[QUOTE=slc2;3470685]
That is Theo’s way of saying hyperflexion of the neck is ‘progress’. And because it is the dutch more so under fire for it, he has to battle to defend it and claim it is ‘progress’ and that classical is boring and doesn’t have progress. That is the original meaning of the word ‘chauvinism’, which means, ‘because my country is doing it, it is right, and the rest of you are wrong’.
The Dutch pretending rollkur is flawless is just as ridiculous as the germans pretending they didn’t invent it.
Actually, ‘classical’ dressage has ‘progress’. If correctly trained, horses do ‘progress’ and improve.
There are very, very bad ‘classical’ riders and trainers out there. They horses are incorrectly on the bit, they are restricted and stiff in their movements, and they are not moving correctly over their backs, through their shoulders or hips. They are doing ‘fake’ collection. Many people are far too impressed by an ‘irregular, frantic stamping on the ground in place’ and think it’s a piaffe and a sign of some miraculous knowledge.
There are badly trained rollkur horses out there. The horses are incorrectly on the bit, they are restricted and stiff in their movements, and they are not moving correctly over their backs, through their shoulders or hips. They are doing ‘fake’ collection.
I have ridden classically trained horses that were stiff, exaggerated, incorrectly working the back, and had horrible contact with the bits. I have ridden rollkur trained horses that were joyful, eager, supple, and correctly connected to the bit, working over the back correctly with beautiful, classical movements. There is more to the success of a training method than just one part of the training method. A horse can be ridden deep, behind the vertical, and benefit from it. He also can be ridden deep, behind the vertical and develop incorrectly working back, neck, hind quarters.
There are many very self righteous people going around saying hyperflexion is not ‘classical’ and that classical riders are better, and non competitive, and competitive riders suck, and classical riders don’t do hyperflexion. They’ve been saying that for a very long time. They’ve repeated it so many times they have started to believe it’s true, and they’ve gotten other people to believe it, too.
There are also many other self righteous people going around beating their chests and shedding many a theatrical tear about how they don’t do rollkur, they are classical, and they are offering something so much better and so much more classical.
Some of them have been just as ready to use their aids very, very strongly, producing an effect very similar to what anti-rollkurists say they don’t like. But the anti rollkurists are so completely blinded by emotion that they don’t see that.
I frankly have not found a lot of heroes on either side. Both are using a lot of chest beating and emotion, both sides make absolutely no sense, both are too hysterical to say anything rational or logical.
The argument that proper classical dressage training (not some pie-in-the-sky mumbo jumbo you made up, but actual classical training) doesn’t make progress is utterly absurd and should be rejected without a moment’s further thought. The argument that rollkur drives horses insane and ruins them and kills them and pains them also is absurd. The idea that just because someone competes and wins they are a bastard is also ridiculous, as is the idea that every judge is on the take and the idea that every horse that loses was robbed.[/QUOTE]
I couldn’t have said it better myself SLC2! You GO GIRL!
Anky is the only criminal in this horse neck bending thing, and incidentally, the ONLY dressage rider who does ANYTHING that could be considered outre, extreme, by anyone. All the rest of the dressage riders in the world are channeling Xenophon via Nuno Olivera, and never bend their horses down or to the side beyond seeing the shine of their little eyes.[/QUOTE]
