What is the difference between Classical dressage and dressage

[carthorse]

If I judge dressage a horse either goes correctly or doesn't.
I went up to p. st. g on an Irish horse that had correct but not extravagant paces ,so why do people do classical ? I have seen all types and breeds do well in dressage so I want no excuses about warm blood paces, at lower level [ which is all the classical I've seen, are there higher levels?] I think it is a pretty level playing field and 'flashy' paces don't help that much.
Think I might be shouted down here but I am intersted, you don't get show jumping and classical jumping!

 

[Jemayni]

Perhaps its the school of thought that the lower levels of dressage arent judged correctly as a young horse "should" be moving much more freely forward than is generally seen in a winning novice test. Some would argue that classically schooled horses, even though they are most "correctly" trained in terms of their ability to progress, are often slated at lower levels as they dont work in such a short frame.

Does that make sense? Just an opinion & not based on any strict factual idea's, just a bitter sentiment I have noticed when talking to "classically" trained riders

 

[carthorse]

Well ,I've watched a couple of classical tests and my daughter has done a couple and I noticed a lot just jogged along and my daughter has done equally well in both, so I can't see the reason for them at all. We always ride a young horse forward and the BD judges seem to love it 70% plus and the classical think the same!

 

[mat]

I may be wrong, but classical dressage seems to be more about training the horses to go in a particular way, round soft over the backs etc, but not necessarily technically correct eg. The horse may be slightly in front of/behind the verticle... and maybe losing some accuracy so as not to lose any of the throughness..

I think the dressage that most people practice tends to be seen by classical riders as more manufactured, and less expressive.

I am not sure that it has much to do with the breed, more with the system of training.
Conrad Schumacher calls his system classical dressage, and I find his methods great for setting the foundations into the horses training. He will not let you progress until the basics are in place.

Carl Hester on the other hand, I have found tries to improve the horses paces etc earlier on than Conrad would. And hopes to achieve the contact etc as you train them all the "tricks", so as not to bore the horses.. maybe I haven't explained that very well but I gave it a go!

 

[carthorse]

But you [ like Claire ] would do well in both, does this mean you both ride in a classical way.I just hear some people around here talking about Classical dressage but they are not riding forward when I see them ride ,is it just they are not very good at it ?Should all good Classical riders do well at low level BD dressage ,then?

 

[mat]

I think they should yes!

I think its the same as the, *whispers*, parelli stuff. Lots of people preach it but very few can actually do it and understand what it involves and means!

 

[Jemayni]

I think probably the answer lies in that the difference is more in the heads of classical riders, opposed to any true difference; kind of like when some folk say they do "natural horsemanship," when in fact they're just doing what most folk do all the time. & I suppose British Dressage will encourage this sector of riding as realistically it will make them more money!

 

[mat]

In theory, competitive dressage should follow the same principles as classical dressage. However, there has been criticism by some riders for the trend, especially at the lower levels, for "quick fixes" and incorrect training that makes the horse appear correct, but that is in fact neglecting the basics. These short-cuts usually catch up to the rider as they move up the levels and need to be correct to perform certain movements. This is of course, a debatable proposition, as others argue that modern methods, such as the highly controversial rollkur technique, produce winning animals.

It is also believed by some that competitive dressage does not always reward the most correctly trained horse and rider, especially at the lower levels. For example, some riders who consider themselves to be training classically would not ask their horse to hold his head near-vertical when he first began training, and this would be penalized at the lower levels of competitive dressage, marked down because the horse is not considered to be correctly on the bit. Other riders, who also would consider themselves classically trained, would disaggree, saying that if a horse is not ready to travel in a correct outline (on the bit) he is not ready for competition, and this is the reason such horses would be marked down.

Taken from Wikipedia

 

[FREESTYLER]

It is more about the rider and influence the rider has.. The emphasis is placed on you, the rider, to learn about your own body and how even slight variations in the way you hold yourself affect the way the horse moves beneath you.

How can you expect your horse to achieve self-carriage if you're not in self-carriage yourself?

In Classical Riding much is made of the position of the pelvis and seat bones and the use of lumbar and abdominal muscles. You learn that you don't follow the horse's movement you lead it and to be able to lead it you have to know that:

“To be an aid, the seat or weight effect of the rider must not only be correct; it has to occur at the right moment” - Brig Gen. Albrecht, former Director of the Spanish Riding School).


“One of the problems is that many riders pay lip service to some of the classical principles, but they interpret them incorrectly, so the outcome looks nothing like a classically correctly trained horse and rider. In other cases, they admit to deviating from classical principles, because "modern research shows ..." or "it is not applicable for our modern horses...", or something like that, as if the equine species had mutated in some significant, fundamental way from the horses the Old Masters had to work with. What has changed is that the breeding of the Warmbloods in particular has improved dramatically since the war.
So I believe!!!




Some of the pre-war Olympic horses would never even be looked at, much less trained, by any of the modern competitors, because their gaits and conformation would not be good enough in today's world. The temperaments have probably become easier, because disposition is an important factor in breeding sport horses. The bottom line seems to be that the average modern sport horse (I hate the term) can be trained to much higher levels with much less skill than the average horse 50 or 100 years ago, which invites even more shortcuts” - Dr Thomas Ritter

 

[Bossanova]

Interesting question.

A good rider will ride a horse well and sympathetically, no matter how they've been trained and will probably get the same amount out of a horse no matter which system they use (and the systems are very similar in theory)
An average rider however may be swayed towards quick fixes and incorrect training in the modern system, there's a lot more of a 'kicking and pulling' style in modern competitive dressage as average riders mis-understand how to get the horse working to its maximum. As far as I see it, classical teaches average riders that there is an alternative and shows them how to acheive it whereas modern dressage does tend by-pass this early step.

Not all classical is non-competitive- my trainer is competing at grand prix yet I'd class him as classical. Not all classically trained horses are iberians- actually I've seen far more warmbloods at Arthur Kottas, Charles De Knuffy etc clinics and almost all the riders are out competing too.

I've had training in both, maybe I havent found a really good modern dressage trainer yet but I'm sure that doesnt mean they arent out there. I much prefer the classical style and my horses all get far more out of a session where we work for the long-term, not for the test I'm riding next week.

 

[Partoow]

OOO one of my favourite 'soap boxes'!!!!
The dressage we all do is based on the German classical system and are the training principles that the FEI have as their base when developing dressage as an international sport . Our national body, BD then takes these principles to base our 'national system'.
Ok so that is that bit, for me and i have yet to be proved wrong when people use the term 'classical' i would use 'antique'!!! The idea of oh in the 'good ol days' it was all sweetness and light . No his simply is not true. The horse was a tool. A tool of war and a tool of display and a tool of work. The classical schools of France and Germany were connected to the royal houses and provides the basis to all their riding as 'english trot' rising trot to you and i was what the 'english ' did and was a 'out riding' technique used in hunting.
There was controversy even then and an exellent book on this is a translation from french called 'Riding towards the light' or another more understandable idea There is more than one road to Rome. There have been a few classical masters and they themselves have courted radical veiws. Baucher was probably the most famous. He worked in the circus to start and took badly behaved difficult horses the classical school at Versaille was the riding school of princes and kings so only the best horses given the best by some of the best military trainers of the day, so snobbery has always existed, it was Baucher however that trained Napolians horse!! The classical 'Airs ' being used in a kind of ' come on if you think you're hard enough'. Who's got the biggest tanks/plane/ship today!!
So thats the history bit [very very brief as the French had the od revolution along the way ] and the persuit of the past is something that many 'classical'riders search for. It is however a developing sport , our battle field being the arena and the development being that the horses are no longer used for other 'work'.They are specialist in their sphere and the goal posts have been moved, dressage has evolved we require extension and collection, the classical schools worked in collection. It is a modern idea the combination of the two.
So the German system was developed for the horse in battle from the ideas of the past and are classical in their aims and goals.
as everything the interpretation of those ideas, see the Ten Commandment, they are the same Ten Commandments that provide the basis for ALL religions, it is the interprtation that leads to the differences.
I am trained by a classical 'master' they do exist the BHS chose however to ignor the talent that has existed and , here is the controversial bit , they have gone for the MONEY not the real progression of the sport. We had brilliant and energetic exponents of classical training , Col. Harris helping develope the early BHS with students like Molly Sievright[? sp.] Rocky' Herr Rowansky[sp. again sorry!!!!!] who trained Vicky Thompson was largely ignored.
So yes the difference is in the production of horses not the life time training of horses and riders like they do in the Spanish School.
It is therefore not the competition that makes dressage different from classical it is the aims and goals of those that take part in it.
Hope that does something to add interest and some thought. As this really is an interesting area. I adhere TOTALLY to the classical principles of training and to me it IS the training and development that my horses and i strive for daily. It is competition that gives me a set goal and a showcase for my work. To look at yourself and change your riding is hard work, we as riders have to look at ouselves first to understand the influence we have on our horses. In this world of 'blame' it is easy to look to the horse and blame him for not doing or performing whan in actual fact it is our problem as riders and todays classical rfers to the idea that we must look at the rider first and then work the horse, just that on the whole they have got a bit stuck on the 'application' of that riding.
Ok I'll shut up now!!

 

[lillie07]

Boss do you still train with Andrew Murphy?

 

[Tempi]

Very interesting read - as usual!

I find the classical method a very interesting one, and like freestyler said its alot about how you position your body on the horse and you way of 'self carriage' aswell as your horses.

I think Classicly trained horses/riders to well at the lower levels because at this level the judges are looking for softer and lower outlines, where as at the higher levels when collection comes into place the outline is shorter and more 'upright'.

Both my trainers work on the 'long and low' prinicipal of getting the horse to work over the back and into a soft low contact with bend through the body. However this is generally used as the 'warmup' then we work on the 'higher' head carriage when working on more advanced movements and collection/extension.

 

[Bossanova]

[ QUOTE ]
Very interesting read - as usual!

I find the classical method a very interesting one, and like freestyler said its alot about how you position your body on the horse and you way of 'self carriage' aswell as your horses.

I think Classicly trained horses/riders to well at the lower levels because at this level the judges are looking for softer and lower outlines, where as at the higher levels when collection comes into place the outline is shorter and more 'upright'.

Both my trainers work on the 'long and low' prinicipal of getting the horse to work over the back and into a soft low contact with bend through the body. However this is generally used as the 'warmup' then we work on the 'higher' head carriage when working on more advanced movements and collection/extension.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you watch a classical trainer ride/teach a more advanced horse and they want the horse as collected as possible- the whole system of classical is about teaching collection and balance. Long and low is used as warm-up/down as in modern dressage but classical is all about self-carriage and lightening the forehand. I think where this differs from modern dressage is that modern system doesnt train for true collection, it trains false collection by having too much in the hand. But thats a much argued subject!!

 

[Ginn]

[ QUOTE ]
It is more about the rider and influence the rider has.. The emphasis is placed on you, the rider, to learn about your own body and how even slight variations in the way you hold yourself affect the way the horse moves beneath you.

How can you expect your horse to achieve self-carriage if you're not in self-carriage yourself?

In Classical Riding much is made of the position of the pelvis and seat bones and the use of lumbar and abdominal muscles. You learn that you don't follow the horse's movement you lead it and to be able to lead it you have to know that:

“To be an aid, the seat or weight effect of the rider must not only be correct; it has to occur at the right moment” - Brig Gen. Albrecht, former Director of the Spanish Riding School).


“One of the problems is that many riders pay lip service to some of the classical principles, but they interpret them incorrectly, so the outcome looks nothing like a classically correctly trained horse and rider. In other cases, they admit to deviating from classical principles, because "modern research shows ..." or "it is not applicable for our modern horses...", or something like that, as if the equine species had mutated in some significant, fundamental way from the horses the Old Masters had to work with. What has changed is that the breeding of the Warmbloods in particular has improved dramatically since the war.
So I believe!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also my understanding of it - almost that both horse and rider must be truely "at one" with each other in that the horse can be ridden purely off the body positioning of the rider, without the need for rein and to some degree leg aids - these purely add to the refinement of the movement. My comparison would be that when I was learning to ride, both under a friends instruction and that of the pony club I was always taught "leg to hand" but never "seat". A few years ago I discovered a lovely instructor who showed me otherwise (Bbmat you may know of her - Shirely O'Brian?) She may not be a "top" instructor and when you discuss her methods with her she'll tell you that she doesn't try to be "classical" but merely tries to teach correct schooling for the level of the horse being taught - if the horse is young/weak then forward, soft and relaxed paces is what she aims for rather than what appears technically correct as she maintains, and I agree, that this is the foundation for sucess and development further up the grades. Since riding with her I can say that I have far more "feel" for the horse - already on Tills I can make transitions purely off my seat and they "feel" forward and fluid rather than weak or stuffy. She is also getting the concept of bend, purely from my seat/weight and a slight opening of the rein in the direction of choice and this is how I wish to not only ride but for Tilly to be taught and ridden.

Whatever method it is technically termed I believe it falls into the "classical" catagory, however I would rather call it a sympathetic and progressive way of riding that suits me and my horse.

Make any sense?

 

[Pasha]

What an interesting discussion!!

I must admit I do not know whether or not my trainer is 'classical' however, he maintains that we work towards overall education and not to the next dressage test! He is also very anti gadget and as never allowed me to work on getting Pasha on the bit....he maintains that it comes naturally when they are working correctly and we're getting there slowly!

I've also done some training with Mary Wanless who works with Kyra Kyrkland and some of the American Team. She is very into how your 'self carrage' affects the horses ability to carry himself.

 

[Tierra]

Interesting post this one

Classical dressage, for me, is training with the physiology of the horse as being the most important thing. Yes, we want the horses up and round over their backs - its the "safest" way for them to carry a rider without damage to their own anatomy. Its humane training.. its harmonious training and its whats correct for the horse both mentally and anatomically. Its free of gadgets, its free of quick fixes, its the acceptance that the beautiful outline you see displayed by high school horses can be the result of 11 years of training. This isnt just the training of the horse.. its the training of the rider to be able to correctly apply aids, to have good posture, good muscle control and a good respect for the fact they're working with a living animal.

Theres a tendency in dressage these days, particularly at the lower levels, to go for the quick fixes. The objective being to have the neck curled and to hell with how we get there. The ultimate example of this for me, still has to be rollkur of course. However the use of gadgets in general seems to be on the increase.. often with people having absolutly no idea how to use them or sometimes why they are using them. Theyre meant to make up for incorrect riding, to speed the training process along.. often they dont do that in any way and cause damage to the horse.

The lifting of the back and the acceptance of the bit should come as the end result of good riding.. of working the horse from back to front, into a light and forgiving hand.. Therefore, the physical outline.. the bit people LOOK at, is the end result.

Modern dressage - competitive dressage is about producing sports animals and getting them out there fast. This can often be at the sacrifice of the animal because training gets rushed. Furthermore it can mean the rider is being sacrificed in that they aren't learning the whys of correct schooling.

Ive sat through so many painful lessons with BD trainers where the focus on what the head is doing is depressing. People are being taught to ride with heavier and stronger rein contacts to control the front end and it seems to be believed that once thats in place, the back end and the back itself will sort itself? It wont..

Horses are precious and they deserve to be treated as such and to be preserved, by us, the rider. It should always always be remembered that horses KNOW how to be horses.. All those fancy moves seen at GP dressage can be seen in fields all over the world. Its our job, as riders, to be able to communicate what we want, when we want and without the use of force.

Personally, i was classically trained from a young age - by accident, might i add. When I later took up dressage seriously, i was mortified by alot of the opinions and methods of BD trainers and decided to investigate the classical route slightly more.

I do, however, think "classical" can be a misused term and applied to cover all manner of sins by people. A bit like Parelli and NH gets used seemingly by some people who just seem too damn scared to get on their horses.. classical can get used by people who seem to think slopping about with loose reins is kind and "classical".

Classical / correct dressage is alive and well however i think many of the people who practice it have become extremely disillusioned by modern, competitive dressage. We live in a society where everything happens so fast and i dont think many people are truely appreciative or prepared to take the longer, slower route to correct training

Boss sums things up very well in her second post also imo

To bbmat - the technicalities do come, but the preservation of the horse and the correct training of him or her should come first. And its interesting you mention that classical riders may have horses infront of or behind the vertical (imo, never behind. I hate this with a passion) and thus losing technical perfection, when such a majority of horses in the competitive scene have their outlines broken at completly the wrong place as opposed to the poll being the highest point

 

[Alibear]

BBMatt I love your first reply very clear and points out the good in both sides.

There's also the fact that's it now proved on weight pads that a modern dressage piaffe does not take more weight in the horses hind legs where a classical one does.

That underlines the basic dispute I think.

Also the classical-ists tend to rate collection most and the competitive riders place more emphasis on extention. Is another differentiator I've heard used.

 

[Bossanova]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also the fact that's it now proved on weight pads that a modern dressage piaffe does not take more weight in the horses hind legs where a classical one does.

That underlines the basic dispute I think.


[/ QUOTE ]

Oooh thats very interesting that it's been proved!!

 

[Worried1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Classicly trained horses/riders to well at the lower levels because at this level the judges are looking for softer and lower outlines, where as at the higher levels when collection comes into place the outline is shorter and more 'upright'.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a little bit of a generalisation. My OH has been classically trained and is a Group 3 rider who is currently competing at PSG - I think he might have something to say about classsical riders doing well at lower levels.

It's true he does have a fantastic record with young and difficult horses which is most obviously seen at lower levels. That is probably because it is easier, as a rule it becomes harder to produce horses above meduim because the movements become harder and more taxing so it takes a special horse to be able to move on through the ranks.

He has in the past as well a couple of horses he is currently riding competed horses that technically shouldn't be at the level they are, yet correct training, as well as a dash of honesty

, has enabled them to compete to a relatively high level.

 

[carthorse]

Well ,thank you one and all.I just wanted to know why there were different competitions and it started a most interesting debate about training. I still wonder about the competitions as the ones I've seen or entered have not [ to my eyes ] been a very high standard but I know that some 'classical' trainers are very good but maybe some of their pupils are not so good.

 

[henryhorn]

good reply Partoow.
I was trained with Geoffrey Hatton FBHS who followed the Spanish Riding school methods, but was sidetracked along the way by various other trainers!
As I also worked in a few dealers yards I had to forsake some of my principles when it came to getting horses ready for sale. Although my heart said make haste slowly, my business head made me learn some short cuts....
I get quite cross when you see "Classical riders" portraying themselves as something new, most of the principles dressage follows are age old, for instance until you can sit on a horse without influencing it, you shouldn't try!
My only gripe with today's riders are some of them appear to be doing too much; the riders of the Spanish School look so effortless and they would be who I would say are true Classical riders..
I completely agree, the rider should be the first thing that is looked at before the horse, unless that's correct, the horse can't perform anyway...

 

[Alibear]

Yes Paul Belasik finally stumped of the erm "classical" side and rode one of his horses on it and it did infact take weight behind.

He admits he was rather anxious about doing it as the results would be so shocking to him if it didn't take weight behind.

 

[LusoLover]

Good replies Partoow and Tierra. It is important to also say that Classical Riding is not being a soft touch with the horse as some seem to believe it to be. The Iberians who ride classically have wonderfully diciplined horses. It is about taking your time with your schooling to develop both the riders and the horses bodies to achieve self carriage and in turn be able to achieve the higher movements.

In terms of the Classical dressage tests, unfortunately very few places run them and those taht do tend only to do the walk trot test, which is a real shame. The emphasis of the tests is on the rider getting the best out of the horse by riding correctly. If your horse decides to have a 'moment' but you sit calmly and ride correctly through it, then you can still obtain respectable marks whereas with BD it tends to be game over.

 

[the watcher]

I am not at all qualified to comment, except that I have seen some very highly placed competitors and instructors working..I do despair of some of the 'push and pull' techniques that can be seen in dressage competition and am currently working my way through a Klaus Ferdinand Hempfling book to research another way of doing things - but boy, it is hard work..I can see why some people take short cuts

 

[Tierra]

Agree completly about the comments regarding a "soft touch". This is one thing that does annoy me and i mentioned briefly in my other post.. there seems to have been an increase recently in people claiming to be "classical" while riding round with washing line reins, completly unconnected backs and horses running deep on their forehands.

The amount of discipline - both physical and mental - that tends to be demanded is huge and its in no way an "easier" approach to training.

 

[Partoow]

As a slight side track but really regarding how hard work being still and supple is, i let one of my clients sit on my very advanced 'spanish ' boy yesterday. I worked him in, got him soft through and rhythmical. Did a bit of pirouette work bla bla.... all very quiet , they see me work like this all the time; i then said ok now you get on.
Well within , 5 mins she was pouring with sweat and exhausted and that was before i really started to get her to 'work' on the collected movements!!! she looked at me and said but you dont move!!!!!! It always looks so easy and light!!!
The really hilarious thing is i have had 'comments' on my test sheets about being 'ineffective' because the judge had'nt seen me apply the aids....mmmm. funnily enough i thought that was what it was all about and to have the strength to be still and the suppleness to apply an aid in a discreet manner to give the effect of effortless work is what i strive for.
and yep.... its bloomin hard work and i continue to stive for that freedom of movement every day but that freedom requires balance and that requires an inner strength.
Do you think that could be classical???

 

[carthorse]

It could be 'being a good rider' what ever the name they put on it.

 

[Folara]

QR

I loved reading this and its such a shame I didnt see the thread sooner (foaly and work being a bit demanding atm).

General has been trained by my friend Mike, who is Classically trained by Heather Moffet and has since developed his training methods to along the lines of Paul Belasik, attending his courses (way up in Scotland) whenever they are on.

Like Partoow Mike appears to be sitting very quietly and not 'doing' much, however I know just how hard he is working and have often likened this to a swan i.e. it might look all super and graceful above the water but below it the swan is working hard to keep moving forward.