Methods of Horse Training?

[SongBird]

I’m new here so forgive me if this question has been asked before, but I’m genuinely curious cause even google doesn’t seem to have much of an answer.

Does anyone know if there are definitive terms/labels that can be applied to different methods of training. I know everyone has their own way of doing things, but I think it’s safe to say that everyone (whether they are good or bad, or disagree with some aspects of a method) fall into a certain category; like natural horsemanship or classical training. I’ve heard some people refer to the more popular forms of training as traditional or modern, but there doesn’t seem to be a clear definition attached to it.

I’m not saying we need labels, but I’m curious to see if there are others with a definition and base like natural horsemanship or classical dressage. And if there are any resources that discuss this topic that you could point me to, that would be nice.

[ladyj79]

I would argue that the terms natural horsemanship and classical dressage are also so broad and widely used as to be meaningless.

so no, I don’t find labels particularly useful for describing training styles.

[Scribbler]

In general, I think we divide up schools of horse training by discipline, so you have jumper trainers, hunter trainers, dressage trainers, Western pleasure trainers, reining trainers, etc. etc. Within each discipline, there will be different “schools” or fashions, which will shift over time.

“Natural horsemanship” most often is used to refer to work on the ground with horses, rather than in the saddle, and it is what we call in academia a “contested term,” that is there is competition to define it in one way or another, to claim it for one or another particular school of training, or to say that it is either (a) good; (b) bad: or © a load of self-promotional b.s. Since there is money to be made in natural horsemanship clinics and training, this competition can be quite pointed.

Similar with the concept “classical dressage.” It’s a contested term. Some people who claim the term are brilliant, others are fools.

In a practical field like horse training, defining terms is not the best starting point. The best starting point is looking at what people are actually doing with their horses, and evaluating that based on your own knowledge of horsemanship, which can only be improved by educating yourself a bit on the history of riding, training, and the disciplines.

Knowing who a particular trainer has trained with is often very useful, as there can be a transmission of approach and skill that way. But you want to find out who their real, long-term, mentors have been, not just a list of every one day clinic with famous people they’ve attended in the past decade.

[Guilherme]

Yes…and no.

Every horse trainer with a deserved reputation for ability has their own way of doing things. But what they had to do was/is generally the driving force behind how they did/do it. We think of individuals today but in Age of Horsepower the real power base of training expertise rested with the national cavalries of various countries. They trained tens of thousands of horses (and recruits) annually. The most respected and emulated had very well set out programs for taking in a greenie or a boot and producing a finished horse or competent trooper. The men (and a handful of women) who did this are all mostly gone at least in the West. Their manuals, videos, and notes survive and are still used by living historians and re-enactors.

This means “definitive” labeling is unlikely to be possible. Ray Hunt and George Morris are Names in their respective disciplines. Both have a deserved reputations for producing success in their disciplines. Both probably have some similarities in what they do but will also have serious differences because of what they do. Each is going to need terminology that serves their particular need in communicating with both horse and human. A single set of “definitive” labels is unlikely to be very useful to them.

For an extreme example of attempts to come up with “definitive” labels you need look no further than the Parelli empire. There you will find lots of new words. There are also a bunch of new concepts. The new words are not required because horses have somehow just developed new conformations or temperaments. They exist because Parelli can then sell you a dictionary of his new words so you can then apply his new concepts. And he has a line of new tools you must buy to make effective use of the words. It’s a brilliant marketing scheme if an abomination as a training system.

If you’ve not done so download and read the two oldest, complete works on horse and rider training known. These are On Horsemanship and The Cavalry Commander by Xenophon. They were written in about 400 B.C. Xenophon was an Athenian cavalry commander and a very successful military officer. They are quite short and don’t require any real language finesse (unless of course you want to read them in the original ancient Greek ). Here’s the first one http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0210%3Atext%3DHorse. The Perseus Project has all sorts of downloadable classics of many genres of literature.

As for modern names, let your discipline of choice guide your choice in training method.

Good luck going forward.

G.

[Palm_Beach]

In the long run, horses learn best with patient, consistent and humane training. All horses are started the same, and then specialize per discipline once they get going. But it doesn’t really matter what discipline they will specialize in for basic ground manners, accepting the tack, loading into a trailer, etc. All horses need to direct rein, move the shoulders, move the hips, do basic lateral work etc.

After the basic beginning, there are hundreds of ways to train a horse. I’m open to anything that is logical, humane and gets good long term results. The best trainers are flexible and tailor their program to each individual horse’s ability and temperment.