Contact

Contact is something I think about a lot.

It's something I should probably attempt to define for those of you who read but aren't horse-crazed individuals.

The dictionary-type definition of contact helps us understand what it means for the horse person.  Generally, contact is defined (relevantly) as "the state of physical touching" and "as a means by which to give and receive information" and "to communicate with".

In horseman's terms, the word contact is frequently used to describe the connection between the rider's hands, the reins, and the horse's mouth.

There are a lot of different types on contact, and their use and application varies widely based on the style of riding.

For example, hunter/jumpers tend to keep what's called "strong contact".  This loosely translates (sometimes incorrectly) as a "tight grip on tight reins".  Jumpers are notoriously very strong horses, and showjumping courses are timed and can be very technical--the speed and bravery needed to compete successfully can make for a very strong horse.  Here's an example of probably the most famous female rider showjumping team in recent memory:

Beezie Madden and Authentic make it look easy.  (Image © 

Randi Muster)

Western pleasure classes abhor contact of almost any kind.  They are said to be "riding on a loose rein", often a "draped rein", which means the bit is in a neutral position most of the time and signals are often passively imbued or given with mostly all seat/leg.  Here's an example of what's successful in high level Western Pleasure:

Katherine Fuller on One Jazzy Sheik, top 5 in Amateur Western

Pleasure at the 2009 AQHA World Show

 Personally, I respect both of these kinds of contact.  I understand that they have a totally different purpose, and that the training, equipment and end goals are completely different.  The amount of contact is appropriate for the discipline.  You wouldn't want those reins flopping around and getting caught as you try to clear a 6' jump, just as you wouldn't want to be putting a lot of contact pressure on the horse's mouth when he's wearing a large curb like the one in the Western Pleasure photo above.  Either would be equally disasterous.

Well, the jumping one might be worse.

But they would both be pretty bad.

One area that I think is constantly in a state of debate is Dressage.

My foundation is in basic Dressage, like a lot of riders.  I have heard many people tell me over the years that Dressage horses must be ridden in tight contact.  I have even heard, in books by masters, no less, that as the horse progresses into a larger bit, like the traditional Weymouth/Bridoon combination bridle (aka, the double bridle), that plenty of spur and leg must be used to compensate for the lack of forward produced by contact on a "sharp" bit.

Ahem...does this seem a bit crazy to any of you?

Just humor me here for a few minutes.

As you may have gathered from my post the other day, I love Dr. Reiner Klimke.  He won 6 Olympic gold metals over the course of his life.  Tragically the world lost him in 1999, when he succumbed to a heart attack at age 63.

Here's an image of Klimke and his "great love", the Trakehner Biotop.  

Look at that (lack of?) contact!  This is what I picture in 

my mind when I think of "perfect contact".

Dr. Klimke is considered by many to be one of the great masters of Dressage (I certainly feel that way!).  Look at Biotop: he is forward, free, happy, and not behind the vertical.  They both look absolutely wonderful.  He is riding off the snaffle rein much more than the curb rein, just as he should be.  There is a straight line from the snaffle rein to his hand, while the curb rein remains mostly inactive.

Biotop is in perfect elevation and is not being held up be the reins at all.  He has his nose just slightly ahead of the vertical, and he looks free up front and engaged behind.  He also looks happy.  And so does his rider.

By all accounts, Biotop was a challenging horse to ride, even for a master like Dr. Klimke.  Yet he warmed the great stallion up not in the double bridle, but a simple snaffle.  That was his philosophy.  And I think it's evident from the photo of Biotop that for him, contact was certainly not a means of force-controlling the horse.  It was there for precise communication only.

Unfortunately, I think this picture is becoming pretty rare in the Dressage world.

I know it is so fashionable to pick on the Dressage super star Anky Van Grunsven, but I just can't help myself.  She is a perfect example of how Rollkur, or "hyperflexion of the neck" is still winning at the highest levels of Dressage.  Here's an image of "Iron Hand Anky" riding a horse in full Rollkur:

Anky riding in contact so strong horse is forced to break over at the 3rd vertebrae, 

which can cause permanent musculo-skeletal damage

Here's another image of a horse being ridden in Rollkur.  Note the rolling eyes and whipped-eggwhite foam coming from a very unhappy mouth.  His crank noseband is on so tight it's even starting to asphyxiate him:

Lord save me from this bloody "contact"!

If you had that kind of "contact" on another human being, I think you'd be asking for some serious trouble!  In all honestly, I don't think ANYONE outside of the horse would would describe what is happening there with the reins as "contact".  I think it would more accurately be described as "brute force".

So when did "contact" go from light pressure to something that causes bone spurs in the horse's neck and mouth?  I don't know.  But it surely isn't the correct way of doing things.

Anyway, these are some pretty extreme examples.  If you want to read something truly scary, I encourage you to click on over to Sustainable Dressage's pages on Rollkur, where she describes in awesome detail about what it is and how it affects the horse:  http://sustainabledressage.net/rollkur/index.php

What do you consider to be appropriate riding contact?  Do you ride that way because people have told you to, because you have found it on your own, or because you fear what your horse will do to you if you don't?

What happens when you "throw the contact away"?  Does your horse not know what to do, fall on his face or take off with you?

If contact is for subtle communication, a light touch, and to give your horse an aid--can he feel it through all of your contact?

If you ride with almost no contact, how do you get your horse to come back to you?

Have people told you that the only way to control your horse is by moving up to a sharper bit?

I guess the point here isn't the point fingers and blame everyone, but rather to understand that contact doesn't have to mean pain.  It doesn't have to mean tight reins.  It only has to mean that you can feel your horse's mouth, and he can feel the signal that you're transmitting to him.  That can be done on all kinds of reins, and I think is independent of rein length, or rein tightness, to some degree at least.

What do you think?  I do read all comments and I love a discussion!

The rearing horse, part 2: when it's not the horse's fault

Oh lord.

You know how I said the other day that there's nothing that terrifies me more than a rearing horse?  Especially if the rearing is sudden and unpredictable, and has little to do with the rider?

This video is an example of the OPPOSITE of unpredictable rearing (thanks to Fugly Horse of the Day for leading me to a distinct rise in blood pressure and these few minutes of my life I can never get back).  Watch on...





There is so much wrong with this video it's hard for me to even know where to start.  In no particular order:

1. Unbroke horse in huge shank bit on a tight rein
2. Stupid idiot on horse in shorts and tennis shoes
3. No arena (not a requirement for breaking horses, but a darn good idea)
4. No helmet (this one's debatable, but it's a still good idea given the circumstances)
5. Hightly distracting and stressful environment
6. Uncapped T-poles for the pasture near enough to get impaled on (uncapped t-posts anywhere are a big no-no...I have a personal story about that one for later)
7. Stupid idiot is wearing spurs too (OH HE ISN'T?? That's a miracle!  We have to give him credit for one thing, I guess)

 Remember how I said before (I did, didn't I?) that horses will rear as a result of too much information that a horse can't make sense of?  This video is a perfect example of that.  He's hauling back on the reins which are attached to a truly horrific looking bit (on an unbroke horse!), which the other guy pulls her head, and he attempts to kick her forward.  It doesn't look to me like she could be much more braced and tense.  She's getting so many mixed messages that she doesn't know what to do...so she rears.  And I think it was completely justified.

He also just leaps up there with no finesse or concern for her well-being, lands hard, and screws with his stirrups FOREVER.  And what does she do?  Nothing.  She stands patiently, even though she's nervous.  She thinks that is what she is supposed to do.  She is a good horse.

So who didn't see that coming?  Was she just going to stand there being pulled all sorts of directions, in pain forever?  Nope...

This is also a perfect example of: Brute Force Ain't No Way to Train a Horse.

This is so far away from "feel" that it's not even in the same universe.

And what has this horse learned from this...ahem, "training session"?

Looks to me like she's learned that someone will get on her, hurt her mouth, yank her head, and kick her sides until she rears and dumps them.

I also love how the other spectator runs away from the horse after the guy falls off, like she's some sort of "crazed, dang'rus an'mal, y'all!!"

What a terrific start.

Lord, that poor animal.

I think we all need a little "brain bleach" after that one, don't we?  So here's one of my favorite rides of all time:  Dr. Klimke and his marvelous horse, Ahlerich, performing in New York in 1987--and still brings tears to my eyes every time I watch it.  I wish I could have found a clip that was better quality. Enjoy!

A few words on feel

In the horse world, particularly the western world, we talk a lot about "feel".  In the english world, we're likely to call it "timing" and "submission to the aids".  I think these things are driving at the same basic concept.

Part of the education of the rider really begins with a simple revelation:  No amount of hardware will control the horse.

Not big bits, not big spurs, not big whips.

Riding is not about forced control through device.  It is about training a specific response to a specific aid.

If it was all about hardware and leverage, then I would never be able to ride in the thing above.

The horse has to be willing to listen to a series of programmed cues.  There are a lot of ways to get there.

I was reading the blog of a fairly inexperienced horsewoman the other day, who nevertheless is really trying to learn, through a lot of well-known clinicians and a large amount of trial and error.  She kept saying "the soft feel".  As in, "Buddy didn't have the soft feel today".

It struck me that the language we use to talk about horses and training can expose a basic lack of understanding.

Lord knows I'm guilty of it.

But what really struck me here was the lady thought of "soft feel" as a definite "thing".

As in, "the" soft feel.

I tend to think of feel as a reaction.

Is that enough confusing subtlety for you?

At any rate, the feel of the horse tells you a lot about the training to the aids that he's had.  A soft feel is a rapid, cheerful and willing response to a given aid.

The cue is given, and the horse responds with a light, willing reaction to that cue.

I remember riding a particularly sensitive little mare when I was young who was probably my first real introduction to the world of "feel".

All I had to do was think it, and darned if that little mare didn't do just what I was thinking.

If I thought "trot", she'd trot.

If I thought "canter", we'd be cantering.

I think this has something to do with the core of "soft feel".  It's almost the feeling of doing nothing, and having the horse respond to that.

It's a lofty goal.  I don't believe it's one that can be obtained through shortcuts.

The good stop is a great example of a horse operating on feel.  No one likes to ride a runaway freight train.  It's a terrifying feeling when a 1200 pound animal takes hold of the bit, takes off with you at full speed on the trail or straight at an arena wall.

Cramming a super duty bit in that horse's mouth won't do anything to stop it.  At that point it would be like grabbing your emergency break when your car's at 80 to slow down.

All you have at that point is the training you have put into the horse on how to respond to your aids.

There is always some sort of pre-signal.  Pre-signal has become somewhat of a buzz word in the western world lately because it helps to sell people very expensive bits.  But the fact is, anything can have pre-signal.  But that's entirely up to the rider, not to the bit.  For example, when I want Chevy to slow down, I sit back and deep in the saddle.  That's the first cue I give her.  In a perfect world, she'd slide to a stop after that.  But she's not quite there yet.

My next signal is to say "hhhho".  I'm a ho-er, not a whoa-er.  But it doesn't really matter what word you use.  I guess you could use "easy".  Or "yellow".  Or "tiger".  Whatever floats your boat.  But be consistent about it.

This is usually all it takes to get a stop out of her.  These are all "pre-signals" because they all take place before any action of the bit or hackamore is introduced.  If I don't get a stop out of her with the body/voice pre-signals, we have to move on to...

Engagement of the bit or hackamore.  Because I'd like my horse to stop of the slightest pressure, my first signal through the reins is small and light.  This is the warning signal.  At this point, she's had three chances to listen to subtle, non-offensive cues.  If she refuses to listen, then the bit comes into play.  But this doesn't happen much anymore.

Starting with soft cues is what develops "feel".

If the horse isn't ever given a soft cue to begin with, he'll just assume he's about to be yanked on and will prepare himself for it by stiffening up his neck and jaw.

Which will make him a hell of a lot harder to stop.

So this is why increasing the leverage of your bit setup will do more harm than good.

Also, your horse doesn't understand English.  He only understands the words you've taught him.  Chev has a very limited English vocabulary.  As do most horses.  She knows "hhho", "stand", "walk", "trot", "canter", and various clucks and kisses.  Generally a cluck means speed up what you're doing, and a kiss means canter.

Your horse does not understand when you yell "WHAT DID I TELL YOU?!  WHOA! WHOOAA! ARE YOU STUPID??? WHY AREN'T YOU LISTENING??!!!"

You are just terrifying Buddy.

And horses can't learn when they're terrified.

Quiet down and don't forget to do some of the listening, too.

Also, for Chevy the stop is a reward.  It is a break from work.  If I ask her to stop, and she stops but strides right off again without being asked, then she didn't really need a break.  We lope off immediately and she gets a few laps to think about what a blessing the stop is.  The second time she plants it and stays there.  I make it her choice.  But if she chooses not to listen, then she has to work.

Equally important is the rider's reaction to the horse's correct response to the given cue.  The release of the aid (or "cue") needs to be immediate so the horse knows he is being rewarded for his good behavior.  This makes the horse cheerful and quick in his response to the aids, because he knows he'll be rewarded as soon as he does what his owner is asking of him. 

I guess that's all I've got on feel for now.