but toned enough to be used to shape turns etc. It means enough contact to receive but not so much as to constrict . . . . .blah blah blah.
