The difference for me? Knowing quite a few people who do the 7 games, and who have shown me what they do (straight from the Parelli videos/clinics), versus what I have been learning in terms of classical groundwork:
Parelli is here…and classical groundwork is here.
Almost no overlap, because beyond basic ground manners (space issues etc) the classical groundwork complements work in the saddle in terms of having the horse strengthen and engage the hindquarters, lighten their forehands (and yours), better use of back. There’s no obvious suppling/improving the gaits in the Parelli games.
Please don’t take these comments personally, I don’t know if they even apply to you…I am glad you posted this and I am going to use it to vent about MY pet peeve.
I also grew up with horses, but I did not have a trainer. I begged lessons from trainers. Watched EVERY trainer or good rider that I got a chance to watch, went to shows to study and learn, read and read and read some more. I DID learn about groundwork, about rank horses, about taking different approaches to different horses and about reading horse body language and how they read mine. BTW, there were no cute names :rolleyes:
I think the slavish devotion to The Trainer that I see in many disciplines today leads to these huge gaps in knowledge.
Our previous generation of trainers/instructors studied, rode and listened to a LOT of different trainers and learned both what to do and what not to do. Why has it become a necessity to pledge undying allegiance to a trainer? How can ONE person possibly teach you everything you need to learn?
That said, and more on topic, I have wholeheartedly rejected the slick, packaged, marketing approach to training horses. But I went and looked FIRST, then rejected.
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.
By no means was I raised by trainers, and I’ll be the first to admit I wasn’t the best student anyway. The best “learning” about horses I did was because my mother decided early on that my sister and I would train our own horses from youngsters, and the horse that I ended up with was a saint (my sister’s was a witch, and she quit riding after high school). I ended up with a heck of a lot of feel by the time I sold that horse.
And then, when I got back into riding after graduate school, I did lots of clinics and occasional lessons, but I was seen as a capable rider to start with, so anything pre-riding wasn’t covered. What I can look back and see now is that, not only did these instructors skip the ground basics (the quality of the ground handling), but many of them tried to take the feel back out of my riding, in an attempt to mold me to their own “system”. Yeah, their systems weren’t glitzy and weren’t marketed like a circus; I’m sure most of them would never admit that they adhered to any “system” other than the omnipresent One True Road. But there was something important missing. Whether the fault was my own maturity or some oversight in their instructional methods is open to debate. What I do know is that one day I looked back on that horse that raised me, at what I was able to do with her that I couldn’t do on my second level dressage horse without 45 minutes of warmup and preparatory exercises, and I said “I want that back”. And I want to understand how and why it works, and be able to reproduce it with each horse I relate to.
Today, I’m a lot closer to that, having spent five years exploring so-called-NH, and, as it turns out, my dressage is a lot more genuine, simple, and enjoyable for both me and for my horse. And I finally do understand contact.
Okay, until I read the post itself on UDBB I was prepared to be generous and say, “oh, well, he means that is progressive and one builds on the other, like the training scale” and that it was in response to a question. I have now read the thread . Am I correct that this venerated proponent of “Classical Dressage” (whatever the hell that means these days) STARTED a thread on an internet bb to say “hey I really am working with those swell folks the Parellis and we have a joint book coming out”. Methinks someone suggested to him that it would be a great idea to do that. Hmmmm wonder who that would be. Care to guess, STF? :lol:
Loved Kathy Johnson’s post on that thread (way to go, as usual, Kathy :yes:)
Must completely agree with seigi b and EqTrainer. As a matter of fact, I was about to order WAZ’s DVD set. Just changed my mind.
[QUOTE=monstrpony;2986510]
Eggie, we really are on the same page in many ways with this, but the statement above is one I will argue till the cows come home, literally, with my life.
Groundwork is essential, but it is also the most overlooked, taken for granted, assumed-to-be-there-when-it’s-not aspect of horsemanship. Yes, all good trainers do it … and then promptly forget to teach it to their riding students. Well, they want to ride, so you start them off with what they want to do, and then promptly forget to go back to these essential basics.
I’ve said this many times, but I grew up eating, sleeping, breathing horses and was never introduced to this stuff. As an adult, I did some pretty “serious” riding and competing, but it wasn’t until I was 52 that I started to learn and appreciate the reasons behind, and the importance of correct groundwork to all riding. I’m lucky that I figured a good bit of it out on my own, but a lot of horses put up with a lot of pretty shoddy stuff from my side, in their efforts to teach me. And I know I am not alone in this.
So, as basic, fundamental and important it is, it is often–not always, but often–overlooked. I’m right up there with the rest of you who believe that the Parelli Machine has missed the mark, lost the trees in the marketing forest and attempted to write a simple recipe for something that is incredibly complex (which seldom works, no matter what complex task you’re trying to codify). But if the so-called natural horsemanship movement has brought the importance of correct ground work back into focus for the mainstream horse enthusiast, I can’t condemn it completely.[/QUOTE]
One little fly in that ointment, what the PP system teaches is the actions, but NOT doing them correctly, as understood for centuries by anyone wanting a horse to work for them, in the easiest way, for the horse’s sake.
I assume, like so many say, many people either learned to ride by the seat of their pants or had poor instructors and missed those technical basics that are also missing in the PP system.
Two parts of that instructing system I don’t like are that they DON’T have the basics for true collection and that much of what they do they do it in a rough way, rather than, as traditional instruction teaches, so the horse can learn WHITOUT resistences.
One example mentioned here, the yo-yo game:
Anyone can teach a horse to back to the end of the rope and come back to them without having to at first slap him with the rope to get him to back.
They say when teaching to increase the pressure incrementally, to the slapping, but they don’t teach any other way if the horse at first doesn’t get it BUT to increase it to the slapping.
That causes high heads shaking around, until the horse understands and it is totally unneccessary to do a horse that way to teach backing on a rope, if you know how to handle horses.
The opposite, begging a horse to back, ineffectively bugging him lightly, that also doesn’t do it, for those that wonder.
Many of their horses, especially at the lower levels are confused, work when asked to do something by scooting around disunited and “upside down”, from the resistences they learn, pin ears and switch tails mercilessly and some of that can be then still seen reflected all along in their higher levels.
If you ask them about it, they say the horses are just expressing themselves.
Well, so are they when they buck or rear, but we don’t want them to express themselves WITH RESISTENCES, small that they may seem, but to work WITH us willingly.
It is very nice to see them working well when they do so, but it grates when they don’t and the handler/rider doesn’t seem to notice or care.
I hope that WZ will explain to them how a horse really needs to progress in their learning, how it needs to move and why, to be able to carry itself and a rider in the most efficient way, so they develop an “educated eye” towards proper horse movement.
I hope that they LISTEN to him, so they can incorporate those very basics up front, where they belong.
Why not teach right from the start? It is as easy to do it right the first time as to have to teach the basics later.
I have seen their students cantering bareback with a halter, with very little control and half the horses on the wrong lead, in a small arena.
When I asked, they said learning about leads came “later”.
Leads is something so basic, we teach little 4H kids before they ever set foot on a horse, as we explain horse gaits.
I like that they were the only bright light in a western world of selfmade horsemen, that many were good, many also awful and with their clinics they brought some more attention to training, not just “getting on and getting 'er done, by gosh and by golly”.
I don’t like what they have been becoming the last years, trying to market serious horse training to a broad audience of people that really need ALREADY well trained horses to learn themselves FIRST, as they at first demanded in their lower level clinics AND that they themselves have not added the centuries of progressive basic proper instruction out there to their system, but seemingly dismissed it, to follow only their gimmicky way of teaching incompletely.
Hopefully WZ will broaden their horizons in a way they can then slap their foreheads and go DUH!, that is what all those detractors were talking about!
That is my opinion right now, subject to change if they show me different.:yes:
Not that they care at all what some may think, since they are the ones giving the demos and clinics and making the millions, laughing all the way to the bank.:lol:
Edited to add: Sorry, this post was misplaced.
I somehow thought we were on the thread in Off Course forum.:rolleyes:
Traditionally people have learned basic ground work at home or from Pony Club. 4-H. Riding camps. Good riding school programs etc.
Some of us have. But not all. I have 2 friends who got into horses late in life. In their 30s, roughly.
And besides, do you think that 4-H, riding camps, and pony club are all free?? They’re not. You pay. How is that any different than the 30 year old new to horses paying for the Parelli system? Or do you propose that a 30 year old try to join Pony Club or 4-H?
I don’t even know how much my mother spent during my formative years on lessons and training for me. Books, clinics, trainers, videos, horses. Each one a step up from the previous. So why is this ok but the Parelli system is evil because all they want to do is steal your money?
Yes, PNH is over the top. I hate the cutesy terminology and dumbing down of horsemanship. It’s not for me. But hey - some people love it, they respond to it, and it works for them. I don’t want to call the response to pressure a “porcupine game” but that’s just me.
There is nothing wrong with selling this knowledge in a step-by-step program. This thread is about disagreeing with WAZ that the 7 games are in any way substantively comparable with the dressage training scale.
Oh weird. Thought you just said there WAS a problem with it.
I don’t think the 7 games are at all comparable to the training scale, but then I don’t think that’s what WAZ was saying AT ALL. When I read the statement, I gathered that he was saying the 7 games is a progressive learning scale the same as the Training Scale is a progressive learning scale.
I think there was a big attempt by egontoast to conjure up something that wasn’t really there, or that wasn’t really said.
And for the record - no, I’m not a Parelli person - by any stretch of the imagination. Never done it. Never was interested. Never will be. But this thread is just drama for the sake of drama.
Exactly. Glad someone understands it - don’t have to buy into the whole marketing aspect of it to understand the program and its goals.
[quote=DressageGeek “Ribbon Ho”;2986715]The difference for me? Knowing quite a few people who do the 7 games, and who have shown me what they do (straight from the Parelli videos/clinics), versus what I have been learning in terms of classical groundwork:
[/quote]
I believe in the past you have admitted that many/most of the people around you can’t find their way out of a paper bag, much less communicate effectively with a horse, much less try to apply a formal program.
Parelli is here…and classical groundwork is here.
“Classical groundwork” - how do you define that? Tell me how you teach a horse to stay out of your space until invited in.
Almost no overlap, because beyond basic ground manners (space issues etc) the classical groundwork complements work in the saddle in terms of having the horse strengthen and engage the hindquarters, lighten their forehands (and yours), better use of back. There’s no obvious suppling/improving the gaits in the Parelli games.
Again, it’s obvious you don’t know anything about the program beyond the poor applications of it you have seen (and I’ll be the first to say there’s a LOT of poor application of it). Working through the levels is ALL about creating a strong, supple, working-off-his-hind-end, using the back horse - as much as any groundwork can do. A horse can’t be circling at the canter, do a quiet change of direction, still at the canter, and do a quiet lead change and continue the other way, if he’s not strong, engaged, and light. Improvement in gaits comes firstly from having a relaxed, forward horse.
[quote=Eclectic Horseman;2986765]Straightness in dressage is not “stick straight.”
[/quote]
If you’re on a straight line, it IS stick-straight as far as the spine is concerned.
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.
“Straight” IS all relative to what you are doing. If you’re on a straight line, the spine IS straight. If you’re on a curve, the spine is curved to align with the amount of curve you’re tracking, within reason. You’re still showing your ignorance of the games and assuming that because you don’t see it at the VERY basic level that it’s been explained here, that any valuable ridden application must not exist. If you’ve read anything, I’ve explained how each game has applications in creating a horse who will bend his body however you want it bent.
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.
This is where one decides how far to take “seek to relieve pressure”. Remember, most people who do/initiated NH-type work ride Western, where the ultimate goal IS to create a horse who DOES do something at the barest hint of contact with his mouth. All those WP and reiners and competitive trail horses work on curb bits and long, draped reins. They certainly didn’t learn how to do that without first learning things WITH contact. Obviously taking things that far is not in the Dressage horse’s best interest, so don’t do that far. But, acceptance of the bit IS in PNH.
[quote=Bluey;2986823]One little fly in that ointment, what the PP system teaches is the actions, but NOT doing them correctly, as understood for centuries by anyone wanting a horse to work for them, in the easiest way, for the horse’s sake.
[/quote]
Huh? How can you say that they don’t teach correct application? I’m dying to see your examples of this. NH in general is ALL about creating a horse who wants to work for their human, in the easiest way possible, for the horse’s sake.
I assume, like so many say, many people either learned to ride by the seat of their pants or had poor instructors and missed those technical basics that are also missing in the PP system.
Examples please, since you intimate that you know the program.
Two parts of that instructing system I don’t like are that they DON’T have the basics for true collection and that much of what they do they do it in a rough way, rather than, as traditional instruction teaches, so the horse can learn WHITOUT resistences.
Examples please
One example mentioned here, the yo-yo game:
Anyone can teach a horse to back to the end of the rope and come back to them without having to at first slap him with the rope to get him to back.
They say when teaching to increase the pressure incrementally, to the slapping, but they don’t teach any other way if the horse at first doesn’t get it BUT to increase it to the slapping.
That causes high heads shaking around, until the horse understands and it is totally unneccessary to do a horse that way to teach backing on a rope, if you know how to handle horses.
The opposite, begging a horse to back, ineffectively bugging him lightly, that also doesn’t do it, for those that wonder.
Ok, then please explain how you teach this. I’m not saying your way is wrong. Not saying there aren’t other ways to effectively teach this.
Many of their horses, especially at the lower levels are confused, work when asked to do something by scooting around disunited and “upside down”, from the resistences they learn, pin ears and switch tails mercilessly and some of that can be then still seen reflected all along in their higher levels.
Most confusion on the horse’s part is because of human ineptness. You seem to be saying that a competent human makes a mess of things because they are following this program - not the case. A person who already has a feel for how horse’s learn and communicate is not going to cause a confused, disunited, tense, upside down horse, as they see the signs, they know when to quit, they know when to push. But everyone has to learn that, and EVERYONE who has ever dealt with horses has caused some confusion and resistance at some point in their lives, before they learned the subtleties of it all. If someone who started out causing confusion at a lower level is still dealing with the same issues at the higher levels, then they need help - this is not a vacuum program to be followed with and only with the DVDs.
It is very nice to see them working well when they do so, but it grates when they don’t and the handler/rider doesn’t seem to notice or care.
And that’s different from dressage, hunters, barrel racing, WP, HUS, reining, etc…how?
Why not teach right from the start? It is as easy to do it right the first time as to have to teach the basics later.
I have seen their students cantering bareback with a halter, with very little control and half the horses on the wrong lead, in a small arena.
When I asked, they said learning about leads came “later”.
Leads is something so basic, we teach little 4H kids before they ever set foot on a horse, as we explain horse gaits.
MANY people, in many disciplines, teach a horse to just pick up the canter, whatever lead, right from the start. Once the horse understands he’s to canter, rather than just trot faster, it becomes easier to teach particular leads. I realize that is not how everyone does it, but lots of people do, with great success. Just because something isn’t done “the classical dressage way” doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong.
I explained sufficiently, but it won’t ever be enough for those that say:
“If you don’t like some of the PP system, it is because you don’t know enough about it”.
I wonder about those that like 100% of the PP system and don’t see anything wrong with any of it.
How well do they really KNOW the technical aspects of riding?
You’re right, it’s NOT the only way. But it is ONE way, and if somebody wants to choose THAT way, then who the freak cares. It’s their life, their money, their choice, their horse. Both systems are a progressive scale of learning or improvement. One level builds on the next. They don’t accomplish the same end goals, and nor can they be interchangable, but it’s the same concept. Build on the step before it. And the 7 games isn’t just about ground work. They use them in the saddle also.
Again - I don’t personally like Parelli, and I don’t use it. But if somebody else does - their business. Not mine. Unless they are personally infringing upon my rights, or are harming horses in the process, it really doesn’t bother me. Until I start encountering horses who are ruined, or physically harmed, I’ll continue to not care.
That’s fine. It’s just very rare to hear someone putting down most of this stuff who also knows it. KNOWS it.
I wonder about those that like 100% of the PP system and don’t see anything wrong with any of it.
How well do they really KNOW the technical aspects of riding?
So do I There ARE things about it I don’t like for any given horse. Part of trying to be a good horseman is knowing when to modify a “program” to suite a particular situation. I can tell you firsthand that I had to stop some of the Level 2 riding program with my horse because of several physical issues that had to be worked through “forcefully” - he was not making the changes on his own, I had to start showing him the way, thanks to a wonderful trainer right on this board. But now that many of those issues are/are being resolved, I can go back to incorporate some of the fun things about the Level 2 program.
You are looking at the 7 games as the whole, complete story, and it’s not. In their basic introduction, yes, they are basic handling skills. But basic introduction is not the end of the story, by any means. Even the best dressage trainers (or hunter, or WP, or reining, whatever, doesn’t matter) start teaching everything in baby steps, one small increment at a time, teaching different concepts - move forward when pressure is applied from behind, slow down/turn when pressure is applied from the front. What you call those actions, what tools you use (EVERYONE uses some tool or another), what order you teach those things in, is not going to all be the same, nor should it. But until you teach the basics, you have no foundation upon which to build. The Levels apply every single aspect of the 7 games in a progressively more difficult, teaching, learning, formative manner, just like the basic building blocks that a more traditional or classical trainer teaches.
I realize that until a person has actually “done” dressage, they just aren’t going to “get” it. Ask me how I know this
As for WAZ, I just don’t know. To me it is very sad. Not only is PNH not “complimentary” to Dressage, most of the “program” is counter productive if “real” dressage is your goal.
If PNH is your “thing”, fine. Get after it. But please leave the word dressage out of it, already, ‘cause it ain’t dressage yer doin’ :lol:
Because the concepts are completely different and as has been shown above in this thread, you will never learn what we mean by “straight” in dressage or what we mean by “contact” or “throughness” if you are doing PNH. You can never learn the “circle of the aids.”
It is counter productive because we want horses to accept the aids (particularly contact with the bit) in dressage and not seek to avoid them which is what release from pressure taught in NH does.
OK two points on this…and this is where the “bridge” is…first contact is introduced in the Parelli program-it starts in Level 2 and progresses through level 3.
Straightness, as understood in dressage has NOT been taught in the current three levels of the Parelli program-this has been an issue I have had with it and looked outside of Parelli to understand it better…granted I had years of hunter lessons before Parelli so had some information coming from those years as well.
BUT you are correct, the straightness and correct “posture” is not a part of the Parelli program in a way it could be learned if someone did not have access to information outside of Parelli. There is no mention of reaching the hind end under to the navel, the ring of muscles, coiling of the loins or raising of the base of the neck as understood as “true collection.”
I believe the Parelli’s came to WAZ to better understand these things so they could create a better program for those that don’t have access to solid dressage trainers-or those not comfortable in that sort of facility.
Now in all fairness, Parelli has always promoted the first 3 levels as ‘foundation training’ and then the rider is prepared with the “cake” and can go on to dressage, hunters, reining, whatever to get the ‘icing’-which is more biomechanically correct riding.
Because so many people never make it through the levels, or take YEARS to get there, the horses often do ‘suffer’ in the physical development…again this is where I think WAZ is trying to provide the bridge.
You seem to have had your fair share of the Koolade so let me ask you:
Where in the Parelli program is acceptance of the bit taught, at what level, and how is it taught.
And does the rider need to be sitting on their pockets and pedaling their feet to help the horse find the bit or can the rider just use the carrot stick and wack the horse in the head until he finds said bit. I understand from another thread that the horses think that is alot of fun.
Bizarre. :no:
