ESI Q and A Forums Home
 Search       Members   Calendar   Help   Home 
Search by username
Not logged in - Login | Register 

Dr. Deb, what is your beef with Clinician X?
 Moderated by: DrDeb Topic closed
 New Topic   Print 
AuthorPost
Blue Flame
Member
 

Joined: Tue Oct 21st, 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 58
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 10:53 pm
Will do Leah. I have been here in the past - a few years ago. Will take another look now that I'm a few years more experienced.

hurleycane
Member
 

Joined: Wed Apr 9th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 118
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 11:35 pm
Waldo ~ Well, kinda an odd way to find a good resource - but a good resource you have found none the less! But, this really is not a chat board - which is one of the things that really sets it apart.  When you take the time to read here - I think you will find you gain insight not only into the horse - but as well into yourself.   Just read - you will see.

It sounds to me like your other forum is making Billy feel pretty good about Billy.  I can only guess how all the notoriety has bolstered what must be a pretty sagging ego.  Though I doubt Billy will apologise here - I am hopeful Billy will soon find some way to get what satisfaction is sought back there at the home forum.

Later.

Last edited on Fri Oct 24th, 2008 11:41 pm by hurleycane

original Billy
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 01:55 am
It's interesting that someone else has posted the latest posts as "Billy" who was not the original Billy.  I think the moderator should delete this thread now as it is becoming crazy.

DrDeb
Super Moderator
 

Joined: Fri Mar 30th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3042
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 02:45 am
Good evening everybody -- this has been a fairly busy thread today. I replied to Waldo at 8:00 this morning and then had to step out all day to teach, plus then go to dinner with the group, and have just returned to my motel room at 9 p.m. tonight. And in just this short period of time there have been so many posts and questions that I have to take notes so I don't forget any before replying. I am pleased to say that the tone of this thread has now come much more to where I want it to be, and the direction of the discussion is such that it is very worthwhile whatever "traffic" it may be bearing.

Blue Flame begins the questioning above by asking, politely and with respect, whether I can give a concrete example of something that 'clinician X' (actually ALL of the 'clinician Xes') teach that I object to. Then she asks, if I can't give a concrete example, then does this all just boil down to differences in "philosophy".

In fact, it is easy to give a concrete example; but of course, since all rational peoples' actions are based on their philosophy (or you can say their perceptions), then whatever actions they make are living proof of their ability to perceive, or the lack of it.

So here is a concrete example. Very important to us is that the horse learn to step under the body-shadow with the inside hind leg. The proper name for this maneuver is 'untracking' or 'to untrack'.

Now if a horse untracks, but is prevented from stepping much forward at the same time, he will take a bigger step with his hindquarters than he will with his forequarters. As the untracking gesture or step is an oblique one, carrying the hoof from somewhat behind him in an oblique direction under the belly so that it lands in front of, or nearly in front of, the opposite hind leg, when he takes the untracking step it will tend to carry the hindquarters away or make them circle around the forequarter. In the old literature of the Classical High School, this action is called 'going larger behind' or 'enlarging the hindquarter'. What it means is that the arc of the footprints made by the hind feet in the dirt is larger than the arc of the footprints made by the front feet.

Most people who come to horseback riding clinics are not experts, nor either are they familiar with the history of old European classicism. Instead, they are beginners, and oftentimes not very confident or at ease around horses. For both these reasons, when they are taught how to cause the horse to make this maneuver they become both beguiled and jubilant. Jubilant, because one of the "deep" effects of this maneuver is to cause tense or aggressive horses to soften considerably. The effect that this has, in turn, is to greatly increase the confidence the student feels -- she very soon starts to realize that, by golly, she CAN control her horse -- she can succeed.

This is an excellent side effect that we also value -- nothing wrong with some jubilaton, certainly. The problem comes in with the beguilement, which is, that the student, having gained some confidence, is permitted (and I would also say, actually encouraged) to GO ON asking the horse to take untracking steps, until it actually turns through a 360 degree circuit. And then it will be asked to do this several other times, or many other times, through the course of a morning's lesson, a matter of two hours or more.

There is nothing at all wrong with turning a horse through a 360. And there is also nothing wrong, on paper, with asking the animal to repeat the maneuver several times, or many times. What is wrong is the failure of the student (who is not to blame) and the teacher (who ought to know better, but doesn't), to consider what the approach of the student-handler means to the horse. In other words: for each individual horse, how much pressure does that horse perceive is being put on him?

When this is not mentioned -- in fact when it is not the greatest single point that is being taught -- what happens is that the student will put more pressure on the horse than the horse needs to have. This is especially likely in a group lesson when all students are being asked to do the same thing. The result of this overpressuring, through repeated bouts, is to create an increase in tension in the horse. The horse begins to dread the sessions, and when he gets to that point, he will begin to take steps to protect himself from the actions or even the approach of the handler.

The situation is made worse by the beguilement which comes when the student believes that they have 'taught the horse a new maneuver', which maneuver is to turn the horse's hindquarters around its forequarters 360 degrees, or 180 degrees, or whatever number of degrees. The student's perception is that their GOAL is to make the horse turn around. The interaction between the horse and the handler then becomes "an exercise" or "a game". The game has a name; it is something that the student believes she is to "do" with her horse.

What is missed here is the all-important point that there is nothing whatsoever to "do" with any horse, at any time. When the handler focuses instead upon what her actions and approach mean to the horse, and makes that her primary consideration, then what she will be seeking is not a PERFORMANCE but a RESPONSE. I mean: just the response, or even just the willingness on the horse's part to respond. And the handler will start living by this maxim, which is: you commit to doing ALL THAT IT TAKES but NO MORE THAN IT TAKES.

Well, obviously, to do that you have to figure out -- individually and uniquely between yourself and your horse -- how much it takes, and exactly WHAT it might take, to get the horse first to perceive what is being asked, and then to re-shape or move its body. And what I as the teacher of the class emphasize is to find the absolute minimum amount of pressure that is sufficient to get the horse to take ONE SINGLE step that is of the right kind and in the right direction.

The goal in my class is, then, to teach the students how they can obtain ONE SINGLE STEP AT A TIME. The horse is to take one single step, and then settle.

When I have students who have formerly been with "clinician X" (whichever 'clinician X' it was), then what I find is that their horses have no idea how to do this, but instead what they do is they flee from the handler. This is the horse's way of protecting itself from the handler.

The handler usually has difficulty perceiving this at first, and they are quite surprised, even shocked, that I am not praising them as their instructor at the other clinic praised them. The horse flees from them not by bolting straight out, but in a more subtle way, so that when the student walks around to the side there and gets into the position she usually stands in, in order to ask the horse to turn around, the horse steps his hindquarters away from the handler so that he is always ahead of the actions of the handler. The horse is not waiting for suggestions or direction; instead he takes matters into his own hoofs, so to speak, and keeps himself always far enough away from the handler so as to reduce his chances of being struck, or even touched, by either the student's hand, or a stick or flag, or the spinning rope.

But when we have a horse that keeps himself always ahead of the actions of the handler, that is a description of a horse that is out of control. What the student does not understand is that a horse can be out of control at a walk; and also, that she herself has trained the horse to do this, and set it up so that he NEEDS to do it.

What should happen instead, and I mean every single time, is that the handler should be able to step up to the side of the horse and work her way back toward the hindquarters, petting him the while; and then when she arrives at a position where asking him to step under the body-shadow would be convenient, she can either ask for the single step -- or not -- and the horse will stand contentedly until he is asked to move, whensoever that might be. So the handler might step back toward the hindquarters and do nothing more than pet the horse on the tailhead, or handle a hind leg, or give him a scratch on his favorite spot on the inside of the gaskin; or she might ask him to take that single untracking step. But at NO time will she ever ask him to perform.

Now pretty soon, the student in my class will get to the point where she can ask for one single step, followed by a second single step. And when she does this, since this has been emphasized as the most important thing from the beginning, she will know that RELEASE must be allowed, and given, at the end of the first step. This is when we say that the horse has 'settled' or 'been allowed to settle' after he takes the first step. So she gets to the place where the actual, detailed responses of the horse are: step -- settle -- step -- settle.

When the steps are accomplished this way, there is no increase in tension within the horse, and he is happy to take one step and settle, then a second step and then settle; and he will expect that while he's settled, the handler may step up to any part of his body and this will be a pleasure for him, so that he feels no need to defend himself and no need to flee, and therefore he does not flee physically, nor either in the more important and more subtle sense of fleeing mentally (to flee mentally is when he dreads the interaction).

Obviously, after two steps are accomplished this way, then pretty soon it can be multiple steps. And the length of time that the horse needs to 'settle' will decrease, until it is so brief that it is not perceivable by an outside observer. This is one of the things that actually prompts these questions; the questioners have missed this part. Nevertheless, the horse knows it's there, and the handler that I have instructed also knows. For it is in the periods of release that all the communication that is going to happen between the handler and the horse does happen. Communication does not happen while the horse is making effort, but only when he has the freedom of release.

Ultimately, of course, the horse will turn on the forehand or make a 360 -- or multiple 360's -- but these completed figures, that is figures that have names, will be SIDE EFFECTS of making one single step followed by the next and the next. And the naive, inexperienced observer who sees this horse, will usually not be able to express with any clarity the difference between the sum-total of his steps, and the  tense, short-stepping, hurried, and sketchy ersatz produced by the horse taught by 'clinician X'. But goodhearted people always do know, even if they can't express it in specifics, that there IS a difference, for their inner eye can see it. But the bad-hearted person will deny that there is any important difference.

This is as clearly as I can answer your question, Blue Flame. You see that the difference most definitely IS one of philosophy or belief; and it is one of deeper perception, or the lack of it. Only the person who HAS the perception of these apparently small details -- which mean so much to THE HORSE -- will be able to tell the difference.

Another question asked in this thread was what does it mean when I talk about the horse having to 'fill in for' the rider. The horse is being called upon to fill in for the rider anytime the rider does not perceive what her approach and/or her actions mean to the horse. The best story I have on this I tell in the Birdie Book -- it's the story about the time I asked our elderly teacher how I could get my Painty to focus, calm, and straightness -- how I could cause himself to move in perfect collection -- and in a state of inner peace -- without having a cowboy out in front of us pulling a drag. And the answer I got back from him made me mad (at the time). He said: 'Debbie, when Painty Horse has to fill in for you a little bit less, it'll happen all by itself.' It made me mad, because I thought: you old booger. What are you telling me? That I'm not already doing everything for this horse?

So I left that encounter but the words of my teacher did not leave me. They echoed in my head every day after that for a very long time. And they became a challenge to me to THINK ABOUT IT: so maybe I wasn't doing just everything, and maybe that would be because I wasn't perceiving all that Painty was trying to tell me.

So I went to working at that, and after a time, I found quite a few areas. I had a bad habit, for example, of being brave. I figured if I didn't give a damn about umbrellas or bicycles or blowing pieces of paper, that my horse sure shouldn't. But my bravery or unconcern about these things did not help Painty: my bravery did not and could not relieve him of HIS concerns about them. His point of view was at least as valid as mine. This taught me to do what Harry Whitney talks about, that is, look more at the world from my horse's point of view; to take on his point of view. And this in turn made it so I less often rode my horse right up into trouble. When I stopped riding him up into trouble, then that is the same as ceasing to ask, or even demand, that he fill in for me -- that he PERFORM ANYWAY.

The last thing that somebody mentioned was is there any difference, other than just semantic, between calling yourself a 'leader' and calling yourself a 'teacher'. Leah said she figures it's more than just semantics, and she is right. It is much more. We cannot be too careful as to our choice of words, because words are what convey meaning. Especially when coaching, avoiding commonplaces such as 'you need to ride your horse more forward', 'you need to put your horse in a frame', or 'you need to act more like a leader' are to be avoided.

There is nothing wrong with being a 'leader', so long as you are very careful about the connotations of that word. I think very often it is used as a synonym for 'boss'. If that's the way it reads to a given student, then that student will very likely be just as thoughtlessly demanding of her horse as she would have been if she had called herself 'master'. Language is used in the schools of 'clinician X' to give students the impression that the way being taught there is something new, something better, or something more natural; in other words, by implication, superior.

I ask students to consider the idea that they are not 'leaders' or 'masters', but rather 'teachers'. They are overtly, consciously, and continually responsible for conveying CLARITY to their horses. This is the specific role of a teacher. My students are to learn to present themselves to their horses in a way that THE HORSE can understand. I do not encourage students to give themselves titles -- such as 'leader'. Instead, I want them to forget all about "who" they are -- none of us are of any particular importance, and we are all equal -- and instead get down to the nuts and bolts of showing the horse how to tilt his weight off of his left front leg, how to take one single untracking step and then release, how to cause the horse to turn left 'by the birdie.'

This is what relieves me of the necessity of making thousands-of-tiny-violin speeches about how I hope students will grow past me so that someday they won't need any phony and shallow methodology! I will not have mis-taught them, so there will be nothing they need to grow past; in my school, no one is being offered a crutch, but rather, all students are shown the way to deep perception, and asked to work from that as a basis, from the beginning.

I am well aware that this is a steep and demanding path. Neither is it the way that many people want or expect -- what they want is 'you do this first, then you do this next.' After years of being spoon-fed in the public school system, and systematically taught to conform and not think independently, it is not surprising. And anyone who has spent money, and become emotionally invested, in the fan club around whichever 'clinician X', and who then hears from me that she needs to start over completely fresh, is likely to be defensive.

But again, I am offering something beautiful even if the student has a hard time seeing it, and I would go on offering it (because I know it's beautiful) even when the student fights hard against it. C.S. Lewis says something just excellent about this, and it's a favorite thought that I often share with students. Lewis says, you will never be asked to give up anything that you really need, or anything that was of real value. But when you SUBMIT -- when you start actually trusting the teacher -- then all the crud, all the stuff you do not need -- will fall off of you as leaves fall off of trees in the autumn. If the tree never loses those leaves, if it desperately or stubbornly or angrily clings to them -- then it will become a diseased tree that is choking itself, and finally it will perish. But healthy trees shed all the stuff they don't need, they strip themselves down to the bare bones, and they start over completely fresh. Each time they do that, they make themselves able to grow. -- Dr. Deb

Jacquie
Member


Joined: Fri Mar 23rd, 2007
Location: Nr. Frome, Somerset, United Kingdom
Posts: 159
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:31 am
Hi Dr Deb

I have been too busy recently to look on the forum and was shocked (and slightly amused in places) to read parts of this thread.

What a brilliant post your last one was though, so thank you for those concise insights.

I actually took notes from it to help my memory to keep hold of those thoughts.

 

Very valuable.

 

Jacquie

 

 

kindredspirit
Member


Joined: Sun Apr 1st, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 127
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 08:15 am
Billy wrote:   I have been to many of the people on the "friends of ESI" site.  I read all of Harry Whitney's articles and I already knew what he was going to say.  This has all been taught to me.



Just curious Billy.  Have you seen Harry or just read the articles that someone else wrote?  I think seeing Harry and reading the articles are two different things.

Sincerely, Kathy 

Kathy, I'll add my smile to this. Thanks for noticing the quote above and pulling it out. The reason, of course, that Billy gets nothing out of what Harry has to say is that she "already knew what he was going to say." This is exactly what I mean about the tree clinging to its own leaves until it chokes itself.

Last edited on Tue Oct 28th, 2008 02:13 am by DrDeb

Waldo
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 08:38 am
Dr. Deb, thank you very much for your explanatory post. I am really glad I got to read it. It's an eye opener about a lot of things. As I said before, I am not a horseback rider yet, however, so some of the technical terms are still very strange to me.

 

But I do understand what you said about the one step at a time issue. What amazes me, though, is that this is exactly what clinician X teaches us: Reward the slightest try, one step at a time, pressure motivates but it's the release that teaches, etc. It's exactly what I am doing with my horses. That's how I always understood X's teachings, and that's how I follow them. My horses do not step away from my touch before I touch them, they wait and ask questions. My horses aren't obedient, they are partners. My horses choose to be with me - all of them. Nobody has to 'perform' anything, all we are out for is to have fun (for horse and human) and to build relationships.

 

Certainly, I admit that you will always find a fair share of students that absolutely 'don't get the message' - those students have to over-do everything and over-pressure their horses. Those students want to buy miracles in the box instead of learn. Those are the students that fail and look back at the teachings with blame. Those students are like those people that tell me: I wish my dog would be more like yours. (I hear that all the time.) All I can say is: If you want a dog like mine, change your attitude to where it is similar to mine, but please stop blaming the dog.

 

Again, thanks for your explanations. I really expected something that would devastate me, but instead I got something that shows that I am indeed on the right track.

 

 

hurleycane
Member
 

Joined: Wed Apr 9th, 2008
Location:  
Posts: 118
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 09:57 am
Ditto Jacquie. 

Thank you Dr Deb for your generosity.  You really do convey info with an unrivaled pure clarity and with each read and re-read as several have said - I gain more insight.  

It is such a pleasure to read your work.  It gives meaning even in the midst of message board senselessness as was the intention of this thread's author.  

DrDeb
Super Moderator
 

Joined: Fri Mar 30th, 2007
Location:  
Posts: 3042
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 10:07 am
Waldo, that's just fine. People occasionally write to me, either here or privately, to ask "how" a person is supposed to get on our recommended list, or in other words, if a certain clinician's name does not appear there, why it does not.

And there are two reasons for this: either I don't know 'em, or I do know 'em. There are certain clinicians who are excluded from the list because I know all about them, I am up on what they taught in the past as well as what they are currently teaching, and from what I hear from them directly, from what their students do, from their public demonstrations, and from the way they do business, I cannot recommend them.

Others who do not appear there, are people that I might like to meet. But before I can recommend anybody, I have to meet them personally.

To get on the recommended list, the clinician does not have to have known our elderly teacher or Ray Hunt. So for example, after meeting Mike Schaffer I was delighted to recommend him. He 'gets it', and his approach to horses and his effect on them is just what I would like to see. And he is honest, un-greedy, not trying to engender a fan club, and treats students well. In my horsemanship classes, I also often show videotapes of the Circus Knie (especially as it was in the 1960's), Nuno Oliveira, and of the Peralta Brothers from Spain. These people are among the world's finest horsemen and I want all students to familiarize themselves with what they exemplify.

From what you have written, Waldo, I almost think that you are riding with Harry or Ray, and that you might be confused about who "clinician X" actually is. But even if you're not, it doesn't matter: if what you are getting out of that school is what you say, then you will be all right.

Unfortunately that's not the case for the majority of what I see coming from those places. It's my hope that the rather complete and detailed reply which acted as an 'eye opener' to you, will also act as an 'eye opener' to other students and even to teachers in the schools which I consider to be problematic, so that they will think it through and make the necessary changes. The idea is to benefit the horses. -- Dr. Deb

Tutora
Member
 

Joined: Fri Sep 5th, 2008
Location: Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 127
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 11:00 am
Ditto Jacquie and Hurleycane. If I may paraphrase something Dr. Deb said on another thread, in the end, wherever I and my  horse happen to be, the only reality is that we are two creatures in the presence of our creator. We answer to him alone,and he alone knows the whole truth about how each clinician out there is treating his various creatures.      Waldo, I appreciate that your spirit is very different than that of the OP. I want to say, though, that there's a great deal to learn, and alot of it can be found here- so I hope you'll keep reading. And, as Leah said, re-reading. I really don't see any petty animosity from Dr. Deb towards clinician XX;  tension in his horses has been seen by her and others such as myself, though. Everyone must make their own judgment, but being educated about how to accurately discern tension is a prerequisite that I personally found hard to swallow because I knew I'd find I was causing my own horses more tension  that I like to admit to. Somehow, though, when my skeptical mind becomes convinced there's a cure available, my eyes finally allow me to see the true depth of the problem. I've been around horses since I was a 4-H kid over 30 years ago, and up till now I thought I was much more considerate than the average horse owner. But now I'm learning that neither God nor my horse care how I compare with any other horse owner. We all have to answer for ourselves.  BTW, Billy 1&2, Till We Have Faces is another C.S. Lewis book that's eye-opening.  -Elynne     

Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 11:57 am by Tutora

David Genadek
Member


Joined: Sun May 13th, 2007
Location: Spring Valley, Minnesota USA
Posts: 416
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 03:27 pm
As a saddle maker I stand on the sidelines looking in at all clinicians xyz. I must say I am very grateful specifically to clinician xxx in that after a meeting with him I became very clear on what type of people I wanted to deal with in the horse industry. So life gives us contrast and from it our preferences are born.

Living with a horse woman who also does clinics I can also understand the frustration, not hostility that is felt by skilled horse people.  Since around here we have a constant flow of people trying to learn horsemanship many have been through one of the x’s programs and I talk to them after they have had a lesson with Liz. Because of this I could very much relate to Deb’s comments.  With no exception there is both a sense of exhilaration from what they just experienced but at the same time they also feel a sense of betrayal when they realize they have been sold something that is far less than what the advertising promised.  So here is how I have come to view it.

Imagine if you would a person that walks in to a museum and sees the work for a great artist. Upon seeing the work a desire arises in them to learn to do the art themselves.  So they go to Hobby lobby and find paint by number kit, because you have to start somewhere.  In the box with the paint by number kit is a fancy brochure advertising paint by number lessons and supplies.  Wow, the path has opened up before them and soon they too will have their work in the museum because the brochure tells them so.

Now over in the rough part of town there is a group of real artist sacrificing everything for their art. They work hard and live for their art.  Occasionally they get a visit from the paint by numbers guy that sells paint by number supplies.  Loving their art they share openly although they know, as of yet, this person has no clue about art but you have to start somewhere.  The paint by numbers guru listens very carefully and is savvy in the ways of man so he incorporates what the real artist say in his brochure so he can sell the idea of the masters to his clients.  He even goes to the trouble of sneaking up behind the artists and gets his picture taken with them so he can further convince his clients that he is the path to artistic greatness.  All this works really well and the paint by number business grows and grows soon others begin to write books and create their own paint by numbers program.    

Over time some of the people in the paint by numbers program get to the point where they feel that maybe there is more to what they are doing or they have been convinced by the paint by number marketer that they have become a great artist so they seek out others of their kind. Some find their way to the rough side of town and want to paint with some of the real artists. The Artists welcome them openly. After all they are saying the things that indicate that they understand art.  In fact sometimes they sound exactly like themselves.  When it comes time to do some actual painting the paint by numbers people ask where their board with numbers is. The artist are set back a by this and assume they want to know where the wood and canvas are.  The artists then realize that the paint by numbers guy has used their own thoughts and ideas to swindle these well meaning people.  The artist then, out of the goodness of their heart, attempt to teach the paint by numbers people how to make a canvas so they can begin their journey in earnest. Some of the people come to realize that the majority of what they learned from the paint by numbers guy will be of no use in the rough part of town.  Others walk away mad and convince themselves that the great master has taught them and they understand more than those foolish artists.

Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:24 pm by David Genadek

Tutora
Member
 

Joined: Fri Sep 5th, 2008
Location: Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 127
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 04:47 pm
Great post, Dave. So, some of these clinicians are the Bob Ross of the horse world? William Morris said, "Have nothing in your homes which you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful."  I'd add, "Do nothing with your horse which you do not know to be useful or believe will add to his beauty." Be more discerning, people- skip XX's shamefully overpriced stuff and save up for some excellent lessons. Will XX's pseudo-lunging method help straighten your horse? No- so why squander your horse's  joints on  such a circle? 

Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:33 pm by Tutora

Tutora
Member
 

Joined: Fri Sep 5th, 2008
Location: Pennsylvania USA
Posts: 127
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:27 pm
Respectfully to Waldo and Billy-- I rode and showed western as a kid and then got into dressage on the belief that it was the kindest method for the horse. I eventually got to take lessons with a number of Olympic riders. But I'm a dressage drop-out-- I jumped off that train not because I wasn't doing well, but because I saw where it was headed. I live an hour away from the very prestigious international dressage show here in Pennsylvania. I used to attend every year; long  enough to see that tension, cramped horses, and blow-ups were the norm, not the exception. A few years ago, after a period of few lessons but a lot of experimenting, I tried something -head twirling- I'd gotten from Dr. Deb's book Conquerors. I was doing this on someone's pony whose back was starting to sag. To my amazement, up came that old back with a soft, warm swing. What I'm respectfully trying to say to you, Billy, is that "Grand Prix trainer" in itself may very well mean nothing good to the horse-especially if she was amazed at the bond you have with your horse. Read

Leah's post on "coiling of the loins and true collection". And Waldo, when you're ready to ride, XX's understanding of horses' bodies and ours is minimal compared to Dr. Deb's. I came to this website hoping to improve my physical skills; it's been a surprise to me to realize my metaphysical base needs re-doing. -Elynne

Last edited on Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:36 pm by Tutora

Stacy
Guest
 

Joined: 
Location:  
Posts: 
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 05:49 pm
Hi Tutora

1.Can you explain to me exactly how you do "twirling" and it's benefits.

2.I'd also like to know what people and Dr.Deb think about (hopefully I can use initials here) the so called 'dressage master XXX'.

Stacy: This is Dr. Deb. Thanks, but no thanks. You don't seem to understand that I have no interest at all in being the one who approves, or disapproves, of who you ride with or who anyone else rides with. It will not avail you to write in here to ask me to give you permission to ride with whoever.

Instead, go look at the recommendations I make through this Website. You are invited to review the descriptions in our "Friends of the Institute" section. Every person on this list is someone whose work I know, and whose business dealings are such that I can recommend them. They are all people of high integrity and they are psychologically healthy; they do not manipulate students, they do not need you as mortar to fill up a gap or a neediness within them. All of them, to greater or lesser extent, have a grasp of deep work.


 

Last edited on Tue Oct 28th, 2008 02:20 am by DrDeb

Carey
Member
 

Joined: Sat Oct 25th, 2008
Location: Radersburg, Montana USA
Posts: 59
Status:  Offline
 Posted: Sat Oct 25th, 2008 06:15 pm
This discussion has been getting a lot of attention on the XXXX forum site, so I had to check it out.  Anyhow I have to say that I really respect you Dr. Deb and I find the info available on your site to be really interesting, and in fact I find that it is some of the only truth available on horses and horse development.
I have to say that I have been to clinician XXXX place and have been studying the program for a few years- and I although I have learned a lot from it all,  I think in many ways you are 100% on in a lot of your criticism.  Having said that a lot of the XXX professionals are doing good work and doing great things with the method.
I do think that the program does get people in and then sort of get them stuck in the mud in all sorts of ways- and I definitely felt that way when I was there.  But I also think that he has good intentions with what they are doing but it all sort of blew up faster than they could get a handle on it.
But the larger problem is there are very few to no good horseman around to learn from and not much information available that is actually the truth for people to find- so people latch on to the one little ray of light that they can find.   I work on some ranches sometimes and I can not believe how undereducated the horses are- and that they even tolerate what most people put them through- when people see me- at least it seems like I have half a clue and an actually methodology to follow - other than catch em saddle jump on kick to go pull to stop and hold on for all the rest-  I just think that has to change- not to mention the lack of method for getting horses started- and atleast clinician xxx has addressed that.


 Current time is 07:56 am
Page:  First Page Previous Page  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next Page Last Page  




Powered by WowBB 1.7 - Copyright © 2003-2006 Aycan Gulez