Contact..arghh?

[Jaydee]

I'm another one totally flummoxed by the amount of contact instructors want me to take. <_<

So many riding disciplines work beautifully on the lightest of or even no contact at all. That's how I would choose to ride, and how I did when I had my own horse - but now I am supposed to have a far stronger contact than is comfortable for me and I suspect the horses too.

They are big animals - they can carry their own heads as far as I am concerned. And, you know, they go so WELL once they have learned to do so. The impulsion does not trickle out through the front if the front isn't held strongly - they hold it in themselves, and it is there to call upon when needed.

Granted you would get nowhere in a dressage arena - but dressage is only one discipline, and highly stylised. Now if someone performed a lovely light correct test with no contact but the horse carrying itself beautifully, how do we think it would be marked?

[christuris]

I like to think of the concept of "no contact" as actually just the weight of the reins which actually IS contact.  I think that once the horse has learned self carriage, it can be ridden on the weight of the reins, not before, so until then, it has to learn to accept the contact and be guided by it.  Lightness has so often been categorized as a completely loose rein, and it's no wonder that people are against that concept.  There can be no lightness without self carriage.

Someone in our Iberian club here in Colorado recently did a survey of how we as riders can compete using a different set of tests.  While we have the CRC and perhaps Tropheum Mundi (which I've not yet seen in action), my idea was to have a test where everyone has to start at the bottom "level" and prove that they can ride in Lightness -- and that would include the warm-up arena.  It wouldn't be a competition per se, just a way of racking up enough scores from enough different judges to be able to pass to the next level.  The problem of course, is getting qualified judges!!!  You'd have to have "happy horses" -- I mean REALLY happy horses(!) -- and it would be the rider/horse combination that would carry the scores, so you'd have to start all over again with a new horse.

I've been having all kinds of fun thinking about how this could be organized, but it's a pipe dream!

Christina
Indian Hills, Colorado
www.AlphabetRanch.com

[shoveltrash]

oh Christina!  what a NICE pipe dream though

 

[Jaydee]

What I have found is that if they never have a contact to lean on in the first place, they go in self-carriage from the start because they have to, and then they rebalance themselves as they alter shape and build up to whatever disciplines they are involved in.

It's just another point of view. Maybe we have become fixated on doing it all for the horse instead of helping it to go sweetly of itself.

[Dark Cloud]

Interwesting, since having that particular crisis , I have gone with the prescribed stronger contact because I could see that I was allowing tobes to develop a stronger bracocephalic muscle and so the moments of "self carriage" with a long and light contact were not enough to effect changes in his musculature to let him go in self carriage easilier. Since then he has been developing a lovley top line and and am feeling much more reguarly the light contact and him swinging thru his back, he is also not o/bending as much.
I suppose you cant train yourself to do new harder thing w/out pushing your body one way or another, I wouldnt expect to get more supple, fitter, or stronger without some discomfort. I think we are just really aware of the fact that the horse dosnt saddle itself up and we can inflict pain, its good to care and be informed, but Im happy of the path were on in this regard, I beleive as we become stonger, it'll continue to be easier and the "correct" work will come "naturally". Everything but horses eating in the wilds is a construct we impose, I just dont think we can escape that. Ed for sp  

[black_dragon_9]

What I have found is that if they never have a contact to lean on in the first place, they go in self-carriage from the start because they have to, and then they rebalance themselves as they alter shape and build up to whatever disciplines they are involved in.
 

I think though that if you just ride around with no contact/loose reins all the time then the horse will never learn to take the weight back onto the hind quarter and just get more and more on the forehand. The whole point of dressage is to TRAIN the horse to carry us, which lies entirely with the rider. Descente de main is all well and good, but its the cream at the end of many years of training. In both schools, the bridle is a receiving instrument.

Aid, light; aid, light; aid, light is the key IMO, that is, give an aid and then return to neutral. Chronically holding onto the horse's mouth along with chronically slobbing along with slack reins (except for 'forward and down' rest periods) are as bad as each other.

 

[Jaydee]

It's good to have this discussion and differing opinions.

I am not talking dressage per se - I am talking any kind of riding. We are told many things over a riding life - a horse has to be shod, saddles must be treed, women can't work with stallions, driven horses need a bearing-rein, don't let a colicky horse roll, and a horse will go on the forehand if it is not ridden with a strong contact. No doubt some will, and no doubt some won't.

Purely my own observation, (not just my own riding) is that if a horse does not have the option -ever- of leaning on its rider - it won't. It will also seem a lot more sure-footed on any gradient at any speed, because if it tries to go on its forehand, it will fall over.

[Dark Cloud]

Well, horses for courses I suppose. I rode the mare I am leasing/thinking of buying today and although she is completly green OTTB, get her chewing the bit and responding to inside leg and she is soooo soft, no need for much contact, shes just there. Itll probably change as she becomes more straight and forward like Tobes did but she dosnt  have the feeling of evading the contact just being ever so light.

[shoveltrash]

i'm thinking here.......

maybe a younger/less fit horse takes slightly 'more' contact in the beginning, because they haven't developed the muscles for true self carriage yet?  (and when i say "self carriage" i mean elevated/carrying more weight thru the HQ).
i myself am struggling with this very same concept currently - my boy seems heavy when he *seeks/reaches* for contact & lifts his back.  i won't ever "hold his head up", but i think he will get lighter as he gets stronger.

like i said, just 'thinking aloud'

[Dark Cloud]

I agree Trish, I think we are talking about contact that is heavier than we aspire to and when we ride youngens they are not built for carrying people and they bulid up the strength and flexibility over time. We are continually aspiring to be better riders but forget that often the text books/DVD's are describing a theory which is addapted for each indiv horse and its responses. We can get all dogmatic and over idealistic on our selves but forget we have this being under us that is TRYING to do what we THINK we are asking and even if we are asking well, Rome just isnt built in a day, neither is a beautiful forest (Just providing alternative metaphor to be inspired by   :lol: ).
If I wanted to do the splits, I would have to practice slowly, I would be kidding myself if I expected to be able to be it wihout my body trying to evade the tension and pain and twitching that would be occuring due to me or even groaning and leaning on the floor with my hands. Which Ive dtermined to start doing more stretching in the hips ....groan... Ill put it off for another, warmer morning (cold, windy and wintery here  :( )

[Funky MeerKAT]

Granted you would get nowhere in a dressage arena - but dressage is only one discipline, and highly stylised. Now if someone performed a lovely light correct test with no contact but the horse carrying itself beautifully, how do we think it would be marked?

Interesting...

I wonder, if a horse performed a GP dressage test the way Podhajsky described in his book "My Horses My Teachers", that is on the curb alone on just the weight of the rein, with the whip held upsidedown, how they would mark?

My guess is that they would be marked 'behind the contact/bit', which is interesting when so many horses at that level actually are BTV and behind the bit. I doubt that this ultimate lightness would be accepted.

[Linda Baia]

I think though that if you just ride around with no contact/loose reins all the time then the horse will never learn to take the weight back onto the hind quarter and just get more and more on the forehand. The whole point of dressage is to TRAIN the horse to carry us, which lies entirely with the rider. Descente de main is all well and good, but its the cream at the end of many years of training. In both schools, the bridle is a receiving instrument.
 

 Hear hear hear !

I cannot agree enough with Black Dragon! I am slowly, re-learning to ride ... that means that after 10 yrs of riding, I am actually getting the hang of it (very slowly tho).

For a long time I thought that light contact meant no contact, that was good/kind for the horse. I was utterly wrong! Contact has to be consistent, elastic following the horse.

It is Bloody hard work, it is MUCH easier to pretend to be kind to the horse and NOT trying to have contact.

It means to have a very stable seat, and independance of the aids ... it means a certain level of riding.

Descente des mains is very very advanced, and yes they use the weight of the reins, but they have bloomin' good great seat ...  

[black_dragon_9]

Hello,

We are told many things over a riding life - a horse has to be shod, saddles must be treed, women can't work with stallions, driven horses need a bearing-rein, don't let a colicky horse roll, and a horse will go on the forehand if it is not ridden with a strong contact.

Rubbish! You seem to be making sweeping generalisations and sounding as though you're setting yourself up into a 'them and us' frame of mind, which in my experience is a complete waste of time. As is thinking that you or your horse are somehow 'the exception' - been down that road myself, try learning from other people's mistakes. Its all well and good being open minded, but not when your brain falls out.

Sure, shoes aren't necessary if your horse has good feet and you're not working on hard ground a lot - there is nothing NEW about this. It is worse to keep a horse footsore for long periods without shoes (transitioning, or whatever), than to put them on.

Treeless saddles are not a new thing either. Its true that new materials are making them more of a rival to treed saddles. However, the saddle is meant to put the rider on to the horse's musculature (which makes me wonder about the ones without a gullet) and in my opinion, it is worse to have a bad rider on a good, well fitting saddle (treed or otherwise) than a good rider on a not so good saddle. If all riders invested as much time, effort and money into their riding as they do equipment I reckon that horses would be a heck of a lot happier.

Anyway, going back to your main point about horses on the forehand. Horses naturally carry 60% of their body weight on their forehand, and most of the time, this is fine when you're just considering their own body weight alone. However, plonk a rider on board and in order for the horse to carry you in the light and supple way that it demonstrates in the field, you have to TRAIN the horse to do this. Horses aren't naturally meant to be ridden, they don't psychically know how this has to occur.

Purely my own observation, (not just my own riding) is that if a horse does not have the option -ever- of leaning on its rider - it won't.

I'm sure that is correct. However, remember that a 'partnership' is the purpose of this classical malarky, whether or not you plan to use it as a foundation for happy hacking, dressage or three day event. We don't want the juxtaposition of a well trained horse and an well trained rider, we want a harmonious amalgamation of the two. We ask the horse to provide us with a stable platform to sit on and we train it to respond to our requests by the subtlest of signals. We want to ride the *whole* horse and for the whole horse to be in tune with us. If we forget one aspect of the horse, then we risk breaking the horse up and going against what nature 'designed' the horse to be, which often results in physical or mental problems. In the same way that rollkur is an over obsession with the horse's head, just riding the body with your seat and legs and ignoring the head is just as foolish IMO. I'm not saying that the horse should be heavy and leaning, or any sort of rough or forcefulness with the hands. But if you want a partnership, then I think you need contact akin to the 'circuit of aids' (see sustainable-dressage.com), each of which have can have either active, aiding function as well as a passive, receiving quality. If you forget about the reins in this system, then you may as well be trying to cut down an oak with a carving knife.  

JMHO.

 

[Jaydee]

Rubbish! You seem to be making sweeping generalisations and sounding as though you're setting yourself up into a 'them and us' frame of mind, which in my experience is a complete waste of time. As is thinking that you or your horse are somehow 'the exception'

Cor blimey BD9, you had a bad day???????????????? :P

Read me post, again. Then you won't need to be quite so defensive.