If you were to view a ‘perfect’ leg yield from the side, would the horse give the appearance of tracking up? Ie, would the hind legs appear to step in the prints of the fronts (although somewhat to the side to account for the lateral movement)?
Or, when viewed from the side, is it acceptable for the horse to not give the appearance of tracking up?
Thoughts? 
Hmm, I’ve never thought about it that way.
Given that part of the reason for lateral work is to engage the hind legs, I would say ideally yes, they should track up.
I wouldn’t necessarily expect overstride though.
Thanks atlatl
The reason for my question is this: In order for the horse to give the appearance of tracking up, the distance travelled by the hind legs in LY would need to be greater than the distance they travel ordinarily when going straight, depending on the degree of crossover. (Pythagoras’s theorem anyone??)
If however you assume the hind leg is travelling the same distance in LY as when going straight, then the horse will no longer give the appearance of tracking up when viewed from the side.
And I am wondering which is correct… Obviously the first situation requires A LOT more suppleness from the horse than the second.
Ah, but it is the difference in longitudinal displacement, not lateral displacement that counts for tracking up.
You are correct that the absolute distance travelled varies with the angle/degree of cross-over. When the top horses do halfpass, their hind legs cross above their hocks.
In shoulder-in, the horse is bent away from the direction of travel, and should be crossing the legs, especially behind. A correct shoulder in starts building the basis of collection, if the horse is lifting through the shoulder and moving the hind legs under the body. It took me a few years to see this start happening in my own horse.
My dressage coach says there is no such thing as leg yield :), it is just a shoulder in on a diagonal. Or, other times, she says that what gets done as leg yield is not particularly useful as a gymnastic, as the horse doesn’t really reach under the body in the same way as a shoulder-in.
My old jumper coach had me do leg-yields (never shoulder-in), and I believe the idea was to just keep the horse’s head a body as straight as possible while they moved sideways to the wall. She never commented on the foot-fall pattern, only on how promptly the horse responded and moved over.
So my conclusion is that there are different versions of what a leg-yield should be, possibly discipline specific. The answer to your question, then, depends on how you have the horse positioned during the leg yield. Are you thinking of it like a shoulder in, head bent away from direction of travel? Or are you thinking of it as the horse being straight, parallel to the direction of travel? The footfall patterns will, I believe, be different in either case.
Straight from the USEF Rulebook.
Leg-yielding. The horse is almost straight, except for a slight flexion at the poll away from the direction in which he moves, so that the rider is just able to see the eyebrow and nostril on the inside. The inside legs pass and cross in front of the outside legs. Leg-yielding should be included in the training of the horse before he is ready for collected work. Later on, together with the more advanced movement shoulder-in, it is the best means of making a horse supple, loose and unconstrained for the benefit of the freedom, elasticity and regularity of his gaits and the harmony, lightness and ease of his movements. Leg-yielding can be performed on the diagonal in which case the horse should be as close as possible parallel to the long sides of the arena although the fore-hand should be slightly in advance of the quarters. It can also be performed along the wall in which case the horse should be at an angle of about 35 degrees to the direction in which the horse is moving.
To answer your question I think the sideways movement of both the fore and hind legs will reduce the distance when you are looking at if from the side. Also keep in mind that the hind and foreleg in the trot no longer land/take off from the same axis. Pretend you are looking at it from above. What you see as tracking up is the hind leg finishing moving forward and down just as the front leg leaves the ground. But in a leg yield the hind leg falls no where near where the front leg lifts off from. Because the two legs don’t fall physically near each other you may have the illusion of tracking up or not tracking if you are even a hair off from looking perpendicular, Just as a half pass can look spectacular or ugly depending on where you are standing.
[QUOTE=Scribbler;8645720]
In shoulder-in, the horse is bent away from the direction of travel, and should be crossing the legs, especially behind. …[/QUOTE]
I was taught that shoulder-in is a three-track movement with NO crossing of the hind legs.
The horse is ridden with a slight but uniform bend around the inside leg of the rider maintaining cadence at a constant angle of approx. 30 degrees. The horse’s inside foreleg passes and crosses in front of the outside foreleg; the inside hind leg
steps forward under the horse’s body weight following the same track of the outside foreleg, with the lowering of the inside hip. The horse is bent away from the direction in which it is moving."
[USEF Rule Book DR111]
Interesting viewpoints. Thanks for sharing!
Scribbler wrote:
My dressage coach says there is no such thing as leg yield , it is just a shoulder in on a diagonal. Or, other times, she says that what gets done as leg yield is not particularly useful as a gymnastic, as the horse doesn’t really reach under the body in the same way as a shoulder-in.
Shoulder-in and leg yield are not the same. Correct leg yield is a pre-requisite for shoulder in and is NOT a collecting exercise; it is a suppling exercise. There is no bend in LY, only slight positioning of the poll.
With my horse, I know if I can’t ride a correct leg yield with the body STRAIGHT, I won’t be able to ride a correct shoulder in because I am not controlling the shoulder effectively. LY teaches the horse (and rider) the balance between sideways driving aids and outside holding aids. If you don’t have enough balance between your aids to ride a straight LY, how can you control the outside of the horse in SI?
Two Roads wrote:
To answer your question I think the sideways movement of both the fore and hind legs will reduce the distance when you are looking at if from the side. Also keep in mind that the hind and foreleg in the trot no longer land/take off from the same axis. Pretend you are looking at it from above. What you see as tracking up is the hind leg finishing moving forward and down just as the front leg leaves the ground. But in a leg yield the hind leg falls no where near where the front leg lifts off from. Because the two legs don’t fall physically near each other you may have the illusion of tracking up or not tracking if you are even a hair off from looking perpendicular, Just as a half pass can look spectacular or ugly depending on where you are standing.
This is exactly what I was getting at. Depending on where I’m watching from, I usually notice that any lateral movement looks like the horse is tracking up on one side, and not on the other. My eye isn’t educated enough though to tell whether it’s because of unevenness in the horse, or because of my vantage point.
The difference between LY and S/I for the rider, is that in LY the riders position and shoulders are that of straight ahead, with a slight weighting of the inside seat bone, which in LY to L would be the right seat bone.
IN S/I, the riders shoulders are turned inward, inside shoulder back, following the horse’s shoulders. The riders hips stay straight ahead, following the horse’s hips which are traveling straight ahead. There is no hind crossing. If the horse’s hind legs are crossing he is simply doing an incorrect LY with an over flexed neck.
A horse cannot “track up” in LY, as he is crossing his legs. The more active the cross, and the deeper the cross, within the horse’s physical limits, the better the LY.
Many older trainers do not consider LY a useful movement as it has little or no gymnastic effect, but if you wish to show First level, you must learn it.
In shoulder-in, the hind legs travel straight on the track, and should never cross.
This is so far off the mark that I might encourage you to get some information about these two movements form another source. In shoulder-in, the horse is bent around the inside leg. In a correct leg yield, there is NO bend, but there is slight flexion away from the direction of travel. IOW, in LY to the right, there is no bend, but there is slight flexion to the left.
I wonder if you are thinking of HI and half pass. Some say that HP is HI on the diagonal.
[QUOTE=SillyHorse;8646628]
I wonder if you are thinking of HI and half pass. Some say that HP is HI on the diagonal.[/QUOTE]
agree. there is no bend in LY at all, ever. shoulders slightly, very slightly, lead. there is flexion at the poll.
To answer Rosie- no, the horse wouldn’t track up ahead of the footprint left by the front leg, there is too much sideways displacement. As much as the LY isn’t a collecting movement my horse does seem to come under more.
I never talk about tracking up in LY, just getting an honest effort sideways, crossing of each leg, with impulsion, and STRAIGHT.
I do however, at times change the bend and ask for different things, but it’s not technically a LY anymore. It’s just schooling lateral movements to address a specific issue such as not taking a rein.
Ryeissa
[QUOTE=SillyHorse;8646628]
In shoulder-in, the hind legs travel straight on the track, and should never cross.
This is so far off the mark that I might encourage you to get some information about these two movements form another source. In shoulder-in, the horse is bent around the inside leg. In a correct leg yield, there is NO bend, but there is slight flexion away from the direction of travel. IOW, in LY to the right, there is no bend, but there is slight flexion to the left.
I wonder if you are thinking of HI and half pass. Some say that HP is HI on the diagonal.[/QUOTE]
I think my trainer’s overall point was, as Merrygoround says, the leg yield has no gymnastic effect, and to put it out of my mind
As far as the movement of the hindlegs in shoulder-in, yes, if you are doing the “show version” with a small angle off the rail, the back legs would probably just only go under the body, not cross. But for gymnastics, you can do all kinds of variations on angle and bend, on circles of various sizes, in-hand and in the saddle, at walk as well as trot. The action of the hind legs can be quite different from the show version down the rail. IME, these gymnastics really do help the horse engage the hind quarters, over time.
FEI rules are about what you do in the actual show ring, not what you do to train to get there. They just define what the move that you are judged on, should look like. They don’t (and don’t need to) discuss all the variations you can use in schooling.
Ly defintiely has an effect, it gets the horse from the inside leg to the outside rein.
It does not have a collecting effect.
if it has bend, its not really a LY, its probably some variation of HP, HI, or SI which all have bend.
I only use LY if a horse needs to stand up a shoulder, for example if I loose it in HP. Or for an easy schooling day. It gets the horse thinking about moving sideways.
It has it’s place, but I find myself using it less and less how it’s presented in the tests. sometimes I wonder why they don’t introduce SI at 1st, most people who show first find SI more useful than LY. no one really needs to do the 1st level patterns to school-- at least I don’t see much overall benefit to those as presented. I find I use the idea of moving over a few steps much more valuable inserted in other things like corners or whatever.
JMHO
Podhajsky even talks about “yielding to the leg”. I know when I went to SRS, they used leg yield on the young stallions - those that are 4 and 5 years old (aka first levelish).
The Germans used it extensively for cavalry training - there are some old videos floating around from the 1930s showing this.
So I don’t know why anyone would say it doesn’t exist? As for its usefulness, I think that is a topic of debate - the French/Spanish style of training uses it for the young horses, then stops using it after that. The German style of training continues to use it for suppling and engaging. I know that is a gross oversimplification, but probably sums up the arguments about the use of the movement.
Personally, I love LY, and use it on all my horses - I find it a very useful warm up exercise, and use it in all 3 gaits, and in many different variations, especially at the walk (along the wall, turn on forehand, wall to c-line, c-line to track, zig zag, etc).
[QUOTE=Scribbler;8647098]
As far as the movement of the hindlegs in shoulder-in, yes, if you are doing the “show version” with a small angle off the rail, the back legs would probably just only go under the body, not cross. But for gymnastics, you can do all kinds of variations on angle and bend, on circles of various sizes, in-hand and in the saddle, at walk as well as trot. The action of the hind legs can be quite different from the show version down the rail. IME, these gymnastics really do help the horse engage the hind quarters, over time.
FEI rules are about what you do in the actual show ring, not what you do to train to get there. They just define what the move that you are judged on, should look like. They don’t (and don’t need to) discuss all the variations you can use in schooling.[/QUOTE]
I suppose you can do anything you want, and call it anything you want. In a true shoulder-in, the outside fore and inside hind travel on the same track. That is shoulder-in. Steeper angle, hind legs crossing, whatever you want, go ahead and do it, but it’s not shoulder-in.
[QUOTE=Scribbler;8647098]
I think my trainer’s overall point was, as Merrygoround says, the leg yield has no gymnastic effect, and to put it out of my mind
…
FEI rules are about what you do in the actual show ring, not what you do to train to get there. They just define what the move that you are judged on, should look like. They don’t (and don’t need to) discuss all the variations you can use in schooling.[/QUOTE]
Actually the rules are about what defines the movements which are in and of themselves training mechanisms. Yes, there are variations depending on how well they are understood or executed, but they are what they are.
For example, I’m riding a horse that has spent most of his career as a jumper. He has some dressage education, but his go to version of SI is NOT my or my trainer’s version. We do a lot of LY to get him to stand up BOTH shoulders. On CL, LY, then straight then SI. If he bulges a shoulder, it’s back to LY.
I think of it like counterbending- I don’t ride a test with it, but having a tool is helpful. I just don’t call it “straight”.
However, playing with bend and angle is all great-- BUT–I wouldn’t ask for something like too much angle- there is 30 degrees for a reason.
Knowing why and how to “bend the rules” is critical. Don’t start guessing. there are reasons and theory behind the movements.
[QUOTE=SendenHorse;8647347]
I think of it like counterbending- I don’t ride a test with it, but having a tool is helpful. I just don’t call it “straight”.
However, playing with bend and angle is all great-- BUT–I wouldn’t ask for something like too much angle- there is 30 degrees for a reason.
Knowing why and how to “bend the rules” is critical. Don’t start guessing. there are reasons and theory behind the movements.[/QUOTE]
My coach/trainer is well enough educated to know how to vary the movements according to what the horse in training at this moment in time needs to develop, whether it is more angle/less bend on one side, or less angle/more bend on the other with our shoulder-ins.
I think of the test patterns as something that you ride to display your training, and the rules exist so that everyone is doing a standard move.
The last thing you want to do, is take the test patterns as a training module, and only train “to the test.” If you did that, you’d never do lateral work at the walk, only start at the trot. And you certainly don’t need to master everything at one test level before moving on to components from the next. Of course, some things do ladder into each other, but some things don’t.
So yes, for the test there is a narrow, specific definition of shoulder in, and you would need to be able to do that well for the test. But as far as building lateral mobility and hind-end engagement in a given horse, it might need all kinds of variations on any move in order to get to a good performance on the narrow, specific definition required by the test.
Whether someone wants to say that only the test definition down the rail is “real shoulder in” and everything else is something else, or whether you have an expanded definition of shoulder in as a gymnastic exercise, doesn’t matter that much really. I find it easier to call everything in this family of moves “shoulder in,” and differentiate it by “on the circle” (which changes the exercise quite a bit) or “with increased angle,” etc. But absolutely, no, these moves do not turn up on any test and therefore not in the FEI rules, and from a judges perspective therefore aren’t “real shoulder in.”
[QUOTE=Scribbler;8647423]
My coach/trainer is well enough educated to know how to vary the movements according to what the horse in training at this moment in time needs to develop, whether it is more angle/less bend on one side, or less angle/more bend on the other with our shoulder-ins.
I think of the test patterns as something that you ride to display your training, and the rules exist so that everyone is doing a standard move.
The last thing you want to do, is take the test patterns as a training module, and only train “to the test.” If you did that, you’d never do lateral work at the walk, only start at the trot. And you certainly don’t need to master everything at one test level before moving on to components from the next. Of course, some things do ladder into each other, but some things don’t.
So yes, for the test there is a narrow, specific definition of shoulder in, and you would need to be able to do that well for the test. But as far as building lateral mobility and hind-end engagement in a given horse, it might need all kinds of variations on any move in order to get to a good performance on the narrow, specific definition required by the test.
Whether someone wants to say that only the test definition down the rail is “real shoulder in” and everything else is something else, or whether you have an expanded definition of shoulder in as a gymnastic exercise, doesn’t matter that much really. I find it easier to call everything in this family of moves “shoulder in,” and differentiate it by “on the circle” (which changes the exercise quite a bit) or “with increased angle,” etc. But absolutely, no, these moves do not turn up on any test and therefore not in the FEI rules, and from a judges perspective therefore aren’t “real shoulder in.”[/QUOTE]
right, you said exactly what I said :lol:
just be careful, for example. if you have too much angle in a shoulder in, it can make the exercise a lot harder for the horse. Know what rules to break, in other words!
No, the rules exist so that people know what is correct and what is not. Again, you can do what ever you want, but if it doesn’t conform to the FEI description, it’s not a true shoulder-in, or half-pass, or anything else.
No one is talking about taking the tests as training modules, or only training to the tests. However, if you’re going to show, you’d better know what the movements are and how to execute them correctly.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
