Training/Riding

 

 

I grew up as a teenager immersed in what I would call a pretty classical American Jumping Style in the New England area.  Though my mentor (American-Irishman Danny Quinlan, Lunenburg, MA) was an ex-race horse trainer/shoer with some fairly strict care, fitness and training guidelines; my junior hunter jumper trainer (Mitch Steege, Stowe, MA) was fairly classical and orthodox.  Thus, though I always dabbled in the jumpers from 12 years of age on, by 15 I was working my way up through the hunter and equitation ranks, succeeding as far as my resources at that time would allow me to go (qualifiying for the New England medal finals). 

 

As time went on, I became more and more interested in dressage as an addition to improving the training of show jumpers, and eventually came to work with some fairly solid trainers and nice upper level horses in this realm.  This gave me a solid appreciation and interest in what is an ongoing study in this area of work.  At this point my perspective on what I see as fairly common practices in the hunter-jumper world began to alter slightly.  For example, when I was taught that dressage horses aren't introduced to the concept of leads until a 2nd level of fitness and understanding, I was sort of stunned.  But as time went on, I came to understand the reason for this requirement, and now have introduced that philisophy into my own training program (overlooking the hunter jumpers preference for a horse to be doing lead changes as quickly as humanly possible, and prefeing to know they will always come when the time is right and the proper development is there).

 

With more time, I also began to deviate a bit from the classical riding style I had grown up with.  Through the study of dressage and anatomy, and with my own unique perspective coming from a strong engineering background, I came to some concepts of my own involving the development of a horse for upper level collection and jumping.  In a very summaraized form, I have come to believe the stretch (topline in particular) is as important as collection,  particullarly for physically developing horses that aren't yet at a high level of collection.  I believe in the US we tend to over collect and under stretch (or soften to allow the horse to relax it's topline), in both flat work and around a course of jumps.  And given the fact that a jump is nothing more than a powerful stretch, I feel this is something that should be developed and worked towards as much as collection. 

 

With that philosophy in mind, though I am a firm believer in the American style of riding in terms of leg and seat, the extremely short rein that in my mind often chokes a horses topline, particularly in developing horses, is where I tend to diverge and align more with the European style of  hand (i.e. a longer rein).  Thus, I ride with a longer rein in general and in particular when I feel it is appropriate, and encourage my riders to be open to the idea of a longer rein when it serves a specific purpose.  In actuality,  in a perfect world I would like to see riders more diversified and giving their horses a more dynamic ride.  In other words, a different seat (deeper or lighter, more forward or more back) and a different hand (longer or shorter rein, higher or lower) depending on what that particular horse needs at that particular time.

 

I write this because I believe the industry tends to judge trainers and riders on what can be very simple and accepted standards, assuming that anyone diverging from these standards must just not know, or be operating below a level of understanding required for upper level work.  And for some reason, the shorter rein is one of these key classic 'American' measuring sticks (which I will admit is very useful for control AND speed when the horse can constantly carry that frame and suppleness and collection not be interfere with).  I, on the other hand, am often cringing at horses being unknowingly choked up and hollowed (because they are not at the level of development they need to be at to physically hold an intensely collected and upright frame), and caught on the back side of the jump as the rider is thrown forward, over an intensely short rein.  I'm also often admiring the understanding that is clear in Europe with the longer rein, allowing their horses more freedom of movement starting at the neck, and the riders the ability to be quieter in the saddle as their arm flows more naturally with the horses jump.  I guess all I can say is there are 1000 ways to do the dishes, and it is my hope that by jotting down the reasons for some of my philosophies and styles (though granted far from always being executed perfectly by me), folks will come to understand that there is nothing hap hazard about the way of (and reason for) each and every method that I am utilizing. 

 

The Trainer/Client Relationship

 

This is a subject I hesitate to get into a little, but this relationship is so prevalent and such a dominating force in all aspects of our industry, that I have strong opinions on the subject that I really would like to put out there.  Obviously, a great deal of good comes from a relationship with a professional horseman.  This positive stance is my first one.  The commitment and dedication required to attempt to make this your sole source of income is stunning these days, and demands respect.  And there is no knowledge like the knowledge that comes from living and breathing horses and a particular sport day in and day out.  I woudn't attempt brain surgery, because I haven't studied it, and while horsemanship isn't quite the same skill obviously, sometimes I think it is no less complicated.  Far too many folks attempt to do things with horses without help, and without realizing it, they strike those of us that know as mildly insane to attempt this sport without the proper know how behind them.  There is so much to this, and it can be very dangerous if done poorly.  Everyone who wants to seriously pursue any real endeavor with horses must seek professional advice.  You can read books, but it isn't the same.  The learning curve in this sport is so high, if you have any hope of catching up to a higher level of work, you must work with those who have already learned from others and are operating at that level.  Knowledge is passed down through the generations, and it would take many life times to catch up on what can quickly be ascertained from a professional who has been actively working with and under other pros their entire life. 

 

That being said, there are a wide range of pros to work with, and (fortunately in same ways, unfortunately in others) anyone can hang a sign up and call themselves a pro.  It's unfortunate in that you never know what their real background and knowledge is, and fortunate in that all pros aren't necessarily held to the intense politics and economics involved in styles of riding and successful business in this industry. 

 

For me, the measuring stick is simple.  How far competitively (and at what level) has that particular trainer gone, and who have they worked with?  Certification has it's plus (USHJA has recently strongly begun to push this), but it also has it's negatives.  A standard to judge knowledge by is nice, but who is to say what that standard is, and what if their standard is flawed?  Having good marketing skills is not the same as being a good horseman.  Many of the top horseman I know are the least known, and the horseman that are household names I've seen do some less than impressive training and riding.  Also, USHJA certification requires letters of reference from other pros, and in a very competitive and busy industry, that can be stifling and force political subjugation that should not be a requirement to success.  Many top pros have not bothered with this certification, and given everything I just stated it is no wonder why.  Training horses should not require immense political skill and maneuvering ... it should require good horsemanship. 

 

So, again, for me, competition is the key.  And like all things, even this has it's flaws.  Horse showing is very expensive, and to do it consistently there has to be some real cash flow coming from somewhere.  There have been times in my life when that cash flow has been there, and times when it has not been.  The question is, over all, over the years and decades, has that trainer been competitively successful at a high level on multiple horses? Did that trainer/rider make that horse up or were they purchased as a Grand Prix or upper level horse, and from what age?  Finishing or working off an already accompished horse and bringing a horse to a high level from scratch are two completely different scenarios and require two completely different levels of skill.  And buying a popularly bred 4 year old is not the same as knowing what top mares and stallions truly are regardless of current trends, and then finding a mix that works.  It's another facet and depth of horsemanship that should be recognized.  

 

The other question to ask?  Does that trainer possess enough respect and humility towards the sport to work within a large myriad of top pros, that have also actually been successful in the saddle and overall as horseman at one time?  I'm not saying one needs to stay indefinitely under the thumb of other trainers (eventually all good pros will work towards independence and step out on their own, and I feel sometimes actual competition is a little easier without the added pressure of an ever watchful critical eye) but has there been a seeking of knowledge from those that appear to know?  If the answer to those two questions is yes, then you've probably got yourself a solid pro.  If the answer to one of those two questions is no, then there is a very large question mark in my mind ... if you really want someone who is there as a 'horseman' (not a recreational manager, which granted, definitely has an important role to play in this industry, but needs to be distinguished from horsemanship). 

 

Let's assume one has a solid horseman as a trainer.  How much power should that trainer have over you and your horses training and riding (or insight in to a future horse you may purchase)?  Well, it depends on the situation.  If you are using a school horse, then you are pretty much fully dependent on that trainer.  If you own your own horse, you are a little more independent.  If you own your own farm, you are really in a strong position to make your decisions based 100% on what is right for you.  I would say most serious clients own (or want to own) their own horse but not a facility.  And more and more these days, top pros are only allowing in boarders that ride with them.  There simply isn't the money in boarding stables anymore (with the high cost of feed and facilities), and so trainers need clients that will lesson and preferably show.  And many stables have gone out of business ... so there are often less options for good facilities.  But, this can lead to an unhealthy over dependence on a single trainer, and this can sometimes be hurtful to the student's development and the industry as a whole (ie students are afraid to move on when its time, and only buy horses that belong to trainer's friends or have some sort of less than pure political or financial motivation).  It's a fine balance, that I don't think we've quite yet mastered.  But, this is why I choose to discuss the subject here.  I, like others, am hoping to see improvement in a direction that allows all good solid horseman a real open door shot at success.