seven games/training scale

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=JB;2987116]
Nobody ever said if you’re doing PNH you’re doing dressage.

I’d love to know why you think that PNH is actually counterproductive to dressage.[/QUOTE]

I can answer that.
Define dressage as a progressive way to train a horse, from moving their mass in space in any one way to get from here to there, now for the task of carrying a rider in the physically easiest way for most tasks we generally use horses when riding.
That is training them, as a gymnast trains, for selfcarriage, on their own or with a rider.

In the PP system, the horse is trained to DO things and secondary, if it is even a concern, is HOW.

Example:
A horse in the porcupine or driving games, turning on it’s hindend with it’s weight on the front, head high, nose in the air IS AS ACCEPTABLE in the PP system as a horse getting his weight on his hindend and moving his shoulders up lightly in the turn at each step, balancing his head at the end of their neck, not on top of it.
There doesn’t seem to be a difference on HOW a horse does things, they do them in a rough, sometimes resistent way and NO ONE notices.

In dressage training, it is all about NOTICING how the horse TRAVELS towards that one goal of selfcarriage and so it is in the western ways of old, except the concepts were different, as were the ultimate tasks.

I think that there are ways of combining both, for those that know both, but that has not been followed up to now by the PP system in their instruction.
Maybe WZ will help there, adding the technical aspects of traditional riding, that the PP system doesn’t seem to be aware of?

[Eclectic_Horseman]

@JB;2986962

If you’re on a straight line, it IS stick-straight as far as the spine is concerned.

No, it most decidedly is not due to the fact that the horse is wider behind than he is in front. Horses on a straight line will invariably carry themselves at an angle (haunches in or out and opposite shoulder falling in or out) unless the outside shoulder is brought in to straighten the horse. This is very, very basic elementary dressage.

“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.

I know enough about the “games” to know that they do not teach the horses to travel “dressage straight” which does not mean to align the outside front with the outside hind on a straight line.

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.

Yes, it is mostly western and I have never seen an PNH trained horse being ridden “through.”

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.

It is not a positive reinforcement based system. It is a negative reinforcement based system and behavioral psychology has proven time and again that it is less effective.

Examples please, since you intimate that you know the program.

Examples please

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.

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.

And that’s different from dressage, hunters, barrel racing, WP, HUS, reining, etc…how?

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.

Not wrong. Just NOT DRESSAGE. :no:

[InsideLeg2OutsideRei]

@JB;2986418

How many horses won’t bend correctly on the lunge line, instead bowing out? This game teaches them that if they are doing that, and you “pressure” their midsection, they should move the midsection (and only the midsection) out, creating a more proper bend.
5 - Circle Game How many people lunge by constantly using the whip? How many people have trouble keeping their horse out on the circle, or the horse pulling to the outside? Wouldn’t it be nice to use your aids, ridden, to put the horse on a circle, and he stays there, without constantly being told, until you ask him to do something else?

ok, I’m just going to comment on these two: Teach someone to lunge correctly according to classical prinicples and the training scale, and you get a horse that does exactly what it needs to do. This is certainly not something that Mr. Parelli invented or even perfected. Yes, people execute wrongly, but I dare say that Parelli-students make just as many training mistakes as students of any other school.

[DressageGeek_Ribbon]

@Coreene;2987063

Jambo. Methinks Walter is kwa bahati mbaya in his choice of Koolaid.

Damn. I am going to have to start learning swahili if I am going to understand these technical dressage discussions.

[LMH]

@Bluey;2987147

I can answer that.
Define dressage as a progressive way to train a horse, from moving their mass in space in any one way to get from here to there, now for the task of carrying a rider in the physically easiest way for most tasks we generally use horses when riding.
That is training them, as a gymnast trains, for selfcarriage, on their own or with a rider.

In the PP system, the horse is trained to DO things and secondary, if it is even a concern, is HOW.

Actually this is correct as to how the program is currently…the goal was the task for the teaching of communication of the horse. Body shape, posture, etc is not taught in the early levels. HOWEVER relaxation, willingness, not having tails swishing or pinned ears is supposed to be a ‘fail’ starting at level 2. So there is concern on the ‘willingness’ of the horse-but biomechanics are not taught until later

Example:
A horse in the porcupine or driving games, turning on it’s hindend with it’s weight on the front, head high, nose in the air IS AS ACCEPTABLE in the PP system as a horse getting his weight on his hindend and moving his shoulders up lightly in the turn at each step, balancing his head at the end of their neck, not on top of it.
There doesn’t seem to be a difference on HOW a horse does things, they do them in a rough, sometimes resistent way and NO ONE notices.

In dressage training, it is all about NOTICING how the horse TRAVELS towards that one goal of selfcarriage and so it is in the western ways of old, except the concepts were different, as were the ultimate tasks.

I think that there are ways of combining both, for those that know both, but that has not been followed up to now by the PP system in their instruction.

I agree with this…when you take elements outside of Parelli then combine it with some of the tasks Parelli has (for example if you do the circling game at liberty, be sure your horse IS moving correctly) then it becomes a very useful program.
Maybe WZ will help there, adding the technical aspects of traditional riding, that the PP system doesn’t seem to be aware of?

I believe this is exactly why he is involved in the program…let’s hope it brings some good education to those devoted Parelli students that truly love their horses and just want to learn.

[MyReality]

The 7 games is about horse handling and training. It develops a handler and horse’s communication system, a conditioning based on the horse’s social, mental instincts. It does not address the bio-mechanical development of a horse.

The training scale addresses the bio-mechanical development of a horse. It does not address the rider, or actual training and communication technique. The ultimate goal to be achieved through the training scale, is specific to dressage and not to any other discipline.

One can say, any discipline is about harmony between the horse and the rider. But no other discipline dive that deeply into conditioning the muscular skeletal structures and responses, and the Parelli system almost none (not to say it is a bad system, it is just irrelevant to dressage, that’s all).

In dressage, I accept a horse could have relatively bad manners on the ground but still excel as a dressage athlete. In dressage, I also accept greater harmony could be achieved by being a more effective rider, and less on perfecting the ‘communication’ with a horse.

In my opinion,Parelli is a more comprehensive system that applies to multi disciplines or could be a discipline on its own. But please, it has nothing to do with dressage.

I have no idea why the P’s and WAZ latch onto each other… it is confusing to the P community, and even more confusing to the dressage community. Then you have people from the P community trying to make the horse do passage, but with no connection through contact and has no collection. Then you have the “dressage” people, who said things like “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…But, acceptance of the bit IS in PNH.”

Completely counter productive, in my opinion.

[LMH]

@kaluha2;2987139

JB:

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.

Thanks

The horse is taught to be ridden with contact-or what they call a soft feel in level 2. It is intorduced here but isn’t a focus until level 3.

It WAS taught in the current materials through a task called monkey riding:eek: Basically the rider ‘set’ his hands on the withers/neck (I don’t recall the exact words)…and then would wait on the horse to ‘give’…this is not of course what dressage riders would call correct contact-no following hand, etc.

Contact did not include teaching moving “through” over over the back…I have never seen these terms in the Parelli materials. They do speak of “collection” but it is often also discussed in terms of ‘mental collection’-again no mention of ring of muscles.

NOW that said, they have since revamped the program and the last materials I have seen no longer teach monkey riding:eek: (I am dying here as I even WRITE that phrase)…but they use a concept of “combing the reins” to teach a horse to reach into the bridle.

They also are teaching a suspension rein for transitions. Basically when you ask for a downward transition you lift the rein up-I have also seen this taught in dressage materials (I think Mike Schaffer uses this but may call it something else).

Before Linda’s fluidity there was no focus on the “balance point” or pedaling and mirroring the horse while ridden-this is new since her. Pat never rode that way in the earlier materials.

I have seen the idea of pedaling used by Sally Swift with regard to keeping the legs from bracing while sitting the trot. It works like a charm-it seems though that LP took the idea and ran with it.

[Bluey]

—"the goal was the task for the teaching of communication of the horse. Body shape, posture, etc is not taught in the early levels. HOWEVER relaxation, willingness, not having tails swishing or pinned ears is supposed to be when you take elements outside of Parelli then combine it with some of the tasks Parelli has (for example if you do the circling game at liberty, be sure your horse IS moving correctly) then it becomes a very useful program.

…a ‘fail’ starting at level 2. So there is concern on the ‘willingness’ of the horse-but biomechanics are not taught until later…"—

Sorry, I still don’t see, even at the higher PP levels, any selfcarriage at all, not any “correct way of going” that would be considered acceptable in any dressage training.

I think we still are not talking on the same frames of reference.:no:
What you are calling correct enough to be as in dressage training is just not there.
We are not looking at the same thing, we need the more educated eye of the likes of WZ to explain it, but it will be a real uphill task, in today’s PP system.

[JB]

[quote=Eclect![](c Horseman;2987167]
Originally Posted by JB [IMG]http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif)
If you’re on a straight line, it IS stick-straight as far as the spine is concerned.

No, it most decidedly is not due to the fact that the horse is wider behind than he is in front. Horses on a straight line will invariably carry themselves at an angle (haunches in or out and opposite shoulder falling in or out) unless the outside shoulder is brought in to straighten the horse. This is very, very basic elementary dressage.
[/quote]

I said straight on a straight line IS a straight spine. This means the hind end is “outside” the front end, just like you said. If the RH is tracking “straight” with the RF, the spine is not straight on the direction of travel, if traveling on a straight line - to straighten this the front end IS moved over a bit to the inside.

Yes, it is mostly western and I have never seen an PNH trained horse being ridden “through.”

Doesn’t mean it’s not/can’t be done

It is not a positive reinforcement based system. It is a negative reinforcement based system and behavioral psychology has proven time and again that it is less effective.

How are you defining positive vs negative reinforcement?

Positive reinforcement is the application of something good to the animal - praise, treats, petting, etc, when the desired reaction is given. Negative reinforcement is the removal of the motivating factor - pressure of the leg, pressure of the bit, pressure of the seatbone. Both have their place.

The downside to positive reinforcement and horses is that to set it up, you are almost always waiting for the horse to do something so you can reward it. This works well in some situations - he’s pawing on the crossties, you want him to stop, you apply praise/treats/whatever when he’s behaving in an appropriate manner.

The upside to negative reinforcement is that you can set the scenario up so that he’s seeking to do as you ask, and his (great) reward is to have the pressure removed.

Positive reinforcement works very well with dogs. Negative reinforcement is NOT a bad thing, and is the basis for all good horse training. One isn’t going to simply wait for your horse to move sideways and then give him a treat - no, you put your leg on, and you remove it when he moves off it - that is negative reinforcement. Teaching a horse to lower his head from pressure is negative reinforcement - apply pressure, the instant he lowers his head even 1/2", you remove the pressure - that is negative reinforcement.

Negative reinforcement is NOT about “punishing” undesirable behavior - if that is what you mean, then you’re right, it’s a terrible way to train horses. But, it’s also NOT what PNH does. PNH is VERY much a true negative reinforcement program. Apply pressure, physical or not, to get the horse to seek the right answer, and when he does, or at least tries, remove the pressure.

Positive reinforcement is the introduction of something pleasant when a task is performed. Negative reinforcement is the removal of something unpleasant when the task is performed. Neither one is about punishment.

[mp]

[QUOTE=NoDQhere;2987092]
I realize that until a person has actually “done” dressage, they just aren’t going to “get” it. Ask me how I know this ;)[/QUOTE]

I’ll second that. :yes:

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.

I’ll second this, too. I started out 15 years ago riding with a very good horseman who was more oriented toward working western, although I never roped anything and only worked cattle occasionally. I rode in a snaffle, and my horses were relaxed, forward, etc etc. It was a very good foundation for anything you want to do with a horse.

I started taking dressage lessons about 2 years ago and “contact” was a foreign concept. My instructor would tell me to give with the right or left rein and I’d just throw my horse away. It took me quite awhile to understand that the point is NOT to “release” the horse. It’s to give him the room to do what you want him to do within the framework of your seat, legs and hands. Your whole body is involved.

Nothing I learned from my cowboy friend really conflicts with what I do in dressage. But none of the biomechanical finesse of dressage was ever involved in what we did either. It’s just a completely different feel altogether. LMH, you seem to have a very good grasp of the difference. Maybe you shold start your own training system. :lol:

[JB]

@InsideLeg2OutsideRein;2987183

ok, I’m just going to comment on these two: Teach someone to lunge correctly according to classical prinicples and the training scale, and you get a horse that does exactly what it needs to do. This is certainly not something that Mr. Parelli invented or even perfected.

NOBODY has said or implied that Pat invented any of this stuff.

Yes, people execute wrongly, but I dare say that Parelli-students make just as many training mistakes as students of any other school.

Well of course! No program, regardless of who teaches it, is a guarantee of proper application. The student is at least half the equation, and some people just never get it.

[JB]

@Eclectic Horseman;2987127

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.

If you had been reading you would see that I explained this already.

[LMH]

@Bluey;2987214

—"the goal was the task for the teaching of communication of the horse. Body shape, posture, etc is not taught in the early levels. HOWEVER relaxation, willingness, not having tails swishing or pinned ears is supposed to be when you take elements outside of Parelli then combine it with some of the tasks Parelli has (for example if you do the circling game at liberty, be sure your horse IS moving correctly) then it becomes a very useful program.

…a ‘fail’ starting at level 2. So there is concern on the ‘willingness’ of the horse-but biomechanics are not taught until later…"—

Sorry, I still don’t see, even at the higher PP levels, any selfcarriage at all, not any “correct way of going” that would be considered acceptable in any dressage training.

I think we still are not talking on the same frames of reference.:no:
What you are calling correct enough to be as in dressage training is just not there.
We are not looking at the same thing, we need the more educated eye of the likes of WZ to explain it, but it will be a real uphill task, in today’s PP system.

I actually agree with you Bluey-it still is not there in the upper levels…I was simply addressing what IS there…which at this point is not anywhere close to what would be acceptable in dressage.

Again, I think WAZ getting involved should not be looked down on-it can only improve things within the program.

[Foxtrot_s]

I can never keep up with these wordy descriptions. However, in the years I grew up with horses, the mental issues of a horse were not discussed and it was only after I found a few mentors - who happened to be Tom Dorrance students - where I had a new insight. It is a place where the Western and English disciplines meet but has nothing to do with carrot sticks, promotion, and bizzarre techniques of the P system. It could be broadly brushed as NH though, and body language issues became, and are becoming, more clear.
However, even as a kid, coming home from a long hunt, I would walk beside my horse to save my butt, for instance, and low and behold, it would “join up” with no technique involved. I could scramble all over her, lay with her lying down, jump bareback, no tack at all - just kid stuff and no savvy strings involved. The great horsemen of the world know this, whatever country they come from.

With that I’ll say “Quaheri rafikis” …

[Eclectic_Horseman]

JB-
Actually, an equine spine, anatomically speaking is always kind of straight. There is very little lateral movement. What we think of as bending, is actually the rib cage rotating. But I’ll tell you what–you don’t lecture me on operant conditioning (which I know a little about :lol:), and I won’t lecture you on biomechanics. The fact of the matter is that PNH does not teach horses to go straight as we mean the term in dressage.

And I disagree that “all horse training” is based on negative reinforcement or that it is the best method. I know that it is the basis of NH. I know that many trainers in all disciplines over use it. But there is nothing like positive reinforcement to develop any animal into a willing partner looking for a way to please. There is a reason the SRS riders have zuckertaschen in their coats, but there is also praise and attention or anything else the horse likes as a reinforcer. Read scientific behaviorists like Temple Grandin and Sue McDonnell. Horses don’t need to have that “8 day stare” that the NH trained horses do in order to be well trained.

[lorilu]

[QUOTE=Eclectic Horseman;2987167]
Not wrong. Just NOT DRESSAGE. :no:[/QUOTE]

So, anything that is not “classical” is “wrong”?
Which classical? German? French? …GREEK???

Basic horsemanship is basic horsemanship.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

@lorilu;2987303

So, anything that is not “classical” is “wrong”?
Which classical? German? French? …GREEK???

Basic horsemanship is basic horsemanship.

WTF? Am I speaking Greek?

Did I say “wrong?” You quote me. I said “not wrong.” Did I use the word “classical?”

Who are you talking to?

[JB]

@Eclectic Horseman;2987294

JB-
Actually, an equine spine, anatomically speaking is always kind of straight. There is very little lateral movement. What we think of as bending, is actually the rib cage rotating.

Ok, my bad on the spine vs ribcage, but the intent was still the same.

But I’ll tell you what–you don’t lecture me on operant conditioning (which I know a little about :lol:), and I won’t lecture you on biomechanics.

I wasn’t lecturing - I was seeking to understand your definition of negative vs positive reinforcement, since SO many people hear “negative reinforcement” and think of spanking the dog because he peed on the rug :no: I have no idea what your operant conditioning background is.

And I disagree that “all horse training” is based on negative reinforcement or that it is the best method.

Did I say it was, in either case?

I know that it is the basis of NH. I know that many trainers in all disciplines over use it. But there is nothing like positive reinforcement to develop any animal into a willing partner looking for a way to please.

I DID say that positive reinforcement, with horses, has its place, no doubt about it. But tell me, how do you teach a horse to move forward or sideways off your leg? You put your leg on (pressure) and you take it off when he does what you ask - very basic negative reinforcement. I’d just love to hear how positive reinforcement teaches that. You can certainly continue to positively reinforce the right answer by a verbal or physical praise, but the training was instigated when you removed your leg.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

@JB;2987339

Ok, my bad on the spine vs ribcage, but the intent was still the same.

I wasn’t lecturing - I was seeking to understand your definition of negative vs positive reinforcement, since SO many people hear “negative reinforcement” and think of spanking the dog because he peed on the rug :no: I have no idea what your operant conditioning background is.

Did I say it was, in either case?

I DID say that positive reinforcement, with horses, has its place, no doubt about it. But tell me, how do you teach a horse to move forward or sideways off your leg? You put your leg on (pressure) and you take it off when he does what you ask - very basic negative reinforcement. I’d just love to hear how positive reinforcement teaches that. You can certainly continue to positively reinforce the right answer by a verbal or physical praise, but the training was instigated when you removed your leg.

Yes, of course one must get the animal to produce the desired behavior in order to positively reinforce it. But once the animal has linked the desired behavior and the reward, there is less need for negative reinforcement to produce the behavior. There is simply stimulus and reponse, in other words, operant conditioning.

But in my view NH over emphasizes the release from pressure (negative reinforcement ) aspect of training, so that the horse’s attitude becomes “what do I need to do to get you to leave me alone?” :no:

[slc2]

another painfully repetitive Parelli duel

i love how if something gets repeated over and over, it becomes true, like the idea that no one learns to do ground work in dressage. that’s just not true. it’s a problem some people have because they take lessons from people who don’t teach them that, or they don’t appear to be receptive, so they don’t get taught it…or because they need to run dressage down to make their own work appear more valid…or their training services more attractive.

that would be incorrect about the spine. the spine does bend in a correctly schooled dressage horse. harry boldt has overhead pics in his dressage book that show it very clearly, without the ribcage rotating, which would be incorrect, it also shows that the spine toward the tail bends very little and progressively less and less as one gets closer to the tail end of the horse…bending there is accomplished by the horse using the joints in the pelvis/hip and a well schooled dressage horse is actually able to compensate so well thru that area that he is able to position his hind limbs much as i the spine were more flexible than it actually is.

‘straight’ is relative. the kind of ‘straight’ a well schooled dressage horse has to be isn’t even approached by parelli exercises or the best examples of parelli-trained horses. it is measured in centimeters and the degree of straightness maintained in transitions is not approached by any other riding discipline.

and no, the seven games are not the same as the training pyramid. the training pyramid is the basis of schooling that achieves a far greater degree of collection, straightness and suppleness than any other method of schooling. there is no comparison.

no…not really. great horsemen may watch others work horses, but they don’t radically change their methods every time they go home, or they’d drive their horses nuts. and they do not dabble in different TV evangelist trainers. great horsemen, don’t, and didn’t, in fact, wander around and take a clinic with everyone who has a glitzy ad on tv.

In the past, americans who became ‘great horsemen’ had basically one type of training to watch. ie, other americans, most working in isolation and there was very little dressage in the usa. pretending that those days are like these days is a waste of neuroreceptors.

different disciplines are different. dressage is different from all other disciplines. the more you try to make it like other disciplines, the more people will love you, and the more you’ll be kidding yourself.

each riding discipline has a different set of priorities, emphasizes different things and was designed to fulfill a different purpose. dressage just isn’t parelli, and parelli, due to misconceptions about what dressage is, will never prepare a dressage horse or a dressage rider.

as far as other types of riding, they are not wrong. but they would not score well in a dressage competition, or get a good review from a good dressage trainer. if you rode an fei horse in a western pleasure class, you would not get a good placing, either.