trainers and expectations

[Kelpie]

This is a little muse of mine - definately not directed at anyone on here but something I struggle to get my head around sometimes.

It seems to me that there are a number of people around that put themselves out there as horse trainers/ instructors/ behaviourists, etc, etc....... and they talk the talk but I have to question when you get right down to it whether they actually demonstrably have ever trained a horse to any sort of level.... OK, they might have particular things they are good at - like maybe they are good at getting a horse to load or some sort of specific ground handling issue but they're just not the overall package, not even close ..... you couldn't give them an totally green unstarted horse and expect to them to back it/ get it going out and hacking/ schooling/ jumping, etc.... they just don't have the ability - particularly not if they run into any problems.

I'm not talking here about the trainer necessarily having had to have got to Grand Prix or jumped Badminton - just produce a decent horse or two/ know how to get round problems in a variety of ways/ probably jump a decent fence, etc.

For example, when I go to Lucy Thompson for lessons, it really doesn't matter what problem I talk to her about, she's seen it/ ridden it/ got through it/ had a decent horse at the end of it. I definately can't say that about all the different trainers I've gone to over the years! That said, there are some people that I would say I've got something from, even if overall I've felt that they aren't people that can help me on my path more generally.

So I dunno, what should be expected of a trainer? Does it make sense to learn from someone who perhaps is good at some aspects but hasn't actually got the skills/ mileage & experience to take a good number of horses/ problems, etc, and get a good horse at the end of it? ..... maybe it's OK if you don't ever have particular dressage or jumping aspirations but perhaps if you do, you need to be more mindful of being able to work with someone who has been there and done it enough to see how what you are doing with your horse now will affect your horse in 4 years time when you are trying to teach it to piaffe? Or even if you don't ever want to jump big or have high school aspirations, what about knowing the path through whether a particular route chosen now to stop a horse doing X/ get him to do Y will impact on other things you want the horse to do later down the line?

Thoughts???

 

[TarrSteps]

I very much agree that people who teach should have practical knowledge to back up their theoretical knowledge. I would also say they should be good teachers - which sounds obvious but often isn't - of both horses and riders, although most people are more one way than the other, even at the very top end. I also agree that trainers have to have an idea of what the future holds, even if that is not their area of speciality. It is very easy to do - or not do - things that don't look too bad at first but have serious repercussions later. Equally, it's easy, if you don't have much experience, to get in a state about things that, you find out later, will likely just work themselves out if you stay calm. A trainer should bring that to the party.

I don't necessarily agree, though, that the "best" person for any job is the one with the highest competition profile. I know some absolutely top class riders who are really not great teachers and trainers, for all sorts of reasons. Equally, the mindset for a top competitor is not necessarily the one best suited to work with young horses or ones that aren't "fitting in". Top pros are very open about the fact that they are careful about the horses they choose - at the top end they may only take on one in ten they are offered to try, and not keep all of those. This may not always translate well for the one horse rider who nees a more flexible approach. Simlarly, some pros have an "attrition based" approach to young horses - the horse shows good promise right off or it's not suited for the job. Again, understandable, even necessary, but not always the best path for people with fewer options and lower aspirations. (That said, if you are ambitous, having someone really competitive assess your horse can be a very helpful step - even if you don't always like what that person has to say!)

I think there is also an element of personal relationship to consider, although I do firmly believe instructors have to remember it's a business because I think that is best for everyone. Some instructors/trainers simply suit individuals better. While knowledge and experience is important, it's useless if the student does not have full access to it.

I have never met anyone who knows everything there is to know about horses and many of the top pros I know have specialists they consult for certain issues, riding included. This is one of the things successful people learn, to gain as much knowledge as they can but also to know how to access people who know more about specific areas. It's been just as surprising to me sometimes what people DON'T know - I started horses for a jumper trainer who went into breeding and some of the bad decisions they made on their learning curve were classic! They assumed because they knew a lots about one area they knew all there was to know. The baby horses soon put paid to that!

 

[Rebels]

I've been to a trainer when I had a new horse who was 17.3, her only comment was sell it. No reason and no constructive help. Just that the horse was big for me as a girl and I therefore had no hope. She had trained countless partnerships to high levels, pony teams, chef d'equipe of national teams etc but didn't help me at all. When I took my ex racer to her the horse was very unconfident in canter and would often change behind (now resolved but took a while!). This trainer wanted me to boot the horse every time it changed and I ended up flat out round the arena which knocked the horse right back.
My current trainer has trained to a lower level but trained a much bigger range of horses and being a high level pony club instructor she can explain things in countless ways. Its important to me that she works on each horses strong and weak points instead of having a preset 'schedule' that they must live up to. She is aware that my horses tend to be difficult and finally persuaded the exracer to canter, perversely we ended up dropping the reins and letting her canter very big until she naturally settled instead of chasing her round. She knew that without the horse making the decision to settle we could only gloss over the issue by prettyfiying it to look presentable but then the issue wouldnt have been resolved and so we worked for nearly a year to resolve it and I now have a canter that is adjustable.
My trainer is a case of going with what works for me, she isn't a top class super expensive, been round Badminton 20 times trainer but I think this has meant that she has met a lot more difficult horses that wouldn't be tolerated in a pro yard.

 

[Kelpie]

TarrSteps - wise words as ever..... it's true, not all pro's are actually that good with the more tricky horses as they just reject them and move on ....

Rebels - blimey - good job you didn't take that trainer's advice, eh?!

 

[Rebels]

I got in trouble afterwards for daring to question said trainers method, should have stuck with my gut instinct. Have learnt never to ride in awe of an instructor though, every method should be open to questions and improvements or adaptations for your horse. Its hard with a big name as its easy to just yes, sir, no sir through it and then you have shelled out for a method that doesn't suit your horse. I prefer an aim, rough idea of a method then work towards the aim seeing what crops up. I was once told the only textbook horses are the ones on the page !

 

[Kelpie]

Rebels, I'm with you there - I'm actually probably a bit difficult to teach nowadays as I'm a bit millitant about finding out why someone is asking me to do something before I do it (tho of course once I've built a relationship with a trainer and trust them, that's different.....)

 

[nieghham]

You know...as a trainer I have many times wanted to smack other trainers
Here in the Americas it is everywhere....kids who are rushed jumping horses before they can canter properly.
I do agree that a coach should have a record resume be it ring experience themself or with their students....after all...Sally Swift did not really compete and she could teach.

As a trainer I made sure I mentored with the best in the disciplines I chose both in theory and practical application. I also studied pshycology for the competitve athlete...alot of coaches say they are not the therapist just a riding coach...this limits their ability to help the competitive rider in reaching their gaol to the top as riding is alot of mental work as it is physical.

That said...I am not exactly a hidden figure over here so people are able to see the results I can do and choose from there.

I always recommend someone go watch a coach of interest at a show...IMO..it is here the true colours of the ability vrs skill come out

 

[FfionWinnie]

The first one I went to said I probably knew more than her and her only CC was twice she said shoulders back. New one is brilliant and finds a way to challenge me every week and also thinks out the box. I had no idea if she could ride as she hasn't got a horse just now however she got on my mare a few weeks ago and happily, she can

 

[Kelpie]

I always recommend someone go watch a coach of interest at a show...IMO..it is here the true colours of the ability vrs skill come out

VERY true...... I have seen some pro's out who - up until seeing them at an event - I would have assumed they had a good reputation so would be good to the horses - but then seeing them actually at an event, well, put it this way I felt sorry for the horses ..... ok everyone has their bad days but actually there are some I've seen that seem to have an awful lot of them! Of course on the other hand I have seen some consistantly good and fair pro's out, so this isn't a pro-bashing moment on my part

 

[TarrSteps]

I always recommend someone go watch a coach of interest at a show...IMO..it is here the true colours of the ability vrs skill come out

It is trickier here though as there is not the "coaching culture" that there is in North America. Very few "BNTs" coach at all at shows where they also ride. They might walk a course or give a student a few tips but you won't see them get off a horse, go to the ring with a student, then get back on another horse the way you're used to. Even coaches who primarily teach do not usually go to shows with their clients - the culture is much more DIY. At the big events you do see a few trainers with students rather than rides but they are notable by their presence.

There is also little or no culture of auditing, so while people may see a trainer/coach at a demo it would be less usual to have big, open clinics where the teaching is very much on show. Obviously it is possible to watch lessons if one can arrange it (although I suspect many students would not be keen) and I have watched a few big names teach here but only by knowing the participants.

So if you want to know how someone teaches here you likely have to go to a lesson or find a clinic place with them.

 

[Kelpie]

TarrSteps - forgive my massive display of cultural ignorance, but how does it work in North America then....... would you get eventing pro's that teach routinely go to events with their students?/ how much support do the students get?

I'm lucky enough that Lucy does sometimes come to some of the events and has sometimes watched my rounds but I do get the impression that is very much the exception rather than the norm among trainers....... similarly there is another event rider I have lessons with and if I see him at an event I'm also at, I can say "how do you think I should tackle such and such" and to his absolute credit he is very helpful but again I'm not sure how commonplace this is?

 

[Tonks]

This is a little muse of mine - definately not directed at anyone on here but something I struggle to get my head around sometimes.

It seems to me that there are a number of people around that put themselves out there as horse trainers/ instructors/ behaviourists, etc, etc....... and they talk the talk but I have to question when you get right down to it whether they actually demonstrably have ever trained a horse to any sort of level.... OK, they might have particular things they are good at - like maybe they are good at getting a horse to load or some sort of specific ground handling issue but they're just not the overall package, not even close ..... you couldn't give them an totally green unstarted horse and expect to them to back it/ get it going out and hacking/ schooling/ jumping, etc.... they just don't have the ability - particularly not if they run into any problems.

I'm not talking here about the trainer necessarily having had to have got to Grand Prix or jumped Badminton - just produce a decent horse or two/ know how to get round problems in a variety of ways/ probably jump a decent fence, etc.

For example, when I go to Lucy Thompson for lessons, it really doesn't matter what problem I talk to her about, she's seen it/ ridden it/ got through it/ had a decent horse at the end of it. I definately can't say that about all the different trainers I've gone to over the years! That said, there are some people that I would say I've got something from, even if overall I've felt that they aren't people that can help me on my path more generally.

So I dunno, what should be expected of a trainer? Does it make sense to learn from someone who perhaps is good at some aspects but hasn't actually got the skills/ mileage & experience to take a good number of horses/ problems, etc, and get a good horse at the end of it? ..... maybe it's OK if you don't ever have particular dressage or jumping aspirations but perhaps if you do, you need to be more mindful of being able to work with someone who has been there and done it enough to see how what you are doing with your horse now will affect your horse in 4 years time when you are trying to teach it to piaffe? Or even if you don't ever want to jump big or have high school aspirations, what about knowing the path through whether a particular route chosen now to stop a horse doing X/ get him to do Y will impact on other things you want the horse to do later down the line?

Thoughts???

As with everything in life there are advantages and disadvantages with each approach and each person and their personal experience.

As someone who is personally training as a 'behaviourist' I certainly feel that having a good working knowledge of equitation science is hugely beneficial.

However, simply having academic knowledge is clearly not enough as you can't 'ride' a piece of paper!! You need to have practical experience too.

What I think is most important in a trainer/instructor that teaches others is having the ability to reflect and think about their own contact with horses (both good and bad.) They should try to analyse how their handling/riding affected change in that horse/s. Then they should refer back to a bit of theory (equitation science) to gain real insight into what produced those behaviours in the horse.

I think it is through EXPERIENCING and REFLECTING you gain a deeper understanding of equitation. Therefore, when you come across another person who is experiencing problems you are able to draw on your own experiences to help solve problems. That is why failure [along with success] is so important for any good teacher so long as they've reflected upon what produced those successes or failures!

Of course, they then have to be good at communicating these ideas and experiences to others in a coherent manner. A lot aren't. And I also feel that a lot of top riders don't really a) reflect on their own experiences or b) know much about equitation science.c) have good communication skills.

Personally, I feel that a lot of trainers/instructors aren't able to reflect or analyse on their own successes or failures with horses which ultimates means they aren't then able to consider problems in thier own pupils' riding when it arises. I also think that most don't have a very good scientific understanding of horse behaviour which I do think is important along side practical experience.

However, having said that, there are some very good professional riders who do have these skills but I think they're in the minority.

I would want somebody who knows a bit of theory, has also competed and produced a bit and then has the skills to analyse their own riding so they can draw on these experiences to help me!

 

[TarrSteps]

TarrSteps - forgive my massive display of cultural ignorance, but how does it work in North America then....... would you get eventing pro's that teach routinely go to events with their students?/ how much support do the students get?

I'm lucky enough that Lucy does sometimes come to some of the events and has sometimes watched my rounds but I do get the impression that is very much the exception rather than the norm among trainers....... similarly there is another event rider I have lessons with and if I see him at an event I'm also at, I can say "how do you think I should tackle such and such" and to his absolute credit he is very helpful but again I'm not sure how commonplace this is?

It's actually a bit of a big subject! There are many factors in play - cultural, financial, logistical etc - in why things are different here and there but the short answer is yes, eventing pros would routinely go to competitions with their students. Some are still actively riding so would coach along side their own rides. Others might be part of a partnership where one person rides and does some coaching while the other does the bulk of the coaching, organising etc. Some also run facilities with numerous clients based together so the whole group would ship and stable together.

Eventing used to be (even in my rapidly declining memory) much more "DIY" and many riders had help at home but not necessarily at competitions. Now the "hunter/jumper" model is much more prevelant so most people would go to the same competitons as their coaches and would get help warming up, course walking etc. In most regions the circuit is relatively limited, too, so most people are going to be going to most of the same competitions anyway. It's not like here where you might have multiple events a few hours apart on the same weekend and there are far fewer or no midweek events, depending on the area. If riders go to Florida or similar they will almost always go with their "barn" or, if their trainer is not going, arrange to stable and train with another trainer for the duration, perhaps someone who their own trainer has gone to in the past. In some cases a trainer might come with his/her own students and then meet up with his/her own trainer as well!

Even people who have their own farms would have a trainer and would most likely meet up with them at shows. It might be very informal - similar to your own situation - and not at every competition, but I'd say it would be MORE unusual for a trainer to have NOT seen a student's horses compete.

Some students might also travel with the coach as well, in a "barn" rig or by commercial shipper. In this case the trainer might also be their YO and responsible for overseeing their horse's care at the event as well. Most people look after their own at competitions - it is rare to have grooms for eventers like the big h/j outfits.

So yes, not-so-short answer, a student would expect his/her coach to be at at least some competitions and certainly most major ones. I went to my first 1* alone, a looooong time ago, and it was unusual enough that strangers came up and commented to me about it (mostly on the theme of had I lost my mind). Keep in mind that it was also a full days drive from where I lived, involving being completely away for a week, so not the quick hop down the road many people do here even for big competitions.

 

[TarrSteps]

As an example, I just looked at some lists from last year and one 4* rider had 7 rides and 17 students at one event. I don't know how much of the coaching she did - I haven't seen her operation in awhile and I presume she has grooms/working pupils now as her business has grown - but she would have overseen everyone on some level and probably tried to watch most of her students jump/xc at least.

 

[nieghham]

absolutly right Tarrsteps...especially the H/J rings here...but here it is more of a $$$$ now than anything else....pride too....buy the expensive already trained horse..throw an Ammy on that rides 2x/week...receive your $2000.00/show and when the horse finally retaliates for such poor riding/being hit in the mouth/slammed on the back.....blame the horse and sell it buying another one

I make a living off of project problem horses....the coaches always blame the horse telling the rider some horses are just like that instead of spending time on developing the rider

It is all about money and ribbons to alot of the coaches now...that is why they have to go to every single show.

I was at Palgrave...one of our largest show...and across the announcer speaker I hear the guy yelling at some people standing about 3 metres back from ring giving all heck cause they were spooking horses on course...not yelling or waving thier hands...standing and talking...the riders could not handle that....sad but true....just and FYI....I am not one of those kinds of coaches

 

[Kelpie]

blimey..... sounds like a horrid situation neighham! As ever, only the horses suffer

TS - makes sense if everyone ends up at the same shows anyway .... and I think in North America anyway it's more common for people to keep their horse at livery ("at a barn") rather than someone like me that keeps their horses at home, isn't it, which again makes sense for why things are the way they are.

Tonks, now interesting point - if I'm having a lesson and someone tells me to do something, I'll be there thinking through whether its positive or negative reinforcement and the "science bit" generally - but actually in the heat of the moment when a trainer needs you to do something "right then" to get the desired result, maybe putting it in those sort of sciency terms isn't possible? Also, although I do pay a lot of attention to the "science bit", actually a lot of riding isn't massively about that... once you get past the horse understanding basic cues for most things and your talking about things like quality of paces & movement, etc, it seems to me that's where you really need someone that is a proper rider, rather than a behaviourist, if that makes sense? (not saying the two are mutually exclusive, but some people that are behaviourists but with no particular talent for riding do often feel quite inappropriate to me, as it can be hollow to talk about some cues without really understanding what is desired in the ridden sense).

 

[TarrSteps]

Gee, I quite often used to go to the horse shows with my clients. . . .

 

[TarrSteps]

I think the best is to have as much information as possible and then be able to filter the bits the rider and/or horse needs in the moment. But not everyone comes at it from the same direction and not every student derives optimum benefits from the same approach.

As discussed, a surprising number (or not, if you think about it) of very able riders are not good teachers at all. Pedagogy is a skill like any other, and needs to be developed by study and practice.

I'm quite interested in the sciencey bits but study has helped me understand why things have worked or not worked in the past, both being taught and teaching.

 

[TarrSteps]

Back to the original question. . .

I agree with Tonks that the ability to reflect and analyse is essential. All the great horsemen I know are fascinated by horses, even if they don't approach it from an academic slant, and spend ages going back over their experiences, talking to other horsemen, observing and generally building their knowledge base, even if not consciously. Horsemen who are also good teachers do similarly with their teaching - it's been interesting for me to periodically observe some very good trainers over the years and observe how their systems have changed. People seem to think it's a mark of success when a trainer (vet, farrier etc) is certain and absolutely consistent but personally I'd want one that is open and questioning, while still confident in their system and abilities. People make mistakes and I'd much rather use professionals that at least entertain that possibility.

Which brings us to the client part of the equation. As I said, it is very difficult to get any sort of 'quality control' as one is often relying on word of mouth and other's experiences. But there is something to be said for knowing what you want from an instructor/trainer going in. I don't take my Renault Clio to an F1 mechanic, nor would I take a race car to the local garage. This is not a fault in either, it's horses for courses. Most instructors do have a system/approach and areas in which they excel and it makes sense to pick the one most likely to deliver what you want. Some students seem to worry whether an instructor will think they or their horse are ' worth' teaching. . .madness! You are contracting for a service! If an instructor says they do not teach at your level then great, thank them for their honesty and move on. I think that's a big mark in an instructor's favour, frankly, to know themselves well enough.

Also, give some thought to what approach might work best. Sometimes people are better off with a less knowledgeable instructor who can teach them in an empathetic - not sympathetic - way. I read an article recently which essentially slotted many of the famous trainers - Kottas, Morris, de Nemethy, Pessoa, Balkenhol etc - into two camps, rider-centred and horse-centred. I'd never thought about it before but it's so true! Interestingly (to me, anyway ) I think when I was young I preferred coaches out of one group, the ones most like my own inclination, but, as my own experience has grown, I would now likely choose to go more to the other. Which also goes to the idea that you don't always need the same input.

Anyway, it is all a bit academic as most people have to go with what is available to them. But understanding some of the mechanics of teaching and being taught can sometimes help riders make the most of what is on offer - and to know when to pull the plug if necessary!

 

[~ Clear Light ~]

Such an interesting subject. Coming from a dressage perspective, it seems pretty impossible in these parts to find the "ideal" of a trainer who has trained x number of horses to GP, trains in a kind, classical way, who would ride my horse if required, has time to teach theory, can be my shoulder to cry on, doesn't charge the earth and who can travel to my yard for lessons. This does not exist!!

The bottom line is I want my trainer to be truthful and realistic with me. I took my trainer qualifications because whilst I have another non horse related job, I felt there was a huge gap for keen amateurs who wanted an equally keen instructor to teach them correctly, but perhaps their aspirations are not GP, and perhaps not even pure dressage. I have had some people with amazing horses and big goals enquire about lessons who I did not feel I was capable of helping and tried to point them in other directions to trainers I knew of, but its surprising how many just wanted someone committed to teach them the correct basics and just be there for guidance. And there are plenty of people that have what they consider a very average horse and would be too embarassed to go to a big dressage name and ask them to school or compete it (fair enough, I've seen some of the reactions people have had )

So I think there are all kinds of roles trainers can play. I see a big problem at local level in my area with very poor quality teaching and virtually no correct theory being taught, so that is the kind of niche I try and get involved in. I agree with what others have said about the constant striving to improve and learn from people above you, not thinking you are top dog when in fact you're just a slightly bigger fish in your local fish bowl

 

[nieghham]

Such an interesting subject. Coming from a dressage perspective, it seems pretty impossible in these parts to find the "ideal" of a trainer who has trained x number of horses to GP, trains in a kind, classical way, who would ride my horse if required, has time to teach theory, can be my shoulder to cry on, doesn't charge the earth and who can travel to my yard for lessons. This does not exist!!

In less than 40 minutes from my farm are three of our Olympic Dressage riders with amatuers in their barns...within the same area are no less than 9 FEI level 3 coaches ...and no less than two hours is a Dressage Masters home base...and... this does not include the many Olympic jumper rider/trainers or being just a stones throw from a couple of our Olympic Event riders ....or less than 40 minutes from Dreamcrest or Glen Oro/Palgrave/RCRA all of Canadas largest premier show grounds for the Gold level disciplines (Spruce Meadows is also premiere just a 36 hour drive is all)
*shrugs shoulder*.....I say they do exist....I have had the absolute pleasure and opportunity to not only ride with but train/mentor under some of them

So I think there are all kinds of roles trainers can play. I see a big problem at local level in my area with very poor quality teaching and virtually no correct theory being taught, so that is the kind of niche I try and get involved in. I agree with what others have said about the constant striving to improve and learn from people above you, not thinking you are top dog when in fact you're just a slightly bigger fish in your local fish bowl

Exactly...nothing will humble a person more than a horse...but as a coach..it is up to you ("you" being a general term of use and not directing the comment to anyone in particular) to do your best by your students....and I do as I described....it is sad that you have not had that opportunity yourself...I think it unfair to judge me/other coaches due to others actions/lack of actions and saying they do not exist simply because you have not had any....the generalization may be for the UK but I am not there.....this could be afactor too

Even the top trainers/riders have ground help if they do not want to stagnat...and IMHO... there is a huge difference in the arrogance of being conceited in what one thinks may be over one who is confidenct in their ability due to the training they have had put into them... the experience that comes with time and the results that show themselves from this training

I stand behind what I stated about myself...it is not said in conceit...it is not said to elevate myself or impress...it is said because it is a fact....I will not try and change your mind about it...or convince you or defend myself if you do not believe me...it will have no effect on myself or students and everyone is entitled to their opinion

I respect my clients and their goals as well as the fact I am not cheap so that I do indeed put the effort into them just as my instructors did for me

 

[morrismob]

Hope this counts as I don't have lessons anymore, rarely ride but my 2 daughters have done for many years and both compete BE. Lucy is just fantastic as she says it as it is, is very clear to the girls, 1 is dyslexic so clear is paramount and I find Lucy tells me too !

One of my girls, the dyslexic one, only likes an instructor who is honest if she rode a transition crap then she likes to be told so and quite clearly too as one said to her " don't tell people I teach you if you ride like that" I was a little mortified but daughter was more than happy and went onto produce her best dressage test !

We know 1 instructor who is great but always too nice. I think it takes at least 3 lessons to know if its going to work.

 

[Debz87]

I work at a western training yard, we take horses in and our speciality is start to finish, alot of the other trainers have clients with alot of money that buy themselves good horses on the trainers say so then cant ride it as it's too sharp etc so the trainer gets to show it and does well on something trained by someone else.

We literally just work on getting the horses well schooled from a young aid, making it obvious what we want them to do by making the right thing easy and the wrong thing difficult or uncomfortable.

Of course there are more than one way to deal with problems that may arise and we don't have all the answers.

Alot of people/clients go buy a horse without asking the trainers opinion and inevitably end up with the wrong sort of horse, although most of you guys ride english it would be like picking a show jumper to go do dressage at a highish level, people pick the wrong types for what they want to do, horses are generally bred for a specific job if they have good blood or will make a good all rounder at a lower level than said clients want, so when they get frustrated as to why their horse can perform something correctly and it's down to confirmation etc it is often best if the client is serious about where they want to be in competition to sell the horse on and buy something more suitable as using a horse without the correct conformation and/or mind could cause soundness issues or an accident.

It is also a trainers duty if they are a good one to tell the owner honestly what they think, if the horse isn't suitable for the job surely its better that you have been told and then the client can decide whether to persevere or sell and not waste anymore money, as most of you will know training doesn't come cheap!

I merely just wanted to point out a few things from the trainers point of view.

 

[Kelpie]

very good food for thought...... maybe I am, then, just a bit OCD in thinking about trainers needing to be massively experienced and not everyone needs to be trained by a 4* rider, to learn how to pop a few logs? (though the other side of the coin is that I have been out on XC practice courses and seen some truely awful teaching which just makes me want to cry for horse and student......)

One thing about access to trainers, tho, see I guess that depends where you are but certainly round my way in the South East, there are in fact a number of good trainers - for eventing at least (not so sure about the dressage as I follow the French classical for that and end up seeing trainers from abroad....). OK you have to go to them and it's not always 100% convenient (... she says knowing that actually I'll be leaving my yard at about 6.15am on Saturday morning to go off for a morning training session!!) BUT if its worth it to you, you'll do it. Then maybe you end up coming full circle and saying that actually its not worth it for everyone to do that?

 

[TarrSteps]

very good food for thought...... maybe I am, then, just a bit OCD in thinking about trainers needing to be massively experienced and not everyone needs to be trained by a 4* rider, to learn how to pop a few logs? (though the other side of the coin is that I have been out on XC practice courses and seen some truely awful teaching which just makes me want to cry for horse and student......)

I've had some very underwhelming lessons - and seen some scary stuff - from people with Olympic medals. Some of the people I know at that level have actually thought very little about their own riding and the training they have received and, quite frankly, not all of them are particularly interested in teaching, although they might be interested in the money it brings in. Some are great, some are not. My only point was that, in my experience, the riders own results don't give you that information. I would be more interested to know how their regular students do but that seems to be very difficult information to get in the UK!


I have, however, had generally great lessons from people who have TRAINED people who've won Olympic medals and, I think, herein lies the rub.

As an example of someone like that, I'd have a dressage lesson from Tracie Robinson in a heartbeat . . .

I do actually agree with your premise that relatively inexperienced riders should get the best, most experienced instruction possible, I'm just not sure that's always the person with the highest competition experience.

Also, you are right, it's not "worth it" for everyone to go to the highest level trainer they can find. If the balance of money/time/effort means they will get more out of a lower profile trainer who meets their needs then I think that is something that needs to be considered. If someone is relatively new to the sport or embarking on something new they might also benefit from a trainer who is more available. Ditto a "special needs" situation - having someone with the skills for the job who is actually able to come regularly will give a higher chance of success than having someone with more skills - perhaps unneeded ones at that moment - who is only intermittently available.

I presume for your own needs, you want to go as far as you can in eventing. In that case a 4* rider - who can teach well - is a very valid investment and worth doing everything you can to attain. But to say that someone who is not doing that is taking an easy way out or not really doing their best is not, I think, a fair assessment.

 

[TarrSteps]

In less than 40 minutes from my farm are three of our Olympic Dressage riders with amatuers in their barns...within the same area are no less than 9 FEI level 3 coaches ...and no less than two hours is a Dressage Masters home base...and... this does not include the many Olympic jumper rider/trainers or being just a stones throw from a couple of our Olympic Event riders ....or less than 40 minutes from Dreamcrest or Glen Oro/Palgrave/RCRA all of Canadas largest premier show grounds for the Gold level disciplines (Spruce Meadows is also premiere just a 36 hour drive is all)
*shrugs shoulder*.....I say they do exist....I have had the absolute pleasure and opportunity to not only ride with but train/mentor under some of them

Much as I love my country, I really don't think we can claim Dressage Superpower-ness! Outside of a few select people we've hardly ever had anyone in the top ten! Don't get me wrong, I think a great deal of many of them as riders and people but I'm not sure, if my goal was to be the best dressage rider in the world, Canada would be my first stop. There are no FEI coaching levels, btw. The FEI could not care less about such things.

I do see your point - that people who have competed at the top levels are available to anyone who really wants to seek them out. Again, though, I would say the North American teaching culture skews the balance a bit. All the riders you mention basically HAVE to teach, they have to have Amateurs in the barn, just to keep the lights on. More so because the pool of riders is so relatively small. This is not necessarily the case in Europe. I know most top pros do teach amateurs but they don't HAVE to in the same way, and they certainly do not have to teach the same range of people. The idea that Carl would teach a Riding Club clinic is, well, inconceivable, but I can totally see Jaquie or David doing the equivalent and doing it well.

Out of curiosity, who is the Master? Neil? Walter (although he's not in Canada anymore, is he?)

 

[nieghham]

Much as I love my country, I really don't think we can claim Dressage Superpower-ness! Outside of a few select people we've hardly ever had anyone in the top ten! Don't get me wrong, I think a great deal of many of them as riders and people but I'm not sure, if my goal was to be the best dressage rider in the world, Canada would be my first stop. There are no FEI coaching levels, btw. The FEI could not care less about such things.


Oh tarr...do not be under the illusion our trainers do this in countryorthat I think we are anywhere near competitive yet....all of our Dressage olympic riders train in Germany or France then come back here

As for the coaching comment....I meant a slash between the FEI/Level3 coaches.....FEI coaches are those who have gone with our Olympic riders as coaches/Coupesand may be grandfathered into the program rather than tested


I do see your point - that people who have competed at the top levels are available to anyone who really wants to seek them out. Again, though, I would say the North American teaching culture skews the balance a bit. All the riders you mention basically HAVE to teach, they have to have Amateurs in the barn, just to keep the lights on. More so because the pool of riders is so relatively small. This is not necessarily the case in Europe. I know most top pros do teach amateurs but they don't HAVE to in the same way, and they certainly do not have to teach the same range of people. The idea that Carl would teach a Riding Club clinic is, well, inconceivable, but I can totally see Jaquie or David doing the equivalent and doing it well.

The top riders like Belinda Trussel or the ishoys/Boylan group do teach but they also have the money...that said...Belinda I can see you walking off the street and if she saw you wanted it bad enough would work with you...the otheres I would not be so sure

Out of curiosity, who is the Master? Neil? Walter (although he's not in Canada anymore, is he?)

Yes Walter still has one base home here from what I hear...he has moved a few times since he left my area and I am not sure if it is the Niagra house he kept or not...since it is in the nicest area of Ontario and closest to the border/Dressage population I am assuming it is.