Opinions on this style of riding?

Can someone please explain to me what this is exactly? I don't understand the purpose of it (hell, I've heard at least three different names for it). I don't really like how it looks; the reins look too tight, the head looks too high, and the saddle looks too far back. What is the purpose of that? Do the riders have a way to avoid hurting the horse in that position?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkY7yeb0Dlg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkY7yeb0Dlg

Grr >.< it doesn't want to show the video, you will have to click on the link.

That is saddle seat (three gaits) equitation at a morgan show. Interesting that so many are ridden with very hollow backs, that represents a big change from many years ago, as does the very high posture. (Notice she is the only entry as well?) Doesn't float my boat (but then dressage has gone the opposite way...over flexed, and the western has gone to slow/dead, and reining to low/on the forehand). Seems that work for purpose has been replaced by work for ribbons.

I was watching this years Arabian invitational in Scottsdale on HRTV and the horse representing this was just like this. The irritating thing was the judges comments. He LOVED the exaggerated, but almost painful looking movements.

What about their back? Saddles are supposed to be further forward so it lays on the correct bones. If its further back like this, doesn't it hurt the horse, or after a while, even cause swayback?

It's the #$$& judges who have CAUSED ALL THE DISCIPLINES to DERAIL.

Ss saddles have always been flat/further back. But the sway back is the too high head and the training. They need to be longer and slightly lower...and ridden with clearer principles. The modern ss is painful (and I do not care for the longer feet of five gaited either)...jhmo

I'd have to agree with that. A perfect example is in halter classes; the HYPP Quarter horses and toothpick Arabians. They are both beautiful breeds, why must they be ruined?

Also, in Dressage, I don't see why double bridles are a requirement. If a horse could perform just as well in a snaffle, I know I would find that more impressive than the requirement. I've seen people in mid-level dressage who managed to train their horse to do the same thing bridleless. Don't tell me that is less impressive than a harsh bit.

Also, Dressage people say they just use the harsh bit for competition, and softer things for training and practice. It may be just me, but I'd want to keep something soft the whole time. You would think using something harsher would feel like 'punishment', and teach the horse to loathe showing. Of course, a bit's harshness depends on the rider, but with a harsher bit, a slight mistake with your hands (that anyone can make) will be more noticeable to the horse. That's the way I see it at least.

Double bridles are only a requirement for FEI internationally. Why are they are requirement....it certainly should NOT be to be harsh, or to hold the shanks horizontal as we often see de jour. THAT is a RESULT of JUDGES giving high scores to common technique.

The two bits have totally different uses (the snaffle to halt halt, to lift/open the throatlatch/mobilize the jaw, and the curb/weymouth to lower/close with the lightest of touches). It is one thing to ride bridleless (as kids, or with a fully trained horse), and to train with purpose and tact.

That said, years ago only trainers rode in snaffles and on green horses, and the little kids/etc rode in a straight bit (or full bridle) on (more) trained horses so they would be allowed to have whispers of aids.

Actually it's the nature of showing itself. Just look at dog shows, they have the same kinds of problems.

I'm not a fan of showing - any kind, for any reason.