RollKur or Hyperflexion

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 12:35am

It is no better than a witch hunt.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by slc2 on November 27, 2009 at 5:23am

'Where else do the amateurs condemn the top performers?'

Why, amateurs complain about the top performers in just about every sport there is! Ever hung around a football fan, or any other sort of sport fan? The players, the judges, the officials, the organizations, and usually every other fan except himself, are so WRONG in every way that one wonders how any of them dress and feed themselves!

Most of the comments made by amateurs against the top dressage performers are ridiculous and are much more like eighth grade girl's cliques than anything else. 'Catherine Haddad is PERFECT!' 'Catherine Haddad stinks!' Listening to the comments is just as embarrassing and painful as listening to the 'experts' at the little local shows.

Most of the comments made are technically incorrect - picking at tiny things, unable to identify the frequency or severity of a fault and weight it properly, missing the general impressions, incorrectly evaluating even the most identifiable and clear points of a pirouette or a passage, because the amateurs are not trained judges, because they have never ridden above training level, because they think they know a lot more than they do, because they think their eye is good when it isn't, because finding faults with others and having favorites and indulging in 'critical rhetoric' makes them feel smart. 99% of the comments and general stances, are based on impressions and gossip, not training, not experience, and not on having a good eye. That eye doesn't develop working alone in one's backyard and reading books and magazines, but by being trained and corrected and guided by experts for years.

And not having inside experience with the competitors as human beings - which no fan generally has of course - but which means they make INCREDIBLE assumptions about the rider based on a single gesture or comment made in an interview or while riding, or a momentary mistake. I know one gal who just can't STAND one rider who 'punches the air' after her ride. That is just TOO much for that fan's gentle sensibilities...'I just never liked her'. Similarly, Klimke is perfect because after HIS ride, he humbly doffed his top hat and walked alongside the crowd.

Too, they assume amazing things - that collection for more than two minutes destroys a horse, that a rider who ever has one aid they ever can see, is tatamount to a murderer, that working a horse for an hour or two is criminal, that a centimeter behind the vertical is a crime against nature and all horses, that all top riders (EXCEPT THEIR ONE FAVORITE!!!) are seething pools of evil and degradation, that there are no judges that can see ANYTHING, that dressage has gone to hell in a bucket 'since 20 years ago'(it's ALWAYS '20 years ago', whether the speaker is speaking in 2009, 1999, 1950, or 1850), and that Reiner Klimke was perfect, perfect, perfect, so much so that they can look at a performance that made him very publicly wince and apologize, and say it's PERFECT. And that the FEI are all idiots, anyone who is in charge of ANY horse organization can't dress and feed themselves, they're so stupid, that ANY decision the FEI makes is horrible, etc, etc, etc. Further, any group or organization that cuts down the top riders, is all good, all right and all forthright.

Be that as it may. So we think everything is that black and white and simple.

We STILL have a problem today. We do indeed have hyperflexion, a technique so many fans simply DO NOT LIKE. However many people think it's fine, there are a whole lot of people who think it's not. It is divisive among the fans, and I'm sure it's divisive within the organization as well.

My own trainer condemns it, loudly and passionately. We don't train this way. Even in the Dutch sale barns I went to, where trainers tend to use some degree of deep and round, it is not to the extremes we see in the top riders, and they also say very emphatically, 'that much is too much for us'.

We STILL have a problem. I STILL think that we are seeing exaggerated, excited horses getting scored in a way I don't prefer.

I don't think we need to have hysterics over this and start screaming and accusing and calling people names.

Is an exaggerated, excited horse just a part of winning in a maturing sport that is judged to a degree, subjectively (there are objective things - one needs to stay in the ring, one needs to do nine two's, etc, but to a degree, how much to weight specific general impressions is in fact, somewhat subjective)?

Are the competitors so 'even' now that they can't distinguish themselves and win except by exaggerating the performance? Is exaggeration inevitable?

It sure seems to be in every other riding sport!

But is it in dressage? I don't think so, but I think it is far more difficult in dressage to maintain a sport where one wins without exaggeration. I think this can be handled, WITHOUT a guillotine, WITHOUT name calling, WITHOUT hysterics.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 12:52am

If the FEI made a rule that every dressage rider in the world had to train their horses using Rollkur than I could understand the need for people to voice opposition to the system. However the fact of the matter is that there is not a problem with Rollkur there are good riders who use the system and other riders who are not good at it. The same case holds true for the classical method of dressage, there are riders who use the system well and others who do not ride well using the classical method. The point of the sport is for a rider to learn and grow with their horse and all the horses they are blessed to know in their lifetime. Not to try and cut down others who are better at it than you.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 10:32am

Correction; I meant to end my last post by saying "Not to try and cut down others who are better at it than them." Rather than what I did write "Not to try and cut down others who are better at it than you."

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by slc2 on November 27, 2009 at 10:11pm

"the fact of the matter is that there is not a problem with Rollkur "

You are taking an opinion and calling it a fact.

"There is not a problem with rollkur" - some people are of the opinion that there is, some feel there is not. Opinions.

There most definitely IS a problem when a training technique results in a rider receiving death threats.

Too, the 'problem' for people that don't like it, isn't that 'some people aren't good at it' - the problem for many people is that riders do it - they don't even care if the rider wins, or if the rider is 'good at it'. They don't like hyperflexion, period.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 11:01pm

Threatening somebody's life is a crime. There are many many crimes committed in this world. It is a twisted idea to imply if somebody receives a death threat that the receiver is guilty of wrong doing. The person, or the group of people who issue death threats are clearly without a shadow of a doubt the ones in the wrong. IF you are saying because somebody threatens another’s life that the person who's life was threatened is guilty, you have that backwards.

There are a lot of things people don't like that other people do; it does not make what the other person is doing wrong. There is not a problem with Rollkur, there is a problem with the people who despise it. It is a training method for a horse. No more and no less. If people don't like it than they should by no means ride that way.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by slc2 on November 27, 2009 at 11:10pm

You're saying that's a fact, - it is not - it is your opinion. Some agree with you, some do not. That is my point and you did not respond to it, you just keep saying 'there is no problem with rollkur'. That is an opinion which you state is a fact.

IF I am saying the person threatened is guilty - I didn't say that at all. I said that riders being threatened indicates to me that rollkur IS a problem.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 27, 2009 at 11:22pm

Rollkur is a training method. If somebody not trained in the method gets on a horse, forces its nose to the chest and rides that horse around and around for awhile that is not resemblance of Rollkur; none. Yet most of the people who despise the Rollkur method would believe it is the very same thing advanced trainers who use hyper flexion are doing. It is not.

If I took a person who never did yoga and forced them into an advanced position with my hands I could damage their body for life. That does not mean there is something wrong with a person who practices advanced moves of yoga successfully every day of their life.

The witch hunt should stop.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 28, 2009 at 12:08am

I got my facts that there is nothing wrong with Rollkur from the statement made by the FEI. As for opinion my opinion is that the only abuse I see happening is the abuse the riders of the Rollkur system are endure from the people who have decided they do not like what they are doing.
It is in my opinion a black mark in the sport of dressage; and the black mark is by no means the Rollkur system. The black mark is the way the riders of the system have been treated and spoken about.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by slc2 on November 28, 2009 at 5:43am

"There is nothing wrong with Rollkur" is just as much an opinion if it comes from the FEI as if it comes from me. It is an opinion. Can't you understand that? At all?

All it is is an opinion you happen to like, so you call it a fact. This is faulty reasoning on your part and it is a faulty argument.

These are ALL opinions: that hyperflexion is only a problem in the hands of the less-than-expert, that hyperflexion should be called a 'training method' instead of 'abuse', that hyperflexion is acceptable because it is like yoga, all these are opinions. But it is also OPINION that it causes long term harm, that Heuschmann's writings support anything, that it causes pain, that it violates principles of dressage, that it is ruining dressage sport, ALL OF THIS IS OPINION.

Don't call an opinion a 'fact' just because you agree with it.

Citing an FEI committee's statement of opinion as a fact doesn't make it a fact. In logicl it is called 'citing an expert'. Just because it is the opinion of an expert, doesn't mean I'm going to follow it blindly, or that it is not an opinion. It is still an opinion, and my trainer who has competed and medaled internationally, has the opposite opinion.

Look. My point isn't that you are wrong...my point is that ALL the arguments in favor are just as poor in quality as the arguments against. All this is is one side saying 'I'm right' and the other side saying 'No, I'm right'. And both sides insisting opinions are facts!

I think that all of the arguments against hyperflexion are fallacious, just as I think all the arguments for are fallacious. I'll break it down for ya how that goes:

For:
It wins. That it wins is not a valid argument for any training technique - ever. If that were a valid argument a great many other techniques - excessive whipping without connection to a punishment or correction, for example, could use the same argument.

It is ok in the hands of experts: If the technique is a violation of the principles of dressage, it doesn't matter who uses it, it is still a violation of the principles of dressage.

And yes, it is an opinion that hyperflexion is a violation of the principles of dressage.

Against:

It is abuse. Again, opinion. The people who support hyperflexion say it's not abuse, the people who don't support it say it is. Even Heuschman has done nothing more than offer an opinion that hyperflexion caused the bony changes he saw in a few horses. Opinion. As is everyone's opinion about what constitutes abuse, what constitutes hyperflexion, etc. There's not even a definition of hyperflexion, the only definition there is is 'an extreme position', or 'an extreme position kept for 'too long'' (what's too long, what's extreme, no one has a definition, and no one will agree to definitions of either.

It ruins the gaits. Again, opinion. Those for say it improves gaits, those against say the opposite. I've ridden hyperflexion trained horses. I don't think it's quite this simple that it either ruins gaits or does not ruin gaits.

It does permanent damage. Well...how then, did Steffen Peters take Ravel, who was trained by Edward Gal, making it a fair assumption that the horse was trained in hyperflexion at least some of the time...how did Steffen Peters take that horse, NOT train it in hyperflexion and put in the performances he did, performances those against hyperflexion cite as being 'correct', if hyperflexion had permanently ruined this horse?

It is the same as 'behind the bit'. This is actually a misunderstanding of 'behind the bit'. This is NOT the same as 'behind the vertical'. Behind the vertical is a position. Behind the bit is a state-of-connection that can occur whether the nose is behind, on or in front of the vertical.

'Behind the bit' means that there is no contact. The horse holds his neck in short, so there is no connection or contact. In some cases, the contact or connection is not 'honest', so that the rider can't stretch the horse down or raise his neck and compress (collect) him (by bringing the hind quarter under the horse).

I stated I have ridden horses that were hyperflexed to quite a degree. In fact, the horse that was ridden the most extremely in hyperflexion, had an INCREDIBLE contact. It was excellent. He was very, very connected. He was not 'behind the bit'. 'Behind the bit' means one can't stretch the neck out, and the neck is held in behind the contact. He was not doing that.

And several of the other horses I rode, were in fact, behind the bit. They held their neck in shortened. Riding them was like riding 'headless horses'. Several of the horses that were doing this also were NOT trained in hyperflexion. That's why I feel this is more complicated than people are claiming.

Many of the assumptions about hyperflexion are based on OTHER assumptions:

It is painful. No proof. But could there be? Not really. It is incredibly difficult to measure 'pain'. Other opinions follow - the horse's facial expression means it is in pain. Opinion. The horse rolls its eyes so it must be in pain. Opinion. The horse is even one degree behind the vertical, so it is in pain and 'disconnected'. It is abusive to work a horse for an hour or two. For some, it is abusive to work a horse in collection for over two minutes.

That the horse 'cannot see' in hyperflexion, that doesn't make sense to me. I've seen horses spook at sights in hyperflexion, look around at other horses in hyperflexion, put their heads up to look at something moving in the distance. A horse can see nearly 360 degrees around him when his head is down for grazing, his eyes are positioned on the side of his head so he can see a great deal...those against hyperflexion say, 'So what, he still can't see'. That makes no sense to me. I have observed time and again the horse CAN see in hyperflexion. Does that mean I want to use it or am a fan? No. It means I think the argument is false.

That the horse is tenser in hyperflexion. Based on one study of a handful of horses that were not routinely trained in hyperflexion. A study I feel was fallaciously designed.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a fan of hyperflexion. But I'm ALSO not a fan of calling opinions facts, or of piling opinion on opinion and calling THAT fact.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Anna Hawke on November 28, 2009 at 12:18am

Riders being threatened indicate there is a problem with the person who is threatening them, not with the rider. When somebody is threatened because of the color of their skin do you think there is a problem with a person who has a different color of skin? I will tell you that it is a fact that there is not a problem with that. I reiterate riders being threatened tells that there is a problem with the person who is doing the threatening.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by slc2 on November 28, 2009 at 2:34pm

Anna Hawke, do you understand the meaning of the word "opinion". It doesn't matter whether a lot of people believe or one or no people believe it. It is still an opinion.

What you are saying is an opinion, not a fact.

Moreover, I think your opinion that this is only 'something wrong with the person making the phone call' and that's the end of it, is very, very much oversimplifying and short sighted, and just another part of your 'hyperflexion is ok' stance. And I don't think it is an effective or even logical way of defending your position.

The only logical way to be in favor of hyperflexion is to argue that it is both necessary and beneficial, as well as non-painful and non-stressful.

I am of the opinion that hyperflexion is a PROBLEM, for judges, for officals, for the FEI, for the USEF and all the other national federations, down to every single dressage rider and trainer.

Let me give you an example of a couple FACTS. It is 2:28 eastern time. It is 40 degrees. Outside my window, there is a chickadee.

Examples of opinions: "It is not a problem", or conversely, ''It is a problem''.

Do you understand yet, the difference between an opinion and a fact?

Is prejucide against someone with a different color skin wrong? I think you bring this up just as an emotional point, and it's not effective.

Is it wrong? Some people say it is, some people say it isn't. My pal from S. Africa laments the passing of Apartheid and segregation just about every day. I don't.

I think prejudice based on skill color is wrong. It doesn't matter if everyone has the same opinion, it is still an opinion

My opinion is that when an observer of a sport calls a competitor on his personal home phone and threatens to harm his family, him and his horses, that a crime is being committed by the caller.

Whether it is WRONG or not, depends on who you ask. SOME people said to me, 'Bravo! I'm GLAD he was threatened, the bastard, I hope someone kills him, the bastard'.

Because it is an opinion whether what was done was wrong or not. Separate from being a criminal act, the ETHICS of it. Law is not ethics. Crimes are not ethics. Crimes are not 'right' and 'wrong'. Crimes are violation of laws. SOMETIMES people are of the OPINION that laws agree with ethics, sometimes people are of the OPINION that they do not.

. Some people have the opinion it's fine to blow up buildings in the name of certain political causes. I don't agree. One way or another, those are both opinions.

The controversy of hyperflexion, I think is a problem the FEI hasn't addressed. and needs to address. I think it is a BIG problem for the FEI, because of the dissent on social media, because of threats to riders, officials and judges, because of judges and officials being smeared, accused of ignoring abuse and not following the rules, because of judge's technical ability being called into question, because of disagreements about it within the FEI and national federations, because of the false declarations of expertise of mediocre trainers taking advantage of the dissent, and for many other reasons. You don't. Fine. But don't pretend that 'it's not a problem' is a FACT. It is an opinion.

▶ Reply to This

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page