Sorry I just read This blog and I dont get it. This Lady is seriously concerned about the progress of the US Dressage Szene and she is stating her opinion why the progress is not as good as it should be…
So why are you complaining that she doesnt want to teach beginners???
[QUOTE=Manni01;7102304]
Sorry I just read This blog and I dont get it. This Lady is seriously concerned about the progress of the US Dressage Szene and she is stating her opinion why the progress is not as good as it should be…
So why are you complaining that she doesnt want to teach beginners???[/QUOTE]
Because in order for trainers to learn how to train lower level riders better, they will have to somehow WATCH better trainers they they are train lower level riders better than they do.
This is exactly what CHS is saying she has no interest in doing: “allowing” a trainer to watch her teach their students for a day and maybe learn from that how to teach them all better.
Apparently trainers ought to be trained how to teach the lower levels exclusively by teaching them how to ride the upper ones.
Huh.
How do you (or Catherine) KNOW that they don’t get it and are clueless? Did you ask them? I KNOW that I need to keep my shoulders back and my buttcheeks glued to the saddle in order to produce a better canter transition, but KNOWING it and being able to produce it every time aren’t the same thing.
I think we need to stop assuming that someone who doesn’t ride correctly is clueless, and maybe give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re trying and just not getting it. Which is where a good clinician can be really helpful.
Lets face it, there are a lot of not-particularly-talented riders out there who are trying every day to get better. I’m offended that Catherine believes that these people are beneath her and that she thinks they have the problems they do because some other trainer didn’t do their job.
Dressage is HARD, people! And quite often, even with excellent instruction, many of us are not great at implementing the basics during every single ride.
If CHS wants to only teach upper level students, then that’s fine. Do that. But please don’t take the money of lower level amateurs and then insult us with this blog.
[QUOTE=MaisieMae;7102242]
I look at it this way–you don’t send a first grader to a graduate level course with a professor who is tops in his or her field. For me it is the same with sending a rider without a firm grasp of the basics to someone like Haddad. It’s unfair to everyone involved! Certainly any rider who is just beginning in dressage would be advised to do as much auditing of clinics with trainers with Haddad’s knowledge and experience as possible. But until they possess certain skills, they are not ready to be able to truly use and understand the information she is giving them. It’s not that anyone is stupid–it’s more about the knowledge and experience that comes with years in the saddle, studying dressage. It IS a discipline to which we hopefully humbly submit ourselves.[/QUOTE]
MM, you’ve nailed it. I work for an Ivy League college and, as you can guess, our admissions standards are high. The College has gone to incredible lengths to recruit and retain topnotch faculty so there is no point in accepting someone below par—not only will that person have a miserable experience, but he/she will also hold back the students who are capable of working successfully at a high level. However, the upside is that we can teach these talented students we admit to become great teachers and send them out into the world to teach really well, create new knowledge, innovate, and inspire others. I think this is what Catherine is trying to achieve—she wants to teach the teachers to be even better teachers. I think this is a valid goal and is one of the things that will make dressage in the U.S. stronger.
It isn’t Catherine who is guilty of being on an ego trip; it is the less skilled or novice riders who sign up for her clinic just to say they trained with her who earn this label. These people should by all means audit her clinics so that they can see very good riding and hear exceptional teaching. But they should be realistic about where they are in their own journey.
I do get her - absolutely. She is very busy and she has a point that the trainers should be getting the training … so often they get to a spot where they just are at a stop - too busy with us ammies, I suppose.
She must have lots of money to be able to be so picky…I’ve been thrilled to ride with some top trainers - and not so I can brag and say I rode with U-no-hoo. Maybe lots of them do like the brag factor.
I realize, after 64 years, that I just cannot ride -
Her post was a bit strong, she certainly knows she is very good at what she does. Hopefully, every trainer wanting to put on a clinic gets the memo.
Yes - I get her point of view, and as she said, we mortals can always audit
while our trainer learns.
Considering what I am seeing in Grand Prix riders these days, I think her attitude is pathetic. Many of these touted Grand Prix riders with whom she want to deal exclusively, have many of the same flaws in their basics as any lower level rider. The difference is that by Grand Prix (or any level above Third), you should not be seeing these flaws. I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that dropping $200, $300, $400 and up for most clinics is a waste of money. I do know that the clinic organizer must get enough money to pay for transportation and a reasonable fee for the clinician. But, really folks…how many of you have found it was worth the money when you look back on it?
A few months ago, I audited a clinic with a big name person. Lovely lady, very personable. Did fairly well with two riders who were above 1St Level. Did horribly with the lower level riders. Did not correct balance issues, did not correct stirrup leather length that was creating some of the balance issue, did not tell one rider that her bit was much too small for the horse she was riding, told another rider that she should be riding her horse in counterbend for a couple of weeks (very bad as that was not going to fix any problem, but create new ones). I have watched both DeKunffy and Zettl…both excellent. No others spring to mind in the excellent department over a 30-year time span. What I really wonder is just how many of these upper level clinicians have started horses and riders, and understand the problems of both.
And here I encourage my lower level students to attend clinics with me, even the fancy schmancy ones with international caliber clinicians.
Why?
Because, as much as I think their teaching will benefit the student, I also want to watch that lesson with laser focus, so that maybe I can learn how to teach that student better.
Apparently, in my efforts to get them access to additional education, watch someone else of super high-caliber teach them, and learn how to teach them better myself, I am simply fueling my students’ delusional ego trips, wasting the clinician’s time, and playing my personal part in the downfall of US dressage.
[QUOTE=TickleFight;7102264]
This says a lot about the average dressage rider. It should be common sense that spending hundreds of dollars for a 45 minute lesson in how to get the horse on the bit, or how to get the horse to canter, or how to sit the trot… is a massive waste of money. A clinician isn’t going to reinvent the wheel for them, or say anything their regular trainer isn’t already saying (or would like to say). [/QUOTE]
On the contrary, I see clinics as a chance to hear something my trainer is NOT saying to me. Sometimes you have to hear something a different way, or have a different approach to a problem that you might be stuck in a rut with. Despite years of lessons at several different locations, it wasn’t until I took a clinic with a BNR that I really learned how to put a horse on the bit. Everyone I had taken lessons with always concentrated on basic body position, or described collection in a way I did not understand. That one clinic was worth years of lessons. I had a total breakthrough moment and experienced for the first time a horse really come through the bridle. What a feeling!! I so often see riders struggling to get their horses’ heads down and riding front to back and getting frustrated. I’ve watched really well respected trainers concentrate solely on rein cues and pressure and completely neglect the role of the leg and seat in activating the hind end to achieve lightness.
It’s epidemic.
I am so, so happy that BNR took the time to coach lowly little me on my club-footed leased greenie so many years ago. I still hear her voice in my head more than a decade later.
If you’re that good of a trainer/clinician and you want to be exclusive then sit back and let people come to you.
All she has to do is make the requirements /baselines for her clinics very clear to the organizers.
Simple. Lots of clinicians do that.
[QUOTE=eponacelt;7102311]
How do you (or Catherine) KNOW that they don’t get it and are clueless? Did you ask them? I KNOW that I need to keep my shoulders back and my buttcheeks glued to the saddle in order to produce a better canter transition, but KNOWING it and being able to produce it every time aren’t the same thing.
I think we need to stop assuming that someone who doesn’t ride correctly is clueless, and maybe give them the benefit of the doubt that they’re trying and just not getting it. Which is where a good clinician can be really helpful.[/QUOTE]
This doesn’t have anything to do with being clueless. Most people on this forum KNOW whether they sit well, keep their shoulders back, and can maintain a steady contact. A good clinician certainly can help with all of these issues. However, (generic) you don’t need someone of CHS’s stature to help with the fundamentals, and that’s one of the points she is making. You should have learned the basics from your regular instructor and should hold off on training with someone like her until you have reached a certain skill level.
I don’t see anything in CHS’s blog that indicates she feels these people are beneath her. Instead, she’s explaining why it’s not really worth their money to ride with her at this point in time. I think she is doing them a kindness. By all means, go and audit the clinic but why spend a lot of money learning the basics when you should be getting that for a fraction of the cost from your regular trainer.
I’m sure CHS did not mean this to insult anyone. She is saying that the clinic organizers should do a proper job of screening the clients (however, I agree with an earlier poster who said it’s CHS’s responsibility to make clear what level horse/rider she will work with). She is also saying that the teachers need to be better educated. I think our results against the Europeans and Brits confirm that we are missing the boat and changes need to be made. We need better teachers to take novice riders to the intermediate level; intermediate to advanced; and advanced to international level. As MM implied, we don’t need graduate level professors teaching our 2nd graders.
[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7102321]
And here I encourage my lower level students to attend clinics with me, even the fancy schmancy ones with international caliber clinicians.
Why?
Because, as much as I think their teaching will benefit the student, I also want to watch that lesson with laser focus, so that maybe I can learn how to teach that student better.[/QUOTE]
My trainers do the same thing. They learn how better to teach their students, by gaining insight from clinicians. My trainer’s regular clinician often offers insight about our horses, notices things we hadn’t, or comes up with interesting solutions that we hadn’t thought of. In such cases, it’s worth it.
That said, I’ve heard a big-name clinician say more than once “I don’t know why people want to pay $100 to learn how to ride a round circle, but whatever.”
So Haddad certainly isn’t the only clinician out there who has noticed this trend. And as someone above noted, it IS often a matter of a good client wanting to participate, but the trainer not wanting to offend the good client by saying “You’re not ready for this yet.”
That said, I have watched Col. Christian Carde teach those exact kind of lessons (how to get the horse on the bit, how to ride a round circle, etc.) and he did it well, and graciously, as he is a consummate gentleman.
I guess Col. Carde doesn’t have the standards Haddad does. :lol::rolleyes:
:eek: -jaw on floor- garden snail here, with a leg position more suitable to saddle seat than dressage, but–holy BUCKETS, what an ego!
i better shut up before i embarrass myself.
Some of the transformations I have seen Eddo Hoekstra do I can teach too.
Can I teach someone how to put a horse on the bit? Yes indeed.
The difference is it would take me about 5 lessons to approximate what he gets done in 45 minutes (and I am sure there is groundwork he is laying and foundation he is building and future problems he is preventing that I don’t even see).
So, I want to watch people like him do their caliber of teaching so that I can try to figure out HOW EXACTLY they can do it so, so well, in 45 minutes.
Maybe the student is still a sad sack of a waste of space, who will probably lose 85% of it on her first ride unsupervised again, as far as the lofty international clinicians would be concerned.
But someone else who WATCHED the lesson perhaps learned a lot toward ensuring that each successive roster of clinic riders is better prepared than the last.
Who is Rita??
“Rita” = “reader”
…get it?
So witty.
:rolleyes:
This >>>>
The trainers are supposed to learn how to train lower level riders in the same sentence she refuses to demonstrate to them how to train lower level riders.
It would be a waste of her skill set to actually train the trainers how to train. They should just know how to do it better before she gets there.
I get completely where she is coming from, but I think she is failing to look at the bigger picture. How are trainers suppose to become better at teaching the basics if they have no one to teach them how to teach. She can work with the upper level riders to improve their upper level riding, but how is that going to improve their ability to teach lower level material??? I know many (many) fantastic riders who are horrible (horrible!) teachers - one skill does not automatically equate to the other.
I myself never clinic with BNT (always choosing to audit instead) for the simple reason of economics - at my level of riding I can benefit more from 6 lessons with my very good local trainer at $40/hour than with 2 lessons with a BNT for $250. But I feel guilty every time I decline an invitation to participate in a clinic with a BNT only to see the clinic cancelled due to lack of participants. How is my coach going to improve as a coach? Unfortunately the up and coming coaches often do not have the money that their lower level clients do (we all know that most riding stables are not huge money makers - whereas their clients can be doctors, lawyers, CEOs, etc.). They need the client’s monetary contributions to these clinics in order to pay for them.
And as exciting as watching the upper level lessons can be - the most interesting lessons I personally have watched myself have been watching BNT such as Stefan Peters, WAZ, Lisa Wilcox, Cindy Ishoy, etc. work through issues encountered at the lower levels. After all if you are having trouble at the higher levels you generally look back to the basics. All of these clinicians seem very happy and excited to work with all levels of riders.
Reminds me of the Marx Brothers quip: “I’d never want to join a club that would accept me as a member”
If a pro were at a high enough level for her standard, what do they need her for? They’d be giving their own clinics at that point.
[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7102308]
Because in order for trainers to learn how to train lower level riders better, they will have to somehow WATCH better trainers they they are train lower level riders better than they do.
This is exactly what CHS is saying she has no interest in doing: “allowing” a trainer to watch her teach their students for a day and maybe learn from that how to teach them all better.
Apparently trainers ought to be trained how to teach the lower levels exclusively by teaching them how to ride the upper ones.
Huh.[/QUOTE]
They can learn how to be better lower level trainers. They can audit their student’s session.
And I also have a huge pet peeve with always being compared to European countries. I live in Canada - it is the size of all of Europe! Yet Germany alone probably has more upper level riders and coaches than we do, and more upper level horses as well (and shows, clinics, etc.). We face completely different challenges than European countries. 
[QUOTE=suzy;7102346]
This doesn’t have anything to do with being clueless. Most people on this forum KNOW whether they sit well, keep their shoulders back, and can maintain a steady contact. A good clinician certainly can help with all of these issues. However, (generic) you don’t need someone of CHS’s stature to help with the fundamentals, and that’s one of the points she is making. You should have learned the basics from your regular instructor and should hold off on training with someone like her until you have reached a certain skill level.
I don’t see anything in CHS’s blog that indicates she feels these people are beneath her. Instead, she’s explaining why it’s not really worth their money to ride with her at this point in time. I think she is doing them a kindness. By all means, go and audit the clinic but why spend a lot of money learning the basics when you should be getting that for a fraction of the cost from your regular trainer.
I’m sure CHS did not mean this to insult anyone. She is saying that the clinic organizers should do a proper job of screening the clients (however, I agree with an earlier poster who said it’s CHS’s responsibility to make clear what level horse/rider she will work with). She is also saying that the teachers need to be better educated. I think our results against the Europeans and Brits confirm that we are missing the boat and changes need to be made. We need better teachers to take novice riders to the intermediate level; intermediate to advanced; and advanced to international level. As MM implied, we don’t need graduate level professors teaching our 2nd graders.[/QUOTE]
Haven’t you ever had the experience of having a new person explain the same thing to you a slightly different way and it finally clicked? That is one of the reasons people clinic. BNTs often can explain things in a way our regular coaches can’t, and that can make all the difference.
Youre right that I’m sure she didn’t mean to insult anyone. But clearly the tone of even her more valid points did. I’m not a very prickly person and don’t take offense easily, but this one got me.
The Ivy League college example doesn’t hold up, by the way. Those schools are very clear about their standards. Catherine, by her own admission, is not. So as I originally said, if she only wants to teach upper level riders, then that is her perogative. But she shouldn’t complain about not getting the caliber of rider she wants in a very public way, if she didn’t specify what she was willing to teach.
