This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Maybe I don't understand correctly, but as this page is about Classical dressage, in my opinion it should contain an overview of what it viewed as classical dressage by trainers nowadays. Bitless and bridleless are viewed as classical dressage by a growing number of people (at least in the Netherlands). Therefore I added the chapter about classical dressage without bridle as a discussion to the page. It not only discusses the point of view of the classical dressage riders who are all for it, but also of those who are against it, and it gave a balanced view of the current discussion in classical dressage. At least, that was what I felt. If you think that the balance should be better (more arguments of opponents I presume?), maybe it is better to add them to the chapter than delete it in itself. --193.172.136.100 (talk) WNM 10:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Name one classical riding master who went bridleless. Bridleless work is a gimmick. Bridleless work belongs in the natural horsemanship article. Softness to the bit is one of the most significant aspects of classical training. Bridleless work is showbiz. You are promoting a theory that cannot be sourced to the masters. It isn't even worth including in this article as it is not "classical," nor is it "dressage." Montanabw(talk) 20:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We obviously look at classical dressage at a different point of view. I see as the aim of classical dressage the collection of the horse, and all the tack and cues surrounding it as teaching tools for the learning process. For me, classical dressage is about the horses' body and how that carries itself, not about reins, bits legs or hands of the rider. In Poland two international dressage trainer train their horses bridleless too - turning to bridles when competing again. I'll look up their names for you and post them here, they have a video on the internet too. Other classical dressage riders use brideless dressage in between to test their horses responses, like some western riders do too. An example is Alfons J. Dietz, who describes this with a photo in his book Die Klassische Bodenarbeit.
If you read the books of the masters of Classical dressage, for example de la Gueriniere, the Duke of Cavendish or even Grisone or Christophorus Lieb, you see that they do use reins and do promote a soft hand - but also that their ultimate goal is to ride without contactreins, with the bit carrying nothing but the weight of the reins. The reins spring into action when the horse has done something wrong or is taught something new, or when he has ignored the more subtle cues from the seat and legs of the rider. And they are used like that - but the goal is self-carriage of the horse with no direct rein contact. This means that the reins were used as a teaching tool, not as a component to actively maintain the collection with. Of course you can take the stand that as the reins were the traditional teaching tools then, they should still be used now because otherwise you cannot call it classical dressage, but that would mean that you would need to use the same shankbits, saddles and sometimes quite harsh training methods too in order to be able to call yourself a classical dressage rider. Some people really are consequent in that, like Wolfgang Krischke and Bent Branderup, who use the texts of the classical masters to the letter on various horses. But whenever you even start mixing two methods of just two masters, you will be doing something that isn't sourced back to any master.
If you as modern classical dressage rider use a snaffle instead of the long curb bits, you'ce changed the tools that the original classical dressage masters taught the horse collection with. When you choose positive reinforcement ((food)rewards) over reins, you're doing the same: you've changed the tools. The goal: teaching your horse collection and self-carriage that he will maintain on his own, is the same. The difference is that nowadays we know more of cognitive psychology, and of the biomechanics of the horses' mouth, and instead of sticking to old methods just because they are tradition, we've put the welfare of the horse in the first place and improved the training situation for him.
However, I do realise that you have put yourself forward as the guardian of this page in such a way that it will express only your definition of 'classical dressage'. Probably therefore it will never cover the real scope of what is understood as classical dressage nowadays, which ranges from baroque dressage riders, new-born baucherists, bitless classical dressage, Doma Classica, and dressage at liberty. As everything else than your opinion of what 'Classical dressage' should mean is labeled as tricks, circus training, no real collection, not classical and not dressage so it shouldn't be mentioned here. I'm not proposing to just radically promote them over here, and haven't done so in my addition either. Instead I think that the current (and past!) discussions on the definition of classical dressage should be included here. Now you just skip the fact that the meaning of this term has always been cause of dispute - read the Duke of Cavendish: the first 50 pages are nothing but criticism on other riders. Look at the 1960's, when the classical dressage world was split in two because one half thought that riding low &forwards was the basis of classical dressage, while others took other books and showed the world that the head should always be minimal at breast-height and never below. The question of what Classical dressage is, has been asked for centuries, right from the first ecruiers. If you take the stand that only your opinion of what Classical dressage is is right, and that only that is allowed to be on this Wikipedia page, then in itself by doing so you stand in a long tradition. But a personal opinion is not what an encyclopaedia is about, or what Wikipedia is meant to be. You obviously have a very strong point of view of how classical dressage should be seen. That's not bad, but instead of turning this page into a monologue, we could turn it into a real reflection of what the term classical dressage has always been: a discussion about what dressage really is, seen from all sides. Even though this page already is very interesting and a good read, it's most certainly POV. --84.31.102.120 (talk) 13:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)WNM
Removed POV comments about Anky, this article is about classical dressage, not modern dressage, and when it comes to Anky's training methiods, expecially rollkur, this is a war we just don't want to start in this particular article, it can be dealt with elsewhere, IMHO. Montanabw 17:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The Dressage page is much more detailed and informative, more or less with similar contents. I think that merging the content of this page to Dressage page, and changing this page into a Redirect, could be a good idea. --Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Its always very easy to get carried away by ones own enthusiasms ( even if its just an enthusiasm for simplicity!). There does seem to be a distinction between "Classical" or "Baroque" style dressage and the more modern competitive dressage. The horses used,the final results (eg the aerial movements),and indeed the practitioners differ markedly, albeit with some degree of overlap. There are also splinter groups ( such as side-saddlers - is that a word? ).
My opinion is that the articles discribe slightly different subjects. (A competitive dressage rider hoping to go to the Olympics would be dissappointed to read that it entails an adalusian horse doing the levade.I run a small dressage directory and have split it into 2 websites - a classical one and a 'normal' one to cater for the two areas)
My opinion is that it should stay as two topics, although maybe linked a bit more comprehensively in the text of both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.69.9 (talk) 00:27, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
This page has been selected as a "test page" for AND Wikipedia project. AND (Art of Natural Dressage) is a small web community, interested into not-competitive dressage and Haute Ecole; its principles are somehow similar to NHE ones (see their forum [1]).
The AND Wikipedia project aims to discuss and edit some relevant wiki articles into their web forum, and to post into wiki the final result. I'm the "wiki expert" (more or less) there.
An anonymous user posted here some time ago this text:
"Nowadays another form of Classical Dressage appears: The Art of Natural Dressage(AND), the art which up holds all the noble causes of the Classical Dressage Art and The Old Masters but without any form of force, cruelty, punishment and dominance. Thus without bits, spurs and even without bridle for a more advanced level."
Such a newbye edit doesn't follows many of wiki rules, and its deletion is right. Nevertheless, the meaning of such an update is very interesting in my opinion; a mention of the work of some groups of rides and trainers who are trying to obtain Haute Ecole results with new, R+ methods (NHE, AND) deserves a mention and the refusal of competition is an important point that they have in common with Classical Dressage and Haute Ecole, and a deep difference with Competitive Dressage, mainly covered into Dressage article. Obviously a mention to AND only could seem self-promotional: some search for a more comprehensive list of such groups is mandatory.--Alex_brollo Talk|Contrib 09:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Dr. Ritter is no longer in the United States. He moved back to Germany a couple of years ago with his wife and son. I don't think he ever applied for or received US citizenship? Roan Art (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC) (forgot to log in)