There is a write-up of a recent Boyd Martin clinic on EN in which the writer says that he recommended just putting your toes in the stirrup so you could push your heals down further and thus grip better with your leg. I have been wondering about Boyd’s advice. I was taught that if you jam your heels down, it locks your ankles and then your knees and you lose your shock absorbers. I just don’t see how it would work. Am I just too retro/traditional? Is this one of those things that works for men over 6 feet but maybe not for short women, in that shorter people need their shock absorbers so that they don’t get jumped off if the horse really uses himself? Obviously, getting jumped off isn’t an issue for Boyd with his long legs! What would George say?
A side issue for me is what does one do if in a clinic one is given instruction that is a total departure from classical teaching?
Maybe I need to go read this article, but what I am gathering he describes is what I’ve always been taught. I’ve never been much of a fan of shoving my foot “home” in the stirrups, and I know GM doesn’t like feet stuck in the home position.
From the EN article
“Then back to the stirrups. We took a moment to adjust to our jumping lengths, and Boyd introduced a new concept regarding stirrup position. While the traditional position of the stirrup bar is across the ball of the foot, Boyd had us scoot our feet out a bit further so just our tip-toes were on the pads. He said this was easiest to do with wide-tread, plastic stirrups that have cheese grater pads. The goal of this positioning was to create a deeper heel angle and fuller contact between the rider’s lower leg and the horse. This tactic was especially useful on jumps requiring extra support to the base of the fence, like banks on cross country or spooky stadium jumps.”
[QUOTE=Julie Worley;7390393]
There is a write-up of a recent Boyd Martin clinic on EN in which the writer says that he recommended just putting your toes in the stirrup so you could push your heals down further and thus grip better with your leg. I have been wondering about Boyd’s advice. I was taught that if you jam your heels down, it locks your ankles and then your knees and you lose your shock absorbers. I just don’t see how it would work. Am I just too retro/traditional? Is this one of those things that works for men over 6 feet but maybe not for short women, in that shorter people need their shock absorbers so that they don’t get jumped off if the horse really uses himself? Obviously, getting jumped off isn’t an issue for Boyd with his long legs! What would George say?[/QUOTE]
To each their own, I guess. I prefer to do the opposite and put my stirrup closer to ‘home’, as recommended in this article by Jimmy Wofford. I know I have been told to do this by other UL riders as well. You can see a good example of my foot placed partially, but not all the way, ‘home’, in this photo. I personally feel that my foot is less likely to accidentally slip out in this way.
[QUOTE=Julie Worley;7390393]
A side issue for me is what does one do if in a clinic one is given instruction that is a total departure from classical teaching?[/QUOTE]
Be courteous and respectful when participating in a clinic, and attempt to try whatever the clinician is proposing, provided said instruction is safe and not detrimental to human or horse’s development. Something like this is easy enough to attempt at the clinic, then discard later if it does not work for you or your horse.
Julie, I would have to get the stirrups first to try this, I currently have the bendy kind that George doesn’t much like ;-). And if a clinician shows you something, you try it. You try it at home. And then you decide if it works for you long term. I agree that its different. But I may be going to the consignment store to see if those stirrups are there just to try it.
Funny this should come up. I’ve been yelled at for decades for not having my heels down enough. I recently started playing with the amount of foot in the stirrup and tried to get myself used to as little as possible. Somewhere between home in the stirrup and dangling by a pinky toe, I must have hit the sweet spot. My entire leg just dropped and everything sunk from my hips all the way down. My heels are suddenly so deep I can’t believe they are attached to my leg, and my entire lower leg is more snug. I’m thrilled with my new security.
Is it any different than the ‘pinky toe touches the outside beach if the stirrup’ that those of us brought up in the equitation ring learned?
[QUOTE=Julie Worley;7390393]
I was taught that if you jam your heels down, it locks your ankles and then your knees and you lose your shock absorbers. I just don’t see how it would work.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that Boyd was suggesting you jam your heels down.
This is what he was talking about. There is a big difference between jamming your heels down and finding that “sweet spot” that allows your heels to sink.
Jimmy Wofford had me slide my stirrup further forward in my last lesson. I’m not that flexible in my ankle and ride with the modern wide based stirrups. I doubt Jimmy would have me do this for xc but in the ring it did give me a bit more flexibility into my ankle. It took a bit to get used too…but it is clearly more of an issue because of the wide stirrups (which Jimmy hates but I love so I’m willing to practice a bit and get more comfortable with it.) I’d say it probably put the back edge of the base of the stirrup closer to the same place the back edge of normal stirrups would be on my foot. It is just about have more flex in your ankle…NOT that you heels are jammed down as then you would have no ability to absorb movement in your ankle.
This is especially interested to me. As I was taught to put the ball of my foot on the stirrup. However, I always put my toes naturally there instead. I was constantly corrected but still my toes always ended up there. I still ride like that. On a side note I am not a particularly tall individual (5’2").
I have always felt that riding with the stirrup closer to home was a bit more dangerous, because if you fell, you were more likely to get hung up. For that reason, riding with the stirrup more toward the toes is appealing. As a kid, riding on the streets of Manhattan on some less than reliable horse flesh, we often kept our stirrups pushed toward the toes. Last thing you wanted if the horse slipped on the pavement was to get your foot hung up.
I can see this with the wider stirrups. I do find that I probably look like my foot is further “out” in my wide foot bed stirrups than in DC’s classical fillis irons. If I shove my feet home that much in the wide stirrups, I feel a little “stuck” both IN the stirrup and in my ankles.
[QUOTE=yellowbritches;7390541]
I can see this with the wider stirrups. I do find that I probably look like my foot is further “out” in my wide foot bed stirrups than in DC’s classical fillis irons. If I shove my feet home that much in the wide stirrups, I feel a little “stuck” both IN the stirrup and in my ankles.[/QUOTE]
Yes…I would certainly not do this with normal fillis irons.
Everything new was once old. Are we going back to the 1970s? I was taught this ride back then. Doesn’t work for me and my ankles.
Tbchick, the same thing happened to me this year. It is an effortless position for me and I never lose my stirrups anymore. I’m an old biddy with stiff ankles, by the way.
[QUOTE=Julie Worley;7390393]
What would George say?
A side issue for me is what does one do if in a clinic one is given instruction that is a total departure from classical teaching?[/QUOTE]
I was introduced to toes on the stirrup about 10 years ago by a friend/semi-trainer/clinician who learned it from George himself. I actually found it very effective in “waking up” my leg to find a more classical and secure position - mostly because it removed an established balance point (“opened” the closed kinetic chain of energy) and actually challenged my base of support at the hip and femur.
As Reed indicates, so much of classical teaching is based on a cookie cutter approach to physical landmarks. (Are your heels down, are your shoulders back?) I deduced several years ago that making corrections at the distal/peripheral level is pointless if you don’t start at the position of the pelvis. That dictates/impacts EVERYTHING else about your position in the tack.
We are, in the end, horse trainers, and as we all know we can break a horse’s anatomy and movement down 100 ways to Sunday, but we seldom really pay attention to our own bodies and movement patterns. What works for some won’t work for others. But we need to collectively understand why that is, when to offer it as an option, and how to communicate it appropriately.
In a clinic situation I always think it’s good to surrender your thoughts and preconceived notions somewhat. A good clinician wouldn’t introduce this concept then say, “Immediately go gallop through the ditch/rails.” If they did, I might revert to what I know. 
As an exercise to keep her legs in the correct position over the jump (to correct her tendency to let her legs “swing” back over the fence), Jimmy had my sister put her feet so just her toes were in the stirrup.
As I understand it, this was as an EXERCISE, and when show jumping. He told her not to do it on cross country, becuase not-losing-the-stirrup was more important than not-letting-the-leg swing.
I have tried it, and it definitely helps.
[QUOTE=Julie Worley;7390393]
A side issue for me is what does one do if in a clinic one is given instruction that is a total departure from classical teaching?[/QUOTE]
If it isn’t abusive or dangerous, you try it.
Often what you think is a “total departure from classical teaching” is simply a different approach to calssical teaching.
(Putting your tip toes in the stirrup is NOT a “total departure from classical teaching”. It is a slight exaggaration of classical teaching)
[QUOTE=Julie Worley;7390393]
There is a write-up of a recent Boyd Martin clinic on EN in which the writer says that he recommended just putting your toes in the stirrup so you could push your heals down further and thus grip better with your leg. I have been wondering about Boyd’s advice. I was taught that if you jam your heels down, it locks your ankles and then your knees and you lose your shock absorbers. I just don’t see how it would work. Am I just too retro/traditional? [/QUOTE]
Having done the exercise of jumping with just my toes in the stirrups (second hand from Jimmy) I can tell you it has NOTHING to do with “jamming your heels down” or “locking your ankles”. It just changes the geometry slightly so that is EASIER to maintain the (classical) position that you wanted (ankles flexed but still flexible, leg stays where it is suposed to be instead of swinging back), but were having difficulty keeping, with the stirrups on the balls of your foot.
Is this one of those things that works for men over 6 feet but maybe not for short women, in that shorter people need their shock absorbers so that they don’t get jumped off if the horse really uses himself? Obviously, getting jumped off isn’t an issue for Boyd with his long legs!
Nope.
If anything, the exercise gives you BETTER shock absorbers.
Getting jumped out of the tack has NOTHING to do with the length of your legs. It has a LOT to do with letting your legs swing back.
I may be incorrect but I remember hearing on the clinic video that Boyd said “Scotty” told him about this method of stirrup use. I interpreted Scotty to mean Ian Stark…
