Absolutely in no way does 'applying and unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by ten, with the animals correct response withheld' explain or even define in anyway what any of us were saying.
really? Because responding too "I know for a fact she knows what I am asking, I expect her to do it NOW, not when she gets around to it but when I ask" with (now keep in mind this is about getting a horse to jog, I assume from either a standstill or a walk) "The rider applies a tiny squeeze. Of course the horse ignores it. Then, the trainer/rider applies about 10 times more pressure than he/she has to but does NOT LET THE HORSE GO.", and therefore withholding the jog, sounds awfully like that to me. And i've had no reason (keeping in mind that talking about how you would correct a poorly performed transition doesnt count as a reason, because the "promptness" - regarding when and with how much pressure it happens - and the performance - regarding a horse "ho humming" into it or panicking and rushing into it, thus performing it wrong - of a transition are very different issues. I'm sure we've all seen or ridden horses that would only give low quality responses to very slight cues, and horses that would give good quality responses only to huge cues) to suspect otherwise.
Again, THE RESPONSE WAS NOT CORRECT SO THE HORSE WAS STOPPED, TUNED UP WITH THE END OF A SPLIT REIN AND GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND CORRECTLY. Just like the jumper in the video I posted for you to watch.
in the original example you gave with your horse you are indeed correct. As i've been willing to admit prior to, and including, now. But we are still talking about totally different things. You are talking about the actual response and the quality of the response from a reining (or jumping) perspective. Which is fair enough and I agree on those points. But I am talking about the response time and the amount of pressure it takes to induce that desired response, regardless of what the desired response is. You could be a beginner rider wanting to stop a horse for the first time ever, or a top reining or dressage rider asking your horse to do a top level movement, my question is the same: why would withholding the desirable response to the appropriate cue (albeit multiplied by 10) ever be beneficial?
Regardless of what I'm asking, if the horse does not respond appropriately I am going to do something g to convince him that it's easier to do what I'm asking.
as it should be.
You mentioned spinning. Never do you beat up on a horse in a spin, if he enters the spin all sticky or bent or starts throwing his back end around you fix it OUTSIDE of the spin because you want him to WANT to be in the spin. The fact that you even phrased your example as 'spurring a horse' and 'cueing ten times stronger' in the spin tells me that you don't train reiners like the reiners I've ridden, and I've been fortunate enough to have ridden some top horses.
I fully agree that you'd fix those issues similarly to how you suggest fixing a poor lope departure (i.e. Stop and promtply reposition for the particular movement, or work on some aspect of the movement independently of the movement). I phrased that example the way I did because, as I pointed out, if a training "method" is based on not only personal experience but explainable behavioural science, you will consistently be able to "boil it down" to whatever fundamental principle is at work and successfully apply that same mechanism to other maneouvers, disciplines or even other animals. Which is something that can't be said about what was suggested on page 1, about asking a horse to jog.
I don't get after a horse ten times stronger, I stop him from doing something the wrong way and show him the right way, and I show him where the best place to be is. If my horse starts kicking his rear end out in the spin, I drive him out of the spin and circle him tight at a lope in the direction I was spinning and make him hustle then bring him back down into the spin and RELEASE my aids and let him spin, he learns that being in the spin and spinning correctly is better than being out and having to hustle. So answer me this now, was the way I deal with a coke bottle spin 'cueing ten times stronger' or was it not? I think not.
no it wasnt ten times stronger. But the method you've detailed for fixing a horses spin works on sound "fundamental principles" and can be explained, repeated and applied to anything.
Example number two, if my horse is over bent in the spin, do I start jerking on his face and thumping him with my spur to straighten him up? NO, I side pass him out of the spin in the direction he was spinning and have him re-enter the spin in a perfect position, then I RELEASE him into the spin. Was that cueing ten times stronger? I think not. It was stopping the wrong response and showing him the correct response.
and again I agree. So long as you also end the whole sequence (that is, including the time you come out of the spin to fix one broken "part" of it, followed by trying again - just like what you said about lope departs) after a "quality" 90 or 180 or more degrees of turn. Just like you wouldnt stop "re-trying" to get a good lope departure, you would consistently reposition and retry untill they gave you a quality lope depart, at which point "his release is the easy loose lope", as you said.
I'm not getting into this with you anymore. I have politely given wordy time consuming responses to you, as have others and you are still stuck on a simple training correction that is fundamental amongst many trainers worldwide and has been explained over and over again to you.
I understand completely what you've said in regards to getting proper
lope departures, and spins, and I agree. But it just doesn't explain why driving a horse forward with X cue, only to hold it back with a contrary cue, will work to get a horse responding sooner and with less pressure than just driving a horse forward with X cue. Which is what was said on page 1
Hey if you just have a problem with a horse being spanked, just say so, instead of trying to get people to 'explain' themselves to you. I've taken the liberty of explaining the things I do, as have others, now I'm just starting to think you have a chip on your shoulder.
no problem with spanking a horse, i'd do it however hard I need too, if I need too. But I certainly wouldn't go about negating the effort, and I would certainly let them go forward if that's what I originally wanted.