Reconciling Vastly Different Training Systems

I’ve been thinking for a while about posting on how different but similar enough training programs can compliment each other.  For instance Dressage Naturally and the TRT Method.  Both are based on natural horsemanship with an end point of doing dressage and have a video subscription format.  There’s definitely a different emphasis on certain techniques.  But basically, it’s possible  to take what you prefer from each and make a whole because there is a lot of common ground. Warwick Schiller would be another trainer that everything I read of his and see on video ties in well with Dressage Naturally and the TRT Method.  I personally prefer the ground work of the TRT Method but the under saddle of Dressage Naturally and so far that has seemed to work well without a lot of contradictions or problems.

Now that I am doing a deep dive into rider biomechanics via Mary Wanless though, I’ve had to think a bit to reconcile MW and DN.  Mary is very rider focused with the working assumption that if the rider can get her ducks in a row(metaphorically speaking) the horse will follow and have a better working life.  Karen Rohlf of Dressage Naturally is very relationship focused, with lots of thinking about things from the horse’s point of view, and groundwork leading to relaxed (bit less! saddle less!) riding that gives the rider an easy place to sit.  This is a gross oversimplification, but at their core both are trying to do well by the horse but through different pathways.  The relationship and horse training is always paramount with DN and everything comes back to the rider’s biomechanics with Mary.

So where does that leave me?  The TRT Method and Dressage Naturally have been wonderful for me.  I finally feel like I understand what motivates each horse under my care so much better.  Through DN my understanding of how a horse learns, functions biomechanically, and how the different exercises link is light years ahead.  Because of the emphasis on riding by feel and experimenting though, and less specific rider biomechanics work,  I have gotten frustrated with things like my tipping forward problem.  Enter Mary Wanless and specific exercises to fix certain postural problems that directly effect the posture of the horse.  And it is working nicely(photos and video from my Pivo session today posted soon).

After thinking about it for a few days, my conclusion is that I can use both but my emphasis will always be on the Dressage Naturally way of training the horse.  Very partnership based, lots of TRT groundwork, and trying to think about motivation and the whole horse’s wellbeing.  This however doesn’t mean I can’t use MW concepts to give myself a better basic balanced and effective seat and fix a few of my position flaws.  I think part of the reason I got frustrated with Mary back in the day was that I didn’t realize her system is not a horse training system.  It is designed to make you a more effective rider but doesn’t teach you how to be a horse trainer or how to link all the gymnastics and exercises.  She has never claimed to do so, I just assumed if my riding was more effective then the horse training would come easily.  Now that I understand how horses learn and think a bit more through natural horsemanship and the dressage exercises much more through DN, I think Mary is going to have a lot to offer on being more effective in my biomechanics.  

I tested this today when I was doing working gaits focused mostly on my biomechanics fixes but using the Dressage Naturally framework to plan the ride.  I got some great work and wanted to kick on with practicing my position fixes and doing some harder things but Jet had been so good that I knew he needed to stop to keep the willingness and partnership.  This is big change from how I would have approached things back in the day.

Do you use different training systems?  How do you reconcile differences and contradictions?