Did anyone else finally notice, USDF has updated the levels of the training pyramid? How did I miss that? At the base, we still have rhythm. But the next level is no longer Relaxation, it is now Suppleness. That is an interesting change. I can kind of get behind it, too often, I see people thinking that relaxation means slow, even sometimes lazy. Which we know isn’t correct. So I can see why suppleness might be more meaningful.
Then the next level use to be Connection, and now it is Contact. I guess they are hoping this further emphasizes the riding from back to front…
Just curious as to whether anyone else had noticed this, and I’m just late to the game? There is an article in the latest USDF Connection (not to be confused with USDF Contact:lol:) that goes over the changes.
wonder if it is perhaps because “losgellassenheit”, while having no direct english translation, is most akin to the english word “supple” or “loose/let go”?
I think that is a good part of the explanation! I have always thought “relaxation” was the wrong word. Suppleness captures part of it. And let’s face it, we can’t use the original word because none of us can SPELL it:lol:
I hadn’t noticed that, but it makes perfect sense! I still don’t understand why “straightness” is so high up on the training scale. How do you achieve proper connection with a horse if it isn’t straight?
I understand changing to suppleness. I don’t quite understand changing connection to contact. A horse can have contact with the bit while still being stiff and not being ridden back to front. To me connection has a much better connotation.
CONTACT
The reins are stretched so that they form a straight line, not a loop. “Correct contact” or “acceptance of contact” is determined by the elasticity of the connection between horse and rider.
Note: The third tier of the Pyramid of Training is represented by the word “connection” in the U.S. and by the word “contact” (translation of “Anlehnung”) by the FEI (see Foreign Terms section).
I think any emphasis on the quality of the contact via the bit placed at the front of any definition or central in choosing a word is a mistake. IME, there’s already an emphasis on making the horse feel steady in the hand early and whether or not they have the strength to really generate that from the hind feet forward. To me, this change from “connection” to “contact” just gives up conceptually on the problem of getting a horse truly “though” and lets riders hand ride.
I get your point @mvp. Anytime one tries to take “regular” words and provide alternate or lesser recognized definitions in any specific context, things get sporty.
I just noticed my own use of the word “sporty” for example. We use that at work to describe engineering analysis or assertions that are suspect. Dictionary.com’s first definition is “flashy, showy” and it’s not until you get to the 4th definition that you get to dissipated and ultimately dissolute and given to improper conduct.
Another reason, IMO, that people should participate in the L Program to learn how judges use, or are supposed to use, language.
I agree. And in a sport where connection is being lost to contact anyway, it seems a disservice. It doesn’t seem right to me to place a heavier emphasis on contact because we already have riders that are very heavy handed and riding from front to back anyway…
I admit I have trouble watching the top levels of dressage - and I dislike myself for feeling that way, believe me - because I love the sport and there are some pairs that just take my breath away… but I still believe for so many even at the top levels of the sport, that it is just an artifice and not a true display of connection and harmony, but a display of contact and subservience – which is not, and never will be, the same thing.
Yes, I also agree, I think Connection was a better descriptor then Contact. And I think MVP is right, for a lot of people, this sounds like “pull on the reins” - OK, I’m oversimplifying, but you all know what we mean. I think Connection is a more subtle word - it implies a more elegant concept.
The article in the USDF Connection says the intent was to get people more focused on the back-to-front riding, but at least in MY mind, I think more front to back when I read “Contact”. I’m going to just imagine it still says Connection…
Because you cannot put a horse straight if your contact isn’t optimal.
Straightness is achieve when you have increased control of the fore and hind end.
Levels are also not just stages you go through one at a time. They are interconnected and you circle back from one another.
More suppleness, better rhythm, better contact make for a straighter horse and then the straighter, the more forward/quick and better contact, and the more supple it gets.
I’m seeing only that the FEI translation of the term “Anlehnung” differs from the U.S. translation. That is not surprising is it?
Perhaps it is a distinction without a difference when translating a word that has no exact English translation?
Is anyone aware of the nationality of the folks that translate German dressage terms for the FEI and of those who do so for USEF? They are obviously not the same people…
The scale has simply changed back to the original german one from their FN training manual (which everyone should read and understand), why they had done the american version in the first place is a question. It is NOT linear, it is touch points for understanding what is the most basic solutions at a given point). It is simplistic, but then fleshed out by saying what exercises/movements contribute to each period of training.
The underlying aspect being a triad (of pure rhythm with a steady appropriate tempo which allows for a swinging back which aka is relaxation). The second is suppleness (meaning lateral flexibility leads to longitudinal balance). Third addresses the degrees of meeting the hand and flexion over time (literally Anlehnung is the horse placing itself in the rider’s hand). Fourth is impulsion (elastic lifting and placing of the hind leg producing energy). First is straightness (which is relative early on, still exists), but is about the ability to control the shoulders. And lastly collection (amplitude produced by engagement/etc).
You know, as a Reformed Hunter Princess who has to be re-taught how to sit on a horse (at all, LOL), I find that Connection vs. Contact suggests using all of my body and seat or focusing on my arm and hand, and the feel ther.
I find that “contact” makes me think solely of the feel I have in my hand. And while that doesn’t mean, at least to me, that I should create that by pulling, it does indicate that I should be psyched, first and foremost, when I feel my horse reliably in the bridle, no matter what the speed. Again, speaking as a Hunter Princess, that reminds me of the (3rd level) schoolmaster types that seem way heavy in my and for how little “engine” they have in the hind end. I just want to kick those beasts forward and hand gallop a bit to get 'em ahead of my leg. Or I think of the folks who lunge their babies in side-reins (not to open a large, different can of worms here, but I don’t think this piece of equipment does the job folks think it does… without a lot of skill from the handler.)
Connection, on the other hand, reminds me that I need to connect the feeling in my hand to my whole arm, shoulder lats and down to my seat and core at least. “Connection” speaks to the part of riding a dressage horse that is so much harder than it looks— the way my seat needs to be anchored on to the horse’s back, “given to him”, centaur-style, and I need to use my core to make my shoulders, arms and hand independent of my seat and able to maintain a connection with the horse’s tender mouth. I mean, compared to Hunter World and, even moreso, to Western world, the constant contact we expect to have the horse to tolerate with the bit means we had damn-well better have that truly independent seat. The fate of his mouth depend upon it.
I also appreciate the reminder that the training scale is a series of touch points and also non-linear. Also, if you read my comments, note how much I was taking those to mean something about what I’d have to do in my riding, or what feel I created. I didn’t read this in terms of the horse and his biomechanics. But those things are the whole point, eh?
MVP, I’m not saying YOU would pull more, but I think for many riders (remembering the vast base of our sport are Training/First Level), take more contact - how many times do you hear a trainer say that? And what is the natural reaction? Pull more! It is human nature - after all, how many hundreds of thousands of years have we refined our use of our hands and thumbs? People go to their hands because - that is how we evolved!
I prefer the term Connection, and I do think it is more true to the meaning. Ideayoda, good reminder. I agree, the Pyramid is only semi-linear, we are constantly running up and down it, and springing around to different parts. AND there are varying degrees of each layer - we first dabble with collection at 2nd level after all - but this isn’t really “true collection”. Sometimes as we work our way “up”, we have to go back and add some more building material at a lower step to help with the next step(s).
I find the Training Pyramid is a good reminder, when things aren’t working out, go back to the basics. It is a nice visual reminder - not everyone is a oral learner, and it gives something solid to look at.
not on topic but is that one of those german words where they squish a bunch of nouns (?) together to make one word? my sister took german so ive heard of them but never seen :lol:
