Personligen tycker jag att alldeles oavsett vad man tycker om hans filosofi om hästar och ridning kan man hitta tänkvärda saker i det han skriver. Mkt handlar dessutom inte om själva ridtekniken i sig utan istället synen på häst & reflektioner om hur vi människor fungerar...
Här nedan följer ett sådant citat:
"It seems obvious to me that the horse in the pasture can do the upper level work with no problem but then the horse suddenly "needs" training when you sit on it. This is distortion in our minds... carrying weight is generally not that big deal... just a small adjustment... it is obvious that human thinking is where the training is required to create a channel of communication. Generally in the process of attending to the psychological aspect of creating this channel, the physical problems vanish.
We generally see these body issues as the horse's when in fact it is just the refection of our own issue. In pushing our physical agenda with the horse we create psychological problems in the horse. When taken this way, the physical problems never end and the mental problems grow until, eventually, the horse is made unsound."
Här är ett annat:
"When you use strength with a horse, the horse remembers how strong you are and while it may let you win, it has taken your measure. It also indirectly points to just how ridiculous it is for you to physically compete with the horse."
Och ytterligare ett:
Om "Support" (stöd)....
"In common riding the aids are based on constriction. One pulls the hand in, or presses the leg to the side while constricting the rein on the opposite side—the aids are defined in terms of "what constricts what." The rider is considered to be "supporting" the horse through the constriction of the hand and the leg.
This is a modern change in riding that began in the 19th century.
The origins of this idea can be sourced in the mistranslation of the French word “appui” from the writings of François Robichon de la Guérinière. Appui means "support", but as in English, "support" can be architectural or psychological. When the word "appui" was read by trainers who did not speak French as their native tongue, and came from more patriarchal cultures, it was understood and translated as “physical support”.
When La Guérinière used the term “appui”, what he was describing is the kind of support provided by a “spotter” in gymnastics, not the kind of support provided by a beam in construction.
This is why I generally substitute the word “touch” for appui. It’s a psychological support rather than a physical holding. This is the idea behind the touch of the hand, and the same concept of touch, of psychological rather than physical support, applies to the legs. The legs drape. It is the draft of the boot as it gently leaves the side, not the constriction in, that is the interesting factor for horse and rider. The question for the horse is always "Following this harmony, where is something opening", not "what do I move away from now?"
Om olika typer av ridfilosofier & frågan om vad som är kvalité:
"If you spend any time exploring riding options you’ll find that there is not one method that works to control the horse, but many. The question becomes not so much how to control the horse, but which method is best, and what qualities define “best”.
If quality is found in calm, brilliant, engaged horses, then the best methodology is that which conforms to the horse’s nature. Therefore it has to be fair and extremely simple.
Horses are smarter than people in that they have a 24/7 moment to moment grasp of their own nature. Humans don’t. Instead of beginning riding by careful observation of the horse’s nature, riders impose our own nature and our cultural clichés on the horse. And the horse, being fundamentally a peaceful creature, attempts to figure out how to have a truce with the humans so that it can live its life in peace.
Thus, many methods result in horses doing what the rider asks, but to enjoy calm, brilliant, engagement-- that takes a different mind on the part of the rider."
Till sist ett citat från någon helt annan (Dresden James):
"A truths initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed.....When a well packaged and managed web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and it's speaker, a raving lunatic."
Ovanstående tycker jag stämmer bra in på LDR, rollkur och andra avarter som blivit mer regel än undantag i dagens ridning.
ps. har medvetet ej översatt ovanstående citat för att risken finns att "det finstilta" försvinner med min översättning :-), men om det finns intresse av att jag översätter - hör av er!