Uphill, downhill photo definition! (maybe?!)

MizElToe and lifeslemons, in Bossanova's defence I have seen both the original picture and the horse is question. The original picture shows more clearly how tense he is in his mouth and the rider is in her hands. The horse did improve a lot while Boss was riding him, and as lifeslemons said this is only a "snapshot" - the horse was working so much more happily and freely after a month with Boss. I think I'm right in saying he was very much a work in progress when the photo was taken, and surely that's the point of schooling and training horses so that you don't reach "the end result" with quick fixes and holding the horse in your hand but more by progressive training and taking things slowly.
MizElToe, yes the first picture is "more pleasing to the eye" and more of a "horse-selling" shot but that's because that is what it was intended as. The second one was a random shot and if Boss were selling the horse she would have taken many more photos and chosen a better (as well as "prettier") one.
What an interesting thread and some interesting replies
smile.gif
 
Very well said H's mum
laugh.gif

I agree about the point you made on the difference between uphill/downhill and novice/advanced outlines. That was what struck me first about the pictures in the OP as well.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Agree with you, lifeslemons. The first picture is far more pleasing to the eye; that said, I can see that he is tense through his neck and back, and the second photo clearly shows that he is stepping through with his quarters under him. But if I were buying a horse, for instance, and those two images were put in front of me, it would be the first I would go for.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the first picture shouldnt be pleasing to the eye- if you glance at it briefly then yes, his shape looks more conventional. But look deeper and you can see just how wrong this horse is going because he is so held and cross and tense.
This photo was used for his ad and I tell you, it would have put me off the horse and obviously put other people off the horse as the owner at the time only had 1 phone call (and no, he wasnt over-priced!!)
 
I must say of the pics of the bay Boss far prefer the second. He is clearly very tense through the neck and behind the jaw and then on through his back in the first whereas the second pic although not an ideal frame for a dressage test he is visably swinging through his back and far softer just needing to work slightly more in to the contact so rounding up across the neck and back.
 
I'm not suprised she only got 1 call. I wouldn't of called if I saw that picture, he is far to tense and forced.
I would probably phone from the pic of you riding as he is going forward and is relaxed, it's a much nicer picture.
 
Don't understand a lot of what you are all saying but it's fascinating reading all the posts. It's also helping me to understand why judges opinions are so diverse (except they watch a whole test rather than just looking at photos). Keep going all of you - I'm learning, or at least trying to lol
 
Gosh, I don't see how the first pic of the bay Bossanova posted is preferable to the second
crazy.gif


In the first pic, the horse is horribly tense, and very tight through the shoulder too - how a horse that is that tense through the back and shoulder (thats before we look at the distinctly unhappy mouth) could be truely uphill I don't know...

In the second pic, we see more swing and softness, and more lift from behind, although of course there are areas to be refined. However, this is far more right in the second pic than in the first.

I think this thread is a very good way of highlighting the differences between modern and classical dressage generally, and also the unfortunate difference between what is correct and what scores well.
 
absolutely agree, Megan. the first pic has horrible tension in jaw and poll, and probably a ton of weight in both hands. unhappy, tense horse, which means the muscles are tighter and won't let the horse swing through properly. the back looks different too, it is dipping behind the saddle in the first pic, coming up more in the second (similar to the pics of the bay which Tiger's Eye posted - the second pic of those 2 had a far more swinging back, and hence a far better step with the hindleg, which is what this is really all about, not the arch of the neck and the angle of the face!)
from a horse going the way it is going in the second pic, you can make real progress. the horse is in self-carriage, and only needs a little more confidence and time to be into the rein and accepting the outside rein half halt, and once those are established, improvement follows naturally and consistently.
a horse ridden in the style of the first pic is self-limiting - more likely to sustain injury, more argumentative, less rideable, less trainable (won't absorb new things because too uptight), more resentful etc etc.
bravo Boss for having the confidence to do it right and give the time it takes, even if the horse may seem "above the bit" at first glance etc.
 
totally agree with H's Mum.
a downhill horse is that on its forehand and ploughing into the ground and a horse can be like this without being in any outline althoough overbending makes this much worse. An uphill horse can still have a low outline yet have uphill movemnt i.e. light on the forehand and stepping through. Thats what I have always thought. If that doesnt make sense then ditto H's Mum
 
So one of these is downhill and one is uphill, one is tense and one is relaxed:

Maxad.jpg


P1010017.jpg


So if you were going to buy this horse which one would you use in an ad (he's not being sold as a dressage horse btw)?

Sorry they're so huge, I'm not very good at this!
crazy.gif
 
nickym, they're both uphill! the first is more pleasing to me because there is no tension in the neck... yes, the horse is slightly too deep, but not against the hand. the step through is better on the second pic though. tbh i'd take another picture!
 
Whilst the horse is dropping behind the vertical in the first pic, the reins show that he is not being held there or forced, he isnt tense and I suspect a little forward give would draw the nose out.
The second has some nice qualities showing but he is just blocking a bit against the flexion and has shortended his neck (as you well know!!)
So from my point of view, the horse looks saleable in both pictures because it looks like minor alterations would correct it.
 
I could well imagine that the horse would look better in other photos than those, but I prefer the first. Yes the horse is B.T.V. but he is softer and generally more pleasing to the eye.

He looks naughty in the second
wink.gif


Cracking horse though, if I was looking I would be very tempted!
 
Prefer the first pic even tho he has ducked behind the vertical, - the second pic looks tense to me (tail, jaw, neck and he is hollowing in front of the withers) - again tho, moments in time.
 
the problem is that it really is moments in time, a picture alone does not show what the whole way of going is like.
for example, these 2 pics were taken about 7 seconds apart...
DSC02998.jpg

DSC02997.jpg

to my mind, the first is slightly downhill, the second a little better. hope i'm correct!
 
K - first is deffo downhill for sure, second...I would want more work through and over the back to call it truely uphill and engaged.

M_M - I like your mare a lot
grin.gif
She does need to lift a little more in front in the first pic (wretched 3rd vertabrae is coming into play) but there is nothing horrible in either pic IMHO.
 
It's not me on him btw, but April was doing a grand job in gale force winds!

This whole thread has been thought-provoking and made me question what it is I do to get my horses going well. I definitely ride them behind the vertical but that doesn't mean they're stuck there, and it certainly doesn't mean they're downhill. Like T_E's pics of Betsy, I often think "would I want to ride to a fence in this canter?" If they're downhill or on their forehand surely you would know as your steering goes a bit iffy?!
confused.gif
 
Thanks, strange isn't it though as she is more relaxed and nicer to ride in the 1st pic, 2nd pic she tends to go like through tension (well feels like it)
confused.gif
 
Ok, so we've all decided maybe we shouldn't try and define uphill and downhill from a photo, as some definitely seem to capture the moment much better than others. So who's going to volunteer a bit of video evidence?
tongue.gif


Kerrilli, your 2nd photo looks to have a bit more schwung.
grin.gif
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vxz4UBlZg

This horse, on stills, would prob lok uphill because she has a high step. In reality, at this stage (she'd come over from Spain the week before) she was very on her forehand and flat. Will try and get an 'after' of her at some point because she is no wmuch more able to sit and we almost have collection!
 
I can see that the various overbent shots aren't good, but several of the head high 'uphill' ones look wrong to me too; the horses look ewe-necked, as if their heads have been raised & brought back without their bodies re-positioning. The very first shot on this post- the 'correct' horse as opposed to the overbent bay- was like this; sort of stuffed up with a pronounced curve under the neck.

I'm not a dressage rider- or a competition rider at all- but I know I would feel very uncomfortable on either horse and I think both are wrong.

Why are we talking about positioning the head? Won't the head position come when the horse has learnt to carry the rider's weight most effectively?
 
Deffo isn't about head position, it is about working from behind, stepping under in a true way, rounding over the back, lift of the shoulders and working UP into the bridle, and not banana necked down into a contact....IMHO!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top