Chris Hector investigates…
There is a group of well-respected eventing commentators, like Lucinda Green and Jim Wofford, who argue, often very persuasively, that the reason horses are falling, often with disastrous consequences, is because they are doing too much dressage.
Wofford, in a think piece on the website www.equisearch.com, observes: “It is interesting to note that while there have been changes in the format of the sport, the height and spread of the cross-country obstacles and the required speed have remained unchanged for 85 years. Yet it is only recently that we have experienced the human and equine fatalities that now seem tragically commonplace at events. The first human fatality that really rocked the event world was a slow rotational fall at Burghley in 1999. Soon thereafter, the Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) discussed making a rule against attempting to jump from a standstill; i.e. ‘jumping too slow’. I can hardly wait to see what they say about ‘jumping too fast’.”
“To claim that recent fatalities are because ‘riding too fast produces bad jumping’ is to reveal an abysmal ignorance about what horses can do when trained in self-carriage and ridden in balance. Anyone who makes that claim needs to skip Rolex next year and watch the Maryland Hunt Cup instead.”
Wofford argues that if horses can successfully complete a four-mile timber race over fences of four feet in height (several 4’10”) at 800 metres per minute, without problems, ‘speed is not the problem, lack of balance is the problem’.
Wofford is a rider, coach and commentator, well versed in the history of eventing: “In our sport, we have been jumping the same size fences at the same speed for three-quarters of a century, yet suddenly we are suffering rotational falls. Ah-ha, one might say, but what about course design? That has surely changed, hasn’t it? Obviously, course design has changed over the past few years, and for the most part it has improved the situation. However, many times the design of the jumps is not really new. Anyone who thought the double-bounce at The Kennels during the 1978 World Championships wasn’t technical, or did not require a slow, controlled approach, would have been proved wrong… The 1948 Olympic Three-Day Event featured a set of 3-foot-11 vertical black gates set 30 feet apart (a perfect half-stride). These gates were the next-to-last efforts, so the rider had to know how to either slow down and ‘pop’ in two very short strides, or accelerate and jump with one huge stride between two very imposing obstacles. And this on a horse who had covered approximately 20 miles by this point. In addition, the 1948 course featured a ‘stile’ which was about five feet wide. Fences 18, 19 and 20 were three ditches with a ‘bounce’ in between each one. Each ditch got wider, with the third ditch measuring 6-foot-6. Narrow fences and agility tests are nothing new in eventing.”
Mr Wofford is one of those Americans who still lament the loss of the ‘old’ format, complete with steeplechase. They still have not grasped one essential fact, that Eventing HAD BEEN REMOVED from the 2008 Beijing Games, and it was only through Wayne Roycroft’s imaginative and much needed re-vamp of the format that the sport was saved for future Olympics… and we must never forget that if eventing lost its Olympic status, equestrian sport in Australia – at least – would receive absolutely no government funding… but I digress, back to Jim…
“When competing in the classic format (with steeplechase), most riders took for granted that they would accrue some time faults and judged their pace accordingly. In addition, because they had just completed a steeplechase phase, their horses had been given an opportunity to ‘miss’ at a soft, forgiving brush fence. This reminded their horses to watch what they did with their footwork and to reawaken their initiative. Due to the change to a short format we now have a generation of horses and riders who have never had the chance to miss at speed and learn from it. This means that when they miss in competition, it will be at something fixed and immovable with drastic results.”
“It is hard to draw a positive learning experience from a high-speed rotational fall. And there is no doubt that the speeds reached by short format riders are far greater than any classic rider ever experienced. During the classic era, the maximum Olympic speed for phase B, the steeplechase, was 690 meters per minute. The maximum speed for the Olympic cross-country remains the same, at 570 meters per minute. Expert on-lookers at this year’s Galway CIC***/**/* clocked riders with a radar gun. Some CCI* riders recorded speeds of more than 800 meters per minute, the same average speed as used in the Grand National and Maryland Hunt Cup.”
“How can we explain this: Riders are riding faster than ever, over courses that are, supposedly, specifically designed to produce ‘slower and safer riding’ – yet falls are increasing in frequency and severity? In my opinion, the answer is simple. The more you make riders slow down to jump complicated, show jumping-like combinations, the faster they will ride somewhere else on the course in order to avoid time faults. The inevitable result of this is that riders are now jumping the plain fences at very high rates of speed. In effect the experts have designed a new sport, where riders steeplechase over solid jumps.”
At the heart of Wofford’s argument is his belief that the increased emphasis on dressage is Destroying Our Horses’ Initiative.
“It seems to me that the factors at work in these accidents are not that the course designers are wrong, or that the riders are riding too fast. The obstacles we are asking our horses to jump have been successfully jumped for nearly a century. For almost two centuries, racehorses have successfully jumped bigger fences at much higher rates of speed than we require. Our problems are not being caused by the cross-country test; they are being caused by the dressage and show jumping tests. Viewed from a historical perspective, the cross-country has not changed as much as the dressage and show jumping have in recent years.”
“We absolutely must practice our dressage, because dressage is the essential tool by which we communicate with our horses. Without it, we cannot control them. However, we have recently started to require collection from our horses, and I am sure this is where we have gone wrong. Certainly our horses are marvelous creatures, and they possess powers that leave us in awe. At the same time, just because a horse can do something is no justification for us to require him to do it. If we carry that logic to an illogical extreme, eventers would be performing a Grand Prix dressage test, an extremely complex cross-country course, and the same show jumping course as Grand Prix show jumpers. Crazy, right? But that has been the trend in recent years, to place increasing demands on our horses’ performance. Possibly horses can do these things, but the question remains, should they?”
“Take collection, for example. Collection occupies a very specialized part of the dressage world. When a horse enters into collection he begins to surrender his body to his rider, and he begins to surrender his initiative as well. Two of my Olympic coaches, Jack LeGoff and Joe Lynch, told me not to go too deeply into collection because it would make the horse reliant on me.”
“Jack used to tell the story of winning the French Eventing Championships on a mare who showed real promise. Jack was stationed with the Cadre Noir at the time, so the following winter it was easy for him to delve deeper into dressage, and he succeeded. ‘After that,’ Jack said, ‘she was never the same.’ Meaning that the mare had begun to wait to be told what to do across country. This excellent horseman immediately sensed what had happened and thereafter warned his riders against too much collection.”
“Other dressage experts, including Reiner Klimke, have mentioned to me that when we truly and correctly collect our horses, we also subdue their initiative. Old time dressage experts used to say that the well-trained dressage horse ‘appeared’ to produce the movements of the test by itself. But the movements are in reality a result of the application of our aids, and the horse’s response to those aids. Thus the recent proposal that we require our four-star horses to produce tempi changes at the collected canter fills me with foreboding. More collection, less initiative – less initiative, more falls.”
With all due respect to Mr Wofford, and his mentor, Jack le Goff, I had the privilege to ride in a couple of sessions with Le Goff, and his concept of dressage was truly bizarre. There seemed to be absolutely no idea that one dressage movement flowed from the next, each new school figure adding to the gymnastic ability of the horse, and in the process, increasing the horse’s athletic ability, and it’s ability to carry itself in balance and with ease. Jack’s idea of dressage was a series of unrelated parade ground tricks. It might be noted that it is a long long long time since the Cadre Noir has produced a dressage rider of note.
This phobia about collection seems to me comes about from a simplistic reading of the so-called training scale. As Andrew McLean has argued recently in this magazine, it is not really a scale at all, yet there is a common misconception that training is a series of quite separate steps. Like first we get relaxation, then rhythm, then contact followed by impulsion and straightness, before tackling the Holy Grail, collection. Now it might be useful as a conceptual exercise to think about our training like this, and it is certainly a very good idea to structure a working session around this sort of progression, but the truth is at every level ALL the elements of the ‘scale’ are involved at every step in the process. To stop your horse, you need to collect him, it is just that he is likely to be more on his forehand at the beginning both of his career, and each individual training session, because we haven’t given him many collecting exercises, as we do, he will take more weight on his hind end and stop in a more balanced way.
Throughout this process the horse is responding to our aids, as we get him in a collected frame, these aids can become lighter and more subtle, less distracting to the horse, less likely to take his attention away from the fence. Watch that master of eventing (AND GRAND PRIX!) dressage, Michael Jung, ride across country and you will see none of the hauling and grabbing so common with the riders who ‘don’t practice too much dressage because it will take away the horse’s initiative…’
And without being too cruel, having watched some of the ‘too much dressage is bad’ riders try to ride dressage, yes, I can imagine that a ‘dressage’ workout with them in the saddle would be a distressing affair for the horse – but this is simply because they don’t know how to properly school their horses.
But Jim Wofford not only takes aim at dressage schooling, he is also disturbed by what he sees as a new system of training for showjumping – a system he dubs You Can’t Miss.
“The same loss of the horse’s initiative has occurred at the other end of the event, with the recent mandated changes in the height, spread and design of the show jumping test. Accuracy of approach and presentation are being tested as never before. I often maintain that ‘accuracy’ or ‘seeing a stride’ is an overrated concept for most riders. They do not need it until they start to jump obstacles that test their horse’s scope. I am sure that some people have heard the first part of my statement, but did not hear the second part. Let me say it again… The reason most people do not need accuracy is because they do not jump high enough.”
“However, the recent changes to the show jumping test have made accuracy necessary. There may be one or two horses around the eventing scene who do not have to be accurate to four-foot oxers with a five-foot spread, but those horses are few and far between. The vast majority of event horses are reaching the limits of their scope when they approach a show jumping fence of this size, and then the reverse of my statement comes into play. You don’t need to see a stride over low fences for the same reason that you do need to see a stride to big fences. Low fences do not test your horse’s scope.”
“Once you approach the limits of your horse’s abilities, there is no other possible answer than to regulate your horse’s stride in the approach. The only way you can obtain this regulation is for your horse to ‘wait’ to be told where and when to take off. This works really well at slow speeds on level ground, and expert show jumpers do it successfully all the time. Unfortunately for our horses, they are not exclusively show jumpers.”
This – again with all due respect – is a load of old codswallop – and if Mr Wofford cared to sit in on a training session with his country’s greatest showjumping coach, George Morris, he would quickly see the flaw in his argument. George asks for both maximum responsiveness to the rider’s aids (in other words, dressage) and maximum initiative on the part of the horse when it comes to reading a fence. There is absolutely no contradiction at all between George spending a long long time working on his pupil’s dressage – and then setting up courses that challenge and develop the horse’s initiative.
As George said recently when he was in Australia, ‘this system I teach, teaches the horse to carry us, teaches the horse to think for us’ – and yet, George tells us that when he used to ride Melanie Smith’s horses “people used to ask me, why do you do tempi changes? To get them light to my leg and seat.” So that’s the dressage bit, then you set up lines of fences, and let the horse develop his initiative. No contradiction at all, and I suspect that if George felt like emulating one of his mentors, Richard Wätjen, and use piaffe to warm up and gymnasticise his jumpers, he would have felt free to do so without compromising his horse’s ability to read a fence and a situation.
Please don’t get me wrong. Jim Wofford has forgotten more about the sport of eventing than I will ever know, and there is much of great value in his think piece which needs to be read, digested and debated by all who are interested in the future of this great sport.
Let’s look at Wofford’s Solutions:
“It is clear in my mind: We now have an event that was designed by humans for humans rather than by humans for horses. Because of this, we have forced riders to cross the line between discipline and domination. It is sad to say, but all the changes our sport has recently endured have, each and every one, failed to produce the benefits that were predicted. I see no way back to the classic format, because the FEI is often in error but never in doubt, and the FEI makes the rules. In addition, our present bureaucracy is deeply and emotionally invested in the mistaken belief that there is some magic rule change, if only they can write it. For them to make a massive change in their mindset is too much to expect. I only wish legendary event horses like Charisma or Kilkenny had a voice in those committees to say, ‘Have you really thought about what you are asking us to do?’”
“So what are we to do, now that we are caught between our love for the sport, and our concern for our horses? I have several suggestions:
1. First of all, don’t even think of competing without competence. You are in this sport because you treasure the partnership the sport gives you with your horse. Work on your competence to the exclusion of any competitive desires. Bert de Némethy said, ‘A good feeling after the round is better than any ribbon.’ That statement is as true today as the day he made it, over half a century ago.
2. When you are training, make sure to include daily exercises in initiative and self-carriage. If you cannot finish your dressage periods with quiet work on long, soft reins, you are not riding your horse in self-carriage. Regularly practice jumping gymnastics on a long or loose rein and remind your horse that he needs to, in Eric Smiley’s lovely phrase, ‘take ownership of the fence.’ Jump small banks and ditches on loose reins and find steep slides and hill climbs where you can remind your horse how to adjust his own balance without your dictation. Make him proudly independent of you so that he understands his job so well you merely walk the course and then show him the way. Tell your horse what you want him to do, and then allow him to do it.
3. This last part might be a little bit my fault, and I apologize. Due to the recent increased importance of dressage and show jumping to the competitive outcome, I have stopped telling people to find a horse with the ‘look of eagles’. Horses who are successful in competition these days are extraordinary movers and powerful, careful show jumpers. But finding one who combines all this with the look of eagles is nearly impossible. Thus when we compromise, we must compromise on the horse’s movement, not on his agility. I now recognize that more than ever these are the qualities we need, qualities of the horse’s spirit. Certainly we need great movers and powerful jumpers, but above all we need a partner, not a slave. We need horses who are supremely courageous, fiercely independent and phenomenally agile.”
“Find such a horse and treasure him. Teach him that you will trust him with your life. Give him the education he will need, and then sit quietly while he does the job you have very skillfully and very patiently taught him. He won’t let you down. We owe all this and more to our horses. As Jackson Browne says, ‘There are lives in the balance.’”
He’s right you know. There are lives in the balance both equine and human, and while I don’t agree with all of Jim Wofford’s analysis, the issues he has raised are vital – if you are serious about eventing please go and read his full article on the website: www.equisearch.com
Christoph Hess talks about the new four star test…
The WEB has been alive with criticisms of the NEW four star test designed by Christoph Hess and Christopher Bartle – a bit odd, since it won’t come into being until 2016, but Christoph was pretty relaxed about it all…
You are being criticized for a new four star test that is not even in operation yet…
“The four star test that Chris Bartle and I have designed is ready, it is in the office of the FEI. We had about 25 experts from all over the world who helped us design the tests.”
“It was criticized at the international eventing forum in Hartpury, mainly from Jennie Loriston-Clarke, and mainly for one movement. It is a movement that Chris Bartle and I love, in the beginning of the canter tour, after trot and walk, we have the medium canter, and after some strides, going across the centre line – it’s not the long diagonal – it is a short diagonal, we have in the medium canter, a flying change from left to right.”
“It is may be also worth pointing out that the three riders who rode through the test at the Hartpury Seminar, all performed that movement very well and had no problem afterwards during the remainder of the canter work.”
“This we think is very important for all horses who are trained in the right direction, in the classical way, and mainly the eventing horses. There are some riders, like Jennie Loriston-Clarke, who remember the old days when we had this movement in the Grand Prix of Dressage, and they know we had a lot of bad pictures because many of these Grand Prix horses knew the test very well and they started to anticipate, and get tense – and you saw ugly changes with a high croup.”
“Jennie says that to bring back this movement is not an improvement – but I disagree because I believe that a horse that is trained in the right direction and is truly in front of the rider, loves to do this movement. I think the difference between the movement in the old Grand Prix test, and the movement in our test is that, in our test the change is not in the beginning of the test as it was in the old Grand Prix, but it is in the second half of the test and after quite a lot of time in the arena doing trot and walk, so the horses are really ready for the movement.”
“I think all horses should be able to do this, especially when they are at four star level. When Chris and I designed our tests from one star to four star, what we always ask ourselves is, what is good for the horses? What helps them be successful and safe cross country, for the horse and the rider. A good cross country horse has to be able to produce a proper flying change in medium canter, or a good working canter, with a good forward tendency.”
“The FEI said okay, we will have this test from the first of January 2016. Maybe it will be the test for the Olympic Games, but if the eventing dressage in Rio is just on one day, then there will be a shorter test without rein back, and without the walk pirouettes – that would make a test just under four minutes, 3.45, and with 60 horses you could fit the tests into one day. The four star test is ready, but the big four star competitions will still run on the two old tests for 2015.”
There is a vein of criticism at the moment from commentators like Jimmy Wofford and Lucinda Green, is that the reason horses are falling on cross country, is that they have done too much dressage and they have lost their initiative, their ability to read the jumps…
“I have heard this criticism, but I think the people who argue in this direction, always think that dressage is a special discipline, more in the direction of circus, and this in my opinion is totally wrong. Dressage is a gymnastic for the horse, maybe the word ‘dressage’ is not such a good one – maybe it would be better to say, gymnastic for the horse. It is not a special discipline. I think many eventing riders – not the best ones – think that okay, I train one day cross country, one day showjumping, and one day I train dressage, and dressage is a special separate discipline. But dressage is nothing special, dressage is part of the whole process, and the better the gymnastic of the horse, the better the result will be for the rider going cross country. If you just train dressage tricks with the horse, yes, it is true, this kind of trick work is bad for the riders and the horses when they go cross country.”
“We discussed this very intensively, that if you train the horse in the correct way, then these dressage gymnastics help the horse balance, to have elasticity, to be able to shorten and lengthen the stride. Dressage is not bringing the horse under your domination – no, it is a true partnership, and we don’t want to have a slave to the rider. We want to have a horse that thinks, and looks, and uses its own balance when it goes cross country. The horse that stops thinking is absolutely dangerous, but this is not the result of proper dressage training. The critics do not really understand dressage.”
“What Chris and I are trying to do is write tests that are very smooth and flowing, this is what all horses and riders need, and the better the harmony on the flat, the easier, and safer, it is to ride cross country. This is our goal with all our tests from one to four star.”
Olympic changes to make eventing more dangerous!?
It seems that the debate over the future of eventing is taking off all over the world. A recent blog on www.horse-canada.com by Leslie and Lesley Law shows just how dangerous proposed changes to the Games format could be.
Leslie Law has long been recognised as an eventing top liner. The winner of the individual gold medal at Athens, he has twice been a member of British gold medal winning teams at the Europeans, and since moving to the United States in 2006, has been three times American Advanced Champion. His partner, Lesley Grant, now Law, was a top competitor in Canada before she too moved to the US in 2006, where she has been successful as a competitor and coach. She is not just a pretty face, and holds an honours degree in International Relations and Philosophy and a Masters degree in Human Rights from York University… In this joint blog, they set out their opposition to the proposed FEI changes to the Olympic Eventing format.
Lesley (who actually wrote the article) started by congratulating the FEI for recognising that changes need to be made to improve safety, but argues that the changes proposed are likely to have the reverse effect.
Lesley focuses on the change to the Olympic format, where it is proposed that the team competition be at three-star level and the individual at four-star. Aside from the massive increase in cost for two courses (and as Lesley points out the IOC is just looking for an excuse to dump equestrian!) the real problem is that riders will only be able to ride in one of the two competitions – so the really good combinations will all be riding in the three-star, with the less good in the four-star. The countries that can’t field a team will have to enter individuals in the four-star!
Lesley stresses: “In my opinion, the title of ‘individual gold medalist’ is going to become highly diluted as the best in the world are not really going to be vying for that title (as they will be in the team competition).”
The other ‘brilliant’ proposal is to combine the cross-country times of the three team members: “Why not just go and put a gun to a rider’s head? Safety? They want safety? I don’t think so…”
“Picture this, you are at the Olympics where it has been raining for 10 days, the footing is a bottomless pit, horses are slipping and sliding and it is just in general very tough going. Your two first team members have gone and one has had a stop and another has had a ton of time and now it is all up to you to pull it off. AND, you can make a difference to the overall score by going blistering fast. Now you all are going to say, ‘Well, the rider should use common sense.’ They are at the OLYMPICS!! They didn’t show up because they are not competitive people! That rider is going to feel the weight of the world on them to go fast and pull up their other team members because under this new proposal they can… and that is scary.”
It is also proposed to make the first refusal on cross-country worth ten points, not the current 20: “Now this is the killer – probably literally and figuratively. Ya’ll should run right now and start writing a letter and storming your bulletin boards and forums about this one! … Aside from the fact that that it kills the intention of our sport, that cross country is the heart and core of our sport, decreasing the influence of cross-country will lead to an increase in dangerous riding AND a further predisposition of riders to purchase and ride horses that are ill fit for our sport; another component that leads to increased risk in our sport.”
“When you make the first refusal worth 10 you will make it possible for a very good dressage test to still be able to hold on to a top place, even a win, despite a stop… ANY possibility to win with a stop should make any true event rider dry vomit as certainly it is 100 per cent against the spirit of our sport.”
Lesley also argues that this move will also increase the level of dangerous riding. At the moment if a rider, even at the top of the leaderboard after dressage, has a stop, then they tend to ride a slow, educational round – with the 10 penalties rule, the incentive is there to ride a very fast round.
“I can promise you this, if you decrease the point value of a stop, you will guaranteed see more dangerous riding than you have ever seen. Promise.”
She also argues that devaluing the cross country will lead to more Warmbloods in the sport.
“This is dangerous. In the old days, people would buy cross-country machines and then worry about how to make them better at the dressage. They would buy cat-like, brave, quick-footed animals and then worry about how to get the points in the dressage or how to get them to leave the rails up. Already, now we are seeing a large problem with parents wanting to buy their kids the fanciest dressage horses out there and then trying to make them gallop and be quick-footed and bail their kids out of trouble when, to be fair to the horses, those types are often not meant or built to be able to do such things. Or, on the flip side, they want to buy horses that are flash and over-jump the show jumps and then are finding that they are too careful to take their kids who don’t have the best eye yet, cross country. It is just simple fact that most of those big moving, beautiful dressage horses are not physically capable of being the cat-like, agile, quick moving horses that I grew up on that took me around cross country year after year safely when I was a stupid kid with very few technical skills and often relied on them to bail me out. Sure, I stank at dressage, but you know what? I kept, or rather, they kept, my neck in one piece. So we are already facing these struggles now, if you devalue the cross country further I can assure you that people are going to be buying even more unsuitable horses and this will lead to greater accidents. Promise.”
And it is a very scary promise… To read the full column, visit www.horse-canada.com
Head to Head: Lucinda Green & Christopher Bartle
Two Badminton winners but with very different approaches to eventing and dressage take up the debate. Lucinda opened with a letter to Horse and Hound:
Sir,
In his guest edited issue (5 March), Oliver Townend wrote: “I would like stronger guidelines for course-designers, such as the compulsory use of brush in fences where the rider doesn’t have full control over the horse’s take-off point, such as after steps up or down.”
That about says it all for a stride-obsessed generation. What happened to the safest measure of all, that of allowing the horse to think for himself?
Horses don’t want to fall. Given sufficient view of the fence, the correct engine power and balance, he will develop the footwork needed to give his brain the time to compute and negotiate the problem. He is capable of keeping out of trouble and needs to be allowed to practice it.
Chris Bartle trains the German team’s cross-country phase as thoroughly as their other two phases. If the rider has done his bit, the horse, he says, will choose the right place to take off.
“A horse must listen to his rider and think for himself in equal measure.”
In the 1980s, we saw the epitome of this style of riding. In the 1990s, the balance swung towards horses having to listen increasingly intently to their riders as the difficulty of both dressage and show jumping increased.
There are many methods, but allowing the horse to develop his own initiative as the rider builds up their partnership is surely the safest route of them all.
– Lucinda Green
Lucinda sent the letter to Christopher Bartle before it was published in Horse and Hound, and this is his response:
Dear Lucinda,
I sympathise with your point of view. I agree that the Training of the Event Horse should lead to a Partnership between horse and rider where each of the partners knows what is their responsibility and just as importantly, what is not.
I read with interest and general, if not complete agreement, Jim Wofford’s article, to which Guiseppe refers. As you know, because we’ve had this conversation before, the problem is not too much dressage. It is a misunderstanding of what is good or appropriate dressage. I write dressage not Dressage because what is often either misunderstood or not often enough stated, is that the word originates from the French word ‘dresser’ – ‘to train’.
There is a particularly 21st century trend towards ‘compartmentalising’. Children say that they are Dressage riders or Show Jumpers or Eventers. Eventers go to their Dressage trainer or their Show Jumping trainer as though the disciplines were not related. But nobody told the horse! The Dressage trainer often concentrates on more impressive paces. The Show Jumping trainer often concentrates on being able to count strides and ‘see a stride’ on flat even ground. But neither are relevant to riding across the country, twisting and turning, uphill and downhill, with variable ground and frequent surprises. The breeders try to breed better movers, better jumpers, faster racehorses. But the Event horse is and always will be an all-round athlete. He will never win the Derby, the Grand Prix Show Jumping or Dressage. The Champion Event horse will always be a product of the training and the partnership.
Successful training should develop, self-carriage and yet retain initiative on the part of the horse. It should develop the horse’s ability to look after himself in critical situations. It should also lead to the horse’s obedience in staying on the line and in accepting the regulation of speed through adjustment of the length of stride. Then he should be allowed to concentrate on his job when he gets to the fence. Only the Rider has walked the course. The Horse only gets a split second sometimes to assess the situation. At that point the Rider’s ability to stay in balance and not upset the horse’s balance, coordination and reflexes, is critical. Also the Rider’s ability to keep the partnership intact when the horse makes a mistake.
I agree that the sustained extreme Collection required of a High School Dressage horse, is not appropriate for a horse that is also required to gallop and jump across country. On the other hand, the ability to collect for short periods in order to shorten the stride with impulsion, is an essential part of what we require. That is not to take away the horse’s initiative, it is to give him the enhanced ability to look after himself at the point of the jump.
An equally important part of the dressage is the physical development of the horse in order to promote better balance and coordination. This is all the more important at the end of a long course of big jumping efforts and mental concentration. When a car runs out of petrol it eventually slows down and stops. When a horse runs out of petrol, he is likely to lose control of his balance and coordination and is more likely to make mistakes. This dressage should not just be done in the Dressage arena but also on undulating ground and at variable speeds i.e. Length of strides.
I agree with Jim Wofford, that the removal of the Steeplechase phase from the sport has led to a generation of riders and horses which have not learned to ride at speed to fences which were intended to be forgiving. Then the problem arises at the higher levels, when such riders are expected to know how to ride to a non-forgiving fence at speed.
The sport is ultimately a Test of the training (dressage) of the Horse and the Rider. But no one is perfect and for Horse or Rider to make mistakes is to be expected. If they did not, then there would be no test. One of the most important parts of the training of Horse and Rider is to develop the reflex of self-preservation when a mistake is made. This applies as much to the horse as well as the rider.
The challenge for all involved in the governance of the Sport of Eventing, as well as the designers of the cross-country courses, is to create a Test for both horse and rider at every level which remains a true Test of all aspects of the training and then the performance. This includes a test of the Rider and the Horse’s response and reaction when a mistake is made. At the end of every good days sport, there will always be a story to tell about at least one moment when things did not go exactly to plan. What is important is that the story has a happy ending and we can learn from it. Hence the need for frangible fences in certain places and the importance of correct placing of the various styles of fences and materials which are used in the construction of the courses.
This does not mean we should keep dumbing down. No matter how much we try to remove risk, we nearly always end up increasing risk in another way.
This was intended to be a short reply to your email Lucinda!!
All the best to you all, Chris
Originally published in The Horse Magazine, June 2015