My own position is that the "following hand" that moves visibly forward and
back is by no means lighter or gentler than the quiet hand that does not
move visibly. On the contrary, it makes it difficult, if not impossible, to
feel and affect the hind legs with any precision.
First of all, I would like to point out that all the classical schools seem
to ride with a "fixed hand". If you watch videos of the SRS, the Cadre Noir,
Egon von Neindorff, the Real Escuela Andaluza, and Nuno Olivera, you can
observe that all of these riders hold their hands very still in all three
gaits. The movement of the hands is minimal, especially front to back. Yet,
in spite(or because) of this "fixed" hand the horses are light, supple,
energetic, and collected, all of which would be impossible with stiff hands.
The agreement of all these schools with their different traditions is very
significant.
This may seem like a contradiction at first sight. However, a closer look
shows that there is no contradiction at all. Egon von Neindorff repeats
several times in each lesson: "The hand stands still, and yet it moves."
Nuno Oliveira paraphrases the very same thought as: "Immobile hand, mobile
fingers." Both masters refer to the same concept. While the hands themselves
should not move visibly, the wrists and fingers have to be elastic and
mobile enough to prevent the rein contact from becoming dead.
When a rider tries to stop following the horse's mouth with his hands for
the first time, he will most likely experience resistance and rein contact
that goes from nonexistant to taught and back with each stride. This is of
course not what we want to achieve. So, how do we reconcile quiet hands with
a soft, unconstricting rein contact? It is again Nuno Oliveira who gives the
answer quite simply (Notizen zum Unterricht von Nuno Oliveira, 1998, 33, the
translation is as usual my own): "Follow the horse's mouth by means of a
supple back." He says it even more concisely on page 35: "If you want to
accompany the young horse's walk, do it with the lumbar back and not with
the hand."
Charles de Kunffy teaches very much the same philosophy. He has all of his
students tuck their elbows against their hips so that the hands become
quiet, instead of moving forward and back.
Here is how it works. By keeping the elbows or forearms in close contact
with the hips, the rider's hands become extensions of the seat bones.
Whatever the seat bones are doing is what the hand is doing. In other words,
if the seat bones are following the horse's back, the rider's hands will
automatically follow the horse's mouth *without* visible movement. If the
seat bones resist the grounded hind leg for a split second, the hand will
automatically apply a half halt on the same side in support of the seat. The
rider's pelvis and seat bones are controlled to a large extent by the muscle
ring above it. Otto De La Croix (Natuerliche Reitkunst, 1910, 75,
translation: TR) discusses the same principle and sums it up in these words:
"The hand can therefore not exist without the abdominal and back muscles. If
the latter yield, the hand also yields eo ipso. Without good use of the
abdominal and back muscles, a good hand is unthinkable." That's why Oliveira
says you should follow the horse's mouth with your back, not with your hand.
Keeping the elbows connected to the rider's hips and keeping the hands still
has very interesting repercussions. It does not allow the rider to cheat
with his hands any more. In order to apply half halts, to steer, etc. and
maintain a good rein contact at the same time, the seat has to do the
majority of the work. Eliminating the possibility of cheating brings out and
underscores even the smallest shortcomings in the training of horse and
rider. It's a wonderful diagnostic tool. This means that if the "fixed" hand
results in a stiff, constricting rein contact, there is something wrong with
the seat.
Most riders are too wobbly in their waist, which compromises the stability
of their seat. The problem is almost always compounded by a less than
perfect distribution of the weight (especially leaning forward). The lack of
balance and stability forces them in turn to compensate by gripping with
hands and legs. This can be paraphrased as a rule of thumb. The more
deficient the muscle tone is in the midsection, the greater it has to be in
the extremities - to the point of stiffness. On the other hand, the greater
the muscle tone is in the rider's midsection (without getting rigid), the
more the arms, hands and legs can relax.
In my own experience, elbows that are disconnected from the hips create a
gap in the energy flow. The same thing goes for a waist with insufficient
muscle tone, leading to collapsing either laterally or forward. They are
comparable to false bends in the horse's spine. The energy from the hind
legs exits the horse/rider unit in these locations, instead of travelling
all the way to the mouth, and all rein aids get stuck in these locations as
well, instead of being passed on to the hind legs. This is a point that is
all too often neglected. Teachers talk about false bends or breaks in the
horse, but they usually don't dedicate as much attention to these false
bends or breaks in the riders. The result of these holes in the energy flow
is always a loss of true lightness, suppleness, balance, self carriage,
permeability, impulsion, and collection.
When the elbows are taken off the hips, the hands often develop too much a
life of their own that is no longer synchronized with the seat. Whereas when
the elbows remain close to the hips, the upper arms lend additional
stability to the torso, and the hands automatically assume a subordinate
role to the seat. This touches on what Steinbrecht (Gymnasium of the horse,
English translation, 1995, 38) means when he says: "By weight aids in
general, the rider can restrain or reinforce every movement as desired. It
is understood, of course, that in all these weight aids, hands and legs must
participate correspondingly, but the less such participation is required,
the greater is the perfection of the dressage training." The seat is the aid
with which the rider controls his horse first and foremost. Legs and hands
are merely supporting aids.
After quoting Otto De La Croix concerning the dependance of the hands on the
seat, I also want to give you a quote that establishes the subordinate
nature of the leg aids under the seat (Natuerliche Reitkunst, 1910, 67,
translation: TR): "The calf aids are, in short, never the main aids but have
to be considered merely supporting aids. They must originate in the correct
seat, adapt to it and subordinate themselves to it. They must be given in
the awareness that they are even worthless by themselves and without their
correct exploitation through the seat."
To return to the original discussion of the fixed hand; the preceding
paragraphs should have made it clear that a fixed hand is perfectly
reconcilable with lightness and gentleness, since the quality of the hand
depends entirely on the quality of the rider's seat. The same thing can be
said about the legs and the purity of the horse's gaits.
return to the ARCHIVES
return to the ARTICLES
Last Update: January 12, 2007