Hunters - What Are They REALLY All About?

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201671]
I’m not focusing on correct principles inherent in any one discipline.

I’m focusing on the correct principles inherent to ALL horseback riding… call it the complete set…

Then I’m making the premise that different disciplines empathize only a portion of those correct principles to accomplish the goal of the discipline.

I’m not focusing on the horse, I’m focusing on the knowledge.

Under this concept the Spanish Riding School is only empathizing the portion of the complete set of principles inherent to their discipline… Training and riding Lipizzans.[/QUOTE]

Ah yes, we should all become generalists.

[Trixie]

DARN IT, WHY ISN’T MCLAIN WARD RIDING SIDESADDLE MORE FREQUENTLY?!?!??!?!?!?!!

[loshad]

[QUOTE=Trixie;7201683]
DARN IT, WHY ISN’T MCLAIN WARD RIDING SIDESADDLE MORE FREQUENTLY?!?!??!?!?!?!![/QUOTE]

I would pay good money to see that.

Also, alterhorse, you pass the dutchie to the left hand side. Just saying.

[meupatdoes]

If we all become sufficiently generalist, then the hunters can be about exactly the same things that eventing and dressage are about.

Let’s eliminate every discipline and demolish all of our indoors and arenas in pursuit of the purest purist’s purest knowledge.

By George I think I’ve got it.

[Trixie]

Except for eventing because apparently, they’re acceptable.

Someone please explain to my horse that he’s not his full self.

[goodlife]

[QUOTE=Trixie;7201690]
Except for eventing because apparently, they’re acceptable.

Someone please explain to my horse that he’s not his full self.[/QUOTE]

That’s because all of the eventing cavalry masters from the olden times already rode better than Scott Stewart and every other hunter pro AND rode side saddle, won all da Maclayz and didn’t even use perfect prep or a Pelham.

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7201687]

I really do not understand how a horse that has the straightness, pace control, balance, self-carriage, seamless lead change and style which form the principles of the hunter discipline could somehow be inherently lacking in basics.

Do you think that just drops out of the sky?

Granted, lots of lower level hunter people suck and can’t train that but that’s why they go run their students around the puddle jumpers and b*tch about politics.[/QUOTE]

I totally wish they would fall out of the sky. I would invest in several large nets for the catching

[alterhorse]

[QUOTE=Trixie;7201641]
alterhorse, you’re not being an idealist and a purist, but you’re being awfully close-minded.

First, if I may, it’s TENETS, and PERFORM. A tenant is someone who rents from a landlord. Preform means to shape or form beforehand. If you’re going to make such an obtuse argument, at least make it correctly.[/QUOTE]

As long as the intent of the idea is clear…

What exactly IS an “illusion” in this case? A well trained horse jumping around a course of fences doesn’t seem like an illusion to me, it seems like a well trained horse jumping over a course of fences. This is usually the result of years of work, since they don’t usually come out of a box this way.

The illusion is in the pretense of the show hunter being a representation of a suitable field hunter.

Actors who play a role on a stage are only playing the part, it’s an illusion of reality preformed for entertainment.

No, but do you see anyone asking them to? Frankly, that’s WHY we have different disciplines - so that those that are better suited to one aren’t asked to compete in another.

In layman’s terms, that’s also why we have different occupations…

I agree, but this is not the point I’m making, my point is that the science of riding exists in the minds of people, not horses, and this science stands apart from any one discipline.

I give. What the heck does this mean?

The science of riding is applied subjectively to achieve the goal of a discipline.

Why? And since when is eventing the be all and end all of horsemanship? There are plenty of eventers who are terrible horsemen, who struggle with the dressage, who chip miserably around a show jumping course, and whose XC is abysmal. That’s not the “highest level of function,” whatsoever.

Again, not every horse is suited for every discipline, and I don’t agree that they should be forced into an area that doesn’t suit them to allegedly prove that they meet a “broad scope of requirements” when they’re perfectly happy cantering around the AAs. Remember, the HORSE doesn’t give a damn if he’s highly trained and therefore has your so called “highest level of function.” The rider, of course, should aspire to be the best rider they can be and get the best performance they can out of their animals - but don’t forget, this is also supposed to be FUN.

Some horses could be doing more, sure. Some can’t. What is ACTUALLY horsemanship is knowing what you can ask, and what you shouldn’t be asking.

I think concept I’m trying to present is the question of how people learn, and if participation in specific disciplines can have an effect on the efficiency of teaching the student.

[Trixie]

I don’t think “science” or “clarity” mean what you think they mean.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201724]
As long as the intent of the idea is clear…

The illusion is in the pretense of the show hunter being a representation of a suitable field hunter.

Actors who play a role on a stage are only playing the part, it’s an illusion of reality preformed for entertainment.

I agree, but this is not the point I’m making, my point is that the science of riding exists in the minds of people, not horses, and this science stands apart from any one discipline.

The science of riding is applied subjectively to achieve the goal of a discipline.

I think concept I’m trying to present is the question of how people learn, and if participation in specific disciplines can have an effect on the efficiency of teaching the student.[/QUOTE]

So the initiates in the SRS would learn more efficiently if they did eventing instead?

[JOBEAN]

U

[QUOTE=goodlife;7201280]
I dunno, I’m no George Morris, I’m just a lowly amateur. But to answer your question, I choose to show in the hunter ring first because it’s fun for me.

In relation to horsemanship, I like the hunter ring because I enjoy having my horse turned out to the nines. As tedious as it is, I love the end result of spending hours brushing and scrubbing and polishing everything and getting that true gleam on your horse. I’d say that’s a better horsemanship lesson than a trainer that lets her kid show in the hopeful jumpers with long, shaggy hair, dirty tack and a few pee spots, because, well, it has no bearing on the end-score.

I also enjoy that feeling that I get when I am about 2/3s down a line, know that the distance out is going to be great, and I can soften on the reins and just feel the horse rock back and jump. Love it. I also love knowing that that particular feeling came from months of flatwork on my part - tons of sitting trot, bending and flexing of the body, pirouette canter circles, lengthening, shortening, small gymnastics, figure eights, circles, everything. The amount of flatwork that has to go into a horse before you can get that feeling of self-carriage in the middle of a line is a lot.

In the hunter ring, you need to be forgiving, subtle, soft, but effective. In my opinion, that’s a good indication of good horsemanship. Can you get the job done effectively, all while looking like you’re just out for an afternoon tea on horseback? Can you get the best out of every horse, meaning a big, correct, explosive jump every time out, while never changing your pace?

I’m not denying that there are some people out there that rely on chemical intervention and a whole lot of longeing to get their desired result, but laying down a great hunter trip a) isn’t easy and b) in my opinion, shows off a great deal of good horsemanship.[/QUOTE]

Goodlife… Well said! “the perfect trip” takes years of training.
{ I think we could be friends :D} I loved it when my jumper friends watched my rounds noting that it isn’t easy making it look so easy…

[alterhorse]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7201731]
So the initiates in the SRS would learn more efficiently if they did eventing instead?[/QUOTE]

Are you saying that the discipline in which a student rides has no effect on the what abilities they may learn?

[doublesstable]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201607]
In my view of horsemanship, there’s a methodology of training and riding that is based on psychology, physiology, biomechanics, and physics.

There is science beneath the layers of intention to express some arbitrary “quality” that the governance of a discipline has defined as the “ideal”.

Everyone is free to explore the classical tenants of horsemanship as deeply as they may choose.

But let’s make no mistake regarding riding technique, by being clear about what is real and what is actually a form of illusion.

Could EVERY top Hunter actually preform exactly the same as they do in a ring as they would if you were to take that horse and rider out onto uneven, nonuniform terrain on the open countryside?

I doubt you’ll say yes to that. So my point is to examine why the show hunter must preform in the ring to preform as intended, and then you may hopfully begin to see how the classical tenants of horsemanship are devided and segmented to fit the set of “chosen” ideals for a discipline.

I apologize for being an idealist and a purest, but I believe the classical tenants of horsemanship represent the path to the highest level of function for the horse and rider, and that function would probably be represented most fully by a discipline that includes a broad scope of requirements such as eventing.[/QUOTE]

^This just makes no sense at all. A horse that can jump 3’6" - 4’ with a wide spread with amazing style and an even, balanced pace to the jump I don’t see how the West was lost.

The Hunter’s at Capital Challenge are amazing, talented animals. And so are their riders.

And why they “must” perform in the ring and the couldn’t perform on uneven terrain you ask - is like saying you cannot ride my horse and would fall off.

How in the halibut would you know all hunters cannot go out in the field? Many do and many compete in derby’s as well. They look pretty darn nice to me.

[alterhorse]

[QUOTE=goodlife;7201646]
The show/competition hunter. Would you argue that the current state of dressage accurately represents Xenophon and the Spanish Riding School?[/QUOTE]

No.

But I think many people may not be aware of the entirety of what may influence them to believe what they do.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7201739]
Are you saying that the discipline in which a student rides has no effect on the what abilities they may learn?[/QUOTE]

No, I’m asking you to clarify your position.

So I’ll ask again: do you think the initiates at the SRS would lern more efficiently if they did eventing instead?

[hntrjmprpro45]

Hmmm… I would bet that the number of show hunters that could successfully turn into field hunters would be VASTLY greater than the number of dressage horses that could successfully be in war-like situations without losing their minds (because dressage is supposed to be military training, right?).

The point is, all of the show disciplines have evolved. Show hunters are all about creating smooth, correct jumping rounds where the highest quality animal showing the best style wins. I’m not sure why that would be hard to understand, but I would be happy to answer any question as a judge and trainer.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=alterhorse;7200633]

So yea, it’s basically about emulating a horse out on a nice enjoyable leisurely fox hunt out on the old English countryside. The “idealized hunt participant” requires one’s horse to be calm, consistent, trustworthy, obedient, capable, reasonably good looking, turned out appropriately, comfortable and a pleasure to ride.[/QUOTE]

“Leisurely” is one of the last words I’d use to describe actual foxhunting…

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;7201094]
It might surprise you to know that many hunter riders also ride with a dressage trainer.[/QUOTE]

True this.
Years back, I rode with a hunter trainer who routinely took students to NEDA shows.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;7201406]
Here’s one for you. In a hunter under saddle, should a poor moving, half broke ( use whatever term you want) rapid paced (etc) horse win a higher prize than the lovely moving performing animal that picked up one step of the wrong lead and immediately corrected it, continuing on with a beautiful canter? Looking forward to this discussion.[/QUOTE]

This.
It isn’t a “fault and out” class.
If a horse is truly head and shoulders above the competition, one mistake should not put him out of the ribbons. (sometimes not even out of first place)

[Trixie]

calm, consistent, trustworthy, obedient, capable, reasonably good looking, turned out appropriately, comfortable and a pleasure to ride.

But all these other things are important both in the hunt field and the show ring, yes? I know I wouldn’t want to hunt a horse that isn’t trustworthy, obedient, or capable.