"Classical" Dressage vs. Just Dressage - please educate

[rileyt]

I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Dr. Ritter – he is personally not my cup of tea. 'nuff said.

Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that he doesn’t have the competitive credentials that I would look for in a trainer. According to that link, the esteemed doctor managed scores in the mid-60s at Training level last year, and averaged a 60% at 4th level. Certainly respectable and nothing to sneer at, but not what I’d look for in a trainer.

But more broadly, I was trying to address what I see as a lot of people “hiding” being the mantle of “classical dressage” – when in fact, they just aren’t that good. As in, “oh no, I don’t compete – my riding is ART – its CLASSICAL dressage.” That’s not to knock people who choose not to compete. To each his own. But in my mind, if you’re holding yourself out as a upper level dressage trainer, then you should have competition credentials, or else a long history at the SRS, or with some other top trainer. Spending a year on the lunge at von Neindorff’s probably isn’t enough.

[freestyle2music]

Good post from RILEYT.

To me it seems that the term “classical dressage” has degraded to the value of a “Bumper Sticker”. A sticker for marketing yourself and your limitations.

Yes Rainer Klimke followed the classical way, at least with Ahlerich and certainly not with Biotop.

It’s all very simple; when the toolbox of classical dressage don’t bring you what you want, you have to add some non-classical tools. As long as you keep in mind that you never can win a competition with an abused or unhappy horse you can’t do anything wrong.

Theo

[siegi_b]

Riley and Theo get my vote, too…

There is no such thing as one way to train dressage - classical or otherwise. You’re dealing with two living beings trying to make progress. So yes, you can follow a training program (scale) in order to have some reference points, but in the end you have to consider the horse’s talent, mind, and condition on any particular day. And that means that sometimes you have to be inventive and maybe not exactly traditional in your methods. As long as these methods don’t cause lasting mental or phsycial anguish in the horse and produce results, who are we to say that they’re wrong because they’re not listed under the “classical” category?

[Trevelyan96]

I am a crap rider, and I know it. With limited time to ride, I’ll be lucky if I ever muster the skill to compete above Training level. I strive to train by classical (ala, Klimke, SRS) principles, the only ‘gadgets’ I use are very long side reins when longeing, which of course, means that competitive progress will be SLOWER because I won’t be pushing my horses beyond their or my own fitness and skill level, but at least we’ll have solid basics. Why is that a bad, shameful thing???

[freestyle2music]

[QUOTE=Trevelyan96;4126691]
I am a crap rider, and I know it. With limited time to ride, I’ll be lucky if I ever muster the skill to compete above Training level. I strive to train by classical (ala, Klimke, SRS) principles, the only ‘gadgets’ I use are very long side reins when longeing, which of course, means that competitive progress will be SLOWER because I won’t be pushing my horses beyond their or my own fitness and skill level, but at least we’ll have solid basics. Why is that a bad, shameful thing???[/QUOTE]

Since when has the NO-USE of side reins, or draw reins has anything to do with classical dressage The dressage trainers which you all call “classical” used them when needed and used much more gadgets to get the max out of their horses. Come on and wake up.

Theo

[Trevelyan96]

[QUOTE=freestyle2music;4126758]
Since when has the NO-USE of side reins, or draw reins has anything to do with classical dressage The dressage trainers which you all call “classical” used them when needed and used much more gadgets to get the max out of their horses. Come on and wake up.

Theo[/QUOTE]

I guess my general feeling is that ‘classical’ vs. ‘modern competitive’ is that the classicals DON’T use draw reins, rollkur, etc. as a shortcut to put a horse in a frame. They make sure horse and rider basics are SOLID first, and the emphasis is to bring out the ‘best’ in horse and rider at each level before moving on to the next. JMHO.

[goeslikestink]

[QUOTE=Keltic Kross;4120635]
Curious h/j-er needs help!
I need to claify the definition of dressage, or rather, if there are different types of dressage. Being primarily a h/j rider I was a little confused by the (loud) declaration of a new boarder in the barn who states she only rides “classical” dressage. When I asked her (very kindly!) what classical dressage is as opposed to dressage (becasue I had never heard the specification of a person riding classical dressage, I kinda thought all dressage was classical) she became upset and said I didn’t know what I was talking about. Which, of course, I didn’t, which is why I asked.
What is the difference between “classical” dressage and “regular” dressage? Could this be perhaps a difference of level (basic w/t/c stuff versus tempi-changes and piaffe’s)? Just curious and for my own education.
Any help appreciated.[/QUOTE]

depends if you do wtc – thats basic or you want refinement
dressage is schooling the horse – most rider can do wtc - and think thats it
but its not – balance rythem is the key with direct clear signals so horse works in harmony with his rider like a ballet dancer

[twofatponies]

This discussion made me think, I’ve met (or read) people who say “I do classical dressage!” in a way that makes it sound like “regular” dressage is a poor cousin.

But I’ve never heard someone say “I do regular dressage!” as if classical were something to disdain.

Not sure that is important, just an observation.

[egontoast]

the only ‘gadgets’ I use are very long side reins when longeing,

Very long sidereins are not kind or even classical.

[twofatponies]

[QUOTE=egontoast;4126947]
Very long sidereins are not kind or even classical.[/QUOTE]

Is it only for lunging that they are not classical?

Here is a Lippizaner doing in hand work with sidereins on:

http://www.lipizzan.com/spanish.html

[twofatponies]

And here is a rider being lunged with side reins on, at the SRS:

http://www.equisearch.com/horses_riding_training/english/dressage/spanishriding_051005/

[ThreeFigs]

Would you call those “very long” sidereins? I would not.

“very long” sidereins do nothing to develop the horse and may even be dangerous & irritating. This depends on what your definition of “very long” is.

[helent623]

To make a massive overgeneralization, I would best explain to a DR newbie that putting “classical” in front of dressage is like putting “natural” in front of horsemanship.

[ThreeFigs]

Hahahahaha! Very good, helent623!

[Trevelyan96]

[QUOTE=egontoast;4126947]
Very long sidereins are not kind or even classical.[/QUOTE]

Ack… sorry… I forgot the amount of hair splitting every post is subjected to. By ‘very long side reins’ I mean long enough to allow the horse seek contact with the bit on his own. Obviously, that amount needs to be adjusted depending on where the horse is in its development.

I can’t help wondering, why is the concept of a horse/rider developing at their own pace, even if it IS very slowly, with the help of very old classical concepts so offensive to some people? As long as the horse isn’t being asked to do something beyond its capability by a rider who is trying to do work beyond their own capability? Not every inexperience rider needs an FEI schoolmaster to learn, and not every inexperienced horse needs an Anky to train it. But if the handler is less experienced, isn’t it better to err on the side of ‘less is more’.

[magnolia73]

why is the concept of a horse/rider developing at their own pace, even if it IS very slowly, with the help of very old classical concepts so offensive to some people? As long as the horse isn’t being asked to do something beyond its capability by a rider who is trying to do work beyond their own capability?

I don’t think it is offensive. I think the “offense” comes in because often people of a certain mindset “judge” people of a different mindset harshly. You see it ALL THE TIME. Example- many people enjoy training young horses. That is not offensive. But some people who enjoy training young horses think that people who buy made show horses are crappy riders and the downfall of the sport. That is offensive.

Classical dressage is not offensive. But people who say “EH- I would never do insert practice it just isn’t classical and people who do method are bad horsemen…” people get offended, particularly , I don’t know, if all you have done is trot your horse in a circle for 2 years.

[magnolia73]

Also note- many times the people judging harshly are those who have not had success in the show ring. Sometimes it is valid, some times it sounds really sour grapes.

[Trevelyan96]

[QUOTE=magnolia73;4127355]
I don’t think it is offensive. I think the “offense” comes in because often people of a certain mindset “judge” people of a different mindset harshly. You see it ALL THE TIME. Example- many people enjoy training young horses. That is not offensive. But some people who enjoy training young horses think that people who buy made show horses are crappy riders and the downfall of the sport. That is offensive. .[/QUOTE]

Never said this and don’t feel this way. I see nothing wrong with the person who wants to be competitive buying a made horse in order to do so. I also see nothing wrong with the person who is happy doing TL for 2 years on the same horse, because of limited talent, athleticism, or competitive desirie if that’s how long it takes for the horse and/or rider to acquire the skills/development they need to move up to the next level.

@magnolia73;4127355

Classical dressage is not offensive. But people who say “EH- I would never do insert practice it just isn’t classical and people who do method are bad horsemen…” people get offended, particularly , I don’t know, if all you have done is trot your horse in a circle for 2 years.

Perhaps there is just a mis-perception of the differene between ‘classical’, ‘competitive’ and ‘crank and yank’? To me, the difference between a ‘gadget’ and an ‘artificial aid’ is the context, duration, and level to which it is used.

[magnolia73]

Trevaylyn, then you probably are not the offensive type of Classical rider- you do what you do, enjoy it and let others do what they do and enjoy themselves without being critical.

[Trevelyan96]

[QUOTE=magnolia73;4127454]
Trevaylyn, then you probably are not the offensive type of Classical rider- you do what you do, enjoy it and let others do what they do and enjoy themselves without being critical. :)[/QUOTE]

It takes a lot more time and talent than I have to earn the right to call myself ‘classical’. I just don’t like equipment because I like the challenge of seeing how far I can take my horses without any. And I also feel that in the wrong hands, its potential for disaster is huge.