[Ureventer]

Wonderful thread! I totally agree

Originally Posted by Feliche

Oh Feliche LOVES dressage He's a nifty lil jumper. Surprisingly enough, my horse can jump higher now that we've been doing more FLAT work!! LOL!! He's become bolder, because the dressage is letting him feel his body and control his muscles, so he has more trust in himself and me, and I have more trust in him because I can feel the way his body works as well.

I definitly would imagine this to be true. With dressage, the horse is really learning how to use his/her muscles and builds them up well.

[ChaseroftheCans]

Originally Posted by Lou3

I agree that the basics are necessary BUT - there is a HUGE difference between flatwork and dressage.
Dressage is its own discipline horses are expected to move and perform in a certain way and there are hard and set rules as to what constitutes "correct" head set and correct movement.
I do not want my showjumper to go in the same way as a dressage horse. If they did we'd demolish the course and be laughed out of the ring. They need a different rhythm, a different cadence, a different head set, a different MINDset.
One way of going does not suit all disciplines - and dressage is just one discpline with its own narrowly defined "correct" way of going. Each discpline must be ridden differently and requires different skills. Training on one discipline can be beneficial for another, but is not a pre-requisite. Flatwork must be geared individually to each discipline. There may be cross over - but a flat work session for showjumping will differ hugely to a training session for dressage - or at least it should!

I agree here. I don't teach my horses dressage, but there are similar things taught. Moves like haunches in, shoulders in, sidepasses, so much more are taught. But I don't consider then "dressage moves". I consider it a basic foundation that ANY horse must know to be considered a broke mount.

Dressage focuses on these areas. I don't consider what I'm teaching to be dressage, I consider it to be the basics of a broke, well trained horse.

[Lou3]

Originally Posted by rageandglory

dressage IS an METHOD of training, NOT a style of riding, which it has sadly and widely become here in The States. good jumper training (or any other discipline for that matter) starts with solid basics and broad understanding on the ground/flat first. call it dressage, call it training, play the semantics game all day: comes out to the same thing. good basics on the ground, on the flat, over fences, into orbit for all i care. starts on the ground. it's called "training". the highest degree of atheltic horse is useless if he doesn't understand his job, and the rider can't speak the language. doesn't matter how stoked the retro rockets are if pony isn't listening.

Nope dressage is a discipline of riding. It is a sport within the genre of horseriding. It is not a method of training. There are many different ways to train for dressage. None of them remotely resemble the way you would train on the flat for any other discipline (once past the very basic prelim levels)

[honeydoozy]

Hmmm... I see a debate brewing, and I'm wondering... why?

Is this a sematics discussion, or are there REALLY some disagreements about what dressage IS, in fact?

Nope dressage is a discipline of riding. It is a sport within the genre of horseriding.

Yes... this is correct in that there are specific shows, clinics, saddles. That would be correct. But I think that the elements of this discipline are used in most all other disciplines - but maybe not so formally.

It is not a method of training. There are many different ways to train for dressage. )

This is where it gets murky for me. Dressage IS "training"...at the most literal translation. Many will say that there is only one TRUE way to train for dressage...

(whoa, this could spark a whole NEW debate vs. classical and practical...but I won't digress)

... but it's pretty straightforward and documented precisely. Everything about dressage is that, if nothing else... precise.

None of them remotely resemble the way you would train on the flat for any other discipline (once past the very basic prelim levels)

I'm not sure I'm understanding this statement. I'm open for enlightenment.
I will say that from my experience -as a junior, doing hunters and jumpers for many years, many moons ago - that we used dressage principles *daily* in our pre-jumping warmup. Tons of turn on the haunches, turn on the forehand, leg yields, and most useful... endless collection and bending exercises. I could do serpentines blind, if necessary. And here's the thing... the more advanced I became in the jumping disciplines, the more I *relied* on those collection/bending skills to perform. Particularly in Jumpers.


I can't speak for Western disciplines, but it would seem to me, that any focus on basic flexibilty and responsiveness is a good thing. The saddle on a horse's back shouldn't dictate what the training is called. Call it "flat work" or dressage... at it's core, it's essentially the same thing - just with a different outfit.

[Huntseat123]

Amen! I totally agree! Its one of the reasons that i'll be moving barns. Bewcause I will have a dressage instructor there!

[honeydoozy]

I'm still trying to break through the semantics of this discussion...

Originally Posted by ChaseroftheCans

I agree here. I don't teach my horses dressage, but there are similar things taught. Moves like haunches in, shoulders in, sidepasses, so much more are taught. But I don't consider then "dressage moves". I consider it a basic foundation that ANY horse must know to be considered a broke mount.

Dressage focuses on these areas. I don't consider what I'm teaching to be dressage, I consider it to be the basics of a broke, well trained horse.

I think I'm a little confused, probably because I don't have a good handle on western disciplines, enough to know what flatwork elements are standard in daily training. If haunches in, shoulders in, sidepasses, etc are movements that are trained and shown in a particular discipline - then of course they wouldn't be considered exclusively "dressage" movements.

I get that.

...but you are technically teaching the principles of dressage, an art that goes back centuries as a method to train war horses for battle. It just happens to be particularly useful training for ALL disciplines - go figure!


So, I guess I'm a little confused on your take on "dressage" and how it's different from basic training? Do you think there is an upper vs. lower level distinction that makes one level of riding more "dressage" than another?

[gotta a horse]

I think dressage is a beautiful disipline when done correctly. I think as far as people doing dressage for training I wouldn't say they should use dressge like a dressage rider would. I would more consider it modified flatwork using dressage concepts. It would be modified so that you and your horse would be using those concepts but you are staying true to your disipline. For example if you were using those dressage concepts on a western horse you would want them to have a western headset and movement. Chances are you would be riding like a western rider as well.

[DakotaKristine]

Originally Posted by barn_babe09

IMO dressage is a major factor in all disciplines. It's the people w/ the dressage background who are going to exel in all equestrain sports. Dressage acts like groundwork, its a foundation, only its for the horses undersaddle. If things start to fall apart you can just go back to your foundation and try to correct the problem there. 9 times out of 10 it will work.
Sam
~My home is where my horse is

Of all the horses i ever had none of them did dressage, there job was to heard cattle, all of them where terrific well trained horses.

[Lou3]

Originally Posted by honeydoozy

Hmmm... I see a debate brewing, and I'm wondering... why?

Is this a sematics discussion, or are there REALLY some disagreements about what dressage IS, in fact?



Yes... this is correct in that there are specific shows, clinics, saddles. That would be correct. But I think that the elements of this discipline are used in most all other disciplines - but maybe not so formally.

It could equally be said that elements of other disciplines are used in dressage. I know many dressage riders that train for striding, extension etc over ground poles and cavalettis - well thats showjumping, teaching a horse to pick up its feet and lengthen strides between fences. The problem here is that people are not able to distinguish between basic flatwork and actual dressage.

This is where it gets murky for me. Dressage IS "training"...at the most literal translation. Many will say that there is only one TRUE way to train for dressage...

(whoa, this could spark a whole NEW debate vs. classical and practical...but I won't digress)

... but it's pretty straightforward and documented precisely. Everything about dressage is that, if nothing else... precise.

There are lots of different techniques - some will use natural horsemanship, some will use methods such as rollkur, some people train things from the ground before in the saddle some train straight from the saddle. Tonnes of different ways - and its all dressage training. But if I'm riing a showjumper and teaching them to lengthen strides on the flat in preparation for over fencs thats NOT dressage training. I wont be asking my horse to be on the bit - i want him to be able to SEE the fences so I'm training him to go in a different way to what you would train a dressage horse.

I'm not sure I'm understanding this statement. I'm open for enlightenment.
I will say that from my experience -as a junior, doing hunters and jumpers for many years, many moons ago - that we used dressage principles *daily* in our pre-jumping warmup. Tons of turn on the haunches, turn on the forehand, leg yields, and most useful... endless collection and bending exercises. I could do serpentines blind, if necessary. And here's the thing... the more advanced I became in the jumping disciplines, the more I *relied* on those collection/bending skills to perform. Particularly in Jumpers.

Basic principles are basic principles and are uniform across all disciplines. It bugs me that dressage people call all work done on the flat "dressage". Just because it resembles something done in your sport does not mean it IS your sport, do you get what I mean? The literal translation is not always the best description of a sport and uses of a word change over time. Take the sport of karate for example karate literally means "empty hand" but we trained with bow staffs sometimes and it was still karate.

I can't speak for Western disciplines, but it would seem to me, that any focus on basic flexibilty and responsiveness is a good thing. The saddle on a horse's back shouldn't dictate what the training is called. Call it "flat work" or dressage... at it's core, it's essentially the same thing - just with a different outfit.

There are other ways to focus on basic flexibility and responsiveness. When I train a pony for mounted games the last thing I want is a pretty head set and a "bouncy" stride with the hocks underneath the horse as is encouraged through ALL levels of dressage. I train flexibilty on the ground by doing exercises and incorporate a few western-style techniques like spins and roll backs. Does this therefore mean I'm training reining? No, I'm still training mounted games I'm just using a technique that also happens to be used in another sport.
Dressage, showjumping, mounted games, hunters - whatever they may share a few principles but they are not the same sport and shouldnt be treated as such. They require vastly different skills which only get MORE pronounced as you move up the levels.

[Chief horse]

Wonderful thread. The reason I love reining is because it's the western version of dressage...how wonderful. I think Dressage helps in EVERY riding style.