This message is from: "Gail Russell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This and the next message come from the clickryder clicker training list. I thought the list members might enjoy it because it compares the French vs German dressage training systems.
The post prior to this one was discussing whether the "French method" breaks the training information down into smaller, individual pieces than the German method (called "chunking down" by people who spend their time discussing the details of training methods). There was also discussion of the German method being one where the horse is "molded" (meaning his body is manipulated into the correct position until he can learn that that is the position that the trainer wants him to take. I asked Jord Ann if it would be OK to post her messages to the list because she proposes a theory that the German method is more oriented to finding individual horses that are more naturally balanced, whereas the French method is more suited to "working with what you have." Jord Ann's response is below: Hi Gail, Pleased to be of assistance! You might want to include my follow-up post ........I had to think a little deeper on this subject. Best wishes, Jord-Ann -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of plume77333 Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2005 3:34 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [clickryder] Re: French vs. German --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], "Melissa Alexander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Sharon pointed me more in the direction I was trying > to go. She hit upon the key differences I was interested in... and she touched on the aspect I'm specifically trying to figure out: the ability to chunk down the information. > Is the German school... the methods commonly taught to competition riders in the US today... "lumping"? > Or is it, as Sharon said (and which had never occurred to me), more molding? Certainly the tenet balance before movement versus movement before balance is a key component of the difference in methods. What balance before movement means for clicker trainers is the ability to keep criteria at a manageable level to optimize training. But there's also a few other "rules" in the French school that make it compatible to shaping : separation of the aids and release of the aids. Separation of the aids (hands with legs, legs without hands) is an additional aspect of presenting clear criteria for behavior. Release of the aids (liberty on parole) is similar to reinforcing / timing the reinforcement in order to have the maximum effect on the desired behavior. If "lumping" means lumping criteria together - or as you said before, starting with large unspecific behaviors because too many criteria are present from the get-go, then I would say that the German School lumps. Groups of criteria are addressed together, so you hear phrases like " forward, round and through", and "long and low". That's a distinct tip-off, isn't it? :) I'm not sure what the definition of molding is here, unless we are thinking of modeling - "pushing the subject manually through the action we want the subject to learn". That seems to describe, perhaps not the THEORY of the German school, but certainly the way it's practised. > > From a training perspective... what are the pros and cons of the two > systems... balance before movement vs. movement before balance? Aside from considerations of "efficient" training... Gymnasts have a natural gift for balance, which they refine and develop further - balance precedes movement. I doubt many of them would attempt "movements" if they felt imbalanced - it's too dangerous. On the other hand, when you're learning to ride a bike, you can only find balance through movement. It works. But the bike never develops a balance, or better balance of it's own. Horses are not bicycles. They have their own sense of balance, and the better it is, the easier the "movement before balance" method is going to be. The Germans are, not coincidentally, selectively breeding for extraordinary natural balance, and awe-inspiring movement. It suits their theory, and makes perfect sense. The "rules" of the French school we've been discussing are directly from Baucher, who is not the only influence on the school, but an undeniable one. He did not have horses that suited his theory - his theory was developed from the horses he had available. It works with "whatever" amount of inherent balance a horse has. Which also makes it rather attractive in my opinion :) Best, Jord-Ann No Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Clickryder Website: http://clickryder.com Archives: http://escribe.com/pets/clickryder Posts must be edited. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/clickryder/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
