Training the horse in the 21st century
- Sue Dyson
- Apr 1
- 8 min read
Updated: Apr 7
Sue Dyson, Independent Consultant
I have had the good fortune to have ridden many horses from riding school horses to those competing at elite 5* level in a variety of disciplines, with a wonderful range of trainers, both in the United Kingdom and abroad. I have ridden many people’s underperforming horses before and after removing musculoskeletal discomfort and have appreciated the differences in their gait quality, responsiveness to cues, comfort for the rider and potential trainability. As a British Horse Society Instructor I have delivered many lessons, I have attended many training conventions and have continued to learn and broaden my horizons.
I have watched and listened to hours of video footage of horses and riders undergoing training. Some of these training sessions have been constructive, worthwhile and inspirational for both the horse and the rider.
However, during others I have found myself asking why the trainer is just ‘directing the traffic’ and saying ‘good, good, good’ when clearly it is not good, and questions need to be asked. Why is it not good? What is the problem? Does the horse and/or the rider not understand? Is it the way in which cues are being applied? Is the rider in balance and straight? Does the tack fit the horse? Does the saddle fit the rider? Is the horse struggling because of physical limitations or discomfort?
I have paid for my own training and experienced frustration when I felt that an expensive trainer was not focussed on me and my horse during a 35 minutes’ session (warm-up completed) but was chatting endlessly to someone who had provided a mug of coffee. Were they not interested in me and my horse? Did they think that I was not receptive to what advice they had to give? Were they tired or bored?
Did they not realise how much I was searching for help as to how to improve both myself and my horse?
They knew me well, but had they not come prepared with a plan for the session? On other occasions there have been true ‘lightbulb moments’ when suddenly I have been shown or understood another ‘gem’ for the tool kit for solving a problem. These inspirational sessions are so rewarding.
I have watched trainers standing in the middle of an arena or sitting on a chair on the side and rarely moving and thought what can they tell about horse and rider straightness from that position? How much more they could learn about the horse and rider if viewed from behind and in front, not just from the side?
I have often listened to a commentary about what to do to correct a horse’s movement patterns, with apparent disregard of the rider’s position, balance, strength and coordination, and correct application of the cues? How much, if any, attention has been paid to the rider’s fitness, mental preparedness and preparation for the session?
In recent times we have all become more aware of the term ‘Social Licence to Operate’ (SLO), basically the public’s acceptance of what we do. When I reflect about what goes on in the equestrian world, I sometimes think that we are in the dark ages, submerged by myths (‘my horse doesn’t like dressage, but he jumps beautifully, so there cannot be anything wrong’, misleading terminology (‘Billy has always been a naughty horse, that’s normal for him’). Where are the ‘why?’ questions?
The more I look at horse training, the more cynical I become, and the more worried I am about the sustainability of all equestrian sports, especially in view of the lack of cohesiveness within the industry. However, I strongly believe that we can change and change for the better. We need to identify key areas where we know that we have done wrong, admit to the problems, identify solutions and be seen to be acting on those solutions. This should all be done in an open and transparent manner as possible, trying to achieve some consensus in opinions.
We need to carefully consider the language that we use and why. Are the terms ‘naughty, unwilling, evasive, resistant’ appropriate? We must be aware that horses, whilst sentient beings, do not have the same cognitive and reasoning skills as humans. The prefrontal cortex of a horse is underdeveloped, because horses are prey animals, hard wired for vigilance, fear, fast reactions and escape. There is no forethought or preplanning. The sensory input to horses is very different to ours – they hear ultrasonic sounds that we are unaware of, their field of view is much broader than ours, their sense of smell is hugely more sensitive than that of most humans. So, horses can react to stimuli of which we are completely unaware, and they do so in a pre-programmed way.
Use of the terms ‘naughty, unwilling, evasive, resistant’ is removing human culpability – removing our responsibility – without rethinking and asking ‘why?’ What is the reason for the failure to respond to cues? Is it lack of understanding, confusion, the application of conflicting cues, a physical limitation, fatigue, a state of over arousal and too many sensory inputs, lack of trust and confidence, rider imbalance, discomfort created by the tack or primary musculoskeletal pain?
Riders are an integral part of a horse-tack-rider triad, and it is the rider who has ultimate responsibility for a horse’s well-being. It follows that riders, at whatever level, should take responsibility for their fitness and ability to maintain a correct position and clear application of cues and also for their own mental status. So, scheduling a training session at the end of a harrowing workday, when your mind is not fully focussed on riding and listening to the horse, may not be ideal.
I therefore believe that trainers have a responsibility to both the horse and the rider, and to give their best they must be focussed and attentive. They should come with a plan but be prepared to adjust the plan according to what they observe and feedback from a rider.
They should position themselves to assess the rider and the horse from all aspects, and to consider aspects such as rider crookedness, saddle slip, other saddle movement, lameness or other gait abnormalities. Why is a horse ‘croup high’ and on three tracks in canter? Why is a horse experiencing difficulties in performing flying changes? Why is the tail not swinging? We need to look at the horse-tack-rider triad holistically.
Both riders and trainers need to be aware of how a normal horse should move and react to cues and if a horse does not behave normally be constantly asking ‘why?’.
We now know a lot about how horses learn, but we sometimes forget this (and we have all been guilty!). Asking ‘why?’ should be the reaction before reaching to tighten the noseband or using a more restrictive noseband, or a more severe bit, or ancillary devices such as draw reins or a baton (whip) or spurs. In saying that, there are circumstances in which experimentation with a so-called stronger cue may provide long-term solutions without I believe being detrimental to a horse’s welfare. Consider for example an event horse usually worked in a simple single jointed snaffle bit and cavesson noseband. Dressage scores are excellent, and the horse reliably jumps a double clear, but is becoming progressively stronger and more exuberant cross-country. For safety of both horse and rider, the rider feels a need to decelerate or maintain the same speed, rather than accelerate on the approaches to fences. The potential choices are a very prolonged retraining, fighting with the horse in the snaffle and potentially accruing more time penalties and creating oral discomfort and oral lesions, or changing the bit (for example to a vulcanite pelham) to which a horse responds immediately and without resistance with a very light cue.
When asking ‘why?’ we should always consider the possibility of pain. The absence of overt lameness does not preclude pain. We have become increasingly aware that alterations in behaviour and movement patterns can reflect underlying discomfort. This was the reason for the development of the Ridden Horse Pain Ethogram, also known as the Ridden Horse Performance Checklist (RHPC) to facilitate the recognition of pain-free horses and those experiencing discomfort.
The RHPC comprises 24 behaviours, the majority of which are at least ten times more likely to be seen in a horse with musculoskeletal discomfort compared with a pain-free horse. A RHPC score of ≥8/24 is a good indicator of the likely presence of musculoskeletal pain. It is the total score which is important; each individual behaviour may have several potential causes.
I believe that trainers have an obligation to constantly question why a horse is reacting as it does and then to discuss with a rider the potential causes and what to do next. Is the horse confused, and do we need to step back in the training and then ask in a different way, or might there be a pain-related cause?
I realise that this can create a potential conflict of interest; if a trainer acknowledges that there may be a physical problem, they are weighing up income earned versus temporary loss of the client. However, when we consider longevity of sports horses, there is little doubt that early recognition of problems and targeted treatment and management have the potential best long-term results.
It is important to understand that a comfortable horse is more receptive to cues, easier to train, more comfortable to ride, safer, and gives more confidence to a rider – so identification and management of problems is a win-win for everybody. Moreover, it is important to realise that there is an abundance of evidence that comfortable horses perform better in competition than those with discomfort. If we know what the underlying problems are, we are in a better position to guide warm up, patterns of work, repetition, terrain and footing on which horses work and the intensity of work on a day-to-day basis.
One other important aspect that needs to be considered with respect to training principles and sports horse longevity is the biomechanics of how to optimally develop a horse’s musculoskeletal system to provide athleticism, strength and stability, to minimise risk of injury. There seems to have become a fixation on the frame in which a horse is worked – often with the front of the head slightly behind a vertical position – rather than recognising the importance of forwardness and straight – with a hindlimb engine and an ability to ‘lift’ the forehand. Why do I hear a four-beat canter that lacks a suspension phase being described as good? This is simply incorrect and dysfunctional. A ‘dressage canter’ should match a ‘jumping canter’.
Take home messages
Ultimately it is the rider who takes responsibility for the welfare of their horse, but many seek guidance and help from other professionals. Trainers have a responsibility to their clients to provide constructive criticism, mental support and encouragement, while being truthful and transparent, with equine welfare at the forefront. This creates dilemmas and sometimes potential conflicts of interest. We need to constantly challenge ourselves about what we are seeing, why are we observing this and what are the best solutions. By continuing to question hopefully we will continue to learn and improve.
The upcoming ‘Movement and Behaviour’ course provides an ideal opportunity for riders, trainers, tack fitters, veterinarians, farriers and all paraprofessionals to hone their skills in the evaluation of ridden horse movement and behaviour and the many factors that can be influential.
Copyright Sue Dyson 2025
Comments