Debbie McDonald "losing our way in this sport"

[pluvinel]

[QUOTE=raff;8278710]
Do you really think horses trained for bullfighting are better off? To use bullfighting training as an example of humane horse training! Words fail me. I’m sure they do need to keep their heads up all the time in case they get gored to death though, and as for the bull…
I just feel like i’ve really heard it all now.[/QUOTE]

By stating the above indicates you have no clue what is required to train a horse to be responsive, agile and athletic enough to be able to keep both, rider and horse, safe.

[belgianWBLuver]

[QUOTE=LarkspurCO;8278333]
How do you know it requires upper body strength, Belgian wb lover? It’s a straightforward question.[/QUOTE]

I answered it in my last 2 posts. I’ve practiced it as a working student a decade + ago, in my gigs for different pros in France and Germany who regularly used RK and LDR in their training programs.

@LarkspurCO;8278333

In other words, why would rollkur require any more strength or fitness than riding a higher frame at this level of competition? That’s what you’re saying isn’t it?

No, respectfully, I am not saying that RK requires more strength than riding in a high frame in competition.
If one has trained their horses to move primarily off the constantly pushing leg and constantly driving body into the hand, then RK/LDR require exactly the same strength/fitness level as riding in the competition frame in the rectangle.
In my places of employment, I have seen some amateur riders struggle with RK in the school. Many horses - especially young ones - are very heavy in the bit and on the forehand. The goal in using this movement was to supple, stop the resistance, then move on. Or in some instances to stop a spook and drive forward a young or fresh horse into the work. We did this all the time.

I have chosen another path and ride/train very differently now.

[VCT]

This thread is astounding. Can’t believe there are people defending rolkur when we know it to be harmful to the horse. Yuck.

[belgianWBLuver]

[QUOTE=VCT;8279149]
This thread is astounding. Can’t believe there are people defending rolkur when we know it to be harmful to the horse. Yuck.[/QUOTE]

There are quite a few who practice it - in Europe especially in Scandinavia, Netherlands, Germany and I know some in France, who practice it.

Here in the states I’ve seen it practiced at some barns never to be honest at shows in the schooling ring.

RK and LDR are alive and well and IMO as long as some of the top pros used this method others will follow.

Will never defend it though and not a proponent.

[LarkspurCO]

Okay, belgianWB, thanks for clarifying. The reason I asked is because there is nothing apparently forceful in how Edward (or Hans Peter) rides – it all appears to be very soft. They’re certainly very fit with abs of steel but are also thin with “girly-man” arms. I find it hard to believe they are strong-arming the horses, and there is no evidence at all that they are driving with the leg and body.

In fact, having ridden with one of Edward’s students I know that his approach is to train the horses to be very sensitive to the leg and to not drive the horses with the legs or seat. They expect the horse to move forward with a very light aid. It sounds like you’re making assumptions based on what you have seen and read and possibly experienced. But I don’t know how anyone can watch Ed Gal or HP ride and see this a “driving” with the body.

That’s not to say there aren’t brutes out there muscling horses along and other top riders riding with a lot more strength.

[belgianWBLuver]

[QUOTE=LarkspurCO;8279181]
Okay, belgianWB, thanks for clarifying. The reason I asked is because there is nothing apparently forceful in how Edward (or Hans Peter) rides – it all appears to be very soft. They’re certainly very fit with abs of steel but are also thin with “girly-man” arms. I find it hard to believe they are strong-arming the horses, and there is no evidence at all that they are driving with the leg and body.

In fact, having ridden with one of Edward’s students I know that his approach is to train the horses to be very sensitive to the leg and to not drive the horses with the legs or seat. They expect the horse to move forward with a very light aid. It sounds like you’re making assumptions based on what you have seen and read and possibly experienced. But I don’t know how anyone can watch Ed Gal or HP ride and see this a “driving” with the body.

That’s not to say there aren’t brutes out there muscling horses along and other top riders riding with a lot more strength.[/QUOTE]

Glad I was able to clear that up for you. I will never say anything critical of E. Gal (HP I’ll leave out of this - not as familiar with him having only seen once or twice) Because he is obviously highly successful and IMO a very good rider as I have said before. I just do not agree with his use of RK and LDR and never will. Does he care what I think or anyone else for that matter? Absolutely not…

[pluvinel]

This is a thread providing for public commentary on Debby McDonald’s statement about how dressage has lost its way. I agree with her sentiments.

Competitive dressage, as practiced currently at International FEI competitions is the “Thousand Pound Poodle Show”. It is all flash and bling. High scores are awarded for riding a horse that probably would trip over itself if it had to quickly get out of danger.

In eventing, the horse has to jump immovable obstacles at speed. In show jumping, the horse has to jump fragile jumps at related distances without dislodging poles. There are no functional requirements made of the dressage horse. The judges look for and reward “brilliance” (per L-judges training) in the gaits…the more, the better.

Competitive dressage of today has morphed horses and riding the same way the AKC dog show morphed working dogs by focusing on rewarding bling and not function.

The AKC took functional working dog breeds, and, to satisfy a “look,” rewarded breeding that resulted in hip dysplasia in the GSD’s all for the sake of the “crouchy walk.” Going after “the look” promoted breeding bulldogs that have to be born thru Cesarean section because hips are too small and the heads are too big to pass thru the pelvic opening. All this because competitors were in search of the characteristic “look” of the big shoulders and little hips that judges were rewarding

[QUOTE=raff;8278710]
Do you really think horses trained for bullfighting are better off? To use bullfighting training as an example of humane horse training! Words fail me. I’m sure they do need to keep their heads up all the time in case they get gored to death though, and as for the bull…
I just feel like i’ve really heard it all now.[/QUOTE]

By the comments above indicate a lack of knowledge of the history and evolution of the mounted bullfight. From the Moorish invasion of the iberian peninsula to La Reconquista in 1492 to the split between Portugal and Spain in their approach to the use of the horse.

In the mounted bullfight, the horse is required to actually have a functional use….eg., to save itself and its rider from mortal danger. Whether you approve or not, the mounted bullfight is a historical window that allows us to see the use of the war horse in mortal combat.

The revered dressage master, Nuno Oliveira traces his training directly to the traditions of classical dressage developed in the Renaissance. Oliveira came out of the school of Miranda, who came from the traditions of the 4th Marqués de Marialva……El Arte de Marialva…the bullfight.

These traditions trace directly back to the classical books of the Renaissance…from the classic “Luz da Liberal e Nobre Arte da Cavallaria”, (ca 1790 by Andrade) to Gueriniere’s “L’École de Cavalerie”, (1730’s) to the Duke of Newcastle (1650’s), “Manege Royale” (Pluvinel, 1623)…and back to the book written by Portugal’s King Duarte, “Livo da ensinança de bem cavalgar em toda a sela” in 1435.

[belgianWBLuver]

@pluvinel;8279600

This is a thread providing for public commentary on Debby McDonald’s statement about how dressage has lost its way. I agree with her sentiments.

Competitive dressage, as practiced currently at International FEI competitions is the “Thousand Pound Poodle Show”. It is all flash and bling. High scores are awarded for riding a horse that probably would trip over itself if it had to quickly get out of danger.

In eventing, the horse has to jump immovable obstacles at speed. In show jumping, the horse has to jump fragile jumps at related distances without dislodging poles. There are no functional requirements made of the dressage horse. The judges look for and reward “brilliance” (per L-judges training) in the gaits…the more, the better.

Competitive dressage of today has morphed horses and riding the same way the AKC dog show morphed working dogs by focusing on rewarding bling and not function.

…

There are indeed functional requirements in Comp Dressage. The Test is the func. requirement.

However IMO showing has not developed into a AKC event. There is flamboyance on the one hand, on the other hand there are some really relaxed and soft horses, more than ever before in the past 20 years. There are some riders being ripped apart for their methods and some who are really pleasing to the eye. There are also different breeds making it very far up the ladder. We have Iberians front and center at the highest levels among other breeds. Even the mule, Porter (you go Audrey!) has received decent scores in PSG. We are in fact at an interesting time in Comp Dressage right now. Many are questioning its direction. Questioning is good. It promotes discussion and as you know discussion/debate is always good. Having lived in France for decades and Portugal for a few years, debate is a regular occurance at the table after a good meal! Equestrians there love it.

[pluvinel]

[QUOTE=belgianWBLuver;8279661]
There are indeed functional requirements in Comp Dressage. The Test is the func. requirement.

…[/QUOTE]

Ok…I will agree that there are “functional” requirements…eg., for a shoulder-in here, a half-pass there…So What??? There are no consequences to doing something incorrectly.

Dressage was supposed to be about “training”…training a horse for a functional purpose…to be an easy ride for its rider…to go obediently forward and comply with the rider’s requests.

In eventing, train and ride poorly and there is a strong possibility of death…of the horse and/or rider. In show jumping, poor training/riding can lead to pretty spectacular wrecks.

In dressage…what? What are the consequences? The rider loses a fancy sponsor??? The judge is so aghasted that he /she has a myocardial infarct???

Dressage is subjective…and the subjectively calibrated eye is going for rewarding bling…not for an equine that shows it has had functional training.

So, I repeat that competitive dressage is evolving to reward bling…exactly like the AKC dog show and like the saddleseat and TWH disciplines. These animal competitions took what what a test of a functional use of an animal and took it to rewarding the extremes.

[cnm161]

What’s the function of bullfighting?

[pluvinel]

[QUOTE=cnm161;8279754]
What’s the function of bullfighting?[/QUOTE]
The history of the bullfight dates to the Moorish invasion of Iberia. The iberian people found that the horse that was most maneuverable in combat was the horse that was handy with the aggressive iberian cattle. Fighting aggressive bulls was how they trained for war.

[cnm161]

[QUOTE=pluvinel;8279763]
The history of the bullfight dates to the Moorish invasion of Iberia. The iberian people found that the horse that was most maneuverable in combat was the horse that was handy with the aggressive iberian cattle. Fighting aggressive bulls was how they trained for war.[/QUOTE]

Are they training for war now? Was the oft-cited Nuno training for war?

[SportArab]

I totally agree with McDonald’s comment. For those who brought up Valegro and Dujarden, I’d say that they are the exception that proves the rule. I was heartened to see them rewarded, but realize that they are in the minority. If judges could more often reward smooth, flowing, relaxed performances instead of “brilliance” we’d have come a long way in the right direction.

[pluvinel]

[QUOTE=cnm161;8279765]
Are they training for war now? Was the oft-cited Nuno training for war?[/QUOTE]

It is obvious you don’t approve of bullfighting. That is irrelevant. The bullfight offers a living window to the past. It shows how a war horse was prepared for battle. A battle where the rider and horse’s life depended on the horse’s ability and skill…which were the result of its training.

[Sandy_M]

@pluvinel;8279751

0Dressage was supposed to be about “training”…training a horse for a functional purpose…to be an easy ride for its rider…to go obediently forward and comply with the rider’s requests.

I started out H/J then into eventing, and eventually dressage. ALL my instructors - even the H/J ones - basically stated the above as the purpose and be-all and end-all of dressage per se. That’s why I, though I have competed no higher than 2nd level (but have ridden some FEI horses) shake my head in befuddlement when I am told that I should not critique/look askance/say “I don’t like that” when I see some FEI competitors, “because these horses are high performance machines and are not for everybody.” Well, yeah, my own horse is not one I can let just anyone ride. I can take the “risk” such as it is, but I will only allow riders of a certain level of competence to get on him…but, really? An Internationl FEI horse is trained to the highest level but it is not rideable for a reasonably competent rider, but only the tippy-top medal-winning FEI competitors? I thought rideability was the original purpose of dressage.

[Sandy_M]

[QUOTE=pluvinel;8279763]
The history of the bullfight dates to the Moorish invasion of Iberia. The iberian people found that the horse that was most maneuverable in combat was the horse that was handy with the aggressive iberian cattle. Fighting aggressive bulls was how they trained for war.[/QUOTE]

Two questions: 1) I thought I had read that in Portuguese bullfighting - mounted or otherwise, the bull is not killed, is that correct? and 2) Do they even do true mounted bullfighting in Spain or Mexico? I thought it was pretty much a Portuguese discipline.

[pluvinel]

[QUOTE=Sandy M;8279841]
Two questions: 1) I thought I had read that in Portuguese bullfighting - mounted or otherwise, the bull is not killed, is that correct? and 2) Do they even do true mounted bullfighting in Spain or Mexico? I thought it was pretty much a Portuguese discipline.[/QUOTE]

The history of the bullfight is interwoven with the history of Europe and European royal houses.

Many books have been written on this history and tradition. If you are interested, there are on-line and print resources.

Portuguese bullfights consist of (1) mounted jousting with the bull, followed by (2) the catch (pega) by the forcados. (Google forcados….8 crazy guys). The rider wears the traditional attire of 18th century nobility. It is truly a living window to the past.

The forcados challenge the bull on foot, head-on, without protection….just guts. The front man provokes the bull into a charge and tries to wrestle the animal. He is assisted by the other forcados until the bull is subdued.

In Portugal, the bull is not killed in the ring. He is herded out of the arena following a group of oxen where he can be slaughtered by a professional butcher. Or if he fought particularly bravely, the bull is treated by a vet and allowed to go back to breed. The bull only fights once.

There is bullfighting all over Latin America. The Spanish traditionally fought bulls on foot after the Bourbon (French) King Phllip V outlawed mounted bullfighting ~1700. So the Spaniards fought bulls on foot until they rediscovered their equestrian patrimony mid-20[SUP]th[/SUP] century in a large way courtesy of the Domecq family…who were instrumental in founding the Royal School in Jerez.

[ShannonLee]

Bullfighting is historical, but that doesn’t mean we should fight to preserve it now. It should be in a museum just like the confederate flag is. Leghold traps were important in our history, as was hunting whales.

Basic dressage should produce horses that are well trained and hopefully more rideable for everyone. But elite dressage is like all elite sport, not for everyone! That’s what elite means. Basic yoga is good for pretty much everyone’s body, but the poses and workout that the masters can do are probably not for the average body, and would just injure you and I.

[cnm161]

[QUOTE=pluvinel;8279783]
It is obvious you don’t approve of bullfighting. That is irrelevant. The bullfight offers a living window to the past. It shows how a war horse was prepared for battle. A battle where the rider and horse’s life depended on the horse’s ability and skill…which were the result of its training.[/QUOTE]

It’s also clear that you don’t approve of dressage. I’m curious why it’s only my disapproval that’s irrelevant here.

[pluvinel]

[QUOTE=cnm161;8280223]
It’s also clear that you don’t approve of dressage. I’m curious why it’s only my disapproval that’s irrelevant here.[/QUOTE]
Because this thread is a discussion about Debby McDonald’s comment and criticism of current dressage.

McDonald’s FB post…
https://www.facebook.com/debbie.mcdonald.94617?fref=ts&ref=br_tf
“So sad we are loosing our way in this sport. Time to rethink the future for me. As a coach and a trainer it’s hard to know what one wants from these amazing animals anymore. They give us so much and it seems harmony, good gaits, and classical training are not what they seem to reward anymore ???”