Which reminds me.
I saw a Ferrarri broken down in the middle of the lane in rush hour yesterday. Poor very rich guy looked so downhearted. Money doesn’t buy happiness!
I laughed and laughed as I putt-putted by in my economy car.
If he’d done that to you, you would have thought he was an elitist pig.
I’d be more impressed if you had stopped to help him, he might have been the major benefactor for Pal O Mine handicap riding organization and was late for a show. He could also be the person who buys expensive imported Warmbloods and keeps my dressage instructor in business just a thought . . . 
You guys don’t know anything.
It’s classical dressage when the rider wears a monocle and top hat during their test.
Duh! :D:D:D
No dear, you’re thinking of Monopoly.
This is my serious reply to the OP:
If a new boarder walked into my barn, and said she did “Classical Dressage”, I have to admit my first impressions wouldn’t be good. I’d strongly suspect a middle aged woman rider of marginal fitness riding a Training Level/1st Level (and very steady) mount, who would spend the next 5 years “riding classically” and getting no where.
The fact is, a “classical” rider can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Here are some examples of people who would probably all say they believe in “classical” dressage training. You’ll see the amount of variation:
-
Top class competitive riders who ride and train “classically”: e.g. Hubertus Schmidt - One of my favorite riders of all time. Or Dr. Klimke. Very competitive, but also strictly adheres to the training scale, and puts the well-being of his horses first: above competitive goals. You could probably put Steffen Peters in this group too. You won’t see any rollkur from this bunch!
-
Top class riders (frequently with SRS credentials)who are very serious about bringing horses along up the levels, but who don’t compete (or don’t have the same type of competetive credentials): Arthur Kottas is at the top of my list here. I’d ride with him in a second.
-
Middle class riders/trainers who have usually trained with someone important, but are a bit “artsy” and, in my opinion, haven’t proven their salt. Some of these folks like to tout the “classical dressage” banner, IMO, because they think if they can convince people that their riding is an ART form, then they won’t actually have to compete or have anyone judge their riding/training ability. See, Exhibit A, Dr. Thomas Ritter.
-
Lower level adult amatures, who have either gotten sucked into training with a type 3) above (and thus are “above” showing), or are otherwise too scared or incompetent to show. These people know everything, will always tell you how incorrect your training is, and will trot 20 meter circles for the rest of their lives.
Any one of these four types might tell you he/she is a “classical” rider… but only the top two are worth believing.
On the flip side, there are plenty of competitive dressage riders who train classically, though might not identify themselves as such. And there are also competitive riders who crank/spank/rollkur/etc. in the name of a blue ribbon. Take your pick.
[QUOTE=SillyHorse;4124473]
No dear, you’re thinking of Monopoly.[/QUOTE]
Well getting a 30% on a test is basically a “do not pass go, do not collect $200”, isn’t it? 
:lol:
[QUOTE=rileyt;4124571]
This is my serious reply to the OP:
The fact is, a “classical” rider can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Here are some examples of people who would probably all say they believe in “classical” dressage training.
3) Middle class riders/trainers who have usually trained with someone important, but are a bit “artsy” and, in my opinion, haven’t proven their salt. Some of these folks like to tout the “classical dressage” banner, IMO, because they think if they can convince people that their riding is an ART form, then they won’t actually have to compete or have anyone judge their riding/training ability. See, Exhibit A, Dr. Thomas Ritter.
Any one of these four types might tell you he/she is a “classical” rider… but only the top two are worth believing.
.[/QUOTE]
i really dont understand this thread or this post???
is it bad to want to be a classical dressage rider. i thought classical was good? so if its not good, then what is good. i am a newbie to dressage…
also what is the matter with exhibit A? i read many of his articles and found them good…
[QUOTE=rileyt;4124571]
2) Top class riders (frequently with SRS credentials)who are very serious about bringing horses along up the levels, but who don’t compete (or don’t have the same type of competetive credentials): Arthur Kottas is at the top of my list here. I’d ride with him in a second.[/QUOTE]I do clinic with Arthur Kottas. I credit his clinics for moving us from 3rd to 4th level. He started/taught us on our tempi changes, 1/2 canter pirouettes and half steps. He is an accredited dressage judge as well. I had lessons where he was sitting at C and picking on my 4th Level Test 1 and 4th Level Test 2 for a whole lesson and let me tell you that he is NOT a Santa Claus judge 
At our local clinic we have several FEI riders riding with him as well. The P&P work that he produces is amazing.
I think riders like Kottas stand in their own class: that man trained more than 100+ horses to GP and beyond to airs above the ground. He also trained even more riders while being the top trainer at SRS for so many years. He can see thru horses and thru riders. He loves, loves, loves all the horses. He sees beauty in every horse and they shine for him… it’s never a horse’s fault for him. There are just not many like him left around.
These days, ‘classical’ is a very, very misused term. It may mean traditional, progressing step by step training, or it may be the refuge of a trainer who does not want to be evaluated by a judge, teaches circus tricks, or distorts his or her training to over emphasize certain things at the cost of others. It can be a powerful word and is often used to deceive and schmooze eager customers.
‘Competitive’ dressage is also a very misused term. ‘Competitive’ means brutality, some drooling, ethicsless fiend who spends most of his time out behind the barn whipping his horse, while the classical rider weeps into a hankie monogramed ‘SRS’, and then goes back to bonding with his horse - bridle-less, horsehoe-less, saddle-less and aids-less, wherein they commune performing some timeless rapture.
There is no such thing as ‘competitive’ and ‘classical’ dressage. There is one way to ride dressage. If judges sometimes ignore tension for a kind of exaggerated performance, it doesn’t mean they have invented a separate kind of dressage; it just means they have lost their way in judging. Competitive dressage is the same as classical dressage. The same principles hold, the same goals, the same principles.
But if the judges ‘lose their way’ then the competitive aspect of dressage fails to reflect or reward the classical goals and principles - yes?
So one can understand why there might be dispute. So it is all the same Dressage, just good or bad judging; and sadly, judging influences the next generation of trainers unless they are very strong minded, in which case those winning under ‘bad’ judges will call them backward, antequated, etc. and finally a reorganization may come about from the upper levels down in the judging spectrum?
Hmmm. Guess that is happening, eh?
Thanks OP for asking, because I was going to. Thanks Rileyt. I think you put into words what I have been slowly concluding. Wish I lived close to a 1 or 2.
[QUOTE=razalter;4121401]
I detest draw reins for collection and spurs for impulsion, and would rather take 2 years to get forward and straight with energy on an App, QH, or TB, than get a ribbon at TL on a purpose bred 4 year old WB being ridden daily by my trainer with draw reins, so I guess that puts me the old fashioned, closed minded, unable to adjust to modern breeding motives, classical category. Ouch![/QUOTE]
ditto:yes::winkgrin:
[QUOTE=rileyt;4124571]
. . .
3) Middle class riders/trainers who have usually trained with someone important, but are a bit “artsy” and, in my opinion, haven’t proven their salt. Some of these folks like to tout the “classical dressage” banner, IMO, because they think if they can convince people that their riding is an ART form, then they won’t actually have to compete or have anyone judge their riding/training ability. See, Exhibit A, Dr. Thomas Ritter.
. . .[/QUOTE]
Sorry, but your Exhibit A does compete, as does his wife:
http://www.artisticdressage.com/accomplishments.html
Shana is also a USDF Bronze and Silver medalist.
Eileen
[QUOTE=rileyt;4124571]
haven’t proven their salt. Some of these folks like to tout the “classical dressage” banner, IMO, because they think if they can convince people that their riding is an ART form, then they won’t actually have to compete or have anyone judge their riding/training ability. See, Exhibit A, Dr. Thomas Ritter.[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t agree more.
But if the judges ‘lose their way’ then the competitive aspect of dressage fails to reflect or reward the classical goals and principles - yes?
No.
your response is called a ‘Converse Fallacy of Accident’.
Most judges do not have this problem, and are not at all afraid to follow basic and important principles. In fact, perhaps people complain far more when judges judge correctly, LOL. ‘He’s too mean, he scores too low, let’s not have him back last year’.
I knew this thread would take off sooner or later!
Popcorn? Margarita?
I have an injured rabbit.
[QUOTE=rileyt;4124571]
This is my serious reply to the OP:
If a new boarder walked into my barn, and said she did “Classical Dressage”, I have to admit my first impressions wouldn’t be good. I’d strongly suspect a middle aged woman rider of marginal fitness riding a Training Level/1st Level (and very steady) mount, who would spend the next 5 years “riding classically” and getting no where.
The fact is, a “classical” rider can be a good thing, or a bad thing. Here are some examples of people who would probably all say they believe in “classical” dressage training. You’ll see the amount of variation:
-
Top class competitive riders who ride and train “classically”: e.g. Hubertus Schmidt - One of my favorite riders of all time. Or Dr. Klimke. Very competitive, but also strictly adheres to the training scale, and puts the well-being of his horses first: above competitive goals. You could probably put Steffen Peters in this group too. You won’t see any rollkur from this bunch!
-
Top class riders (frequently with SRS credentials)who are very serious about bringing horses along up the levels, but who don’t compete (or don’t have the same type of competetive credentials): Arthur Kottas is at the top of my list here. I’d ride with him in a second.
-
Middle class riders/trainers who have usually trained with someone important, but are a bit “artsy” and, in my opinion, haven’t proven their salt. Some of these folks like to tout the “classical dressage” banner, IMO, because they think if they can convince people that their riding is an ART form, then they won’t actually have to compete or have anyone judge their riding/training ability. See, Exhibit A, Dr. Thomas Ritter.
-
Lower level adult amatures, who have either gotten sucked into training with a type 3) above (and thus are “above” showing), or are otherwise too scared or incompetent to show. These people know everything, will always tell you how incorrect your training is, and will trot 20 meter circles for the rest of their lives.
Any one of these four types might tell you he/she is a “classical” rider… but only the top two are worth believing.
On the flip side, there are plenty of competitive dressage riders who train classically, though might not identify themselves as such. And there are also competitive riders who crank/spank/rollkur/etc. in the name of a blue ribbon. Take your pick.[/QUOTE]
very good post, RileyT. I think you said a lot of true things- especially encapsulating the ‘classical defense’ as the number one crux of the AA to not have to actually RIDE and WORK and BE FIT and SWEAT!
I think some idealization has occurred however. Schmidt is great but tough, Peters does ride deep for sure and in the competitive international circle - there is really a huge amount of care, preservation and protection of the horses- while working them correctly but sometimes hurriedly and hard to a result. It’s what is expected- it’s a business. Some horses are not cut out for that and will not last long, others do great- look at it like the NBA- not all fabbo talented players get to the top- they get injured, have emotional problems, can’t focus etc…same with horses.
I think I am becoming increasingly sick of the trainer/rider/famous trainer bashing that’s going on around here- while total amateurs or very low level pros are talking…too bad- for this forum- as it will truly drag down the quality of contributors and make real pros more leary about posting…not what I am interested in - at all!
