I tend to dislike the 'leadership' theory of horse riding. I think a horse should be trained to obey humans & not go out each time deciding if he thinks his rider is smart enough to deserve obedience. I also think ground work is often over-rated. From what I've experienced with my few horses, maybe 50% of what they learn on the ground carries over to the saddle. 50% is better than 0%, but there does come a time to just get on and ride. You don't create 'wet saddle blankets' in a round pen.

However, there are a lot of little things you can do to convince a horse you are worth listening to before you get on. Things like not suddenly dropping their feet after picking them, or squaring their feet up before picking and before mounting. Horses notice things like that, and will give a better effort for someone who knows they are alive and not a machine. A horse can be obedient without being focused on his rider...but most of us want a responsive, listening horse. To get one, we need to listen to them, and they need to know we are listening to them. That process starts on the ground and should be taught to every new rider.

 

I think there has to be a balance. I've seen people who do nothing but groundwork because they're scared to ride, and I've seen people whose horses have zero ground manners and the rider is frightened to handle the horse on the ground, but expects compliance in the saddle.

For myself, I don't do a lot of groundwork, but I expect my horses to be respectful, to ground tie, etc. I am harder on them if they misbehave on the ground, but there are things I know I let slide when I'm riding. I'm working on that.

The bottom line is, you don't have to spend hours doing groundwork to get good ground manners. Just getting your horse out and tacking it up should reinforce good manners every time. If you handle your horse consistently, it will obey you on the ground and under saddle.

 

From a former riding instructor, this is an excellent lesson to encorporate into a lesson program. They should be taught correctly how to use a whip to remind the horse to stay at the right distance from them, and how to lead the horse through gates. They should also be taught how to correctly lead a horse with the reins, and how to correctly halter and lead with a halter and lead.
When you teach you want your students to gain independence from you. They will be a little bit lost if every lesson involves somebody holding the horse while they climb a mounting block, and vice versa to get off.
As an aside, good lesson horses are often the "ugly" horses, too short, backs too long, some with nicks and dings, but the ones that are patient and faithful are worth their weight in gold.

 

Interesting question. I think most people are given a "youth horse" when they are a kid and they do very little ground work with them, they just ride. At least that was my experience. My main objective to most ground work is to both establish communication and to "achieve" or lay the groundwork for a specific "task", it is not leadership, per se. I don't know about "leadership", b/c the definition varies person to person. To me a horse/person/dog responds to another entity that is confident about what they want, clearly communicates, and is fair. That might qualify as leadership to some, but not others. BUT, it all has to be qualified. I will ride my own mare on the trail anywhere, I trained her and I know her, and vice versa. However, there are plenty of horses I would not at all be willing to hop on and so much as go around an arena with - and no amount of "leadership" exercises on the ground is going to change my mind.

 

I actually agree with the article that students, particularly children, should be taught how horses think and the relationship between rider and horse. Yes, most school horses that children will be riding are broke and will do what any human asks (within reason) due to their training, but this isn't learning horsemanship. I don't think they are talking about actual groundwork per se in the article (like lunging or round pen work) but rather learning how horses think and how to handle them safely on the ground.

When I learned to ride, I learned how to groom and tack horses, but not about how horses think and why they react certain ways. I showed hunter/jumper through high school and as part of my college equestrian team, but it wasn't until I owned my own horse years later that I realized how little I knew about horses. My horse is not a push-button lesson horse, and understanding how he thinks, why he reacts a certain way, and how to be a clear leader are all very important to know when working with him. With my trainer's school horses, not as much.

My daughters are learning how to ride and the very first lesson my youngest took was 3 hours, and started with how to muck out a stall (you have to do the work before you get to the fun), then how horses think, how to groom/tack, and finally an hour of riding. While they don't do it all the time, both my 10 and 11 year old know how to lunge a horse. I think they are getting a much more complete horse education than I did.

 

I actually agree with the article that students, particularly children, should be taught how horses think and the relationship between rider and horse. Yes, most school horses that children will be riding are broke and will do what any human asks (within reason) due to their training, but this isn't learning horsemanship. I don't think they are talking about actual groundwork per se in the article (like lunging or round pen work) but rather learning how horses think and how to handle them safely on the ground.

When I learned to ride, I learned how to groom and tack horses, but not about how horses think and why they react certain ways. I showed hunter/jumper through high school and as part of my college equestrian team, but it wasn't until I owned my own horse years later that I realized how little I knew about horses. My horse is not a push-button lesson horse, and understanding how he thinks, why he reacts a certain way, and how to be a clear leader are all very important to know when working with him. With my trainer's school horses, not as much.

My daughters are learning how to ride and the very first lesson my youngest took was 3 hours, and started with how to muck out a stall (you have to do the work before you get to the fun), then how horses think, how to groom/tack, and finally an hour of riding. While they don't do it all the time, both my 10 and 11 year old know how to lunge a horse. I think they are getting a much more complete horse education than I did.

Oh, aha. Yes, I agree. I never had formal lessons prior to taking my daughter to a program, which doesn't mean someone never yelled at me or told me to do what - now. I had no instructing 'role model' to go by, so when it came to instructing my own DD who was far more "hesitant" than I was at her age, we both suffered for my lack of instruction skills. When I started her in the saddle, on her own, not being led - I started waaaay beyond what I should have, and couldn't verbalize what I meant well at all, and got frustrated that she wouldn't just "get it on", and the gelding I put her on wasn't a youth horse (but not dangerous, needless to say). ooops, yeah, it did nothing for her confidence. Lucky for us both, she wanted to "do" hunter jumper, something I had no knowledge of. So, I took her to a barn with a program. After I observed a "real" systematic method of instruction, where you begin, how you get across the "abstract", etc., I felt like the world's worst mom. Oddly, and relative to what you are saying, probably the only thing I taught her "effectively" was to consider the horse (how it thinks as well as to practice consideration)....since there is no real "system" required to teaching that, I couldn't screw it up. But, again, yes...absolutely, that kind of instruction belongs and is beneficial.

 

it is so hard to teach. that is why we pay OTHER people to teach our children. well, you tried.

 

See I must have had a pretty rough education haha. My riding instructors taught and helped me with basic ground work (lead, confidence, halter, tack up, mount, etc, etc) and then I was expected to go out, get the horse, don't get trampled and learn by trial and error. (Then again I'm in the backwaters and had good lesson horses to put up with my mistakes!)

Maybe it depends on the student, my instructors may have seen that I learned better through tough love! I never had 'longe' lessons on a horse (where I rode and someone lunged to work on my seat) my instructors expected me to find my rhythm and learn to position my body correctly in the saddle and retain control while building up those muscles. (I am a control freak so this was better for me.) As for groundwork it was just expected when I got more experienced and confident. I remember I had one instructor who every time a horse got into my space would hit ME with a whip! :lol: Even from the beginning though I was taught to process the psyche of a horse, my instructors just taught it through feel under saddle and by spending time with the horse (and doing barn work!) rather than ground work.

I definitely do see how beneficial it is for people who aren't as.... corrupt as me and heck I wish someone had pointed that stuff out to me rather than tell me: "You wanna learn ground work? Ok. Work as my assistant trainer 24/7 and work your butt off. That'll make you a horseperson!" :lol:

 

It was EASY to teach PRIVATELY. Public school teachers get "battle pay" bc that is where you have to fight some students every day who want to disrupt your lessons.
Riding lessons have a class full of eager beavers. A little bit of sympathy and loads of encouragement goes a very long way.
I wanted my students to learn how to handle a horse, like MY instructor taught me, but I wanted us ALL to have a good time, too.
It was VERY rewarding, and I truly miss it.