Frustrated - Page 7
 
 

       The Horse Forum > Training Horses > Horse Training

Frustrated

This is a discussion on Frustrated within the Horse Training forums, part of the Training Horses category

    Like Tree427Likes

     
    LinkBack Thread Tools
        08-27-2013, 09:48 PM
      #61
    Trained
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by christopher    
    ok but if WHILE you were already loping (forget about the departure) the horse wasnt speeding up as much as you'd like or being sluggish in your run down, you wouldn't you pull his butt into the ground and spank him, and you would over/under and let him respond to it, like you've said above?

    Everything else you've said is fair enough & I mostly agree with you, but the question of how would holding them back while getting after them to go forward work better than getting after them go to forward but allowing them to respond to it, as far as PURELY going forward or responding faster is concerned, remains unanswered.
    Christopher-I am not sure why you are not understanding that this concept is to get nice clean transitions. Not a step out of place. Horses like Muppets KNOW what is expected and are just being lazy. I will assure you that horse, as well as both of mine know only too well what I am asking. If they choose, in a manner of speaking, to give me the finger, they get stopped, corrected and we start again. I used this same method to teach my old draft cross, who rode English, transitions for a command class. Same thing. If the judge asks for a lope-they want and expect it in no more than a stride. Any transition. So you better be able to do it. My reining horse happens to be one who tests. He knows full well what I am asking, but chooses (as Muppet says-let them make the mistake-they learn from that) to be a brat-so he gets stopped and we start again. It is not counterproductive to what we are teaching, since we are not just looking to lope. We are looking for a crisp, clean transition. Anyone can kick a horse into a lope. A trained horse steps right up into it the second they are asked. That is the difference. If you are, as Muppet said-training reiners?-you will not get far unless you have NOW transitions. THe other thing you will notice is that reiners ask for ONE manuever at a time and there is waiting time-I like to think of it as time for the horse to think....in between. You will always see a pause between stops, spins, lopes, etc. My trainer is ALWAYS telling me to wait for my horse before asking for the next maneuver. But watch them. They might stand for several seconds before asking for the next thing.
         
    Sponsored Links
    Advertisement
     
        08-27-2013, 10:09 PM
      #62
    Super Moderator
    It is not so odd that Christopher should not see the logic in this. I would be willing to try this based only on my respect for Cherie and her experience gained very the years. She must know that it works. I trust her.
    But, it does go counter to what I have been taught to apply to training, and that is to reward them when they do what you ask.
    And yes, they did not respond to "go" when asked at a whisper. They made a wrong choice, which was to ignore that, and that gets them NO release. They get asked again, and I would go to "10" pretty fast, and offered the chance to respond correctly, and when they do, they are rewarded by being allowed to go forward without any more pain. This is what I have always been taught. That they will see that release comes in going forward, and will not want to be spanked again but will go forward sooner, fearing that the spanking will come if they do not. (simplistic explanation).

    I see that Cherie's explanation puts a whole 'nother way of thinking on it, and I am intrigued by this. But, in Christopher's defense, it is not so unfathomable that someone would not agree with this or think it correct training method.
         
        08-27-2013, 11:35 PM
      #63
    Showing
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tinyliny    
    But, it does go counter to what I have been taught to apply to training, and that is to reward them when they do what you ask.

    But, see, that's the thing. Muppet is talking about a horse that didn't do what was asked. That's why he's not getting a release. In those instances, we are not simply asking for more speed, we are asking for a correct lope departure.

    Someone said earlier that they break a correct lope down into parts. That's right. A departure is completely separate from the lope and must be trained and corrected separately. Being good at one doesn't guarantee that a horse will be good at the other.

    A horse can have a really nice lope with a horrible departure and a horse can have a really horrible lope with an amazing departure.

    It's really too bad that most folks have never ridden a truly finished horse. Stuff like this wouldn't be nearly as confusing if folks had a knowledge base to compare to.


    And yes, they did not respond to "go" when asked at a whisper. They made a wrong choice, which was to ignore that, and that gets them NO release. They get asked again, and I would go to "10" pretty fast, and offered the chance to respond correctly, and when they do, they are rewarded by being allowed to go forward without any more pain. This is what I have always been taught. That they will see that release comes in going forward, and will not want to be spanked again but will go forward sooner, fearing that the spanking will come if they do not. (simplistic explanation).

    Again, it's not about "go". "Go" is something that any level of rider can achieve by, yes, spanking the horse. However, most folks who only think in terms of "go" are not concerned with the quality of the motion they get as a result.

    It isn't the "go" command that causes the problem. The horse knows how to depart properly; round and collected and stepping directly and smoothly into a collected lope. It's when they depart with the head in the air, choppy, strung out, trot/lope that they get brought down and corrected. Simply getting forward isn't what we are asking for. We are asking for a specific quality of forward.

    I see that Cherie's explanation puts a whole 'nother way of thinking on it, and I am intrigued by this. But, in Christopher's defense, it is not so unfathomable that someone would not agree with this or think it correct training method.
    IMHO, that's due to the lack of having ever ridden a horse of that caliber. I'm not talking a 6+ figure winning reining horse either, just a very well broke, and well trained horse. That's where the gulf between the known and the unknown is really seen. Folks who have never ridden or schooled a high caliber horse don't know the methods to keep such horses high caliber. And, because they have no experience on which to compare or base knowledge, they normally go with what their common sense tells them.

    There's nothing wrong with that, but once you get to a certain point in the quality of training between your legs, some things that seem counter-intuitive to the layman are actually quite sensible to the knowledgeable horseman.

    Compare the canter departure of this horse

    To the canter departure of this horse


    Granted, these 2 horses are on completely opposite ends of the training spectrum, but it greatly illustrates the difference in the quality of action a person is asking for. The rider in the second video is only concerned with getting the horse into the lope. They don't care if the horse is collected or if the horse is balanced or if the horse responds quickly. 90% of riders are just exactly like that, regardless of how old or how broke their horse is. So long as the horse ends up in the lope, they don't care how he got there.

    On the other hand, the first video shows a rider with certain expectations for the horse and the horse has been trained to meet those expectations. The rider has to keep every part of that departure sharp, from the very first step.


    "Forward" is easy. "Proper" forward can be very hard.
         
        08-27-2013, 11:53 PM
      #64
    Banned
    Oh I want Wimpy!!! I wish my lead change was as nice!! And I say MY lead change, not Henrys!
    franknbeans and smrobs like this.
         
        08-27-2013, 11:58 PM
      #65
    Trained
    I would like to 'LIKE' smrobs post several times over please.
         
        08-28-2013, 01:51 AM
      #66
    Weanling
    Muppetgirl: your points, while I do agree with them, are still relating to the quality of the transitions from a specific disciplines perspective, and not answering how holding one back while telling it to go forward (and simply forward - that is to disregard any of the "finer points" about specific transitions for specific disciplines - and focus ONLY on getting a horse to go forward more than it was before) would make it want to go forward moreso than just telling it to go forward.
    Forget about reining and forget about lope departures (cheries original example actually specified jog rather than lope), if you were simply practicing going from A to B at ANY gait, and you wanted the horse to respond sooner and with less pressure (which is what I gather OPs question is, as OP didn't enquire about how you would go about achieving a quality transition, rather, about how to get a prompt response to an unspecified cue) to whatever cue(s) you use to go from A to B, why would multiplying that cue by 10, WHILE preventing the horse from responding to that cue, make it any more sensitive to that cue? regardless of the quality, and regardless of what discipline you're practicing for, why would it work?

    Franknbeans and smrobs: I fully understand that on a horse with a consistent and prompt transition into a gait, if you were to be working on (or maintaining, in the case of muppetgirls finished horse) the transition, for the transitions sake, you would get good results using the method that muppetgirl and yourselves have specified, which is agreeably much the same as what I do when working on the quality of a transition. But this isn't about achieving that, it's about about achieving the exact same transition that the horse would've done either way, but more promptly and with less pressure.

    This confusion of topics is why I originally reversed the example and applied the principle that cherie had presented to the act stopping. So I am going to (hopefully) clarify by applying the same principle to various other movements aswell.

    The principle (applied to transitioning into a jog in this case) being: "Say we want the horse to go into a jog with just a light squeeze of both legs. This is accomplished in this way: 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 FORWARD. The rider can spur the hard 4 or 5 times or 'over and under the horse several times -- hard"

    If you were cueing a horse to spin to the right, and you were unhappy with his response "promptness", or felt he was ignoring you, would you then multiply your "spin to the right" cue by 10, while doing whatever it took to stop your horse from spinning to the right? And if you wouldn't, why would you do it when asking a jorse to jog?

    If you were cueing a horse to do a stop, and you were unhappy with his response "promptness", or felt he was ignoring you, would you then multiply your "do a stop" cue by 10, while doing whatever it took to stop your horse from stopping?

    And if you were asking any horse to turn left with no more than a direct rein to the left, and you felt like he was ignoring you, would you use your left direct rein 10 times harder than before, while using enough right direct rein to entirely nullify the effect of your left direct rein? And if not, why would you do the same thing when asking a horse to jog?


    If there is 1 thing that is true about ANY good training method that i've ever seen ever anywhere for any animal, including humans, it is that when it's "boiled down" to a "fundamental principle", when that principle is applied to other "movements" or other animals or anything, it is always effective and reliable and reproducible. An example of a fundamental principle would be operant conditioning.
    All i'm after is to be told what fundamental principle explains why giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response withheld, would be more effective than giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response allowed.

    Eta: sorry for wall 'o text.
         
        08-28-2013, 02:48 AM
      #67
    Banned
    Quoted from Christopher: (and yes it was a wall of text similar to something from animal behaviour blocks I did at university)

    All i'm after is to be told what fundamental principle explains why giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response withheld, would be more effective than giving an animal an unspecified cue, followed by the same cue multiplied by 10, with the animals correct response allowed.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Christopher, and I have to say this with all due respect, but you sound to me so black and white in your thinking here. 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. 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.

    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.

    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 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.

    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.


    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.

    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.
         
        08-28-2013, 05:13 AM
      #68
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Muppetgirl    
    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.

    Quote:
    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?

    Quote:
    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.

    Quote:
    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.

    Quote:
    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.

    Quote:
    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.


    Quote:
    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

    Quote:
    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.
         
        08-28-2013, 06:02 AM
      #69
    Trained
    Christopher-you keep saying you agree, you understand-so why do you keep arguing? I am just curious. Every single correction Muppet has given an example of breaks down to the overused phrase...."make the right thing easy....." If it is the very basic concept you wanted-there you have it. The difference is that on a BROKE horse you have different expectations (higher) and therefore use different corrections. They are a more advanced form than you would use on a greenie, as they should be. The first time a horse trots, all you want is the trot. Period. You reward that they got there. Every ride after that you are trying to get better at it. Same with spins, sidepass, etc....you start with a step. Once they know that-the expectation increases with their knowledge.
         
        08-28-2013, 06:50 AM
      #70
    Weanling
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franknbeans    
    Christopher-you keep saying you agree, you understand-so why do you keep arguing?
    because a logical conclusion hasn't been reached I guess. My question isn't being answered. I am indeed getting a lot of good answers, & that's why I keep saying I agree, but none of them answer the question that i'm asking.

    Quote:
    Every single correction Muppet has given an example of breaks down to the overused phrase...."make the right thing easy....." If it is the very basic concept you wanted-there you have it. The difference is that on a BROKE horse you have different expectations (higher) and therefore use different corrections. They are a more advanced form than you would use on a greenie, as they should be. The first time a horse trots, all you want is the trot. Period. You reward that they got there. Every ride after that you are trying to get better at it. Same with spins, sidepass, etc....you start with a step. Once they know that-the expectation increases with their knowledge.
    yes you're right. & yet again I agree.
    But how is excessively cueing a horse to trot, while preventing it from trotting (as seen on page 1), anything other than making the right thing (trotting) difficult (or even impossible)? Even on a broke horse it doesnt make any sense.


    I will now also point out that, despite how it might seem, I don't mean to come across as disrespectful to anyone. I'm only here to point out what I perceive to be flaws in reasoning & either learn from that or help other people learn from that. Not simply to be argumentative.
         

    Thread Tools

    Similar Threads
    Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
    so frustrated. Janna Horse Talk 15 10-23-2012 04:46 PM
    Never been so frustrated! Cmurdock57 Horse Training 14 09-02-2012 09:35 AM
    really frustrated rottenweiler English Riding 6 09-08-2010 09:26 PM



    All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:04 AM.


    Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
    Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
    Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0