A question about developing the dip in front of the withers

[LMH]

I am curious how this would be addressed by someone using a classical French method compared to a classical German method.

I realize the two topics alone could fill pages so just a general explanation would be helpful.

In other words, if we take what most consider “german” it would take a connection to the rein and getting the horse forward to string the bow and lift the bridge, if you will.

My (limited) understanding of a french perspective is lighter contact and more use of lateral moves earlier in training…So would this still achieve getting a nice smooth topline or does it eventually take some kind of heavier contact to get that last little dip?

[merrygoround]

Why go for one way or the other? This is America, blend them. Go for the light touch, use your lateral work to engage the hindquarters, and in between use the firmer forward to refresh the paces, so that the lateral work can remain energetic. You’ll find that way the firmer forward can actually be very light.

And that’s the object of the whole game. Up, light, and round.

[LMH]

LOLOL…ok I can understand the benefit of mixing them…:lol:

I really was interested how it would be addressed though by someone pure to one school or another-and I guess really I am more interested in how it would be handled in ‘pure french’ form.

[oldschool]

From the “french school” trainers I’ve seen, they don’t seem to be too concerned with the wither dip. The german school seems to try to erase it with alot of rollkur and forward riding. I could be totally wrong?? but that is my newbie observation from what I’ve been exposed to at shows and various clinics.

[LMH]

old school, just shooting from the hip-that wouldn’t make sense to me (not saying your observations don’t make sense-just saying that ‘pure frenchies’ don’t concern themselves with it)…

See, it seems to me that the dip means the horse is not raising the base of his neck, therefore would not be incorrect posture and using his whole topline properly-so the dip has to be bad.

Now again my (limited) understanding of the frenchies is they are still concerned with raising the base of the neck-so within that theory would it be addressed with correct lateral moves and suppling?

My guess is yes? But like everything in that theory it can take more time?

From what I have read, I don’t think a pure french rider progresses to any kind of heavy contact-lightness always being in the forefront-so riding with a heavier leg to hand would not be an option.

I am guessing in correct lateral work, the base of the neck HAS to lift therefore overtime it would develop?

[egontoast]

From the “french school” trainers I’ve seen, they don’t seem to be too concerned with the wither dip. The german school seems to try to erase it with alot of rollkur and forward riding. I could be totally wrong?? but that is my newbie observation from what I’ve been exposed to at shows and various clinics.

My god you are ignorant.

My trainer trained in the German school I guess if you have to choose. Trained with people including Zettl, Schumacher and Mikolka. The dip in front of the saddle is never singled out as a concern. I’d love to know more about oldschool’s alleged experience with the German school so called.

There is only good riding and bad riding, whatever the so called school.

[LMH]

But egontoast, are not the philosophies somewhat different? I am not saying one is good and one is bad, but they certainly get to Rome by a different road?

[in_the_zone]

Working a horse over the back is working the horse over the back in either school.

[LMH]

@in_the_zone;3177198

Working a horse over the back is working the horse over the back in either school.

OK…so is it achieved in the same way? Using the same aides and exercises? With the same amount of contact in the same fashion?

[ESG]

A dip in front of the wither is a conformational flaw. You can’t fix it. You can minimize it somewhat with correct work and subseqent development of the topline. Call it whatever “school” you like, but working the horse over its back and through to your hand, is what you need.

But the dip will still be there.

[LMH]

Thanks ESG-I know it can be conformation but I have seen before/after photos of horses that do make great improvements-as you mentioned.

So, if it requires leg to hand, and that is what both schools would do, then I guess that answers my question on that part, there is no difference?

Then why all the fuss about German being more leg to hand and French not? Or is that just a misunderstanding of the French school?

[oldschool]

Well," Egg on boast" you are quite right ! I AM horribly ignorant!. I guess the difference between me and you is that I ACKNOWLEDGE my lack of education and only try to ask honest questions! I state from the beginning that I’m new to this discipline and don’t proclaim to be an expert. I just know what I see, try to read as much as possible, watch dvd’s. and then use the information I gather to come to my own conclusions. I look forward to seeing you in the Olympics.

[ESG]

@LMH;3177277

Thanks ESG-I know it can be conformation but I have seen before/after photos of horses that do make great improvements-as you mentioned.

Quite right. I have a horse with a pronounced dip in front of the wither. I schooled him to PSG/I1, with correct work, and the dip was less noticeable, but always there. Now that he’s an old guy (28), it’s even moreso.

So, if it requires leg to hand, and that is what both schools would do, then I guess that answers my question on that part, there is no difference?

There is no difference in that the horse must work over its topline and through its back, to be correctly through and into the rider’s hand. German, French, Italian, Icelandic - it doesn’t matter whose “school” you use to get it there, that’s what needs to happen.

Then why all the fuss about German being more leg to hand and French not? Or is that just a misunderstanding of the French school?

Because some methods work better for some, and others work better for others. Most of my training has been of the “German school”, but I see things that I think are from the “French school” that I like better, so I use both. Actually, I use what works on any individual horse, and don’t give a rat’s ass what “school” it is. The horse doesn’t read the book(s), so can only tell if I’m using the methods from the appropriate “school”, if he works correctly. :winkgrin: Anyone else’s opinion doesn’t matter.

[oldschool]

thanks for your post on this ESG. I like your common sense and open mind on the matter. It seems to me that different “schools” are more appropriate for some types than others, and the best thing about being an american rider is the openess to various methods and “diversity”.

[slc2]

if there was a german or a french school, or if any school advocated doing only one approach or the other, they would be pretty miserable failures at developing dressage horses.

[nhwr]

I tend to think of conformational issues as being related to skeletal issues. The dip in the neck is a result of neck placement coming out of the shoulder and muscling. It is sort of the equivalent of rounded shoulders in human posture. Developing a horse properly will improve, if not eliminate (it does happen), this issue.

The goal for a horse like this should be no different than any dressage horse, to get the horse to travel in such a way that its swings it back up through the topline, including the withers. To me, it seems the traditional german school has focused on forward, rhythm, straightness… the training scale. The french school is more focused on requiring the horse to balance and carry itself from the start. But the goal of each is to teach the horse to not just to move through its back but more importantly not to shut down at the withers, neck or poll, allowing the aids and energy to be continually recycled.

Which is better? Depends on the abilities and preferences of the rider, IMO. The german school requires a strong and correct position from the rider to help “guide” the horse together. The french school uses flexion and lateral manipulation of the neck, poll and jaw to get the horse to balance itself. Anybody who has ever used rolkur (meaning the way AvG schools) as a training method knows it has a lot more in common with the french school than the german.

[mbm]

hmmm… not sure if i can atriculate this… but i work with someone who is from the german school but who is french influenced (taught by Theodoerescu )…

and what he teaches is forward/active (not running!) into a sensitive empathetic hand and light giving contact. always always giving (always give again) when the horse goes as requested - we do end up with the horses in self carriage using their backs etc but the contact is just the weight of the reins and the horse is working towards true self carriage. teh contact therefore is light when all is well.

we also use a lot of lateral work to get the horse supple and using its hinds evenly.

not sure if this helps… but the “stringing of the bow” comes both from forward/active and giving the hand so hte horse can stretch into the contact thus raising the back/etc.

this is distrincly different than prior trainers. (moslty USians w/german influence i guess)

(sorry sucky description. i hope someone with experience in both can come and explain more better for you)

[LMH]

nhwr and mbm-actually this is more the kind of answer I was looking for.

I was having this discussion with someone and I didn’t really have the answers so this is why I am asking.

I know for sure, the goal is to have a supple horse with a lifted back and lifted base of the neck.

Part of the reason I am asking is I recently watched a video of a trainer that is NH with a strong “French” influence

The horses were so…SOFT and SUPPLE…they looked like ballerinas…but what caught my eye is how LIGHT the contact was-the loosest was a slight drape of the rein-so the contact was simply the weight of the rein.

At times she did take a very small ‘feel’ but still quite light by most standards I would think.

The focus was heavily on lateral work.

BUT when I have asked others they insist that no contact=no ‘bow’=no ability to really ‘engage’ the topline and base of the neck, for lack of a better way of putting it.

I have also read material from Dr Deb and she really focuses more on suppleness and lateral moves for engaging the base of the neck.

Anyway, providing for the reason behind my question may help see why I am asking.

I am not wondering which WAY is better-rather if this neck development and posture CAN be achieved (CAN a horse be using his back properly) with a contact SO light it appears only as a soft feel with a drape in the rein being the ‘reward or release’ as opposed to-CONTACT with the release being lighter contact.

I am not looking for high level dressage moves in correct fashion for competition, rather just to strengthen and properly develop a horse for his health

I am never going to be a formal dressage rider that progresses to a double bridle-so am not wondering about that level of finesse…simply correct biomechanical movement.

I have a hunter background and do have as of the last several years a high level of comfort and appreciation for my natural horsemanship training-I just was to be very sure I am on a good road to developing my horses physically.

So again, is there a difference in the end result (horse moving over his topline)-I understand there is not-

BUT I do understand there is a difference in HOW each thought or method gets there.

I just was most curious if at some point if a more ‘french concept’ would eventually NEED more connection or if the suppling and lateral moves, encouraging self carriage earlier on would ‘get the job done.’

Hopefully that makes it more clear why I was asking and where my question was coming from!

[pintopiaffe]

part of the reason the schools diverged in the first place was the type and build of horse that were being used. You don’t drive your dually diesel the same way you drive your Saturn Coupe–especially if they are both manual transmissions. You don’t usually ride a Baroque build/mover the same way you do a WB build/mover. Of course that’s generalizing, but everything is different from their balance to their movement. You ride them to enhance their natural qualities, not to try to make them something they aren’t.

There IS a very dramatic difference in the schools in the beginning, at their most basic. French is balance BEFORE movment, German is balance THROUGH movement. Yes, there is definitely a difference in the degree of contact, but the problem is, I cannot express to you entirely what that is–because you have the nerves in your hands telling your brain something, and I have the nerves in my hands telling my brain something, and neither of us can truly completely express how it FEELS precisely because it’s a FEELING. Yes, when you get to a certain level, the lightness and throughness is VERY similar, and that is part of why the debates ensue.

As the lines between types of horse become more blurred–think about what everyone generally calls the ‘modern’ type… a more upright, baroque neckset, shorter backs, more knee and hock action, but usually quite leggy-- so the need for blending approaches also comes. I think that’s where Oliveira’s genious lay–he combined the schools, but had such a tremendous control of his body and tact/reactions, that people thought it was something else entirely. He says himself several times in his books, he used what was useful out of both schools.

I can’t speak to the specific question of the post, I am sorry for that. But I have found that folks who have never ridden with a true French purist–say, JC Racinet or the like, will often say there is no difference. Folks who have, will acknowledge that especially in the early stages, there is quite a bit of difference. I have ridden with both. I do believe that the Austrio-Hungarian schools–and the SRS types–fall softly somewhere in the middle… Walter Zettl is actually the one who showed me there was a different way, and because of him, I set out in search of Baucher. Go figure. :lol: But it makes sense if they are dealing with more Baroque horses such as Lippizans. That is my own personal folly, and certainly I could be very wrong on it.

[BaroquePony]

Quoted from LMH: Then why all the fuss about German being more leg to hand and French not? Or is that just a misunderstanding of the French school?

I’ve worked with both. Good and bad rider/trainers from both. The good ones all understand the end result is the same. The German horses being heavier and with more cold blood in them generally than French horses makes it seem like there are differences in schools of thought and training. You can’t work a thoroughbred type like a warmblood type usually.