Parelli quote. WTF?

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=Wirt;7635026]
She is using full contact with reins. They are just around his neck, instead of attached to a bit. It appears that she is holding on to him pretty strongly too. So it kind of begs the question. Is this horse thinking less because she is using reins?
I do not understand this fascination with bridless riding anyway. One reason may be because we are not seeing great examples of riding with a bridle. PP certainly can’t show us.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=alibi_18;7635062]If that is the best exemple you could find… irk.

And still, this horse was trained with a bridle; see this trainer’s other videos.[/QUOTE]

Right, the horse there is rushing around on it’s front end and she is pulling for all is worth.
Not at all what riding “on the wire”, that is without a bridle but with something around the neck, is supposed to be.

For those that want to try that, remember, you keep whatever you use loose.
Use it to tap the horse lightly with that wire/string/hoop, whatever you are using.
Pulling on it results in what you have there, a horse pulling against you, not listening to you.

The idea of riding without a bridle is to ultimately ride without anything on the horse’s front.
No strings, no sticks to tap it with, nothing.
The horse listening to your other aids, you seat and legs and weight changes and voice.
Pulling like that won’t give you that.
Teaching the horse to depend on other aids that something on your hands will.

I like to teach students to ride without a bridle a bit.
It helps them check that their seat is truly independent, not having to use their hands for balance all the time in front of them, much less depending on pulling on the reins here and there to rebalance themselves.
You can do on the longe line or riding loose.
That is for the rider’s benefit.

I like to teach a horse to go with whatever aids I want to use, no bridle is also one way to check that the horse is truly responsive to other aids.
Riding like that for long?
Horses tend to get strung out, if you keep it up, because of the nature of horses, is how they travel when a rider is not helping get back over themselves.
Something in the front, bridle or string, helps then balance better, a bridle way more than a string around the neck.

Humans are depending on their hands for practically all we do, that is why to us it seems such a great feat to ride without that aid.
In reality, just because our hands can be such a great aid communicating with a horse, to eliminate that, to make it more difficult to communicate, when we have something so simple and easy as whatever we want to use to help our hands communicate, may not be such a great idea.
To ride without anything on a horse’s front is ok for training, for demonstrations.
Why make it harder on the horse to understand us by taking a simple, good aid away, just to make it more difficult, other than the rare time?

[Wirt]

[QUOTE=Bluey;7635080]
Right, the horse there is rushing around on it’s front end and she is pulling for all is worth.
Not at all what riding “on the wire”, that is without a bridle but with something around the neck, is supposed to be.

For those that want to try that, remember, you keep whatever you use loose.
Use it to tap the horse lightly with that wire/string/hoop, whatever you are using.
Pulling on it results in what you have there, a horse pulling against you, not listening to you.

The idea of riding without a bridle is to ultimately ride without anything on the horse’s front.
No strings, no sticks to tap it with, nothing.
The horse listening to your other aids, you seat and legs and weight changes and voice.
Pulling like that won’t give you that.
Teaching the horse to depend on other aids that something on your hands will.

I like to teach students to ride without a bridle a bit.
It helps them check that their seat is truly independent, not having to use their hands for balance all the time in front of them, much less depending on pulling on the reins here and there to rebalance themselves.
You can do on the longe line or riding loose.
That is for the rider’s benefit.

I like to teach a horse to go with whatever aids I want to use, no bridle is also one way to check that the horse is truly responsive to other aids.
Riding like that for long?
Horses tend to get strung out, if you keep it up, because of the nature of horses, is how they travel when a rider is not helping get back over themselves.
Something in the front, bridle or string, helps then balance better, a bridle way more than a string around the neck.

Humans are depending on their hands for practically all we do, that is why to us it seems such a great feat to ride without that aid.
In reality, just because our hands can be such a great aid communicating with a horse, to eliminate that, to make it more difficult to communicate, when we have something so simple and easy as whatever we want to use to help our hands communicate, may not be such a great idea.
To ride without anything on a horse’s front is ok for training, for demonstrations.
Why make it harder on the horse to understand us by taking a simple, good aid away, just to make it more difficult, other than the rare time?[/QUOTE]

That’s what I’m saying.
It’s as if you started an art school for fine painting, but your instruction is centered around not using brushes. Paint with your hands, your feet, whatever, just don’t use a brush. It is just not a valid school of art, because it has removed the instruction for one of the cornerstones of painting. And all because the instructor never mastered the skill himself. So he creates a whole painting system based on an incomplete education system.

[Guilherme]

Forgoing the use of the reins is possible, but what benefit does it confer (on human and horse) against what both lose in the surrender of this very effective channel of communication?

The reins are used with, and in accordance with, the seat and leg. That a lot of people (including the undersigned) rely too much on the reins is a fault. I’m working on it; it takes time to learn to rely less on the rein and more on your seat, leg, and balance.

Too, there is the issue of the horse’s level and type of training. If the horse is correctly trained in the classical fashion then rein reliance is a lot less than if the horse has been “shotgun trained in the backyard” by a someone who had no idea what they were about.

The only “school” answer is to learn to use the aids in accordance with each other in each training situation in which you find yourself.

G.

[airhorse]

[QUOTE=Wirt;7635236]
That’s what I’m saying.
It’s as if you started an art school for fine painting, but your instruction is centered around not using brushes. Paint with your hands, your feet, whatever, just don’t use a brush. It is just not a valid school of art, because it has removed the instruction for one of the cornerstones of painting. And all because the instructor never mastered the skill himself. So he creates a whole painting system based on an incomplete education system.[/QUOTE]

Paint with whatever works, use the brush for precision or to touch up areas you missed with your legs or seat.

[nwrider]

[QUOTE=GypsyQ;7630868]
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

The quote on it’s own is not incorrect. In the Grand context of Parrelli, however…[/QUOTE]

Love this!

[Halfling]

Guilherme. Right on comment! Thank you. A perfect example is the YouTube video of Isabelle Werth writing Sachmo through the Grand Prix movements without bridle or saddle. Only a halter and lead shank. However, she could not have done that were it not for her training with a bridle and saddle. To me this just shows how well her horse is trained and proves your point.

[goneriding24]

[QUOTE=GypsyQ;7630868]
Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.

The quote on it’s own is not incorrect. In the Grand context of Parrelli, however…[/QUOTE]

I haven’t been around in forever on this board, thought I’d give it a peruse and found this!! Just had to read it, yanno??

As for the above? Yepperoo.

[Lady_Eboshi]

Here ya go:

http://demotivationalpost.com/202/parelli

[CaitlinandTheBay]

[QUOTE=Halfling;7637979]
Guilherme. Right on comment! Thank you. A perfect example is the YouTube video of Isabelle Werth writing Sachmo through the Grand Prix movements without bridle or saddle. Only a halter and lead shank. However, she could not have done that were it not for her training with a bridle and saddle. To me this just shows how well her horse is trained and proves your point.[/QUOTE]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMo-w69I0WA

I love this video. You can just see what a great time they’re both having! Dressage can be fun!

As for a Parelli thing- I don’t get the whole ‘riding without a bridle’ thing. Why would you NOT want a bridle on? I mean, I can cop to be lazy sometimes and just strolling bareback in the pasture with a halter. I had a friend with a WP horse and he could go bridless all day. He’s not personality-less in the least (he’s very familiar with hugs, treats, and demands face rubs). Really, though, he’s a one in a million horse. I can’t think of another horse in the world (including my own) id trust enough to not have something up front.

[alterhorse]

I think all PP did was to take a whole bunch of old school horsemanship and come up with novel ways to implement it using trademarked names.

Some of it I can see the “classical roots” behind the methodology, some seems to me more like added superfluous “fluff” that embellishes and aggrandises what is really just a basic tenet of training.

I’m happy for those who the PP system works for, but I think it focuses on the “fluff” more than the “roots”. I think certain individuals could become confused in being able to understand that there are many different methods that can accomplish that same training objectives in horsemanship, and what PP is providing, is just some of those options.

As far as the quote in question:
“Remember, the more you use your reins, the less they use their brains.”

Assuming PP actually did say this intending to conveigh a singular fact.

Their is some classical training philosophy behind that statment. But I’d consider it a poor choice of words for expressing that classical tenant.

Properly, I think it would be better to say that a horse that is attentively on the aids and listening to its rider, will be more likely to remain focused on the rider, and this level of focus tends to prevent the horse from thinking about things that may distract it from the work at hand.

So I can understand what I assume it the intent may have been, but I see what was said as only a very simplistically stated, single element, of a multifaceted concept, structured in a way that may very likely be confusing for some riders to interpret correctly.

But this all depends on what was actually said, and whether is was spoken in context with any additional information that might have provided more clarity.

??