Study says Monty Roberts training techniques better than conventional techniques.

[MelantheLLC]

@3Dogs;6315849

Not to say that the “study” they conducted might not have suggested “further” study - but to make such a bold statement as " better training methods"?

But the study authors didn’t make that 'bold statement."

It was actually made in the OP’s thread title. Even the Eurodressage headline just says “Helps Young Horses Perform Better.”

The actual abstract summary statements are confined to “perform significantly better in ridden tests” and “lower heart rates.”

That may or may not equate to “better training methods” but the study authors made no such claim.

Your point about who financed the study is valid, particularly since Roberts himself did a lot of the training. Since there’s an email address in the abstract, I sent an email inviting the author to answer that. Perhaps we’ll even get a reply and discussion here.

[RyTimMick]

@showjumpers66;6316125

Agreed! Sure, there are things to take away from it, but overall we have found that horses who have been trained to move away from pressure with the natural horsemanship have a more difficult time accepting pressure (i.e. the leg and hand).

Although there is much evidence that this is not the case, and the training does not teach a horse to move away from pressure, a well trained horse works into pressure. The term “Ridden into the bridle” comes to mind. Inside leg, to outside rein, some working off of pressure, but into pressure. Much of Monty’s work is with TB race horses, and we know they run faster when the reins are pulled up.

Monty and Parelli are not the same methods, and should not be treated the same.  Furthermore, not all work in a round pen is doing the same thing.  And Lastly, Natural Horsemanship does not mean Western.  Western riding does teach horses to get off of pressure often, as in the bit and neck, but not all western riding is about getting off of pressure.  I have a very MR style of starting horses and I do not teach horses to get off of pressure.  Once a horse has been "started" I use classical riding skills.  Since I have started horses for a Dressage Judge/trainers, H/J, and eventers I am quite sure they would have said something.  

I think many of the training methods grouped together as “Natural Horsemanship” are grossly misunderstood. Furthermore many “wanna be” trainers proclaim to be Natural Horseman and I think it gives a lot of people a bad impression. So I don’t fully blaim people, because I have to roll my eyes more then not myself.

Tim

[JB]

[QUOTE=showjumpers66;6316125]
Agreed! Sure, there are things to take away from it, but overall we have found that horses who have been trained to move away from pressure with the natural horsemanship have a more difficult time accepting pressure (i.e. the leg and hand).[/QUOTE]

IME there are 2 types of NH training - that which aims a horse at draped rein/Western riding, and that which does not.

To send a Hunter or Dressage horse to the former is not going to be fun to fix.

ALL training is done by teaching to move away from/yield to pressure. The difference lies in how far you take that. A horse to be ridden on contact is not asked to go any further than accepting the contact, but not leaning on it. The Western-aimed horse is taught to fully move away from mouth contact

When you teach a leg yield or half pass, you’re asking the horse to move away from your leg pressure.

NH is not equivalent to “teaches the horse to come behind the bit and be a wet noodle”. It’s just unfortunate that some “trainers” of that nature do that, but that’s just poor training

[sniplover]

[QUOTE=3Dogs;6315849]
In the medical field of epidemiology - need the power of at least 100 subjects - and a LOT of control of the various “confounders” before you can “statistically” call the “differences” found to have “validity”. [/QUOTE]

And yet, in immuno/genetics, we draw statistical significance off of N=5 (or greater). It’s pretty routine to use 5 replicates, which is why I think 7 is reasonable. 100 might be fantastic and while horses are not limited, I’m sure MR or the other guy’s time is limited.

[silvia]

[QUOTE=MelantheLLC;6315653]
What other reasons is it not a good study, 3dogs?

Silvia and 3dogs, are you saying the study has no value, or that the conclusions in the abstract are overdrawn?

I thought that anything less than 30 was considered a “small sample” rather than completely invalid. Performance comparison p-values are pretty low, based on blinded judging. Not sure what the control would be in this case…not a third training program, so just horses not being trained?

How would you design this study more correctly?

ETA: I’m not a supporter of Monty Roberts, in fact never seen him work, though I’m watching the vid that’s on eurodressage now, if I could ever get it to stream more than 5 secs at a time. However, I’m intensely interested in how horses learn.[/QUOTE]

In terms of doing studies, less than 30 is a small sample, and less than 10 doesn’t offer a statistically significant result.

Some suggestions I might have considered to make it more significant:

10 horses for trainer 1
10 horses for trainer 2
10 horses for control

Two methods of assessment were used, heart rate and performance review.

Heart rate is objective, this was the most relevant data of the test (but no control to compare it to).
Performance review is subjective hence needing judges. A more appropriate test might have been time taken to negotiate a course (vs heart rate)

The tests could have been done by the same person (ie a 3rd control person) to eliminate differences in riding as opposed to the actual training methods.

20 days at 30 minutes per day is also a very short period of time to train any horse to go under saddle and negotiate a course/test.

Controls used on the group could have included testing the horse’s resting heart rate and under stress to compare against results during the tests.

Just a few thoughts? I am not an expert on these things!

[Equilibrium]

Couple of things, firstly, have no idea what constitutes the BHS way of breaking. I do however, know a few people who tell me all about their stage qualifications that sadly lack any kind of “street smart” around horses.

With regards to the racehorse thing. It really isn’t this pull and they go faster. Honestly that’s not how it works. It’s actually more about giving. If I’m going to breeze one chances are I have the tighter hold going to the pole and steadily ask for speed by me getting tighter and curling up whilst releasing. Therefore I’m not pulling to go faster. Really, all that pulling makes for a tiring and difficult morning. Get the pace needed and sit quiet and stay. To explain it differently, I have issues with riding proper because I give too much. I don’t keep them in constant equal contact the whole time. I get in trouble for this. I get the canter I want, the trot I want and release and say this is where we need to be. Grand and fine on a very well schooled horse. Not so much on big babies that need lots if building. Honestly the biggest problem an ex racehorse faces is constant (the right way) pressure in their mouth. Most are used to, believe it or not, having less pressure in their mouth. Which is where the misguided term, pull and they go faster comes from.

I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t particularly want my jumpers desensitised to everything under the sun as well as walking over those damn tarps. That’s my personal feeling and I know I will get told differently. I don’t believe in round penning to death and I want mine out of the arena as much as possible. And I don’t give a crap what anyone says, a buck stopper for horses just being started? What was missed? Over 200 hundred horses started here and yet to be bucked off or nearly bucked off. This includes horses never handled for the first 3 years off life. Well other than getting run into a cattle crush, heavily sedated and your nuts whipped out. That’s it , no feet, no worming ect. I really have no idea if our way is any good but people seem happy as do the horses.

Terri

[Nootka]

[QUOTE=RyTimMick;6316221]
Although there is much evidence that this is not the case, and the training does not teach a horse to move away from pressure, a well trained horse works into pressure. The term “Ridden into the bridle” comes to mind. Inside leg, to outside rein, some working off of pressure, but into pressure. Much of Monty’s work is with TB race horses, and we know they run faster when the reins are pulled up.

Monty and Parelli are not the same methods, and should not be treated the same.  Furthermore, not all work in a round pen is doing the same thing.  And Lastly, Natural Horsemanship does not mean Western.  Western riding does teach horses to get off of pressure often, as in the bit and neck, but not all western riding is about getting off of pressure.  I have a very MR style of starting horses and I do not teach horses to get off of pressure.  Once a horse has been "started" I use classical riding skills.  Since I have started horses for a Dressage Judge/trainers, H/J, and eventers I am quite sure they would have said something.  

I think many of the training methods grouped together as “Natural Horsemanship” are grossly misunderstood. Furthermore many “wanna be” trainers proclaim to be Natural Horseman and I think it gives a lot of people a bad impression. So I don’t fully blaim people, because I have to roll my eyes more then not myself.

Tim[/QUOTE]

Spot on ^^^^^ Thank you

I have also started all of my horses using a form of this MR method. All of them give so easy.

Basic horse communication is all it is. Body language tells all… you must be “in tune” to both you and your horse

[showjumpers66]

I am not just pulling my opinion out of a hat … I have attended 4 Monty Roberts clinics including having my horse participate in one (sort of :lol:). I also attended clinics by Pat Parelli with the O’Connors, John Lyons, Clinton Anderson, and GaWaNi Pony Boy. I think there are pieces to take away from it, but I also see problems with it much of which is related to the person doing the training. You have to have a talent for it and, honestly, many don’t.

[RyTimMick]

@showjumpers66;6318028

I am not just pulling my opinion out of a hat … I have attended 4 Monty Roberts clinics including having my horse participate in one (sort of :lol:). I also attended clinics by Pat Parelli with the O’Connors, John Lyons, Clinton Anderson, and GaWaNi Pony Boy. I think there are pieces to take away from it, but I also see problems with it much of which is related to the person doing the training. You have to have a talent for it and, honestly, many don’t.

Barbara, I think you are spot on, because you can’t teach talent.

The biggest problem I have with many “Natural Horseman” is they really don’t teach you how to train a horse to ride, they only teach you ground manners. They will have books and videos about trailer loading, brideling, bathing, horses that spook…etc. I learned more about riding by going to Germany then I ever have doing anything else. I learned how to start horses by starting with MR.

Tim

[Aven]

[QUOTE=silvia;6316791]
In terms of doing studies, less than 30 is a small sample, and less than 10 doesn’t offer a statistically significant result.

Some suggestions I might have considered to make it more significant:

10 horses for trainer 1
10 horses for trainer 2
10 horses for control

Two methods of assessment were used, heart rate and performance review.

Heart rate is objective, this was the most relevant data of the test (but no control to compare it to).
Performance review is subjective hence needing judges. A more appropriate test might have been time taken to negotiate a course (vs heart rate)

The tests could have been done by the same person (ie a 3rd control person) to eliminate differences in riding as opposed to the actual training methods.

20 days at 30 minutes per day is also a very short period of time to train any horse to go under saddle and negotiate a course/test.

Controls used on the group could have included testing the horse’s resting heart rate and under stress to compare against results during the tests.

Just a few thoughts? I am not an expert on these things![/QUOTE]

This would be a good place to start. As well, for stress, I would like to see cortisol levels.

[Foxtrot_s]

It shows how much the study people knew by describing it as the Monty Roberts system. They might have called it anything but that. The bucking, tying up method is so old hat, I hope nobody does it any more. The Western way would be to start in the roundpen, but I’d use almost anybody’s name than MR’s.
Roundpenning is definitely something I’d never seen until coming over here.
Something that I am so glad I learned as I see its benefits in a young horse if not overdone.
The traditional way is doing groundwork, lungeing, slowly adding tack and gaining a horse’s confidence etc.

[JB]

While they say it was the “MRT” method used by MR himself, we don’t even know what he actually did.

[RyTimMick]

@Foxtrot's;6318545

It shows how much the study people knew by describing it as the Monty Roberts system. They might have called it anything but that. The bucking, tying up method is so old hat, I hope nobody does it any more. The Western way would be to start in the roundpen, but I’d use almost anybody’s name than MR’s.
Roundpenning is definitely something I’d never seen until coming over here.
Something that I am so glad I learned as I see its benefits in a young horse if not overdone.
The traditional way is doing groundwork, lungeing, slowly adding tack and gaining a horse’s confidence etc.

Again, its not just round-penning. They aren’t all the same, and his system is different. It uses herd dynamics more then the others. So this was rightfully named in my opinion.

Tim

[Selene]

What surprises me is that the study is not generalizable. Yes, you can say “Horses trained by Monty Roberts performed better than those trained by Trainer B”, but to generalize it to say that the Monty Roberts method is better? Too many variables between trainers! I’d also tend to agree that the N is pretty small.

By the way - hi 3Dogs! I’m in biostatistics, so our fields overlap somewhat. :lol:

[Sonesta]

[QUOTE=Selene;6318788]
What surprises me is that the study is not generalizable. Yes, you can say “Horses trained by Monty Roberts performed better than those trained by Trainer B”, but to generalize it to say that the Monty Roberts method is better? Too many variables between trainers! I’d also tend to agree that the N is pretty small.
:[/QUOTE]

This is a very good point. MR is definitely good at what he does and has tons of experience. So, it might have been more fair to have a trainer OTHER than MR, but using his methods, train those horses - otherwise, if you use MR, then you should for the BHS trainer someone equally well experienced and known. And even then, you are back at “Horses trained by X did better than horses trained by Y.” But hard to generalize to the technique itself .

To generalize, I think you’d need at least 7 groups of horses: 3 groups being trained by different trainers (at various levels of experience) using MR techniques, 3 groups being trained by different trainers (at various levels of experience) using BHS methods, and a control group.

[stoicfish]

[QUOTE=Sonesta;6319189]
This is a very good point. MR is definitely good at what he does and has tons of experience. So, it might have been more fair to have a trainer OTHER than MR, but using his methods, train those horses - otherwise, if you use MR, then you should for the BHS trainer someone equally well experienced and known. And even then, you are back at “Horses trained by X did better than horses trained by Y.” But hard to generalize to the technique itself .

To generalize, I think you’d need at least 7 groups of horses: 3 groups being trained by different trainers (at various levels of experience) using MR techniques, 3 groups being trained by different trainers (at various levels of experience) using BHS methods, and a control group.[/QUOTE]

It is the techniques themselves that were being tested, not the ability for other people to use them. While that may be a practical aspect of the general use, it is not necessarily the purpose of the experiment.
Experimental design aside, I thought it was interesting. I believe there is value to the knowledge that he uses, but like anything it can be misused or there may be scenarios that it is not as useful. But I am not sure you can deny that it has any value what so ever. In science nothing has ever been proved (only in math do you get to use proof), it only survives testing. I believe this and his success in numerous cases is evidence that he can train horses effectively. It may not completely be a form of training that is compatible with your goals, however.

[Foxtrot_s]

Overall, this is such a big discussion it is hard to put the thoughts down in a concise manner…but the way some of these marketers name brand their systems bothers me…and adding cute names that they copywrite.

Not to say that there is not something to be learned and for me, coming up the ‘other’ way, I definiely added to my knowledge, and it is mainstream in the ranch world, not called 'NH".
However, most of these are more like colt starting, few can take a horse to a higher level (leave Buck).

Of all the ‘name brands’, I’m still a devotee of the Dorrances & Hunt. Add that to Reiner Klimke and more and we are all better off.

But the coaching manuals are still worlds apart from the two systems. So, no,
I don’t think Monty Roberts has anything over other good horsemen. I’ve seen his clinic too.

[Florida_Fan]

[QUOTE=Home Again Farm;6315650]
Thank you for saying this. As an old time horse person, I find it fairly ridiculous. I will stay with my super, duper young horse trainer who starts them with an eye to where they are going. Never in a million years would I put one of mine with a Monty or Parelli or other NH person.

I also have found Monty (and of course Parelli) to be pretty silly for years (decades), as his stuff without all the equipment you can buy, and the over the top garbage that most well raised horses do not need, is just plain old common sense horsemanship.[/QUOTE]

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

[RyTimMick]

This is so ignorant.

First of all, I don’t use any gadgets, unless you call a round pen a gadget. Second of all, what good starter doesn’t think of the end goal when starting them? A dressage judge, a dressage trainer, an 1* level eventer, and many H/J riders are my past clients. They all have said they were the best starts they have ever experienced on a horse. So, I ask you…exactly what am I missing?

What ever…I am done with this thread.

Tim

[7HL]

The primary emphasis on Monty’s training is “Join-Up”. Running the horse in circles in a high walled round pen untill the horse submitts and joins up with the trainer.