|
Post by wabuska on Jul 20, 2010 13:45:23 GMT 1
'Bumbling on the buckle'.... Lol. Agree with all above. As a happy hacker I still work on making him carry himself well enough to raise his back and carry me. We do string ourselves out from time to time for a good stretch and I love riding with light hands at all gaits. Very interesting thread, HB.. well done for bringing it up.
|
|
Derek Clark
Grand Prix Poster
Olympic Poster
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by Derek Clark on Jul 20, 2010 14:01:58 GMT 1
A great question this... The language is such a muddle and causes all sorts of problems. If you look through the books written over many centuries explaining how and why horses have been trained the way they have been trained, you'll find that the answer is 'in order to make them easy to ride and maneuverable'. The maneuverability is all relative and the highest levels of training were explored either for aesthetic reasons (to show off, in other words ) or for combat. That is the basis of 'classical training'. In order for the maneuverability to be maximised, the horse has to adopt what you could call an 'athletic' posture, pretty much like a tennis player does when waiting to receive service. Horses do this naturally in the wild when they feel the need to be 'on their toes' and able to spring off in any direction (including up!) at a moment's notice. This is called 'collection'. Collection is something a horse does by himself when it feels like it. The outward signs of collection include a rounding of the overall outline due to the pelvis tucking under and allowing the hind legs to engage further forward under the horse's belly to support more weight and the horse's neck 'elongating' or 'telescoping' due to the elevation of the base of the neck. When those two things happen at the same time as the topline muscles being relaxed, then the horse's head literally dangles freely from the joint where it attaches to the neck vertebrae and it will be at or near the vertical, depending on the individual horse's conformation. The goal of classical training is to be able to ask a horse to collect on request - and with a rider sitting on his back at the same time. The ultimate 'proof of collection' is in the High School airs like levade, where the horse lifts his forehand a few degrees off the ground. This is not at all the same thing as rearing on command, though. In order to be able to 'ask' him to do this we have to be able to 'talk' with him via the language of the aids. When the horse is responding to very light signals he is said to be " on the aids". The more the horse is collected, the better his response (assuming the collection wasn't achieved through forcing) and so in English, the notion of "on the bit" has become associated with the idea of the vertical nose. In fact, the horse will not be 'on the bit' at all in the literal sense, since pressure in the mouth makes everything very difficult if not downright impossible. If a horse is trained well, the horse will 'give' you the vertical (or near vertical) nose when everything else is in place - it requires complete relaxation of the topline, among many other things. In contrast, if you try to force the nose vertical using the reins in any way then you may get the appearance at the front end but there will be problems elsewhere. This leads to a problem with dressage tests: quite rightly, judges will only give the highest marks to horses that are fully trained and a fully trained horse will have the nose more or less vertical. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, some people try to get better marks by finding ways to 'make' their horse hold his nose vertical rather than by doing the training well and waiting until he 'gives' it. It seems that having a vertical nose wins so many marks that the problems caused by forcing it are commonly ignored or overlooked. Things have now gone so far off track that you virtually won't ever see a horse in a 'dressage' photo these days that is not over bent, because a horse with its 'poll as the highest point of the neck' (one of the fundamentals of the rules - and of safe riding) is usually wrongly described as being 'hollow' or 'above the bit' nowadays! As far as I can tell after reading literally hundreds of books on riding and training, the fact that carrying weight is easier for the horse when collected and therefore better for his body was originally just a pleasant side effect rather than a reason to train a horse this way. The main reason was to make them ridable. Nowadays people often have the impression that it's the other way around, but there's very little if anything that I know of in the literature to support this idea until the latter half of the 20th century. I believe it's more a reflection of our current animal-loving culture rather than a historical fact. Perhaps the most important thing to bear in mind is that tension in the reins actually prevents the horse's hind quarters from engaging. If someone tries to force their horse to have a vertical head at the same time as forcing the hind legs to engage then something has to give and injuries are very likely to result. It probably also explains why horses object to it so much... Hope that helps, Derek
|
|
|
Post by donnalex on Jul 20, 2010 14:08:48 GMT 1
It helps a lt Derek! This bit is interesting
As far as I can tell after reading literally hundreds of books on riding and training, the fact that carrying weight is easier for the horse when collected and therefore better for his body was originally just a pleasant side effect rather than a reason to train a horse this way. The main reason was to make them ridable. Nowadays people often have the impression that it's the other way around, but there's very little if anything that I know of in the literature to support this idea until the latter half of the 20th century. I believe it's more a reflection of our current animal-loving culture rather than a historical fact.
Thankfully more rideable is also less likely to cause harm though.
|
|
|
Post by HolsBols on Jul 20, 2010 14:16:27 GMT 1
It sounds to me that a horse riding on the forehand is one thatll be slow and drag his/her feet, slow strides and feel a little disjointed?! am i correct?
If i feel a horse like this, i always have a horse on a light contact not on the buckle and drive the horse forwards... Cant actually explain what i do-i ride on instinct and i know thats what i do if the horse feels like that.
I only go on the buckle on a horse who is striding out and happy to be moving forwards (this is really tough for me trying to work out what i do cuz i ride every horse different lol)
Do you think it is possible to actually know how to ride a horse in an outline and have no idea you're doing it?! My horse has always built up muscle in the correct places, moves very freely and is very happy when being ridden... and marches out happily at the same speed whether going uphill or downhill...
Does everyone agree then that the horse holding their body in the correct position is much more important than head carriage....? and that the head carriage needed is actually a result of the right body shape, and cannot be manipulated?
Ive never understood properly the meaning of on the bit (which im allowed to say because ive never done it therefore never hurt a horse by doing it wrong lol) and mostly why so many contraptions are used in order to create such a head carriage?!
|
|
|
Post by HolsBols on Jul 20, 2010 14:21:08 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by jennyb on Jul 20, 2010 14:24:51 GMT 1
No - horses can be very subtly on the forehand, it takes a lot of practice to recognise from on board when they are tipping onto the forehand and how to correct it. My own horse in my avatar is naturally built uphill, naturally carries himself well, but still has an inbuilt tendancy to rush and so can easily lose his balance just a fraction so that he is on the forehand. He can be dashing along, full of energy, with head held high, and still be on the forehand, because he has lost that engagement in his quarters. It's hard work for a horse to carry themselves well and have a truly light forehand, and I think nearly all riders will need a lot of lessons in how to school horses, how to create bend, suppleness, engagement etc etc etc, and also to FEEL true lightness and engagement on a more advanced horse, before they can recognise when a horse is truly off the forehand.
What you describe is a horse very obviously heavy on the forehand, which is when the risk of joint and muscle damage is greatest, but there are very much varying degrees of "being on the forehand"!
But yes, holding their body in the right place is more important than head carriage. Head carriage is the end result.
|
|
|
Post by welly on Jul 20, 2010 14:25:52 GMT 1
Derek, that is a very clear explanation, thank you.
One of the best pictures I have of a horse doing collected canter is a western rider, I can't remember his name, but I have printed the picture and have it in my feed room. The horse is doing the most perfect, engaged canter, his back is rounded, he is stepping under, his neck is up and, indeed, his head hanging from the poll. The reins are drapped although it isn't clear to see whether it is a curb bit or a bitless bridle. The rider is sitting upright and looking in the direction he wishes to turn. It is a lovely picture of harmony and a relaxed attentive horse.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jul 20, 2010 14:30:48 GMT 1
Nowadays people often have the impression that it's the other way around, but there's very little if anything that I know of in the literature to support this idea until the latter half of the 20th century. I believe it's more a reflection of our current animal-loving culture rather than a historical fact. Derek Oh Derek, is it a musculoskeletal/strength fact though or is it actually a falacy and a lot of the modern biomechanical theories (by my understanding) that say the spine needs to be correctly supported by certain muscles and how this works are not really relevant to effects of a rider just plodding along??? Does my question make sense? Modified because I quoted this as if Donnalex had written it.
|
|
|
Post by HolsBols on Jul 20, 2010 14:32:48 GMT 1
not to me mandal?? can u interpret that into simple speak??
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jul 20, 2010 14:41:11 GMT 1
Lol!!! I've misread Derek's post anyway! I thought he'd said that collection wasn't a benefit for the horse when carrying a rider! LOL Not that it's only fairly recently been acknowledged as the most important aspect. Plus I left out haf the paragraph! Time to go back to sleep!
|
|
|
Post by jennyb on Jul 20, 2010 14:42:03 GMT 1
I think mandal is referring for the need for the core muscles to be activated by working the horse in a particular fashion. There has been a lot of research which shows that simply pulling the horse into a false outline or using tight side reins, rollkur etc, actually stops the horse's postural muscles from holding up the body. So the muscles which should be locomotor muscles, most notably longissimus dorsi which runs down either side of the spinal column in the back, start to be permanently contracted in order to take over the role of the postural muscles, hence why chronic back pain is such an issue in horses which are not worked correctly.
The best thing for a young, green, unfit or uneducated horse is to do frequent periods of work in a forward, downward, outward posture (by this I mean that the nose is FDO, but the poll not lower than the wither and the face not behind the vertical), so that the nuchal ligament along the crest of the neck pulls forward on the spinous processes at the withers, thereby activating the long ligament along the back called the supraspinous ligament. This then allows the core postural muscles to be activated and to take on the work of holding the horse up (much like they would when the nose is down grazing in the field!), and then the locomotor muscles are free to function as nature intended, with no harmful effect on the horse.
That is not to say that schooling FDO for years will mean your horse is off the forehand and working well, you still have to put in a lot of other gymnasticising work too, but this should form the basis of the work for around two years, coupled with other things, so that the horse's topline and core muscles have sufficient time to strengthen before more advanced work is undertaken.
|
|
|
Post by mandal on Jul 20, 2010 14:45:44 GMT 1
Hehe, on the back of Jennyb's knowledge... yep that's what I meant! No actually I was confused about that too but due to my not fully understanding all (much) of it I'm sure.
|
|
|
Post by tomrabbit on Jul 20, 2010 15:29:45 GMT 1
The best thing for a young, green, unfit or uneducated horse is to do frequent periods of work in a forward, downward, outward posture Jennyb, that's extremely interesting, but I'm not quite understanding the posture. Do you happen to have any pictures of a horse doing this?
|
|
|
Post by basilhorse on Jul 20, 2010 15:50:02 GMT 1
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this pic shows a horse used to going on the forehand (sorry about saddle and rider it's the only pic I have). This is my own horse - Basil on the day I went to try him out at the trainer's yard before buying him. He is an ex-racing TB. I wish I had another pic showing him after being worked correctly but unfortunately he's been out of work for 3 years. He has lost a lot of the muscle on the underside of his neck and his shoulder now.
|
|
|
Post by HolsBols on Jul 20, 2010 16:01:45 GMT 1
basilhorse the pictures isnt showing. Its best to upload picture to photobucket and then paste the url onto the dg in order for the picture to show... i am interested to see it!
|
|