I get so disappointed when dressage riders are critised, and labels such as "Dressage Queens" are used. Maybe it's a consequence of some competition riders who are demanding too much from their horses, and as such resort to too heavy aids - spurs, whips, heavy hands etc.

One post in THM even suggested that only natural horsemanship will result in a happy horse with a harmonious relationship with their rider.

Well, what about the teachings of Nuno Oliviera, Alois Podhajsky, Reiner Klimke. How about reading the book Riding Success Without Stress by Joni Bentley (I think that's the author). These guys all teach how to softly, gently, and kindly train the horse taking into account their temperament, training them so that they are supple and strong enough to progress to the next exercise.

I have the priviledge to currently be riding a horse trained by a student of Mr Oliviera's. He is an amazing horse who cruises around with his ears pricked all the time, is happy with his work, is always very light in my hands, and does the high school movements with mostly legs and seat. This is how it should be, but it really concerns me the bad reputation dressage riders are getting. Is it because people don't understand, and just try to get quick results, or the right "look" without worrying if it is correct? It is sad that there are unhappy dressage horses out there.

I know what you mean.
For some reason "Equitation" is now divided into Natural horsemanship, Dressage, Classical Dressage, Riding, Eventing, Showing, whatever..... people taking sides, arguing who is right or wrong.

Dressage is for the "rich", showing for the "bitch" and NH only for those who REALLY care about their horses..... plus there are those who know what is right, because they have always done it that way.

It's funny, isn't it?

What the hell (pardon me) happened???

Without getting too carried away or doing appropriate "research" through my history books, I believe horses have not changed too much since Xenophen
(and before)and I think there is not one person who would disagree that caring for a horse requires certain knowledge of his needs and his mental and physical make-up.
For the act of riding on horseback, a certain understanding of basic physics is rather helpful (this may come naturally or can be aquired).

What I am trying to say is: Nothing we are doing with or to a horse has not been done before by somebody else.
Neither Mr. Parelli nor Mr. Lyons have invented anything, nor Nuno Oliviera nor Dr. Klimke.
They are/were masters in their chosen field and we know about them, for whatever reason.

There may be many others just like them, working WITH horses and doing it well, but we will never hear of them. They all have one thing in common, though: They know/knew a lot about horses. And if they are/were exceptional riders, they know/knew a lot about horses in motion and the relationship between two entities working together and how each idividual effects the other.
Many of these things may come "naturally" to some, because they still have a little intuition or "instinct" left in them. This is, IMO, what NH teaches to those who have lost the ability to feel themselves into another living being. It gives them "clues and tools and a method to communicate with another creature". All training is based on this!
Nothing wrong with this, as long as in the interest of the horse.

What riding is concerned, and I don't care what discipline - There is only ONE GOAL!
TO STAY ON.
(Because this is the very concept of "riding")
To stay on means we have to have some way to be in control of what is happening: What is happening with what we sit on and how our body is in balance with what it is that we sit on. We need to be able to move with the "body", hence it would help if we can predict what it is doing.
Thank goodness, horses are trainable - in other words they can learn. As they are very generous and probably have a bit of spare time, they let us teach them what we want, how fast, where we want it and how, providing we understand how they think and learn. (Most people know by now that horses are prey animals and therefore rather run, yield, look for the easy way out if given the choice. If they are rewarded for taking the right choice, they have learned a desirable responds to a cue/aid/command/ - because it stopped. The experience of release is reward.). Horses very rarely attack and eat their trainer )

But coming back to riding: As I said, the goal is to stay on and have as much control as possible (in a friendly way).
"Staying on" may look elegant (Dressage/hacking), practical (stockwork), sloppy (too many), active (XC, jumping), funny (kids and shetlands).....
We all need to stay in balance with the horse, as only then our aids can be clear and effective and in time with the horses movement. If we interfere with the horse's balance, he can not do what we ask. Be it cutting a bull or doing a flying change - or a simple trot transition. He will struggle.
The stockhorse may spin too late or slip, the Dressage horse might change late behind, or shuffle into a trot......

So my question: Why do we have arguments between the disciplines? We all want the same thing!
To stay on and communicate.

Sorry - just had to write this and it's not to be seen dead-serious. I just need to keep my hands busy. AS A NON-SMOKER since 2001.....

Good on you Carola!!! I am so happy that you are giving the non-smoking thing a go. You have my (moral) support!

I agree with all that you said. I think the thing with Klimke, Podhajsky and the like, and also Xenephon, is that they had the ability to put it in writing, and a way of explaining it to people. It's inspiring to go back and re-read these books because it helps you keep things in perspective, and keeps you on track. I think a lot of riders have ventured off the track, and it's their ego's to blame. They want FEI, or they want to be ready for the Olympics, or they want that first prize, and never mind the horse.

All disciplines and sports have purpose and enjoyment, and as long as the best interest and welfare of the horse in not comprimised, there is no need to bicker between sports.

I'm so conscience of how my horses are treated, and I would never do anything to hurt them. My riding and training is always soft, kind, and it means everything to me that my horses enjoy their work and are relaxed. I get so sad when dressage riders are thought of as cruel, because I consider myself to be a dressage rider, and I suppose I take it personally to some extent.

Do you know the thread I'm referring to? It was the "How do you teach a horse tricks" one, and it was Lurch's Mum that criticised dressage riders because her dressage horse was tense, jammed up and unhappy when she did half passes with him. Well, I don't think that has anything to do with Dressage, but she found her answers in Natural Horsemanship.

It's just like what Claudia had to say about Parelli. Do you remember that? Linda Parelli had a bad dressage instructor, so therefore, all dressage is bad, and PNH is the only answer. But, at the same time, Claudia gave me a few examples of where PNH, when done correctly and properly is really beneficial.

It's sad, isn't it, when people close their minds to anything that outside their paradigm.

Good luck with your day Carola. Congratulations on your new job, and hey, perhaps we can work through the Level 1 NJ together?

I had volunteered to be a demo rider for the Level 1 assessments on the 17th of January to try to get an inside view on it, but I've torn ligaments in my ankle, and can barely walk. I've still been riding, Vaughan has been giving me leg ups, and I've been riding without stirrups, but I can't even get any sort of shoe, let alone riding boot on my foot. So I've had to find a replacement to ride for me, but I'll still be watching.