I can’t help but feel like this thread is a jumbled mess of dressage theory and science. The two are more separate than most posts here imply.
As a rider and a MS in Equine Biomechanics I’m struggling to read this thread and not have my head explode.
The way I see it the research doesn’t have anything to do with the actual practice of dressage.
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;3298966]
The way I see it the research doesn’t have anything to do with the actual practice of dressage.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn’t say that it has NOTHING to do with the practice of dressage. However I do NOT think we can look to the research to prove or validate our dressage practices. We can add clarity to what we are feeling, we can investigate errors or successes more closely and answer small questions or figure out little pieces. It’s just a more objective perspective on the research that I feel is missing from some of this discussion. I doubt Dr. Clayton believes (or ever thought it possible) that her study proves long and low riding is bad. The research is what it is. As I said; under xyz circumstances these abc results were found. Apply the information carefully.
But a study on a stationary horse doesn’t have anything to do with a horse stretching under saddle.
You’re taking the results of the study too seriously. It’s inaccurate to apply something so limited as that research to actual riding.
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;3299004]
But a study on a stationary horse doesn’t have anything to do with a horse stretching under saddle.[/QUOTE]
agreed. Although it could feed into a larger, in motion study right?
I actually am agreeing with you! This is MY point exactly. Sorry if I was not clear. It’s not a matter of “serious” though. It’s misapplication of the information.
I don’t know about you guys - but I’m usually ON the horse when performing the “long and low” exercise, and so far, you’ve all failed to factor in the weight of the rider in your theories.
[QUOTE=Equibrit;3299111]
I don’t know about you guys - but I’m usually ON the horse when performing the “long and low” exercise, and so far, you’ve all failed to factor in the weight of the rider in your theories.[/QUOTE]
The really good rider is weightless…LOL!
no seriously- that’s why I am a huge fan of ‘fit’ riders- have excellent bodycontrol, sit in the horse- yet do not sit in the way of the horse…this is real and valid stuff!
It may be worth mentioning that not all of Dr. Clayton’s work is done on horses standing still. She has done some studies using high speed video and also force plates.
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;3299004]
But a study on a stationary horse doesn’t have anything to do with a horse stretching under saddle.
You’re taking the results of the study too seriously. It’s inaccurate to apply something so limited as that research to actual riding.[/QUOTE]
I can only speak for myself, but I seem to recall the majority of physics 101 dealing with statics (stuff not moving) with just an intro to dynamics (stuff moving). It is perfectly reasonable to try to understand, scientifically, what is going on mechanically in a non-moving horse first and then tackling the dynamic situation. If one does not understand the “easier” case, there’s little hope of understanding anything more complicated.
It’s just data, not the holy grail.
Maybe on the first day – physics is all about movement.
Are you all actually familiar with Dr Clayton’s research, or responding to what’s basically snippets of a larger picture of her research?
Why is it I can feel 10 pounds lighter getting out of a chair–and much easier-- if I breathe out while I stand in a balanced way, over my feet, than if I get out of the chair the regular way and hold my breath? The biomechanics are quite similar. You can also rise to your toes in a highly efficient and much easier, lighter manner if you push the floor away from you rather than trying to raise your body up. Oh wait… that’s Ballet 101, not Physics 101…
Candace
Do you want to fill us in on the big picture?
Big picture? Thinking here of Clayton’s body of work, her nearly 40 years as a vet (longer as a rider), and her bronze, silver and gold USDF medals perhaps lends a bit of credibility to understanding equine kinematics as well as her knowledge base for scientific research in the equine world. I mean, she’s not just some lab-puppy lacking core information on what a horse does. Nor is she barn-baby whose background in scientific research is a chemistry class where one gets to make electricity with a potato. …
Some (or one?) poster mentioned that if the horse’s head is low, the butt has to react to counterbalance. (I believe I have that concept correct as offered.) In a static balance, I would agree. I beg of you, however, to sit there in your chair, tilt you 18-pound head downward. Do you (as I do) feel your shoulders and mid-back react, but your butt NOT poke out? If I were a static weight on a chair, I’d fall off unless my butt countered the movement…but I’m not. How the muscles compensate on the cellular level to counterbalance is due to the human (and horse) body being dynamic and having, frankly, lots of “moving parts” like the sodium-potassium ion pumps, the Krebs citric acid cycle, etc. – way way beyond arms, legs, and butts.
Candace
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;3300752]
Maybe on the first day – physics is all about movement.[/QUOTE]
Really? Where was that version of physics 101 taught?
Physics is “about” many things.
A sampling of entries from the table of contents of the Third Edition of Part Two of “Physics” by Halliday and Resnick (the only physics text I happen to have handy and the one I used for my 2nd and 3rd semester of undergraduate engineering physics):
Charge and Matter
The Electric Field
Gauss’ Law
Electric Potential
Capacitors and Dielectrics
The Nature and Propagation of Light
Polarization
Waves and Particles
Engineering Mechanics is typically taught in 2 segments; Statics and Dynamics. And yes, the segment on statics is longer than 1 day.
My point being that any study such as that undertaken by Dr. Clayton is complicated and it is accepted engineering practice to start with the static case.
I took physics at UNC- Chapel Hill. Aced it in fact. 
Studies may start with static cases but are of little use when compared to a moving horse and rider. Her research certainly can’t be extrapolated to mean that stretching puts the horse on the forehand and I would hope she doesn’t believe that either.
I don’t think anyone’s quoted her as saying that.
Stretching may wellmove the center of mass forward, but that’s not the same thing.
I’m saying I very seriously doubt that Dr. Clayton believes that correct stretching puts a horse on its forehand.
Candace that was my example but you’re using it incorrectly as I stated it. I said that the horse’s muscles (abs and hind legs) counteract the head and neck going down – this by creating more up and down motion and thus the beginning of self carriage.
for those interested…it looks like Dr. Clayton is going to be speaking at Dressage at Devon this year on Biomechanics and the Dressage horse. Sounds like it should be fairly interesting…
The basic premise with which the dynamic studies are approached is possibly the flaw in the experiments. That premise is that because these are top riders, the movement is being done correctly. If watching what goes on at a show is any criteria, I’d say there is a good possibility that these studies carry great deviation from the very beginning.
GIGO
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
