Shocking! And this from the guy who opposes rollkur

Booboos said:
I don;t think this is rollkur, as it is far too forceful and has no impulsion from behind whatsoever.
Click to expand...
My RI used to say that the walk is the only pace that does not have any impulsion. I'm happy to have that refuted though :p
I think he just looks a bit cack-handed and generally not up to the standards he advocates... not a stoning offence, but not great either.
I'm just a SJer so my experience counts pretty much for ****** all, but we flex horses all over the place to keep them soft in their mouths and prevent them 'setting' themselves. We do it with no style at all as well....
I agree that what the back end is doing is far more important than what the front end is doing.
Hmmm.. I think I'll get one of my german students to translate for me :)

ETS: I see there has already been a translation.

PS: It is my understanding that dressage horses (and honestly I didn't make this up) are often very stiff through the neck and are not encouraged to flex sideways at all.... as a SJer I do not see Gert's riding as all unusual although he's not terribly subtle. Once again, happy to be corrected
 
Last edited:
But he is not leg yielding as a dressage movement, just gaining control of individual parts of the horses body! And Carl Hester is one of the best riders I can name, but have you seen him ride a very young potential dressage horse in the process of being broken, or have you seen him ride already on their way slightly older horses? And if you are going to be pedantic and say "still learning", spurs will be worn, which they aren't in these pics, and they will have had yielding/movement work done on the ground.
 
Thoroughly agree with above, and cannot believe the amount of people who think that a horse working through it's poll (a.k.a 'outline') is very important, but a horse soft and flexible through it's neck/shoulders/rear laterally is not.
 
PapaFrita said:
My RI used to say that the walk is the only pace that does not have any impulsion. I'm happy to have that refuted though :p
I think he just looks a bit cack-handed and generally not up to the standards he advocates... not a stoning offence, but not great either.
I'm just a SJer so my experience counts pretty much for ****** all, but we flex horses all over the place to keep them soft in their mouths and prevent them 'setting' themselves. We do it with no style at all as well....
I agree that what the back end is doing is far more important than what the front end is doing.
Hmmm.. I think I'll get one of my german students to translate for me :)

ETS: I see there has already been a translation.

PS: It is my understanding that dressage horses (and honestly I didn't make this up) are often very stiff through the neck and are not encouraged to flex sideways at all.... as a SJer I do not see Gert's riding as all unusual although he's not terribly subtle. Once again, happy to be corrected
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a back end vs front end argument. What GH is trying to do are Baucher flexions (or so it appears from the pics), which are all about loosening and suppling the neck to remove any resistance there. So I don't have a problem with him having a back end and front end that don't match because I think he's trying to work different parts of the horse individually.

None of it is rollkur, it's totally different because he's trying to get lateral flexion rather than for the horse to "give its back" (which is why I think rollkur is supposed to be about?). It's just a shame that he's going about it so forcefully. If the horse in the pics is so ignorant to the aids then he shouldn't have tried to "fix" it in a public demo in 30 minutes which appears to have resulted in a confrontation.

Maybe I am very wrong in my view of it all but it just looks very aggressive, which is not the image GH has tried to portray. He talks about training horses sympathetically but I don't see that in those pics, I see someone who is fighting with his horse.
 
I am rapidly becoming more confused than ever. A dressage horse should have a supple neck (how can you do lateral movements without a supple neck and bend through the body otherwise?), but I can't quite see why this is the way to achieve that.

I was not familiar with Baucher flexions, but what I read about them now is not particularly encouraging. They are defined as coiling the neck toward the torse, flexing it laterally and towards the neck (which, to my mind, is the front end of rollkur without the impulsion), and his book also mentions 'jaw flexions', forcing the horse to yield to the bit by opening his mouth and yielding at the poll (which he calls 'ramener') (again, can't quite see the difference from the front end of the horse in rollkur). Other objectionable sounding practices in Baucher's book include applying both forward and stopping aids at the same time, until the horse is dominated and submits.

Commentators actually describe his methods as similar to rollkur, e.g. "His method of severe bending of the horse's neck towards his chest and torso has also has had great criticism, many people believing that it is exceptionally harsh and uncomfortable for the animal. It is still employed today, however, with the methods of rollkur showing great similarities." Wikipedia For a nice collection of what his contemporaries thought of his see here: http://www.angelfire.com/sports/dressage/pages/Karl.html The general concensus is that horses trained by B lacked all impulsion.

It seems to me then that the conclusion "Dr H is riding fine because he was only doing Baucher flexions" is totally unacceptable, given both what Baucher advocated in himself and what Dr H has said in the past about the use of force and the importance of power coming from behind. Baucher's riding the horse "front to back" with the hands seems completely at odds with Dr H's Tug of War suggestions on the importance of riding "back to front".

PF: I always though the walk should have as much impulsion as any other gait. Without impulsion how can one have a collected walk, a walk to canter transition, etc.
 
Booboos said:
I was not familiar with Baucher flexions, but what I read about them now is not particularly encouraging. They are defined as coiling the neck toward the torse, flexing it laterally and towards the neck (which, to my mind, is the front end of rollkur without the impulsion), and his book also mentions 'jaw flexions', forcing the horse to yield to the bit by opening his mouth and yielding at the poll (which he calls 'ramener') (again, can't quite see the difference from the front end of the horse in rollkur). Other objectionable sounding practices in Baucher's book include applying both forward and stopping aids at the same time, until the horse is dominated and submits.

.
Click to expand...

Baucher flexions do not involve force whatsoever and they are drastically misunderstood by most-in fact you need to read all of Baucher as he went through different methods before defining one-I recommend Racinet Explains Baucher for those new to it. Please do not criticise a method from skim-reading on book. Philippe Karl (with whom GH rather spectacularly fell out with), Henriquet, Anja Beren all use flexions to a greater or lesser extent so please look to those sources if you are interested.Whatever GH was doing in those pictures, they arent Baucher flexions as I understand them.

The French school and German classical schools can be differentiated by the phrases 'balance before movement' and 'movement before balance' respectively. If you read up they are actually not so very different as they both have the same aims and good French riding and good German riding are both fantastic to watch. Many roads to Rome and all that.
 
Yes, you are right I am not familiar with his work, but these are terms and explanations from his own work so they can't be entirely wrong. I understand there is an earlier version of his theory which is much more forceful than the later, but it's not my fault he changed his mind and repudiated himself!

Completely agree with many roads to Rome, but what we have here is many roads to Rome, some more to Athens and a few to Istanbul, while some of the roads are tarmac and others have nails and glass on them! :)
 
Booboos said:
Yes, you are right I am not familiar with his work, but these are terms and explanations from his own work so they can't be entirely wrong. I understand there is an earlier version of his theory which is much more forceful than the later, but it's not my fault he changed his mind and repudiated himself!

Completely agree with many roads to Rome, but what we have here is many roads to Rome, some more to Athens and a few to Istanbul, while some of the roads are tarmac and others have nails and glass on them! :)
Click to expand...

Booboos, please read some of Philippe Karl's work. Whilst he's a bit evangelical for my taste, he is a superb rider and he explains the flexions well.
 
Booboos said:
Yes, you are right I am not familiar with his work, but these are terms and explanations from his own work so they can't be entirely wrong. I understand there is an earlier version of his theory which is much more forceful than the later, but it's not my fault he changed his mind and repudiated himself!
Click to expand...

probably better if you start simple if you can't understand his work-as I said, Racinet is by far the best and I repeat, in properly executed Baucher flexions there is no force but do your own research, you may learn something :)

and most great horsemen/women experiment with different methods surely? or is there one big doctrine I am missing that always works all of the time? surely individual horses merit training for their individual needs-not all flexions are needed on all horses, not all horses need rollkur (well, except the ones in top competition ;) )
 
peteralfred said:
probably better if you start simple if you can't understand his work-as I said, Racinet is by far the best and I repeat, in properly executed Baucher flexions there is no force but do your own research, you may learn something :)

and most great horsemen/women experiment with different methods surely? or is there one big doctrine I am missing that always works all of the time? surely individual horses merit training for their individual needs-not all flexions are needed on all horses, not all horses need rollkur (well, except the ones in top competition ;) )
Click to expand...

I don't think I said I don't 'understand' his work, I said I am not 'familiar' with it. Lack of understanding implies lack of any comprehension, lack of familiarity implies lack of in-depth/considerable comprehension.

Feel free to help me learn anytime: are you suggesting that none of Baucher's flexions involve force, either his earlier work or his later work? Or are you referring to his later work only?

I don't think I have ever suggested that there is one training doctrine, or suggested what it might be or suggested that anyone follow my ideas as I don't have any. All I have done is point out when people say things that lack any support, when they have circular or contradictory arguments, or when they practice other than they themselves preach. Thus, in the road analogy, by mentioning Athens and Instanbul I suggested that there is conflict over what the final result should be, e.g. between the way of going of a classically trained Iberian horse and that of a modern trained WB, and by suggesting that some roads are made of nails and glass, I meant that some people use unacceptable means to get to their ends.
 
chestnut cob said:
Booboos, please read some of Philippe Karl's work. Whilst he's a bit evangelical for my taste, he is a superb rider and he explains the flexions well.
Click to expand...

Yes, will have to get round to that. Funnily enough PK lives relatively close to where we're moving to in France, but he won't take on pupils other than on this intensive two year course which seems to involve considerable time commitment and which he doesn't seem to offer in France (at least not last time I looked at his website).

I did read Anja Beran following a recommendation on here (really sorry can't remember who it was who suggested it!). I found her book a bit odd. A lot of it was oddly basic, e.g. what to wear when riding, there was almost no theory and the practical advice tended to be rather descriptive, e.g. the half-pass tells you what the half-pass is but not how to teach a horse to do it, or how to correct mistakes or what the most common mistakes might be. Photos were lovely though, even if the book was 70% photos 30% text! Funnily enough my edition has notes/commentary by Dr H!!!
 
I wonder what the reation would be to the pictures if the rider was
a) Anky van Grunsven
b) Patrik Kittel
c) Linda Parelli
 
Booboos said:
Yes, will have to get round to that. Funnily enough PK lives relatively close to where we're moving to in France, but he won't take on pupils other than on this intensive two year course which seems to involve considerable time commitment and which he doesn't seem to offer in France (at least not last time I looked at his website).

I did read Anja Beran following a recommendation on here (really sorry can't remember who it was who suggested it!). I found her book a bit odd. A lot of it was oddly basic, e.g. what to wear when riding, there was almost no theory and the practical advice tended to be rather descriptive, e.g. the half-pass tells you what the half-pass is but not how to teach a horse to do it, or how to correct mistakes or what the most common mistakes might be. Photos were lovely though, even if the book was 70% photos 30% text! Funnily enough my edition has notes/commentary by Dr H!!!
Click to expand...

I've never read any of AB's work but have seen (one of?) her DVD and I liked what I saw. The DVD was very like the book you mention though - some lovely video of her riding, explaining what she is doing and why, but I don't recall there being and "how to" in there. I'd have preferred to have seen a video of GH rather than a few pics taken at bad moments, as it would have been interesting to have looked at the clinic as a whole instead of simply what the photographer wanted us to see.

For my part, I would rather read and watch as many people's work as possible and take what works for my horse. I wasn't convinced about the flexions initially but they're actually very like physio stretches - my physio does some similar stuff with my horse when she comes out, just without the bit. She came to my horse in Nov then again last month and was very pleased with how much more supple he had become. I only school once a week, plus a bit on hacks (and jump once a week), but I do flexions every single day and I attribute the change in him to those.
 
Booboos said:
I don't think I said I don't 'understand' his work, I said I am not 'familiar' with it. Lack of understanding implies lack of any comprehension, lack of familiarity implies lack of in-depth/considerable comprehension.
Click to expand...

yes, I know, what I write is deliberate.

yes some means of travel are unnacceptable-and some of those that are what claim to be 'classical' and some are from the competitive route. The individual has to make up their own mind. what I object to on this thread is a method of training being 'dissed' when that method of training doesnt appear to have been even used in this case. I see is a bloke pulling a horse around and being heavy handed. of course, flexions can be used incorrectly, there's a rather infamous US trainer who uses them and he's rubbish :D

anyway, I have pointed you towards some very good sources of information that can explain Baucher much, much better than I (can I say Racinet again?!). and I think that PK takes in working pupils in Franc eif you are interested..
 
Angua2 said:
Have to say when I saw the pictures, I just saw a willful, argumentative evasive baggage and a rider that made the mistake of rising to the argument. ...
Click to expand...

^^^What I think. Honestly, people. We have a pony who would rather duck behind the contact than work from behind and go into it. In order to keep the contact up, you sometimes have to follow the head back (or he's got you how he wants) and a photo could look like a pull into a horrible overbent outline. A couple of nudges later and he's only too happy to get comfy and 'out' again. Usually this is in the warming-up phase and we are establishing that effort will be made! He has all the physical requirements but a rather idle nature. This horse looks similar - it could do, but at that moment isn't.

You would need to see the whole thing, unexpurgated, on video to make an informed comment. Like the Parelli Catwalk nonsense.
 
peteralfred said:
yes, I know, what I write is deliberate.
Click to expand...

Since you deliberately misquoted me I am not sure what to reply to this.

peteralfred said:
yes some means of travel are unnacceptable-and some of those that are what claim to be 'classical' and some are from the competitive route. The individual has to make up their own mind. what I object to on this thread is a method of training being 'dissed' when that method of training doesnt appear to have been even used in this case. I see is a bloke pulling a horse around and being heavy handed. of course, flexions can be used incorrectly, there's a rather infamous US trainer who uses them and he's rubbish :D
Click to expand...

Again, feel free to explain to everyone. There are many interested people on this forum, if you think something has been misrepresented I am sure we would all be interested in learning better.

peteralfred said:
anyway, I have pointed you towards some very good sources of information that can explain Baucher much, much better than I (can I say Racinet again?!). and I think that PK takes in working pupils in Franc eif you are interested..
Click to expand...

I don't think you should underestimate yourself that much, give it a go, you might do OK. You seem to be very clear in your knowledge, so explaining it to others might not be as tough as you think.

Alas horses are a hobby for me I couldn't afford to drop my job to be a working pupil.
 
Photos can lie, although imo the horse doesn't look relaxed, soft, supple etc. which is what i like to try and achieve with any horse.
Just my opinion though
 
sussexbythesea said:
I can't argue with Booboos because she can wipe the floor with anyone when it comes to scientific arguments - this is a compliment by the way.
Click to expand...

Spoilsport!!!!!!!!!!!:D :D :D What would I do with myself if no one argued with me?!!!! I might have to go do some work instead :eek:

But seriously, I agree with everything you said. I also think there is a place for all kinds of outlines, including flexions, and different things work on different horses.

What did annoy me is having Dr H make loads of money selling a book which was all about what is wrong with the use of force, hyperflexion, bad riding and quick results and then be photographed doing exactly what he condemned. The ability to write a book where you describe the anatomy of a horse and make some, possibly spurious, claims about biomechanics and some, clearly more spurious, claims about the effect of some training methods on biomechanics, does NOT qualify you to teach anyone how to ride or to offer remedial training for problem horses.
 
Booboos said:
What did annoy me is having Dr H make loads of money selling a book which was all about what is wrong with the use of force, hyperflexion, bad riding and quick results and then be photographed doing exactly what he condemned. The ability to write a book where you describe the anatomy of a horse and make some, possibly spurious, claims about biomechanics and some, clearly more spurious, claims about the effect of some training methods on biomechanics, does NOT qualify you to teach anyone how to ride or to offer remedial training for problem horses.
Click to expand...

This is what I have said throughout this thread.

I said to start with that GH stuck his head above the parapet, preached to all and sundry about the evilness of hyperflexion, how horses should be trained sympathetically and without force, then we see these photos which appear to be of him hauling that horse around and riding in a manner totally contradictory to his writing.

If he couldn't improve the horse in that clinic or it was a lost case, he shouldn't have worked with it in a demo. IMHO his ego seems to have got the better of him. He may be an excellent vet but I see an average rider who has listened to little bits of various methods and thinks that now makes him an expert. I would be interested to hear him talk on the veterinary aspects of his work but I wouldn't want to see him ride.

To sussexbythesea - maybe you should try a different classical instructor? There seem to be a lot of people around who claim to be classical trainers but it doesn't nec. mean they are any good, just like there are a lot of "natural horsemanship" practitioners out there. Start with an Enlightened Equitation trainer, that's how I found my instructor who is fab and has turned my horse around.
 
I'm genuinely surprised GH is now billing himself as a trainer/rider. I saw him as part of the "anti-rolkur roadshow" with Balkenhol and Debbie McDonald a few years ago and his input was purely theoretical/scientific. In fact the subject of his own riding came up and he was relatively self-effacing about it. (Which any sensible person would be, in light of the two other people involved!)

I see the sense in what he's saying - the intent, even if the science is not necessarily proven (which doesn't make it incorrect, just unproven) - but I found him evangelical to an off putting degree in person. He really did have some harsh things to say and wasn't shy about saying them. I understand he's an "advocate for the horse" but it seems clear that part of the current fuss is because he's been so quick to condemn some people on the strength of relatively small amounts of (possibly biased) information. It's no real surprise he's been called on what now seems hypocrisy if not outright hubris.

I'm personally very nervous of people who say "always" and "never" with horses, especially if they seem particularly keen to prove they're right by demonstrating how wrong other people are.

As to whether or not what he's doing in those photos is "right", as people above have said, it's very difficult to judge with only snapshots . . . I wasn't aware he was much of a Baucherist, or a fan of French Light in general - it seemed to me he's promoted a more traditional, relatively moderate German school approach, which doesn't really jive with some of the comments above, nor with the explanations for those photos.

What does upset me, though, is he's been adamant in resisting the lure of the "quick fix", trying to affect something by force which is really the provenance of long term training and physical development. That seems at odds with the stated purpose of at least the particular incident in the photos.

It's so tricky, separating out what people do from what they say. I think much of what he's promoted in the past is very valid and worth discussion . . . is that negated because it seems he doesn't always practice what he preaches?

I do feel for Balkenhol. His support, influence and fame went a long way to establishing GH as a voice to be listened to and it seems his views have been cast aside, which must be quite frustrating for him. Without opening a can of worms, something similar happened to Parelli - he and his methods had the public support of some very established horsemen early on, but as the juggernaut gained momentum he seemed less inclined to value what those people may have known that he didn't. Way of the world, I guess.:(

I have to say, the very best horsemen I've been acquainted in are very interested in and respectful of what other good horsemen are doing, even if they don't do the same things or even agree on the fine points. They might not be "humble" in the way people often mean it - they certainly have the courage of their convictions - but they are genuinely entranced by horses and riding and improving. I just don't get that vibe from GH, I'm afraid.
 
Last edited:
Very sensible stuff TarrSteps.


TarrSteps said:
I see the sense in what he's saying - the intent, even if the science is not necessarily proven (which doesn't make it incorrect, just unproven) - but I found him evangelical to an off putting degree in person.
Click to expand...

Just a small thought. I completely agree with you that just because a scientific claim has not been proven it's not necessarily wrong, but if we add to that the following:

- the claim would be easy to prove as it makes assertions about the state of muscle tissue, bones, ease of movement, pain, stress and frequency of injuries
- if it were proven it would greatly strengthen the public case against rollkur so there is great reason and urgency to prove it

BUT nevertheless no one is doing anything to prove it, then the efforts of some people in this area begin to look more like self-promotion for financial gain than disinterested attempts to promote the good of the horse and are contrary to basic scientific principles which do require proof before assertions are made public.
 
There was a discussion at one point about studying the effects of rolkur and related subjects but all I ever heard about was the one letting horses chose to go in one direction or the other. I wasn't privy to the intricacies of how they organised the study but there seemed to be a great many variables involved, not the least of which was potential bias on the part of the riders involved, so I couldn't take it too seriously. I haven't seen anything analysing medium or long term effects on development, although I think there may have been something done regarding breathing rates and other indicators of stress.

Any discussion of "force" in horses is fraught. Not least because they are simply not designed for the jobs we ask them to do. End of. So, technically, ANYTHING we ask of horses "forces" them to exist/behave/move in unnatural ways. Personally, I don't think this is a bad thing to keep in mind, although I don't agree it predicates a jump to any use of horses is "wrong". The world is full of compromises and risks.
 
Google chrome translated it for me, but not very well, from what I can gather the horse refuses to accept the bit or the leg and is a very argumentative creature!

My classical instructor is a big fan of his and has been to several of his lecture demo's, she teaches me things that she has learnt from him and I can assure you that if she saw him doing something cruel to a horse she would walk out.

yes he is flexing it to the side, and in a few photo's he looks to be riding it very deep almost rollkur like, but we don't know if the horse was being very strong at the time and possibly p***sing off with him.

He was only on the horse for 25 minutes.

I am shocked that people are putting him in the same camp as pat parelli!!
 
Last edited:
this is v odd - my instructor regularly trains with Dr H and her emphasis (from him!) is totally the opposite of those pics, all softly softly kind and consistent frames for them to work into etc, consistent wiht his book as you'd expect, absolutely no pulling around like in this pics... don't get it! I have a friend who's a dressagey person in Germany, will see if she knows any more...

Even if he's just trying to prove a point about how not to ride rollkur-wise this seems a bit weird....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top