Amen. :sadsmile:
.
[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;2986765]
Straightness in dressage is not “stick straight.” It is learning to bend through the rib cage and align the front hooves between the hind hooves especially on circles and corners. I don’t believe that “yo-yo games” have any applicability at all.
Acceptance of the bit is not something that I have seen in PNH. Horses must seek a good steady contact with the bit in order to be straightened and to come “though” over their backs. Release from pressure–whether that pressure is minimal or not–teaches the opposite of what is required for dressage.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the above.
Another error in their training is how they bend/flex. My horse has to drop the bit in order to bend the way the P,s want him to and drop behind the veriticle to flex. It is obvious that the toplines on these horses are underdeveloped so that should speak for itself.
.
[QUOTE=MyReality;2994119]
slc2 I totally agree with what you said. Well said.
You see, that’s where I disagree, respectfully.
Why does it have to do with AQHA (except that it is a big market)?? The directive of AQHA has very little to do with dressage, I’d be happy if it actually has a directive for the breed. I am not trying to get into a breed war here. I see a value of introducing a form of dressage for pleasure purpose, like Cadora, but I disagree it has to do with a breed, and AQHA is a poor example as such. Of course it makes perfect sense in marketing perspective, but what good does it do for either dressage or the breed??? Just look at AQHA, it is built on people who don’t care, except as a marketing engine, the more the merrier.
Enter WAZ to teach dressage… which is fine and dandy. But why does it have to be married to NH… that is the confusing part. QH owners doing dressage, why not… QH owners do PP, to each their own… PP people doing dressage, still not a problem… but combining dressage and PP, I cannot understand.
Then why is the allegations of horse abuse, and the victory gallop incident even in the picture?? Every discipline has its mishap, every discipline has bad blood. Little Sally’s Mom need to open her eyes, and not be so ignorant… she should pay special attention to trainers who claim to be the ultimate supreme horse communicator educator, who make sure you pay a couple hundred dollars for an orange stick and rope. Dressage doesn’t need NH, and especially PP, for stamp of approval.[/QUOTE]
I agree.
I just watched a video of a very accomplished Hunter under saddle trainer last night. I can tell you that the AQHA trainers dont want a noodle neck anymore than dressage riders do. His horses while not being on the bit are trained to seek it to some degree and they have a strong topline from lots of lateral training.
I see a problem getting the Ps in any discipline.
[QUOTE=MyReality;2994119]
Why does it have to do with AQHA (except that it is a big market)?? The directive of AQHA has very little to do with dressage, I’d be happy if it actually has a directive for the breed. I am not trying to get into a breed war here. I see a value of introducing a form of dressage for pleasure purpose, like Cadora, but I disagree it has to do with a breed, and AQHA is a poor example as such. Of course it makes perfect sense in marketing perspective, but what good does it do for either dressage or the breed??? Just look at AQHA, it is built on people who don’t care, except as a marketing engine, the more the merrier.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what your addressing here, but the dressage directive exists http://www.aqha.com/showing/guidetoshowing/dressage.html Not sure why you feel the AQHA is built on people who don’t care (?), I would not agree. But atleast we agree AQHA is a big market, and something PP is interested in.
Maybe little Sally’s mom eyes are wide open and she doesn’t want her daughter in a youtube video in the midst of abuse allegations. Maybe she feels confident that NH is atleast non-abusive, and maybe she also realizes her daughter isn’t ever going to qualify for the Pan Am games. Many people just want a fun safe experience for their kids, not internationally correct education (by internationally correct education referring here to above post re seeking, but not on, the bit).
No it does not, Dressage should outlive PP. But what does that have to do with today’s marketplace and PPs current interest in dressage?
[QUOTE=MyReality;2994119]
Why does it have to do with AQHA (except that it is a big market)?? The directive of AQHA has very little to do with dressage, I’d be happy if it actually has a directive for the breed. I am not trying to get into a breed war here. I see a value of introducing a form of dressage for pleasure purpose, like Cadora, but I disagree it has to do with a breed, and AQHA is a poor example as such. Of course it makes perfect sense in marketing perspective, but what good does it do for either dressage or the breed??? Just look at AQHA, it is built on people who don’t care, except as a marketing engine, the more the merrier.[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you’re addressing here, but the dressage directive exists http://www.aqha.com/showing/guidetoshowing/dressage.html Not sure why you feel the AQHA is built on people who don’t care (?), I would not agree. But atleast we agree AQHA is a big market, and something PP is interested in.
Maybe little Sally’s mom eyes are wide open and she doesn’t want her daughter in a youtube video in the midst of abuse allegations. Maybe she feels confident that NH is atleast non-abusive, and maybe she also fully realizes, with her eyes wide open, her daughter isn’t ever going to qualify for the Pan Am games. Many people just want a fun safe experience for their kids, not demand internationally correct results (by internationally correct results referring here to above post re seeking, but not on, the bit).
No it does not, Dressage should outlive PP. But what does that have to do with today’s marketplace and PPs current interest in dressage? There are many brands of dressage throughout it’s long history, let’s not forget that…
—“Why does it have to do with AQHA (except that it is a big market)?? The directive of AQHA has very little to do with dressage, I’d be happy if it actually has a directive for the breed. I am not trying to get into a breed war here. I see a value of introducing a form of dressage for pleasure purpose, like Cadora, but I disagree it has to do with a breed, and AQHA is a poor example as such. Of course it makes perfect sense in marketing perspective, but what good does it do for either dressage or the breed??? Just look at AQHA, it is built on people who don’t care, except as a marketing engine, the more the merrier.”—
WOW! Where do you get those ideas?
The AQHA is a REGISTRY, founded by some people that liked one kind of horse, that could do some tasks they valued and, as anyone breeding for a goal, started a pedigree keeping association.
The dressage found in the AQHA is not a direct part of AQHA, but a record keeping and honor giving program, according to those record’s rules, to those participating in regular dressage shows, for what I have heard.
That service to AQHA members was added when they wanted to be recognized for their dressage accomplishments in regular dressage shows while riding an AQHA horse.
It is one more member service, as requested by those interested members, as the AQHA bylaws requires.
—"DRESSAGE
NEW PROGRAM RECOGNIZES QUARTER HORSES IN DRESSAGE.
BY MEGHAN MACKEY
A top-10 year-end recognition program for American Quarter Horses competing in dressage was approved during the Executive Committee’s April meeting.
The top award will go to the Quarter Horse that earns the highest score in the highest level of competition at an approved United States Dressage Federation or Federation Equestre Internationale event. The top award will be a saddle. Second place will receive a belt buckle, and third through 10th place will receive certificates.
AQHA Professional Horseman Lynn Palm is excited about the program.
“For me as a horse trainer, dressage is a wonderful progression that’s been used for centuries and centuries,” she said. “It’s a great progression for teaching riders to become good, skilled, effective riders. And it’s a natural way to train a horse, it promotes good ethics of horsemanship.”"—
I don’t see why you object to what some breed association members do with their horses?
I would say that dressage in itself could not but benefit, gives dressage more exposure.:yes:
[QUOTE=Bluey;2994350The dressage found in the AQHA is not a direct part of AQHA, but a record keeping and honor giving program, according to those record’s rules, to those participating in regular dressage shows, for what I have heard.
That service to AQHA members was added when they wanted to be recognized for their dressage accomplishments in regular dressage shows while riding an AQHA horse.
It is one more member service, as requested by those interested members, as the AQHA bylaws requires.[/QUOTE]
The Appaloosa Horse Club (which is far from being my favorite organization) has a similar program called ACAAP. You sign up (cheaply - something like $25 and then $5 for recordkeeping over X # of scores). Then you show at open dressage shows and forward your placings/scores to ApHC. At the end of the year they publish the top 10 and give certificates/awards. They do this for ALL people showing Appaloosa open - whether it’s trail competition, dressage, western pleasure/halter/hunter-jumper, eventing, what have you…
[QUOTE=Sandy M;2994414]
The Appaloosa Horse Club (which is far from being my favorite organization) has a similar program called ACAAP. You sign up (cheaply - something like $25 and then $5 for recordkeeping over X # of scores). Then you show at open dressage shows and forward your placings/scores to ApHC. At the end of the year they publish the top 10 and give certificates/awards. They do this for ALL people showing Appaloosa open - whether it’s trail competition, dressage, western pleasure/halter/hunter-jumper, eventing, what have you…[/QUOTE]
Requirements for the AQHA dressage awards:
—"Qualifications:
Horse and rider must have eight scores under four different judges at four different competitions.
FEI levels must score at or above 58 percent.
Horse must compete with AQHA name and number.
Exhibitor must be a member of AQHA.
Eligible events must be judged by United States Equestrian Federation judges.
Ties will be broken by the average of the horse’s best eight scores.
For more information about dressage, please visit http://www.usdf.org."—
Again, what you do see there that is objectionable and why?
I am not in disagreement with any breed association. I just don’t see the argument that to go after big market like AQHA, joining hands with NH/PP will make it easier to break into that market. If we are to promote dressage as a pleasure grassroot sports, I would disagree we target a breed organization such as AQHA, or any breed association, by distorting what dressage means through the PP program in order to ‘humanize’ or ‘naturalize’ dressage and make it more appealing to the QH owners.
I said already, “QH owners doing dressage, why not… QH owners do PP, to each their own… PP people doing dressage, still not a problem”. So I have no problem what QH owners do with their horse, or what AQHA recommend to their members. I am sorry I brought up the AQHA directive… what I meant is, I don’t see the point of going after a large market, except the fact that it is a large market. I imagine it has many ‘little Sally’ and ‘little Sally’s mom’, who are not exposed to what it means as is, and will only misunderstood it even further with PP’s influence. I do not believe WAZ would bridge that misunderstanding, or maybe this is still wait to be seen… but for now I could not see who he is trying to help… promoting the sport or PP.
[QUOTE=Bluey;2994421]
Requirements for the AQHA dressage awards:
—"Qualifications:
Horse and rider must have eight scores under four different judges at four different competitions.
FEI levels must score at or above 58 percent.
Horse must compete with AQHA name and number.
Exhibitor must be a member of AQHA.
Eligible events must be judged by United States Equestrian Federation judges.
Ties will be broken by the average of the horse’s best eight scores.
For more information about dressage, please visit http://www.usdf.org."—
Again, what you do see there that is objectionable and why?[/QUOTE]
Ah, that’s interesting, because that is simply USDF All Breeds, i.e., AQHA now sponsoring USDF All breeds.
ApHC also sponsors USDF All Breeds awards for Appaloosas (as does ApSHA), but the ACAAP program is separate.
Does AQHA have TWO programs: One governed by USDF requirements and sponsored by AQHA through USDF for All Breeds AND a separate award program administered directly by AQHA?
The ACAAP program goes not directly by scores, but by points based upon scores (but no points for scores under 55%). The award points based on scores are combined with points calculated by placings.
Never heard anyone object to ApHC’s programs in this regard, so why would there be any objection to AQHA sponsoring similar programs?
JB wrote: “You’re right. ‘Trying to be more aesthetic’ means, to me, that the Dressage training scale, followed to the letter, creates the ‘pretty’ package that upper level dressage folks want to see.”
If that’s what you think the training scale is about (creating the “pretty” package), no wonders you’ve been sucked into the PP world. Wow.
Not worth the energy arguing this.
It’s not even apples and oranges. It’s apples and bicycles. Both apples and bicycles do have circles involved, I suppose.
Wow, you soooo didn’t get what I was saying.
“trying to be more aesthetic” comes under the heading of ‘Vaguespeak’.
Very popular when one has painted oneself into a corner.
