Godgirl, I asked & you've posted since, with no answers for me.
I'm not the OP, but here's my .02$ worth. I'll address your questions with questions of my own:
1) Do you do everything exactly as you formerly did it,,even things that you may have shared with others (taught). If you find an even better way, do you cling to what you used to do just for the sake of not changing because that's the way you used to teach it? I'll bet not. I'll bet an intelligent person such as yourself, and I mean this sincerely, is perfectly willing to change for the better. Why fault LP for doing likewise ? esp. when 'never ending self improvement' is one of PNH's themes....My question was not about the issue of clinging or not to what one used to do: my question was about two different/contradictory directives, thus confusion as to whether it's expected that one toss the first one or what.
2) see #1...plus,,,,I guess she, like most of us , realizes as she gets older (by 20 years as you say) that we are more likely to 'break instead of bounce' if we take a tumble. We, thererfore tend to take safety measures that we didnt deem necessary in our fearless youth. I can't speak for her, but that'd be my guess of why the change. Of what value to me is your guess, or anyone else's?
I havent studied her game of contact, so I'm really stretching to try to address this topic,I can only go by what I've read and heard from other Parelli students and ,I think, instructors. Again, why are you offering me guesses, especially when you're unfamiliar with Linda's GOC? As I understand it, she doesnt so much claim to have had an epiphany on how to get a horse to happily take up contact as that she has come up with a way to explain it and teach it that makes it easier for a lot of students to understand and be successful with. Those are two different claims, & yours I'd have no issue with. Yet, the epiphany is all that I've read about. I believe that Walter Zettyl , who apparently is well known and well respected has praised her work on this, and does think her method of teaching is to be applauded. His motivations for associating with the Parellis, his modus operandi in class with them, his public statements about their programs have been speculated upon by serious dressage students who've known & taken class for many years from him, who were astounded at his decision to associate with them (another forum). There IS room for speculation there, imo, so I take what he says concerning the Parellis with a grain of salt. She certainly is getting accross the concept of true collection rather than see-sawing on the reins and getting only a headset, which sadly passes for collection sometimes. I think you can appreciate that. I can, yet I saw a video clip of her doing the most blatant see-saw, or rather, hauling a horse into a crooked back-up first with one rein, then with the other, then allowing the horse to walk around with his nose to the ground: the clip was from the GOC, which I haven't seen, & the sound was muted, so her explanation unheard. I don't want to spend for dvd to find out, but OP, if you know the reasoning behind that segment, please do let us know!
Neither of the Parelli's have ever claimed that giving the horse release when he finds the right answer is original to them. Pat himself refers , at every tour stop that I've ever been to, to his mentors, and gives them all the credit for the many,many,many things he learned from them. I've even seen him discuss great horsemen in history, including Xenophon , on the savvyclub forum and he mentions them all in depth in both of his books. You'll notice that I never mentioned Pat in my 3 questions: this was deliberate, because I know that Pat acknowledges his mentors, & doesn't claim to have had epiphanies. (I credit Pat with being an innovator, however: the 7 Games, the carrot stick, perhaps the Pushing Passenger, & Linda, too, organized the Horsenalities data.)
Hope this is helpful.