Low Down and Round is *not* rollkur

[Melyni]

Yes I’m the same Melyni!

[QUOTE=fburton;4660160]
Agreed, though I don’t see why a definitive video couldn’t be made available as “supplementary material” as is now the practice in some scientific journals.

(By the way… I presume you’re the same Melyni who used to post really interesting stuff to uk-riders, snaffle and eurohorse all those years ago? Hope life is treating you well! Francis)[/QUOTE]

I’m doing great, I hope you are well Francis!

The videos could be used in the judges training sessions or in the stewards training sessions and should be, but it can’t be in a printed rule book.

Rules are written in words and thus it needs to be defined in words.

Yours
MW

[Dressage_Art]

[QUOTE=Melyni;4660097]
Then you are going to have to define rollur/hyperflexion in words, as the rule book cannot show videos!
So instead of using a video to demonstrate what you mean you need to put it into words.

IMHO it’s all a matter of degree the degree used will depend in part on the type and temperment of the horse and the rider/trainer.

You might be able to ‘ban’ some degree of hyperflexion in the warm-up at shows but you cannot regulate what goes on at home.
As long as the hyperflexion/rollkur users get the results that they get it will continue, because despite everything the naysayers claim, it does do what it is supposed to do, namely get the horse to pay attention to the rider exclusively and to work over the back.

One man’s deep and round is anothers rollkur.

MW[/QUOTE]

The educated eye can see the difference between extreme, prolonged hyperflexion and the absolute closing of the neck/head to the chest - and between Deep flexions. It is similar to using spurs and whips = they can be useful aids, but educated eye can see when they become weapons. The same can be done with extreme, prolonged hyperflexion and the absolute closing of the neck/head to the chest.

Yes, we can also talk about the angle of the head compare to the ground. We can establish some red zone range.

Yes, we can talk about the time of the flexion and when the neck should be given back to the horse to stretch out in a more normal carriage.

Yes, we can talk about the proximity of the horse’s head to its chest and establish a red zone that defines the extreme, closed hyperflexion and the absolute closing of the neck/head to the chest.

Show officials are absolutely capable of making the educated decisions of excessive applications.

[Dressage_Art]

[QUOTE=nhwr;4659850]
At the risk of having this thread spontaneously combust, I think SP is doing what AvG (and probably most successful riders) does. That being - riding a horse deep and round, as well as using lateral flexions while the horse is in motion to promote balance and cadence. SP is subtler about it. But the underlying principles are the same.

Of course, SP is isn’t going call what he does rolkur.
That would make him a horse abuser :eek: :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

There is HUGE difference between the 2 methods. One is a training method that is respectful to the horse as an athlete and partner. Another one is suited for a circus animal training = since it strips the animal of its opinion, feedback and being a sport partner. It is similar to using spurs and whips = they can be useful aids, but educated eye can see when they become weapons.

[QUOTE=Dressage Art;4657649]Some of the difference between Deep and rollkur/LDR/hyperflexion is the release of the reins for a horse to stretch out. Deep is “inviting” a horse to a rounder position and releasing it when horse doesn’t want to be there. rollkur/LDR/hyperflexion is “holding” with force a horse in the most extreme hyperflexion and NOT releasing it even if the horse wants to stretch out.

FEI quote:

Another words, when a horse’s mouth has enough freedom to chew a little bit = that shows that rider has a frank connection with the horse. That a rider doesn’t just hold the horse in the frame by force. What we see with rollkur/LDR/hyperflexion are horses that are clearly HELD in positions of force by rider’s hands and reins = horses who can not even move slightly their jaws from the steel grip on their mouths.

In rollkur/LDR/hyperflexion horse doesn’t have a chance for 2 way communication with his rider. Horse no longer has a voice. There is no honest conversation or connection thru the reins and bit. It’s not longer a partner or an athlete, but a trained animal that may belong in the circus - not among the athletes.

And what is one of the goals of dressage? = It is the honest connection from rider’s hands to the horse’s mouth to establish a frank communication.

In rollkur/LDR/hyperflexion there is no such thing! One of the main goals of dressage is cut out by forcefully holding horse’s head in the hyper flexed extremely deep frame for prolonged periods of time.

We have to ask ourselves where/what is the difference between an athlete, a partner and a difference of a trained circus animal, even if it’s a very well trained circus animal?[/QUOTE]

[egontoast]

mbm says this about Steffen

i dont “believe” in what he is doing either… and think the nose btv is the problem, not the low neck. the back isnt stretched with the nose btv… that is why they need to put the neck so round - to get any traction at all.

Wow. If you really think that it explains a whole lot and I think then it’s pointless to look for common ground.

if you can watch for example the sample video on dressageclinic of Steffen warming up Ravel in the snaffle low and soft and stretchy and proclaim it is wrong then well …er… good luck to you in your endeavours.

[Nojacketrequired]

I believe it was Nicole Uphoff who actually started this whole rolkur idea…albeit likely unknowingly.
I well remember an interview in the '90’s with her saying, almost apologetically, (Not exact wording here…) that she had to ride her horse so overbent like that in the warmup so that all he could see was his own feet. Then he had to listen to her and pay attention because he had no ability to make his will known in that posture. This was because he was so spooky that if he was ridden any other way in the warmup ring with other horses, she had very little control, but if his head was between his knees, she had total contol.

In a 2000 EuroDressage interview she says this…

Harry Boldt, then chef d’Èquipe of the German dressage team. She says Boldt gave her more freedom to learn to solve problems on her own, and that his training methods stressed the basics and “deep” relaxed conditioning work.

Seems to me that she realized that deep was for relaxed conditioning work and overbent/looking at his feet, was for total control of the horse’s body and mind.

NJR

(I have this image of a lightbulb going on over Sjef’s head for some reason.)

[Dressage_Art]

[QUOTE=Nojacketrequired;4660229]
Then he had to listen to her and pay attention because he had no ability to make his will known in that posture.[/QUOTE]
And again the question is if this kind of training is respectful to the horse as an athlete? As a sports partner?

What separates the circus animal training from the Olympic athlete training?

If the will of the horse is taken away from the horse, if the horse is not longer able to give his feedback as a partner = does this kind of training belongs among the Olympic athletes? Or may be it’s just a very good circus animal training?

[egontoast]

and what about Steffen and Ravel? Do you agree with mbm that he sadly has it wrong because he warms up deep?

I do understand about the old
emperorhavingnoclothes syndrome but this can also be taken too far I think where some people POSSIBLY? arrogantly and POSSIBLY? delusionally believe they know so much more about training than people such as Steffen Peters. Peters has it wrong, according to mbm and if we disagree we are ‘nasty’.

[Melyni]

It might have worked for Justice Stewart, not to define it, but…

[QUOTE=Dressage Art;4660180]
The educated eye can see the difference between extreme, prolonged hyperflexion and the absolute closing of the neck/head to the chest - and between Deep flexions. It is similar to using spurs and whips = they can be useful aids, but educated eye can see when they become weapons. The same can be done with extreme, prolonged hyperflexion and the absolute closing of the neck/head to the chest.

Yes, we can also talk about the angle of the head compare to the ground. We can establish some red zone range.

Yes, we can talk about the time of the flexion and when the neck should be given back to the horse to stretch out in a more normal carriage.

Yes, we can talk about the proximity of the horse’s head to its chest and establish a red zone that defines the extreme, closed hyperflexion and the absolute closing of the neck/head to the chest.

Show officials are absolutely capable of making the educated decisions of excessive applications.[/QUOTE]

if you want the rules changed you are going to have to define it. You can’t just say “I know it when I see it”.
MW

[Karoline]

Whether one likes what SP does or does not do, and he certainly does not ride as he did 10 years ago is not the same discussion as whether RK should be banned or not.

While there used to be vigorous discussion about Deep riding, non one ever talked about banning it, no one is talking about banning it now.

But lets not relabel rollkur as Deep and pretend the last five years was always about Deep and the many videos of top riders that showed them rolling their horses were “bad riding” as was stated on another thread or just a moment in time as P.Munck explains on her website.

There are enough documentation of training sessions to show this is not the case.

[Dressage_Art]

You know exactly how I feel about Carl Hester and Steffan Peters and the Deep Method that they practice, since I repeatedly wrote and you read that I am OK with the “Deep Training Method” that SP and CH are using. I do not believe that it is the same method as Sief or blue tongue using.

I also repeatedly said that if my own horses stretch downward and swing in their back, but their head is behind the vertical = I concentrate on the bigger part of overall suppleness of the back and work towards the ideal of eventually brining the head affront of the vertical. In the warm-up, I “invite” my horse to flex and stretch and release them to a natural carriage as well. I do not “force and hold” them in the extreme hyperflexion for the prolonged periods of time to take their will out of them.

[QUOTE=Dressage Art;4660190]
There is HUGE difference between the 2 methods. One is a training method that is respectful to the horse as an athlete and partner. Another one is suited for a circus animal training = since it strips the animal of its opinion, feedback and being a sport partner. It is similar to using spurs and whips = they can be useful aids, but educated eye can see when they become weapons.[/QUOTE]

[Dressage_Art]

[QUOTE=Melyni;4660313]
if you want the rules changed you are going to have to define it. You can’t just say “I know it when I see it”.
MW[/QUOTE]
I agree that it needs to be defined and this is where various dressage representatives with credentials come together and brainstorm a clear written definition that will be satisfactory to both sides.

Now, for the February 9 FEI meeting about rollkur issue guess who is the ONLY dressage representative? Sief!!! The card deck is obviously stacked!

[Karoline]

Yes DA, you and I used to have fiery arguments about this and look at us now

[naturalequus]

[QUOTE=Dressage Art;4660248]
And again the question is if this kind of training is respectful to the horse as an athlete? As a sports partner?

What separates the circus animal training from the Olympic athlete training?

If the will of the horse is taken away from the horse, if the horse is not longer able to give his feedback as a partner = does this kind of training belongs among the Olympic athletes? Or may be it’s just a very good circus animal training?[/QUOTE]

IMO - well said.

If a rider is not using Rolkur for such purposes and is using it moderately (ie. a minute or two total) to gymnasticize and stretch a horse during warm-up, well thus far I see no problem with it.

However when the technique is used so as to force the horse into submission (rather than earning the respect and partnership of the horse), I think there is a problem, particularly since the method is not only detrimental to the horse on an emotional level, but also likely on a physical level as well, since it is then often used for extended periods of time (such as in the case of the Blue Tongue incident).

I hold Olympic and GP level riders to a higher standard - I believe they should posses better horsemanship than to use such a technique for the purpose of control (plus, IMO they are not obtaining the best out of the horse), or at the very least, that they should admit to using the technique for such reasons but that they are working to improve their horsemanship to a level where they will not have to force the horse (though it would be best if they did not do it in the first place…).

[SGray]

in one of the studies done I recall that during ridden work with snaffle that drawreins were necessary to get the requisite ‘crunch’

so here’s a proposal: require snaffle for one of the tests (GP, GPS, GPFr) - rider’s choice

[naturalequus]

This might be my dressage inexperience talking here, but why can’t GP riders ride in a snaffle anyways, should they choose to? I realise it is not permitted, but I guess my question is - why not? I have seen excellent examples of very collected horses performing GP-level dressage maneuvers completely bridleless (and not due to ‘robotic’ training), so why can’t one do it in a snaffle? On the other hand I completely understand the subtler and refined communication a curb affords (I use curbs on my advanced western horses and admit it can be a whole other level of refined communication), however I guess I just wonder if it is still possible for some of these GP riders to do what they do, in a snaffle. If so, should they not be permitted to do so? Where did the whole double bridle come about anyways? Was every single warhorse way back when, ridden in a double?

[Nojacketrequired]

I suppose I didn’t make my point very clear.

I believe it was Nicole Uphoff who actually started this whole rolkur idea…albeit likely unknowingly.
I well remember an interview in the '90’s with her saying, almost apologetically, (Not exact wording here…) that she had to ride her horse so overbent like that in the warmup so that all he could see was his own feet. Then he had to listen to her and pay attention because he had no ability to make his will known in that posture.

IMO, which is worth what you pay for it, riding in Rolkur for long periods of time as we see these riders do in public (So they must also be doing it in private…) is more about control and submission than much else.

Ms. Uphoff goes on to say that she agrees and benefitted from “deep” relaxed conditioning work.

Harry Boldt, then chef d’Èquipe of the German dressage team. She says Boldt gave her more freedom to learn to solve problems on her own, and that his training methods stressed the basics and “deep” relaxed conditioning work.

To me, this pro makes it clear by these two statements that she doesn’t see rolkur (What she had to do to keep the horse under control in the warm up), and “deep” (relaxed conditioning work), as the same thing at all.

I really don’t think there can be any way to mix up “deep” riding, vs “rolkur” riding. I’d suggest that even a non-horseperson could tell the difference between which one they thought was more likely to create a “happy” horse.

I also asked in an earlier thread why it seems the anti-rolkur crowd want it banned from the WARM UP but seemingly not from anywhere else? Is this an "out of sight out of mind " thing?

The whole discussion is just odd.

If the judges would judge strictly by the rule book…Face at or slightly ahead of the vertical, horse tracking up, lowering of croup during engagement, a lot of these horses wouldn’t be winning anyway, unless their training was re-focused.

Again, Just my opinion. Everbody’s got one.

NJR

[EqTrainer]

@egontoast;4657044

A few years ago the riders identified as riding"deep" above would have been crucified on the bulletin boards.

There were just as many threads and trainwrecks then about BTV and even the mildest of deep training as there are now about rollkur.

Interesting.

So true!

[Bluey]

—“The whole discussion is just odd.”’’’

Exactly.

A few anti-RK are all bent out of shape against anyone that is not as ferociously anti-RK as they are.
They don’t seem to give anyone any credit, all that are not anti-RK are bundled as one: Horse abusers.

-They fight those that don’t yet know enough to say.
-Those that think each trainer should decide how to train.
-Those that don’t only don’t care, but don’t think anyone should tell others how to train, by anyone, unless something was clearly abuse.
-Those that think RK is ok, not abusive, because RK, well, it is not harmful or abusive, look how many horses for years now have been using it and not one has toppled over yet, they can prove that.

All those people are being called “horse abusers”, because they are not anti-RK.

Odd, indeed.

[ThreeFigs]

And this discussion has come full circle.

Now the endless repetition will begin.

[Dressage_Art]

[QUOTE=Karoline;4660393]
Yes DA, you and I used to have fiery arguments about this and look at us now :-)[/QUOTE]

Yes, I remember arguing on TOB, especially with poster “3 sisters” who was quite adamant that BTV is a grave sin and for any amount of deep riding I should be burned on the stake! That’s one of the reasons why I started to post on COTH to avoid witch hunt that I’m OK with Deep :lol: I thought here conversation can be more balanced, but funny thing it’s not at all, it’s the same exact thing just turned on the head. With exact same attacks and etc, etc…

It’s the extreme RK that concern me and the FEI response to the PK blue tongue just tipped the scales for me, so I got involved! FEI indifference is questionable. it’s like FEI has their eyes closed, their ears closed and their mouth can only say stamped PR.

Grow the backbone FEI!!!