That is not what we are hearing from the industry. The prices of horses over $10k are holding–it is the less expensive horses that are being given away. I challenge you to find a great quality FEI competitve warmblood in the USA that is sound for under $50k. The numbers that Sydnor said would get you a “good horse” are $20k-$50k. You can’t get a sound quality WB over fourth level for that.
[QUOTE=dkcbr;2929355]
Nope. A magazine editor does a good job if he or she can make available a variety of viewpoints to its readers rather than being a mouthpiece for just one POV. DT has done a fantastic job by offering this article.
Please tell me you don’t rely on a magazine article to dictate how you should live your horsey life. Please tell me, too, that you don’t read a newspaper’s OP-ED page and believe that all of those varying viewpoints contributed by readers are - or should be - somehow representative of a party line. Please tell me you don’t really believe anyone is going to read ONE magazine article and promptly go into deep, permanent debt in a misguided attempt to ride “better.” Please?[/QUOTE]
Dictate my life? Hardly. Look at my profile pic. Does it look like I mortgaged the farm to buy a WB? Or am despairing that I cannot? But I still find the article annoying and a very elitist point of view. I think few will be moved to go heavily into debt by the article, but I don’t like the idea that such a view point is considered unexceptional and probably the accepted view of the influential people in the dressage world.
Party line? Then why DOESN’T Dressage Today print articles by those who consider dressage “abusive”?" The closest they’ve come was Hilda’s article about the use of the double bridle. Or more to the point, let’s see an article defining dressage: Is it about training or is it about GAITS? Let’s get the truth up front. The answer probably is that it has BECOME about gaits. I can’t immediately access it, but someone recently cited a Kilmke quote to the effect that we’ve bred spectacular horses, but the riding hasn’t improved that much. Sure, we all want to have the best moving horse for the purpose that we can. But when it become ALL about GAITS… and we have the rollkur controversy about what is needed to “control” the horses with those gaits… I just find it all very discouraging.
This even relates to all the conversy about the gal with the Paint horse that submitted a picture to DT’s clinic w/ Lisa Wilcox. That person had stated she KNEW the horse wasn’t particularly suitable for dressage per se, but she wanted to improve it to the extent she could. After the usual turnout and tack comments, the best Lisa Wilcox could say was something to the effect that if you want to get very far in dressage, get another horse and let this one chase cows or do halter or whatever… But THAT wasn’t what the rider has asked for. She wasn’t saying she had GP ambitions, she just wanted to improve the horse she had. So like Ms. Sydnor, the answer was, spend more money, get a better horse. Don’t waste your time improving the horse you have. Sigh.
[QUOTE=Happy Feet;2929434]
I am really late in the conversation, didn’t read 19 pages of response but still feel like stating my 2 cents.
I really agree with everything SLC…
It takes the same amount of money each month to pay for a “great” horse as a mediocre horse. Not everyone wants to move up the levels, or has competitive goals, but I get the feeling many times that holding on to an individuals untalented, untrained, mediocre horse is a copout - If they had bought a well trained, good quality horse, and seriously pursued their real goals and failed, then what. I think the idea of failure is too scary for some people or maybe success is… The crazy thing is that they might actually have succeeded! Usually those horses are more unsound, have more health issues and never will really get anywhere. It makes me really sad to watch people spending lots of time (which is money) and money on horses that will never go beyond 1st level. I am sorry but 1st level isn’t much fun. Yep a wonderfully uphill, powerful mover does feel great around a 20 meter circle or a perfect trot canter transition does feel great but who’s kidding who here, Half pass, pirouette and piaffe is soooo much more fun! Even if just having fun is your goal, then have some fun!!! There are great schoolmasters that can teach each person how to ride, youngsters, 1st level horses don’t. plain and simple.
People who say, I can’t afford a 50K , so I buy the nicest youngster I can find, is basically financing a nice horse (making monthly payments on a horse until they can ride it or monthly training bill etc.) but MOST times the horse turns out to be nothing but a 1st level horse because the owner isn’t a trainer, doesn’t REALLY know how to train a young horse and never it never goes anywhere. A good quality horse is nothing without good quality training.
Now more than ever, there are great quality horses, for a decent price. There are more FEI horses to choose from, the prices have come down, the training is better here, it is a super time to buy a horse in the US. I know that taking out a loan to buy a horse may not be right for everyone. But, I sure think that one not only shouldn’t criticize someone for doing or for saying it’s a great option, because really it is a great option for many people.
I wish it didn’t take $$$ to buy nice horses or to get better scores at shows but it does … coupled with good riding.[/QUOTE]
I don’t even know where to start. So I’ll just say - first, for some people getting to 1st level IS fun. It may be the end goal for these people. It may be only one step on the long road to…whatever…but they enjoy the journey to…whatever, including 1st level. I am one of those people, btw. I loved 1st level when I got there on my cheap TB. I loved that I finally understood some of the very basics of dressage. It isn’t the end goal for me, but knowing how hard it is to get there for some of us, anyway, makes me really respect the people who have decided, for whatever reason, that it is their end goal.
The other thing you say is that a loan for a horse is a “great option for many people.” If you could afford it, you wouldn’t need a loan. I have no problem with people who do this, it is certainly their choice - and I don’t mind that someone suggested it as a possibility in an op-ed piece - but, please, let’s be honest, the people who do this are, in most cases, not exercising sound financial judgment. I would just recommend that, before anyone goes out to get a loan to finance a hobby, they should consult with a financial advisor. That’s what the article was missing in the way of advice, IMHO.
And you can’t learn anything by riding the babies or the lower level horses?? I won’t even go there.
First of all, you can find nice FEI horses for around 50K, yes most are more, but there are nice ones even in Wellington during season for around 50K.
Just because you take out a loan to buy a horse doesn’t mean you can’t afford it. Many people do this, and can keep up with the payments and have a wonderful horse they enjoy.
If 1st level really makes you happy then buying a 50K isn’t for you! I never said everyone should, or it’s the only way to have fun. I just see many many riders going around and around, hardly making progress, “because they are going to do it, on the horse they have, because they love this horse, and it may take longer but it’s the journey right?”
For some it maybe fine, and some not fine.
Sure you can learn from a baby/youngster, but most people aren’t equipt to train their own youngster, and even taking weekly lessons isn’t enough. It is hard to train youngsters! Is an average training/1st level rider is equipt to train youngster above 1st level? Not many.
[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;2929425]
Very many people who buy DT are new to the sport of dressage, and sometimes are new to riding horses all together. These are the same poor souls who are taken advantage of by the many unscrupulous horse dealers and trainers out there. I see happen so often–people spending money that they cannot afford—buying horses that they cannot ride themselves, because they are told that this is what they need to do to ride “dressage.” I think that it is irresponsible of DT to publish something that fuels this sort of common scam, and stupid of DT to offend so many readers and prospective riders and readers.[/QUOTE]
Oh my, this is oh so true, true, true. I was aquainted with a middle aged lady who was successful with a non-warmblood to 3rd level. Good scores. Nice horse. Sort of LOOKED like a WB even though he was not. BUT… he eventually had soundness issues by his mid-teens. He deserved retirement as a trail horse. So…she bought into the dream in a moderate way - budgeted around $20K for her “dream horse,” her warmblood. Moved away from the trainer who had gotten her to 3rd level because of location/time factors, not any dissatisfaction with the trainer. Hooked up with a new, more convenient trainer, who also was a bigger name than her old trainer. But was there a $20K horse available locally? Within a day or two’s drive, within the USA? Ah, no, says the new trainer… one must go to Europe. And so this middle-aged woman ended up mortgaging her home to buy a $50K young horse in Europe, selected by the new trainer,… and of course, it’s too much horse for her… so now the trainer has a nice young horse to show and bring along, and the woman gets to be a “horse show mom” and pay for the privilege. So much for improving HER riding, riding her dream horse, and moving up the levels…
[QUOTE=Sandy M;2929465]
Party line? Then why DOESN’T Dressage Today print articles by those who consider dressage “abusive”?" The closest they’ve come was Hilda’s article about the use of the double bridle. Or more to the point, let’s see an article defining dressage: Is it about training or is it about GAITS? Let’s get the truth up front. The answer probably is that it has BECOME about gaits. I can’t immediately access it, but someone recently cited a Kilmke quote to the effect that we’ve bred spectacular horses, but the riding hasn’t improved that much. Sure, we all want to have the best moving horse for the purpose that we can. But when it become ALL about GAITS… and we have the rollkur controversy about what is needed to “control” the horses with those gaits… I just find it all very discouraging.
This even relates to all the conversy about the gal with the Paint horse that submitted a picture to DT’s clinic w/ Lisa Wilcox. That person had stated she KNEW the horse wasn’t particularly suitable for dressage per se, but she wanted to improve it to the extent she could. After the usual turnout and tack comments, the best Lisa Wilcox could say was something to the effect that if you want to get very far in dressage, get another horse and let this one chase cows or do halter or whatever… But THAT wasn’t what the rider has asked for. She wasn’t saying she had GP ambitions, she just wanted to improve the horse she had. So like Ms. Sydnor, the answer was, spend more money, get a better horse. Don’t waste your time improving the horse you have. Sigh.[/QUOTE]
An explain which I think pertains well to the situation:
“The horse is the origin of our passion and at the beginning of our riding career in classical dressage we should pay careful heed to the following maxim: The horse is not there for dressage but rather dressage for the horse. Indeed dressage work is good for every horse. It helps the horse, by means of gymnastic exercises, to remain healthy a long time and to carry a rider! The poorer a horse’s conformation is and the weaker and more crooked it is, the better the dressage has to in order for it to develop and flourish. This is the only way to help the horse with its self-carriage and to bring it into the aids. In the course of training it will become possible for it to carry out the rider’s wishes promptly, which subsequently conveys an elevated and safe feeling to the rider. This is what is meant by dressage in the classical sense.
Today modern dressage sport prevails. The foundamental attitude here is different. Special horses are used that have been breed specifically for this sport and primarily have an outstanding gait potential combined with excellent conformation. Horses with good riding qualities and high collection potential but insufficient dynamics of motion cannot be considered here. We therefore ascertain that in competitive dressage it is not merely a question of the best ridden horse in the competition but rather the only horse with good chances is the one which additionally as exceptional gait potential.”
(From Classical School With The Horse In Mind, by Anja Beran).
From reading Dressage Today, I believe the editorial stance tends to side with the competitive dressage, as it exists now.
I haven’t read the article and I’ll definitely look for it, but while I disagree that it is necessary to spend that kind of money (especially if you don’t have it), it doesn’t make me mad that the author said it. She’s obviously made dressage, in the competitive upper-level sense, her life. And she’s probably made plenty of sacrifices to do that. If she’s somewhat blind to the needs/desires of part of her audience because of her perspective and passion for dressage, well, that’s something I can understand.
For what it is worth I have seen plenty horses under $5000 that I’d give an arm and a leg for (but not $5000, which I don’t have), including warmbloods. Some are a little old or a little young or a little short or are a less-common breed or are warmbloods that just aren’t papered, or else they come with some (ahem) “issues” that need sorting out.
But at the same time, at some point, if somebody’s goal is to pursue upper-level dressage, in order to get a FEEL for how it is supposed to go, it will make it so much better to have a horse that’s been very well and highly trained already. Not necessarily to show, but to get that feel and experience. It’s like…knowing what the “destination” feels like just makes it a lot easier to recreate on other horses, even if all you plan to do is train and never show. That training will cost $$ regardless of the breed of the horse. An upper-level trained horse of an off-breed would likely go for above $5000, too. And it seems like opportunities to ride them just don’t come across that frequently unless you buy them.
But I also think that putting a fairly new-to-dressage rider on a horse with movement too big for her to sit it is kind of pointless and will just frustrate everyone involved, so there’s a limit.
Also, there are plenty of people who love their HORSE and dressage is simply something they do with their horse, rather than people who love DRESSAGE for its own sake and want to improve as high as they can go in it (which isn’t to say they don’t love their horse too, nor that the former people don’t enjoy dressage)…plus plenty of people who are some shade of grey between those extremes. I don’t think there is anything wrong with either way of looking at it. I don’t think Snydor is bad for suggesting something for that second group might want to consider, nor would I ever, ever criticize anybody who would be happy to continue at first or training level forever if they could do so with the horse they love.
There are really so many answers to the question this article raises. None is right or wrong, and it all depends on the context. IMO.
Sorry for the long-windedness.
Very reasonable comments, Suzier. I think if Ms. Sydnor’s article had been published under the “If I knew then what I know now…” banner, there would be less controversy. We might disagree with the conclusion, but if the same article been presented in the context of, “This is MY experience, and for ME, with MY goals for higher level competition, I feel the time I spent on lesser horses was wasted…”, no one would be upset. We would agree that if one has exactly the same goals as Ms. Syndor, that might well be the case. But instead, it was presented as an opinion and advice piece, to all riders at all levels - competitive and non-competitive, and that makes all the difference. It also tends to bolster the idea that the people who count in the dressage community think very little of their vast adult amateur base who don’t have the money to spend on the fancier horses.
[QUOTE=Hoofprince in Mud;2929554]
An explain which I think pertains well to the situation:
"The horse is the origin of our passion and at the beginning of our riding career in classical dressage we should pay careful heed to the following maxim: The horse is not there for dressage but rather dressage for the horse.[/QUOTE]
This sums up my beliefs 100%!!! 
FWIW, from a non-dressage perspective, I showed the article to a friend who is a loan officer, and who now primarily rides western, but has a good knowledge of basic dressage and a great critical eye regarding dressage performance. Her basic reaction: “Bad advice (re getting a loan to buy a pricey horse), and really elitest. Do you STILL want to do (i.e. show) dressage with your new horse when the people on top have attitudes like this?”
Then why DOESN’T Dressage Today print articles by those who consider dressage “abusive”?"
It’s hard to prove a negative, but I’ll try to answer the question.
Other than animal rights activists (which, with all due respect, I would not expect to see given a forum in any type of horse performance publication), I can’t think right offhand of a credible dressage-knowledgeable individual that would like to step forth and characterize all of dressage as “abusive.”
I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I don’t know who they are. I imagine if there are some and they submitted a literate article, they’d be given a forum.
Who did you have in mind?
You may consider her advice ill-advised to the impressionable novice (I suppose that could be debatable) but I really don’t find it elitist. I would suggest you show the article to a top reining trainer and see if they think it is elitist. Unless the implication is that all horse sports are elitist.
[QUOTE=Mozart;2929690]
You may consider her advice ill-advised to the impressionable novice (I suppose that could be debatable) but I really don’t find it elitist. I would suggest you show the article to a top reining trainer and see if they think it is elitist. Unless the implication is that all horse sports are elitist.[/QUOTE]
At the very highest level, almost all horse sports ARE elitest (except, I suppose NATRC or Endurance - you need a good horse, but good endurance horses aren’t usually “break the bank” expensive, and certainly for team penning or the like, you don’t need an expensive horse. But last time I looked, team penning wasn’t an Olympic event. LOL). They have to be. That’s why most of the higher level people have wealthy sponsors or patrons whose horses they train and show. BUT THIS COLUMN WAS ADDRESSED TO ALL - EVEN THOSE WHO DON’T SHOW. It said you need a good (i.e., expensive) horse with exceptional gaits to become a good rider. Not to become a high level competitor, but simply to “become a good rider,” and that time spent on lesser horses was wasted. For Ms. Sydnor that may be a home truth, but for the largely AA dressage base in this country, it is not.
[QUOTE=Suzier;2929586]
Also, there are plenty of people who love their HORSE and dressage is simply something they do with their horse, rather than people who love DRESSAGE for its own sake and want to improve as high as they can go in it (which isn’t to say they don’t love their horse too, nor that the former people don’t enjoy dressage)…plus plenty of people who are some shade of grey between those extremes.[/QUOTE]
I bolded the way I feel. I can respect people with differing opinions, but I would appreciate the same respect being given to me.
I resent being told that:
- I am wasting my time/not having fun,
- I am copping out or afraid of “failure”,
- I would magickally be a better rider if I switched breeds, or
- I would “see the light” if only I were to sit on a pro Dressage horse. Please, I don’t need “saving”. :no:
This is all about respect. We need more of it imo. 
[QUOTE=dkcbr;2929683]
It’s hard to prove a negative, but I’ll try to answer the question.
Other than animal rights activists (which, with all due respect, I would not expect to see given a forum in any type of horse performance publication), I can’t think right offhand of a credible dressage-knowledgeable individual that would like to step forth and characterize all of dressage as “abusive.”
I’m not saying there aren’t any, but I don’t know who they are. I imagine if there are some and they submitted a literate article, they’d be given a forum.
Who did you have in mind?[/QUOTE]
Well, abusive was probably the wrong word, although I suppose one could class the articles about rollkur in that light, and in that context, DT HAS had such articles. Obviously, I do NOT think dressage, per se, is abusive. Quite the contrary, of course. But if DT were presenting “all viewpoints” and Ms. Sydnor’s was just one (and more correctly related to HER experience and higher level competition rather than addressed to all riders), I would expect to see articles about the perils of pushing horses too far, too soon, descrying the “crank and spank” riders and naming names, arguing for more severe penalties for those who are suspended by USEF, reflecting negatively on the emphasis of gaits OVER training (i.e., great gaits are wonderful, but they should not be rewarded when the over-all training is incorrect, over lesser horses who ARE correct), etc. I realize, of course, that there are libel issues to be considered… but the “party line” does seem to support Ms. Sydnor’s view, while at the same time DT publishes articles about the success of non-traditional breeds in dressage. Cognitive dissonance, anyone?
[QUOTE=Happy Feet;2929528]
I just see many many riders going around and around, hardly making progress, “because they are going to do it, on the horse they have, because they love this horse, and it may take longer but it’s the journey right?”
For some it maybe fine, and some not fine.[/QUOTE]
It is so condescending to feel sorry for these people. People can choose their own paths for themselves. We need to stop thinking that certain people require “saving” :no:
[QUOTE=canticle;2929766]
It is so condescending to feel sorry for these people. People can choose their own paths for themselves. We need to stop thinking that certain people require “saving” :no:[/QUOTE]
Point well taken…
But I don’t feel everyone need saving! I know some enjoy the horses they have and enjoy dressage with those horses, but some do put alot of money and time and energy into horses that aren’t going where they’d like to. I guess for those, riders who also could afford a payment a loan is a good option. I also don’t think that just switching to a Warmblood will help, on the contrary I think it is the training that is much more important than the breed. People should buy horses trained further than themselfs if able.
I take dressage probably too seriously, and admittedly don’t get people who are content on 20 meter circles. And again I don’t think that taking out a loan is for everyone, certainly not, but just as those don’t like being told they need an upgrade, they also should withhold judgement to those who upgrade and take out a loan to do it.
[QUOTE=canticle;2929766]
It is so condescending to feel sorry for these people. People can choose their own paths for themselves. We need to stop thinking that certain people require “saving” :no:[/QUOTE]
But it is OK for you to try to “save” the people from all the awful breeders and trainers out there???:rolleyes:
[QUOTE=NoDQhere;2929889]
But it is OK for you to try to “save” the people from all the awful breeders and trainers out there???:rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
What awful breeders and trainers? I think people can decide for themselves what breed of horse to ride and who to train with. It’s bad form to try to convert people who are happy where they are. :yes:
[QUOTE=canticle;2929913]
What awful breeders and trainers? I think people can decide for themselves what breed of horse to ride and who to train with. It’s bad form to try to convert people who are happy where they are. :yes:[/QUOTE]
Ahh, but if they are happy they wouldn’t be too “convertable” now, would they?
Sorry, couldn’t resist:p
