RF Amber Eyes -- Now known as "Commentary"

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=subk;7033381]
I think you have totally missed the understanding of what “self-carriage” is. It doesn’t have much of anything to do with “speed.” Instead it is a function of balance. A horse in self-carriage changes speed, pace, gaits while in self-carriage all the time. The change of speed that you speak of might be a secondary effect to the primary one of a loss of balance when the weight in the hands is removed.

To have “carriage” a horse has to be balanced and a balanced horse is one that has transferred and his carrying 50%+ of his weight on his hind end as opposed to how a horse goes at liberty with 50%+ of his weight on his front end. So if you aren’t balanced in “carriage” in the first place you can’t have “self-carriage.” If you are running around with the hind end trailing with the weight on the forehand I don’t care what you do with the reins and what kind of response you get or don’t get nothing you do with your hands will indicate “self carriage.”

I agree with Littuaer, and very much train my eventers for that type of ride. But I’m pretty sure if you go re-read him he would say that the FIRST characteristic of a “stabilized horse” is one that is in balance.

.[/QUOTE]

A horse that is in balance does not need the reins to keep him at the same pace. I think even Mr. Wofford agrees with that statement. I’ll have to go find the article where he stated it (and even said eventers/dressage could learn a thing or two from hunters on self-carriage).

Self-carriage means the horse is responsible for its own balance. Stabilization means the horse needs little input from the rider to maintain the balance the rider is asking for.

So, if the rider is asking for Piaffe, the horse is not being cranked and spanked into it. If the rider is asking for a gallop, the horse is not continually having to be urged to maintain the pace requested.

And of course speed, pace, impulsion, etc can change in a horse that is in self-carriage…but if the rider is having to maintain that carriage at whatever pace it is currently at, well, it’s not self-carriage at all.

Balance is a continuum. You better believe that a race horse at full gallop is in just as much balance as a haute ecole horse doing a levade. Your definition of balance is short-sighted and too narrow…and leads to comments that other types of horse cannot be in balance because it does not look like your defintion of the word. Just like I can say “light contact” and it does not mean the same thing to me as it does to JER…and possibly you.

Is JER’s horse in balance? Looks like it to me. However, it doesn’t look like the horse would maintain it if the rider let go…thus my comments on self-carriage.

[DMK]

subk, I’m pretty sure Littauer has a vision for his version of self carriage (aka stabilization), and part of that vision includes the horse maintaining the same rhythm and speed with or without contact.

In theory you should be able to go down to anything from an X to a 3’6 jump on the buckle and have the horse feel like a metronome before and after the fence at whatever step you put him at. If you have your handy dandy Littauer bible available, Chapters 3 and 5 have some pretty good examples of stabilization and discuss the concept. So does Bible #2 (Commonsense Horsemanship), but my “new revised” edition is 40 years old, so I doubt page numbers mean much!

[subk]

[QUOTE=RugBug;7033400]
A horse that is in balance does not need the reins to keep him at the same pace. I think even Mr. Wofford agrees with that statement. I’ll have to go find the article where he stated it (and even said eventers/dressage could learn a thing or two from hunters on self-carriage).[/QUOTE]
I agree 100% with this and nothing I said disagrees with it. Even the part about things we could learn from hunters. And I positive that Mr. Wofford would agree that self-carriage or the lack of it isn’t about speed. Your definition of balance is too broad. It sounds as if you think that any horse that hasn’t fallen down is in self-carriage.

Again, what’s with the “letting go” thing. Any horse that keeps his frame when “letting go” or “the reins are dropped” is a a false frame. I assure you that isn’t what Lattauer (since you were the one to bring him up) or anybody else suggests doing to check “self-carriage.” The “self-carriage check” is a softening for a stride, maybe two. Done correctly it should be difficult if not imposible to see from the ground. And yes, a hot horse can be in self-carriage and respond correctly and imperceptibly for a stride–toss the reins at him and he’s happy to oblige and leave the scene at a high rate of speed. Doesn’t change that he was in self carriage.

Also I disagree with you on your opinion on JER horse. There are actually moments when I think the rider softens and rides forward to a distance without the horse changing pace. That isn’t just a “self-carriage check” that’s actually USING self-carriage (which is even a better indicator than speculating what might happen or what things “look”.)

[snoopy]

[QUOTE=subk;7033449]
I agree 100% with this and nothing I said disagrees with it. Even the part about things we could learn from hunters. And I positive that Mr. Wofford would agree that self-carriage or the lack of it isn’t about speed. Your definition of balance is too broad. It sounds as if you think that any horse that hasn’t fallen down is in self-carriage.

Again, what’s with the “letting go” thing. Any horse that keeps his frame when “letting go” or “the reins are dropped” is a a false frame. I assure you that isn’t what Lattauer (since you were the one to bring him up) or anybody else suggests doing to check “self-carriage.” The “self-carriage check” is a softening for a stride, maybe two. Done correctly it should be difficult if not imposible to see from the ground. And yes, a hot horse can be in self-carriage and respond correctly and imperceptibly for a stride–toss the reins at him and he’s happy to oblige and leave the scene at a high rate of speed. Doesn’t change that he was in self carriage.

Also I disagree with you on your opinion on JER horse. There are actually moments when I think the rider softens and rides forward to a distance without the horse changing pace. That isn’t just a “self-carriage check” that’s actually USING self-carriage (which is even a better indicator than speculating what might happen or what things “look”.)[/QUOTE]

:yes:

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=subk;7033449]
Your definition of balance is too broad. It sounds as if you think that any horse that hasn’t fallen down is in self-carriage.[/QUOTE]

No, not every horse that isn’t falling down is in self-carriage…but just because my canter does not look like your canter does not mean my horse is not in balance and self-carriage.

(and admittedly being a little snarky - any forward movement is the act of “falling down” and then catching yourself at a very, very basic level. Muscles fire to put you at odds with gravity and then other muscles fire, catching yourself with a step forward and you win your fight with gravity).

Again, what’s with the “letting go” thing. Any horse that keeps his frame when “letting go” or “the reins are dropped” is a a false frame. I assure you that isn’t what Lattauer (since you were the one to bring him up) or anybody else suggests doing to check “self-carriage.” The “self-carriage check” is a softening for a stride, maybe two. Done correctly it should be difficult if not imposible to see from the ground.

It can be a sign of being in a false or mannered frame…especially when the poll is flexed but reins should not be required to maintain a desired shape/balance. You should be able to use a piece of yarn for reins and get the same response if you are asking about true self-carriage, IMO.

Edited to add: Commonsense Horsemanship is Littauer’s argument for Forward Riding and a reasoning of why collection, as being practiced at that time, was detrimental to jumping horses. He really didn’t want a flexed poll much at all. The poked out nose of the hunter is part and parcel of this system.

And yes, a hot horse can be in self-carriage and respond correctly and imperceptibly for a stride–toss the reins at him and he’s happy to oblige and leave the scene at a high rate of speed. Doesn’t change that he was in self carriage.
I would argue that this is a horse that is accepting of contact, but probably not a stabilized horse if it is going to take off when the reins are tossed and no other corresponding request for increased pace comes form the rider.

Also I disagree with you on your opinion on JER horse. There are actually moments when I think the rider softens and rides forward to a distance without the horse changing pace. That isn’t just a “self-carriage check” that’s actually USING self-carriage (which is even a better indicator than speculating what might happen or what things “look”.)

This may be so, but its not the impression the horse gives. It gives one of being held where it is…which is why I made my comments that it does not look like it is in self-carriage that we would expect a hunter to be in.

IMO, it’s not necessarily that either of us is wrong, but it’s just that there is temptation to use one definition of doing something and call it the “Correct and only” one. It’s like reading a book. You are telling me to read from left to right top to bottom but I’m telling you my book is in Hebrew and needs to be read right to left…or Japanese and my book needs to be read top to bottom then left to right. It’s all still “correct” reading. They are all still books…but the process and definitions are different…not WRONG, just different.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=JER;7033165]

This is puzzling to me. I read these comments about ‘happy’ and ‘natural’ and ‘light contact’, but that’s not what I see in the videos. Maggie Jayne’s handsy round is none of the above. John French is conducting a string quartet with his outside hand and repeatedly dropping contact. I watched a vid of Scott Stewart on Destination(?) and I saw a horse that lost what little impulsion it had as it approached most jumps. (I tried to watch Taken, but literally couldn’t see the horse for the trees.). A stabilized horse should not require, as asterix so astutely put it, a marionette show. A stabilized horse should be one that is connected from the inside leg to the outside rein, and all adjustments can be made from there.[/QUOTE]

I’ll respond to this because it was added after…

1)John French’s round is beautiful. Methinks you are being nit-picky just to be…

2. The hunter that can go around with the lightest contact imaginable and doesn’t need a constant feel of its mouth is kind of what we are going for. If you don’t need the reins for anything, the contact should be light as a feather…or perhaps non-existent.

3)My personal opinion is that the upper levels of the hunters has gone too far with the concept of slow. Horses should be jumping from a hand gallop, but right now, they really aren’t allowed to if they want to win. This can creates two things: a)a distance between the tippy-top horses (the ones that have the ability to lope slowly down a line and still make the longer distances and get the spreads (Garfield comes to mind)) and the ones that can make it with some more pace/impulsion. b) and it creates the grunting, lack of power jump with the landing in a heap that you see from some of the horses. It takes a truly exceptional horse to jump a 4’6" oxer from a lope and make it looks extremely easy. The tops ones usually do, but sometimes they just crawl over stuff. It’s not my favorite look, for sure.

[omare]

I feel like I see head/poll and neck toplines in both disciplines created by (invisible) draw reins. . Maybe with a better more educated eye I will rethink what i am seeing. But now I have to go get Littauer’s book.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=omare;7033627]
I feel like I see head/poll and neck toplines in both disciplines created by (invisible) draw reins. . Maybe with a better more educated eye I will rethink what i am seeing. But now I have to go get Littauer’s book.[/QUOTE]

I’m pretty sure you do see that quite a bit.

[vineyridge]

Been thinking about this. Do I misunderstand “stabilization”? My understanding is that a horse is “stabilized” when it will continue doing the last thing the rider asked for until the rider asks for something else. As soon as the rider changes anything–shifts weight, changes pressure on the reins, uses leg, the horse is also supposed to respond with something different. So if the rider releases the reins, say, and the horse continues on doing whatever it was doing before the pressure change, it isn’t properly trained because it’s not responding to the rider’s signals. Unless, of course, it’s trained not to respond. In which case, I wouldn’t exactly call it “stabilized” by my definition. So what is the horse in hunters supposed to do when the reins are suddenly floppy? When the rein pressure is resumed? I’ve seen them REALLY floppy over jumps. Are they ridden completely from the seat and legs?

[RugBug]

@vineyridge;7033835

Been thinking about this. Do I misunderstand “stabilization”? My understanding is that a horse is “stabilized” when it will continue doing the last thing the rider asked for until the rider asks for something else. As soon as the rider changes anything–shifts weight, changes pressure on the reins, uses leg, the horse is also supposed to respond with something different.

This is my understanding.

So if the rider releases the reins, say, and the horse continues on doing whatever it was doing before the pressure change, it isn’t properly trained because it’s not responding to the rider’s signals. Unless, of course, it’s trained not to respond. In which case, I wouldn’t exactly call it “stabilized” by my definition. So what is the horse in hunters supposed to do when the reins are suddenly floppy? When the rein pressure is resumed? I’ve seen them REALLY floppy over jumps. Are they ridden completely from the seat and legs?

you can, obviously, have a feel of the mouth without pulling and without much pressure at all. With that in mind, my understanding is that there really wouldn’t be much of a need for rein pressure unless a horse is being asked to slow or collect…and once that has been accomplished, the contact returns to a soft feel (think yarn reins feel). With a stabilized horse you wouldn’t be in a situation of “releasing” the reins that provides a direction. Does that make any sense?

I ride my horse off of half halts mostly, not a steady firm feel. If they get too quick, unbalanced, etc, I halfhalt and correct and then let go again (adding leg to the ones that need the additional support for the halfhalt). My reins aren’t loopy (well, sometimes they are…it’s a fault of mine) but the contact is as minimal as I can get away with.

(and just for the record…I’m not claiming any of my horses are perfectly stabilized…one is too slow, the other gets too fast (for now, I’m learning her as I’ve only had her two months…the speed is usually a reaction to tension in me)…the other gets a little unbalanced. But, I work towards them being stabilized and me having to do as little as possible.)

[asterix]

[QUOTE=NinaL aka Chrissy;7033230]
Oh, piffle. I am in a barn that goes to a lot of AA shows and the riders compete successfully. The “prep” most of the hunters get is probably less than your average eventer. Granted they are not as fit as an eventing horse but does this sound like a hard prep? Hack on showgrounds day before class. Maybe do one or two 3’3" performance hunters with pro. Day of show - 15 minute to 60 minute hack in the ring depending upon time schedule and energy level of horse. Medications - Bute the night before (just in case) and maybe Robaxin all within the legal limits.

Nina[/QUOTE]

I’m a little surprised no one else has commented on this…
In eventing, no one except the competitor is allowed to ride the horse at an event (except for hacking from barn to ring on a loose rein), so no “pro rounds.”

And as for “bute just in case and Robaxin, all within limits”…
Um, no. I have been eventing more than 10 years, most of that based at a farm run by a very upper level rider. It is absolutely not the norm to give bute and Robaxin to every horse before an event. I do know older campaigners who are sometimes given bute and have a meds form submitted. I don’t think I’ve ever submitted one. If a horse needs Robaxin, it is because it is sore and needs time off, not because it is going to a show and every horse gets “prep.”

The disciplines have legitimate differences in what is considered the desired type or way of going. Sorry, but I do not see the hunter addiction to chemical prep as a legitimate element of horsemanship.

[DMK]

[QUOTE=asterix;7033927]
I do know older campaigners who are sometimes given bute and have a meds form submitted. I don’t think I’ve ever submitted one.[/QUOTE]

Why ever would you submit a meds form??? Knowing the rules is a good thing. Torturing overworked horse show officials with unnecessary paperwork is another. I mean maybe they could get on top of that whole transferring ownership debacle at the heart of this thread if they weren’t shuffling through meds forms that are not required under the rules. OK, tongue is firmly in cheek there, I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t help with the transfer time lag…

And “hunter addiction to the chemical prep” has an entirely different connotation than “under the same rules as their fellow eventers” (and all the other USEF/non FEI sports except endurance). Don’t get me wrong, there are some shameful practices in the hunters right now and it needs to change STAT. But unfortunately every sport has its shameful practices as was abundantly clear in the “prohibited practices” discussion of the USEF town hall. Judge not lest ye be judged and all that. I prefer to work towards positive change and was pretty ashamed of some h/j people on this board a few years back when there was a problem with rotational falls in eventing. It’s guess it’s good to see shame is a two way street?

And if it makes you feel any better, plenty of horses go without the pro ride, including the one in my profile pic. My “prep” was a school on Friday night (or not, depending on how long it had been since we showed), and 5 o/f fences classes over Saturday/Sunday - a warm up trip on Saturday (when available), 4 o/f in the division and the classic (the money class). Even when a pro was riding him way back when he was a greenie (I thought it was important for him to learn what it felt like to do it right before I introduced him to chippy mclongspot, we had a rule of no more than 3 divisions over 2 weeks of showing so either the pro showed both and I showed one, or the pro showed the first and I showed both, depending on what was good for the horse (and my work schedule).

And on that note, I’ve certainly seen many eventers (the ones I know and trust as good horseman) let a pro compete their horse in order for that horse to have a good experience before they do, are you saying that is not a good practice? Because that really isn’t any different from what I described above…

FYI for those who want to read Littauer, try “Schooling Your Horse” followed by Commonsense Horsemanship.

On the issue of horses landing in a heap, there is a very successful rider who is famous for horses who crawl around courses (and land in a heap). He’s good, but my opinion is the derbies are not his cup of tea, and I have noticed he doesn’t really enter them like he used to.

Maggie has always been just all over a horse when she rides and I imagine more than a few judges work hard to remember they are judging the horse and there is no score for the rider. But I’ve noticed she takes all the handy and high options so that can bump a score up over rounds that might have been better. And of course the handy is now a “go big or go home” round and she is deadly accurate, so just like any other sport, sometimes the “go big” piece really messes with the results.

It’s funny, John French has never been my favorite Derby rider. Unlike Louise, Jennifer or Kelly, he plays it safe and seems to ride derbies like the regulars. But Rumba did his famous round very early in the Derby history and courses were still evolving (and the handy results couldn’t upset the apple cart like it can today). As good as he was at what he did then (basically a glorified regular hunter course), I am not sure he would be as successful (albeit still very good) for today’s more handy options. Or maybe he would have and JF just didn’t have to ride him that way back then to win. He may have well have rose to the occasion but he didn’t have to back then. And yes, he’s a BIG horse and not likely to be the same kind of light on his feet as a TB. He’s through Capitol, fer chrissakes. Not my cup of tea, but its hard to deny the athleticism of that line.

[NinaL_aka_Chrissy]

[QUOTE=asterix;7033927]
I’m a little surprised no one else has commented on this…
In eventing, no one except the competitor is allowed to ride the horse at an event (except for hacking from barn to ring on a loose rein), so no “pro rounds.”

And as for “bute just in case and Robaxin, all within limits”…
Um, no. I have been eventing more than 10 years, most of that based at a farm run by a very upper level rider. It is absolutely not the norm to give bute and Robaxin to every horse before an event. I do know older campaigners who are sometimes given bute and have a meds form submitted. I don’t think I’ve ever submitted one. If a horse needs Robaxin, it is because it is sore and needs time off, not because it is going to a show and every horse gets “prep.”

The disciplines have legitimate differences in what is considered the desired type or way of going. Sorry, but I do not see the hunter addiction to chemical prep as a legitimate element of horsemanship.[/QUOTE]

Different disciplines do things differently. The rules are different. If someone has a problem with the hunter/jumper rules they can propose a rule change. shrug I don’t think one is better or worse than the other. I do not endorse a lot of the stuff that goes on at the hunter shows (go read some of my old posts and you will get a better view of where I came from - I wish the rule allowing Dexamethasone would go away) but I hardly classify the dose of Bute and/or Robaxin allowed by the USEF as chemical preparation.

As always this is a discussion board and everyone sees things differently.

Nina

[Janet]

[QUOTE=asterix;7033927]

And as for “bute just in case and Robaxin, all within limits”…
…
I do know older campaigners who are sometimes given bute and have a meds form submitted. [/QUOTE]

If you are giving bute within legal limits,you should NOT be submitting meds forms.

However, the fact that so many Eventers seem to be unaware of this indicates that “routine” use of bute is much less common with eventers than hunters.

[asterix]

Yep, I freely admit I am a bit foggy on when I would need to submit a meds form, because if I got to Thursday before an event and thought my horse would need something BEFORE/during the show, my first thought would be to scratch, not to go look up how much of what I could give him.

DMK, little sensitive maybe? I was responding to a very specific statement about the described prep as “probably less than most eventers” – it is simply not true that most eventers routinely use bute and Robaxin and have a pro prep the horse in the competition ring.

I never said either practice was illegal for hunters, and I certainly have zero beef with having a pro ride your horse at home or in competition. I have a somewhat spicy new baby horse who may well get a pro ride for some cross country schools or a horse trial depending on how things do.

I was, again, just pointing out that things are different, and I really do not like the use of meds as a routine part of showing in the hunter discipline. Not apologizing for that.

Thought Maggie’s round was hard to watch and John’s less so. Thanks for the background on both of those.

[eponacowgirl]

@NinaL aka Chrissy;7033230

Oh, piffle. I am in a barn that goes to a lot of AA shows and the riders compete successfully. The “prep” most of the hunters get is probably less than your average eventer. Granted they are not as fit as an eventing horse but does this sound like a hard prep? Hack on showgrounds day before class. Maybe do one or two 3’3" performance hunters with pro. Day of show - 15 minute to 60 minute hack in the ring depending upon time schedule and energy level of horse. Medications - Bute the night before (just in case) and maybe Robaxin all within the legal limits.

Most eventers I know “prep” by getting on their horse and walking to dressage warmup.

If I arrive on Thursday for a show and don’t show until Saturday, I ride on Friday, usually a light dressage school. Once we arrive on grounds, we don’t jump until our first jumping phase warmup.

[subk]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;7033835]
Been thinking about this. Do I misunderstand “stabilization”? My understanding is that a horse is “stabilized” when it will continue doing the last thing the rider asked for until the rider asks for something else. As soon as the rider changes anything–shifts weight, changes pressure on the reins, uses leg, the horse is also supposed to respond with something different. [/QUOTE]
Just for the record, Mr. Wofford teaches “stabilization” to eventers. I don’t recall him using that specific term, but I have actually discussed these concepts and how to train for them with him. It is not a huntercentric concept. I beleive it has roots in the French dressage theory (as oppose to German theroy) that was Mr. Lattauer’s early experience and background.

[NinaL_aka_Chrissy]

Re: Eventing prep. I think I need to clarify. Judging from what I saw for warmup for cross country at Rolex a lot of those horses jump many more warmup jumps then some hunters I know. Also, lots of galloping during warmup. Obviously, you need to do that - you just can’t take a fit horse and charge out of the start box. Well, you can but it is probably not the best thing for your horse. So I don’t mean prep to make the horse easy to ride but prep to get the horse ready for his job. Which, after all, what preparation means. You can “prep” a horse without resorting to lunge to death, ride to death or medication. And, FWIW, I spent four years while I was at college riding with Ralph Hill so I am not totally ignorant about the sport of evening.

[jaj]

[QUOTE=NinaL aka Chrissy;7034707]
so I am not totally ignorant about the sport of evening.[/QUOTE]

Made me laugh–thanks.

[asterix]

Rolex is not your typical event and it is not equivalent to the standard prep of either eventers or hunters. The vast majority of amateur eventers do not compete at the four star level.
It’s a bit disingenuous to compare the warmup on Rolex cross country day to what goes on at 99% of eventing competitions. I would think if you rode with Ralph Hill you would know that.
If one must compare, however, I feel compelled to point out that those horses are on neither bute nor Robaxin, since they are competing under FEI rules.