Top level dressage - is it kind?

Marciamac - I agree with Camilla4's answer to you. Yes, they are natural to a degree but not in the way they are done in a test. I think they way the movements are exaggerated is the main issue.

[ QUOTE ]
If some ppl on here think that getting a horse to do this that and the other beacuse its un natural then why do you all ride at all? Horses natuarally are not ment to be backed or driven they were once upon a time free and wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

My arguement is that perhaps we are seriously taking the p**s at the highest level of dressage. At the lower levels where movements are more basic I don't feel its so bad, I just feel we're pushing them a bit too far and it cant be good for them physically as well as mentally.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, dressage is based on natural movements but then they are magnified almost out of recognition. This is, in many ways, no different from breeding dog characteristics until the animal is almost a cartoon representation of how it started out. A friend of mine was really getting into dressage in a big way until she observed the "top flight" preparing at a major championship and realised what abuse and cruelty some people are prepared to inflict on their horse in order to win. Showjumping is no better. The old rapping has been replaced by the electric cattle prod. I've seen it myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you are at risk of tarring everyone with the same brush. Some things like this happen, yes of course they do. But others in both SJ and dressage don't use cruel and harsh methods. It would be a pity if your friend was put off dressage all together by observing the less than ideal practices, and not realising that there are brilliant and kind people at the top too. After all, if she thinks all of dressage and SJ is cruel, has she seen the people saw their horses' mouths to pieces just hacking? and the terrible examples of schooling that happen on many yards around the country every day? If so what on earth is she doing still riding her horse?!
wink.gif


And about the movement, perhaps you'd like to come and see our 3 year old stallion. Unbacked and hasn't even begin any sort of work, but he can passage and piaffe, extend and collect both trot and canter, pirrouette and even spanish walk!
grin.gif
 
IMO I think it's totally unnecessary for all the horses to have to wear double bridles. The amount of foam that drips from their mouths is yuck
frown.gif
Surely horses could work just as well without 2 bits? Also because dressage horses are so finely tuned and sensitive to the riders leg aids, why do they all wear spurs? One of my pet hates...
mad.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Marciamac - I agree with Camilla4's answer to you. Yes, they are natural to a degree but not in the way they are done in a test. I think they way the movements are exaggerated is the main issue.

[ QUOTE ]
If some ppl on here think that getting a horse to do this that and the other beacuse its un natural then why do you all ride at all? Horses natuarally are not ment to be backed or driven they were once upon a time free and wild.

[/ QUOTE ]

My arguement is that perhaps we are seriously taking the p**s at the highest level of dressage. At the lower levels where movements are more basic I don't feel its so bad, I just feel we're pushing them a bit too far and it cant be good for them physically as well as mentally.

[/ QUOTE ]

but beacuse of these competions the movements are there, they can physically do them.Some horses have that natural elevation their trot or canter or what ever we just offer them that extra aid to help them to improve it. Like when a horse works into your hand and bends, a good rider does not put the horse there we simply teach them to work from behind which helps them streach in front. We do not make them do it we aid them to help them selves do it.
A good rider will look at a horse and if they see something will help aid the horse to improve.My trainner taught me that when I ride to think like a horse and everytime I do something think how this might make my horse feel and react. Good practice I think.
 
[ QUOTE ]
IMO I think it's totally unnecessary for all the horses to have to wear double bridles. The amount of foam that drips from their mouths is yuck
frown.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh dear.
crazy.gif
 
Don't get me wrong Piggy - I totally agree that a lot of performances and the way they are obtained are just plain wrong; you are right in saying that the natural movements are often exaggerated - I was only referring to one comment made by a poster who said that the movements were totally unnatural. Dressage done properly ie. developing a partnership through classcial means does in fact replicate the horse's natural movements - what we often see today is not this!!!
 
Katie, without going into the wrongs and rights of traning methods, a double bridle used correctly is actually a very subtle tool. The two bits have very different actions and using the two together ought to provide a finesse not obtainable with one bit. However, a bit like spurs, which ought to be used to produced a refined leg aid with minimal leg movement, they are often misused - I agree that the sight of a horse with its head held in by overuse of a curb is abhorrent!
 
I think some of the horses look more relaxed and natural in their movements than others to be honest. Maybe some are more forced into performing and some are more natural 'show offs' and find it easier to respond to the rider - and possibly the more sympathetic 'kinder' rider gets results in a better way than someone forcing the horse.

It is the same with showjumping, showing, well all disciplines I guess.

The thing that does grate me about dressage horses though is what kind of life do they have away from the arena - do they ever get to be a horse? I do doubt this in most cases as they are considered too precious. That I think is a cruel side of it. Also the fact they feed these horses such high energy type food to build them up yet because of this they then have to use calmers/sedatives in order to be able to ride them!!

That I do not agree with. I think not allowing a horse the freedom both physically and mentally to just be a horse is where the 'cruel' element lies. I am sure some do get some form of natural life but many I think are confined to a stable or end of a rope for the majority of their lives when not being ridden/worked.
 
[ QUOTE ]

The thing that does grate me about dressage horses though is what kind of life do they have away from the arena - do they ever get to be a horse? I do doubt this in most cases as they are considered too precious. That I think is a cruel side of it. Also the fact they feed these horses such high energy type food to build them up yet because of this they then have to use calmers/sedatives in order to be able to ride them!!

That I do not agree with. I think not allowing a horse the freedom both physically and mentally to just be a horse is where the 'cruel' element lies. I am sure some do get some form of natural life but many I think are confined to a stable or end of a rope for the majority of their lives when not being ridden/worked.

[/ QUOTE ]

To mention his name again, Carl Hester often says in his demos that his horse have at least one day off dressage a week to hack and just enjoy being a horse. They get regular turnout. He and many, many others blame intensive schooling with lack of turnout/just being a horse time as the reason why many good horses break down.

Again, while I am sure that these practices do go on, I object to any assumption or implication that it is the majority not the minority.
 
QR:

Actually, Anky's horses all get turned out also, she made the point very strongly when she took the National Convention at Addington a few years ago.

But that is besides the point.

Remember that "abuse" often is in the eye of the beholder. To me, training a horse to maximise its natural paces and balance is kinder than allowing it to go hollow, inverted and on the forehand. I would also rather see a horse ridden deep by a good rider with supurb timing (like Edward or Adelinde), than a horse ridden strung out and hollow, by someone with a poor seat and bad hands. Just my take. Also I wonder how many of you criticising dressage have actually ridden a higher level dressage test? Do you have any idea how difficult it is? The horse has to be so reactive to the aids, has to be completely balanced and through at all times. The training reflects this, but does not mean that the horses are unhappy or stressed. I think some of you need to educate your eyes in real life and stop believing everything you read on the internet.
 
[ QUOTE ]
QR:

Actually, Anky's horses all get turned out also, she made the point very strongly when she took the National Convention at Addington a few years ago.

But that is besides the point.

Remember that "abuse" often is in the eye of the beholder. To me, training a horse to maximise its natural paces and balance is kinder than allowing it to go hollow, inverted and on the forehand. I would also rather see a horse ridden deep by a good rider with supurb timing (like Edward or Adelinde), than a horse ridden strung out and hollow, by someone with a poor seat and bad hands. Just my take. Also I wonder how many of you criticising dressage have actually ridden a higher level dressage test? Do you have any idea how difficult it is? The horse has to be so reactive to the aids, has to be completely balanced and through at all times. The training reflects this, but does not mean that the horses are unhappy or stressed. I think some of you need to educate your eyes in real life and stop believing everything you read on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am with you on this, even though I am not at a high level and am still learning and practicing with my horse we are releasing how hard it can be.Like I said earlier I envy these top riders and how much work they and their horses put it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think some of you need to educate your eyes in real life and stop believing everything you read on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

here here
 
[ QUOTE ]

Remember that "abuse" often is in the eye of the beholder. To me, training a horse to maximise its natural paces and balance is kinder than allowing it to go hollow, inverted and on the forehand. I would also rather see a horse ridden deep by a good rider with supurb timing (like Edward or Adelinde), than a horse ridden strung out and hollow, by someone with a poor seat and bad hands. Just my take. Also I wonder how many of you criticising dressage have actually ridden a higher level dressage test?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd make a couple of points in response to this.

Firstly, if the only people who were allowed to have an opinion were those who had ridden at that level, then we would be in a very sorry state indeed. That's no different to the MPs who have been caught out fiddling their expenses stating that no one bar other MPs can have an opinion on it.

There is no question about how capable the riders are. That isn't the criticism - the discussion is whether these exceptional riders should be allowed to work their horses in hyperflexion, which it has been scientifically proven can be harmful to horses physically and mentally.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any idea how difficult it is? The horse has to be so reactive to the aids, has to be completely balanced and through at all times. The training reflects this, but does not mean that the horses are unhappy or stressed. I think some of you need to educate your eyes in real life and stop believing everything you read on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that it is so difficult to ride at this level that riders *must* work horses overbent / in rollkur / hyperflexed in order to train them? A horse does not have to be trained "deep and round" in order to be reactive to the aids or balanced. What I don't understand is how riders such as Sylvia Loch and Anja Beran can train a horse to do those movements sympathetically, yet Anky etc need to use hyperflexion? If the Classical trainers can do it and have horses who are probably *more* sensitive and reactive (how often do you see their horses ridden with spurs?) to the aids, why can't some of the competitive dressage riders?

Not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested as to how some can do it without the need for what can be construed as abuse, yet others can't?
 
Have to say I dont watch high level dressage any more - just find many (not all) of the competitors make me uncomfortable with their training methods and the unfortunate life their horses lead.

I still enjoy watching it at the lower levels though. To me its like so many things - the original objective of dressage has been lost in the mists of time and we will get more and more acrobatic horses doing more and more extreme movements (combined with more and more extreme training) so they can win.

I appreciate that this is a very very general statement and unfair to many wonderful riders and their horses, but its how I feel. I would sooner go and watch some riding club dressage than the top level riders.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Remember that "abuse" often is in the eye of the beholder. To me, training a horse to maximise its natural paces and balance is kinder than allowing it to go hollow, inverted and on the forehand. I would also rather see a horse ridden deep by a good rider with supurb timing (like Edward or Adelinde), than a horse ridden strung out and hollow, by someone with a poor seat and bad hands. Just my take. Also I wonder how many of you criticising dressage have actually ridden a higher level dressage test?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd make a couple of points in response to this.

Firstly, if the only people who were allowed to have an opinion were those who had ridden at that level, then we would be in a very sorry state indeed. That's no different to the MPs who have been caught out fiddling their expenses stating that no one bar other MPs can have an opinion on it.

There is no question about how capable the riders are. That isn't the criticism - the discussion is whether these exceptional riders should be allowed to work their horses in hyperflexion, which it has been scientifically proven can be harmful to horses physically and mentally.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you have any idea how difficult it is? The horse has to be so reactive to the aids, has to be completely balanced and through at all times. The training reflects this, but does not mean that the horses are unhappy or stressed. I think some of you need to educate your eyes in real life and stop believing everything you read on the internet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that it is so difficult to ride at this level that riders *must* work horses overbent / in rollkur / hyperflexed in order to train them? A horse does not have to be trained "deep and round" in order to be reactive to the aids or balanced. What I don't understand is how riders such as Sylvia Loch and Anja Beran can train a horse to do those movements sympathetically, yet Anky etc need to use hyperflexion? If the Classical trainers can do it and have horses who are probably *more* sensitive and reactive (how often do you see their horses ridden with spurs?) to the aids, why can't some of the competitive dressage riders?

Not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested as to how some can do it without the need for what can be construed as abuse, yet others can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally totally agree with your reply CC and in answer to the question about how classical riders can train without the cruelty of Rollkur, and competitive riders can't, among other things, it's time..... the competition riders are against the clock to be ready and get out for the next big class that they want to win.
 
[ QUOTE ]


I'd make a couple of points in response to this.

Firstly, if the only people who were allowed to have an opinion were those who had ridden at that level, then we would be in a very sorry state indeed. That's no different to the MPs who have been caught out fiddling their expenses stating that no one bar other MPs can have an opinion on it.

There is no question about how capable the riders are. That isn't the criticism - the discussion is whether these exceptional riders should be allowed to work their horses in hyperflexion, which it has been scientifically proven can be harmful to horses physically and mentally.


I am not talking about hyperflexion. You and others on here seem to make the assumption that all top dressage horses are trained in this way. This is not the case. The only horse warmed up in Rollkur at the Europeans was Scandic, ridden by a Swedish rider. Totilas was never ridden deep at all. Parzival was taken deep from time to time, flexed, and released.

What I take issue with is your assertion that "hyperflexion" (however this is described) has been "proved to be harmful to horses". This simply is not the case. No such research has been done. I am not an advocate for some of the extreme forms of riding that have been seen. But I do not accept that riding a horse deep when needed is harmful or detrimental. I too have read Dr. Hershmann's book and I understand his arguments. But I don't accept them fully. I accept what he says about any extreme sustained positioning - but this is not what I have seen done.




Are you suggesting that it is so difficult to ride at this level that riders *must* work horses overbent / in rollkur / hyperflexed in order to train them? A horse does not have to be trained "deep and round" in order to be reactive to the aids or balanced. What I don't understand is how riders such as Sylvia Loch and Anja Beran can train a horse to do those movements sympathetically, yet Anky etc need to use hyperflexion? If the Classical trainers can do it and have horses who are probably *more* sensitive and reactive (how often do you see their horses ridden with spurs?) to the aids, why can't some of the competitive dressage riders?

Not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested as to how some can do it without the need for what can be construed as abuse, yet others can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do I say that top horses have to be trained in Rollkur? I'm not talking about this at all. However, I totally dispute your contention that Sylvia Loch (!) can train a horse as well as Edward Gal, or Laura Bechtolsheimer - two name two of the world's top dressage riders today. Sorry, but have you actually WATCHED the work her horses do in real life? I can't comment on Anja Beran haven never seen her ride. Have you? Have you seen Anky or Edward or Adelinde or Laura ride? If you have you (should) be able to immediately discern the difference.

I hate these debates because they always become slanging matches and perhaps I'm guilty of joining in. But your posts were slating ALL competitive dressage riders as being abusive and this is blatantly not the case. Nor are all your "classical" idols so pearly white. That is why I made the comment about educating the eye and actually watching. Don't jump to conclusions - ask yourself why the rider is doing this or that and what they are achieving. Watch the finished product and try to understand how it was reached. Open minds are always best!
 
I agree, it really is wrong to demonise competitive dressage per se. I was watching people train at the Bundeschampionat today, after the classes were over. I was lucky enough to be there while Ingrid Klimke was riding a 5-year-old that she is competing tomorrow. I had seen this pair once before, in Hagen in spring, and just like then, they were pure poetry to watch. The horse's nose never went behind the vertical - even when stretching at the start and end of the session, he was always long and low with the nose out in front. She was doing this in walk, trot and canter - she even cantered in a light seat, on a long rein. They were so, so beautiful, and both of them looked so concentrated and relaxed at the same time. Like everybody else, she was asking fairly difficult things of the horse and was firm when his responses weren't satisfactory (or good enough - they must have practised the halt at X about ten times before she was finally happy) - but what felt really tangible was her respect for the horse as a fellow athlete.

I read her book about training the young horse and watching her was just like seeing the things I had read about put into practice. Wonderful.

And yes, there were people riding deep, but there were also several other riders training like Ingrid - always with the horses' noses on the vertical.

I think the worst thing we can do is thinking that all top dressage riders train in rollkur.

As for the horses' lives away from the arena, I don't think that dressage horses are treated any differently than, say, showjumpers. I don't think it's the discipline - it's the mentality in Europe which is different, and turnout is just not considered so essential as it is in the UK. I am pretty sure than there are many European showjumpers who never turn their horses out, in the same way that, sadly, there are loads of normal, non-competitive horse owners whose horses are stabled 24/7. Just look at how many yards do not have any paddocks at all!
 
QR the saliva you see isnt due to the double bridles but due to the fact that they either have such tight cranks they cant swallow or they are too overbent to swallow. tension begins in the jaw-clench your teeth together as if they were strapped shut and see how you feel about it
smile.gif


nice post CC.
I have seen SL ride many times and I dont put her 'up there' with other good horse trainers such as Karl, Beren, Lasseter etc still, her horses look light and happy and I wished I rode half as well and had 1/10 of her encyclopaedic knowledge on the history of equitation.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Oh dear.
crazy.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Problem?
laugh.gif


Obviously I know that a little froth is normal, a sign that a horse is working correctly and engaging at the hindquarters, and that gently chewing on the bit is fine, but I once saw a horse on TV that was frothing so much that it was covered in the stuff all down it's front legs and chest and chomping on the bit really badly, a sure sign of being uncomfortable in the mouth?
 
camilla4 - yes that's what I mean, some horses tolerate the double bridle just fine, just I have seen horses that are obviously uncomfortable, and so why do all of them have to wear them?

Spurs - again it's just that the leg aids are already very defined, so why the spurs too? Seems a little daft to me
crazy.gif


*prepares to be shot down
smile.gif
*
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'd make a couple of points in response to this.

Firstly, if the only people who were allowed to have an opinion were those who had ridden at that level, then we would be in a very sorry state indeed. That's no different to the MPs who have been caught out fiddling their expenses stating that no one bar other MPs can have an opinion on it.

There is no question about how capable the riders are. That isn't the criticism - the discussion is whether these exceptional riders should be allowed to work their horses in hyperflexion, which it has been scientifically proven can be harmful to horses physically and mentally.


I am not talking about hyperflexion. You and others on here seem to make the assumption that all top dressage horses are trained in this way. This is not the case. The only horse warmed up in Rollkur at the Europeans was Scandic, ridden by a Swedish rider. Totilas was never ridden deep at all. Parzival was taken deep from time to time, flexed, and released.

What I take issue with is your assertion that "hyperflexion" (however this is described) has been "proved to be harmful to horses". This simply is not the case. No such research has been done. I am not an advocate for some of the extreme forms of riding that have been seen. But I do not accept that riding a horse deep when needed is harmful or detrimental. I too have read Dr. Hershmann's book and I understand his arguments. But I don't accept them fully. I accept what he says about any extreme sustained positioning - but this is not what I have seen done.




Are you suggesting that it is so difficult to ride at this level that riders *must* work horses overbent / in rollkur / hyperflexed in order to train them? A horse does not have to be trained "deep and round" in order to be reactive to the aids or balanced. What I don't understand is how riders such as Sylvia Loch and Anja Beran can train a horse to do those movements sympathetically, yet Anky etc need to use hyperflexion? If the Classical trainers can do it and have horses who are probably *more* sensitive and reactive (how often do you see their horses ridden with spurs?) to the aids, why can't some of the competitive dressage riders?

Not being facetious here, I am genuinely interested as to how some can do it without the need for what can be construed as abuse, yet others can't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do I say that top horses have to be trained in Rollkur? I'm not talking about this at all. However, I totally dispute your contention that Sylvia Loch (!) can train a horse as well as Edward Gal, or Laura Bechtolsheimer - two name two of the world's top dressage riders today. Sorry, but have you actually WATCHED the work her horses do in real life? I can't comment on Anja Beran haven never seen her ride. Have you? Have you seen Anky or Edward or Adelinde or Laura ride? If you have you (should) be able to immediately discern the difference.

I hate these debates because they always become slanging matches and perhaps I'm guilty of joining in. But your posts were slating ALL competitive dressage riders as being abusive and this is blatantly not the case. Nor are all your "classical" idols so pearly white. That is why I made the comment about educating the eye and actually watching. Don't jump to conclusions - ask yourself why the rider is doing this or that and what they are achieving. Watch the finished product and try to understand how it was reached. Open minds are always best!

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking for myself only, I think that this debate and discussion and the other three threads along the same lines, have been fantastic! Surely this is what this forum is for? are you saying that you have to be at the Anky/Edward level of riding to have an opinion? yes I have had lessons on top schoolmasters, yes I have seen a lot of the top riders compete in real life, so know what I am talking about. Also exaxtly where has this debate become a 'slanging match'? as you put it? I think you must be very nervous about presenting your case, you sound as though a good discussion like this worries you? so you have to start insinuating that the rest of us are not experienced enough to know the difference? and I think many posters have said they know a lot of the top riders do not use Rollkur, and that they are not tarring everyone with the same brush. I think it would be a good idea if you thoroughly read all the posts and got your facts straight first before making the comments you have made.

Many posters have mentioned Carl Hester and all our Brits as being classical riders and having not as far as anyone knows used Rollkur/hyperflexion, so how can you say CC is accusing all dressage riders? I feel passionately against Rollkur...Ankys way of riding and Edward Gals training videos, that is my right.....I have thoroughly enjoyed everyones opinions, views etc on these threads, but I still hope with all my heart that Philippe Karl manages to get the reforms and rule changes that he has put forward...it can only benefit the horse.
smile.gif
 
This has been a really fab post and I do think we need discussion and views from both sides of the fence.

My own view is that top level dressage in this day and age is on the whole (though there are exceptions) not terribly kind to the horse. The horse is not the priority - money and medals are the priority. Dressage is their living in the same way working in an office may be your living or mine. After all horses are not human and as long as they have food, water and are in good health then many people would consider the horse has no cause for complaint. Who is to say that view is not correct? I can (and do) disagree with that view and if enough like minded people agree then over time what is acceptable treatment will change.

Everyone has a diferent moral standpoint on what they consider to be acceptable treatment for an animal. I want my animals to be happy and to enjoy life and have the opportunity of experiencing some natural behaviours - such as running free in a paddock and mutual grooming with another horse. They are pets. I would think most top comp horses are not considered to be pets and not considered to have 'feelings'.

Many continental and UK comp horses get no turnout. They have no physical contact with other horses. They do not really experience life as a horse. They are not hacked. Their life consists of being ridden hard in an arena, being groomed and pampered (which is good - many comp horse abroad DO get lots of grooming and attention to make up for being in all of the time) and standing in their stable. Some get hand grazed. Funnily enough a vet I know told me Manky's horses are not turned out and only come out of their stables booted and bandaged up to the eyeballs. He was shocked as he was more used to top event horses that do get turnout and are not as wrapped in cotton wool. I have never been to Manky's yard so can't confirm or deny what the truth really is.

None of us actually has much of a clue that goes on behind closed doors - including with some of the more classical riders. Abuse happens there too. As regards rollekur it would be very, very naieve to think it is not practised in the UK. I have seen it many times. Loads of people travel abroad for training and are taught these methods - which to be fair work in terms of winning prizes. They do not leave this knowledge behind at Heathrow. They may not warm up that way at comps but its a very different matter at home.

Its not all bad. There are some very good top level riders that have very happy horses in their yard and are passionate about horse welfare. I recently sold my own young horse to a professional rider. She is currently in a 40 acre field eating her head off. She will be campigned at the young horse classes nex year and I would be very, very suprised if she does not make the final at the nationals. I would not have sold her to a pro if I did not feel he would love her and let her have fun as well as work hard.

I can only speak from experiences I have had. I admit I am probably too holistic in my approach to horses. Too concerned about them being happy. That's my choice and I do feel sorry for many top comp horses and personally I feel their treatment is often unkind.
 
"Funnily enough a vet I know told me Manky's horses are not turned out and only come out of their stables booted and bandaged up to the eyeballs"

I got the impression here that she does turn her horses out. I guess this shows that none of us really know unless we go and spend some time with these riders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top