Forward versus impulsion

[Tsavo]

As mentioned on the other thread, I do not equate these two things. A first level horse can be forward and not have impulsion which is required for upper levels.

Here is an opinion from an article in DT... it claims forward is only one of four components of impulsion...

Answer:Impulsion in dressage comprises four components: the horse’s desire to move forward, the elasticity of his steps, the suppleness of his back and the engagement of his hindquarters. It sounds as if your horse has the desire to move forward, but is perhaps lacking in one of the other three components.

https://dressagetoday.com/instruction/impulsion-14633

Also, I think the person asking the question may be confusing forward with running. Hard to say.

So if this is correct then where is "forward" (versus impulsion) really on the pyramid? Again I claim it is at or near the bottom because you can't do anything without it. I have seen horses who never need refreshing on the idea of forward. It is their job if in the arena. They need warming up on all the other things but not forward. That was the trainer's philosophy and she walked the talk. It can be done.

[kande50]

Instead of trying to include all kinds of different meanings into one term, how about we just use each term to mean one thing? IOW, forward means the desire to move in a forward direction. Then, if we want to convey other aspects of the desire to move in a forward direction we can add other terms.

Same with impulsion. If we want to describe a particular kind of impulsion then add modifiers, but use impulsion to describe the forces that move the horse (forward, or up, or in a particular way).

There's no need to try to rewrite the training pyramid either, because without rhythm and relaxation all the impulsive forward movement in the world is not going to be of much use for dressage.

[Bats79]

Forward is a direction that's why it isn't, and shouldn't be, on any training diagram.
Not should "throughness' or "over the back".

Rhythm, tempo, impulsion, engagement & cadence are all descriptions of the gait and describe the quality.

Energy is energy.

[Tsavo]

Forward is a direction that's why it isn't, and shouldn't be, on any training diagram.
Not should "throughness' or "over the back".

Rhythm, tempo, impulsion, engagement & cadence are all descriptions of the gait and describe the quality.

Energy is energy.

I don't understand the rules you are using to lump/split these concepts. I will try to parse it more later.

[galopp]

Forward is used interchangeably too often, it is a direction, but has been mixed up with impulsion. And too many when ask to ride forward simply accelerate the speed (often to defeat resistance). And speed is the enemy of impulsion. Willingness to choose forward is not (just) a desire, it is the result of balance. Takt (pure rhythm/steady tempo/with a swinging back (aka relaxation) ) is the basis of the training scale. Impulsion has been defined after suppleness (lateral flexibility leading to longitudinal balance) and contact (a connection in various degrees and flexion) as elastic lifting and placing of the hind legs (which are a result of greater axial rotation/shortening of the base of support/engagement/impulsion/etc from those basics). And then comes the develop of greater straightness and collection (which is more articulation/expression within the strides aka cadence).

[Tsavo]

Forward is a direction that's why it isn't, and shouldn't be, on any training diagram.

Do you mean like an actual bearing in space? I would say a horse can be moving in a particular direction without being forward. Clearly.

Here is deKunffy in a somewhat meandering article that purports to explain "forward" but ends up talking about impulsion.

https://dressagetoday.com/theory/understanding-26535

Here is Dueck equating forward as obedience and IFOTL which I think is a brilliant observation. This would make forward not a thing but a quality I guess.

http://horsesdaily.com/article/training ... d%E2%80%9D

A case can be made that "forward" is the lack of sucking back. If so then it is a thing not a quality maybe.

Nor should "throughness" or "over the back".

Impulsion is a "quality" and there are degrees of it just like "throughness" is a quality. They are less able to be measured than, say, straightness where we can say the horse is X amount straight based on the footfall and body part positions in space.

Rhythm, tempo, impulsion, engagement & cadence are all descriptions of the gait and describe the quality.

I thought you were saying what belongs on the pyramid and what doesn't based on if they are actual things versus the quality of things?? Is that what you are saying? I think it can get fuzzy between things and the quality of things.

Energy is energy.

True, true and irrelevant?

[kande50]

Willingness to choose forward is not a desire, it is the result of balance.

I think the reason that forward is described as the desire to go forward, rather than the act of moving in a forward direction, is because halt and reverse should also be forward.

[Bats79]

Forward is a direction that's why it isn't, and shouldn't be, on any training diagram.

Do you mean like an actual bearing in space? I would say a horse can be moving in a particular direction without being forward. Clearly.

How? If it is moving in a direction then the direction is either forward, sideward or backward. However, the horse might be moving forward but lacking impulsion, energy, cadence, rhythm - any one of a number of qualities might be lacking. If the horse is moving sideways when it should be moving forward it is lacking obedience and forward direction.

Here is deKunffy in a somewhat meandering article that purports to explain "forward" but ends up talking about impulsion.

https://dressagetoday.com/theory/understanding-26535

The fact that the article ends up talking about impulsion highlights the fact that the word "forward" is not useful in describing what should be going on. It is lazy.

Here is Dueck equating forward as obedience and IFOTL which I think is a brilliant observation. This would make forward not a thing but a quality I guess.

http://horsesdaily.com/article/training ... d%E2%80%9D

A case can be made that "forward" is the lack of sucking back. If so then it is a thing not a quality maybe.

Forward should not be used instead of "in front of the leg" either. A horse can be IFOTL when going backwards, sideways, forwards, on the spot. IFOTL is a combination of response and understanding with impulsion (energy and engagement). Why would you want to "dumb down" in front of the leg to "forward"? The word forward totally lacks the subtleties of IFOTL.

Nor should "throughness" or "over the back".

Impulsion is a "quality" and there are degrees of it just like "throughness" is a quality. They are less able to be measured than, say, straightness where we can say the horse is X amount straight based on the footfall and body part positions in space.

I disagree. Impulsion is a measureable quality. There is either enough to carry the movement correctly or the movement will become earth bound, on the forehand, irregular, lacking suppleness due to loss of energy to maintain self carriage etc. "Through" on the other hand does not imbibe the reader with any real information. What is not "through"? The half halt to engage the hindleg? The impulsion generated from the engagement to carry the horse to the hand?

Rhythm, tempo, impulsion, engagement & cadence are all descriptions of the gait and describe the quality.

I thought you were saying what belongs on the pyramid and what doesn't based on if they are actual things versus the quality of things?? Is that what you are saying? I think it can get fuzzy between things and the quality of things.

Energy is energy.

True, true and irrelevant?

So yes, I am talking about things that are measurable and can be described as right or wrong, there or not there. Rather than words that need to defined every time they are used. EG Impulsion is the release of energy from the engaged hindleg which is a result of flexing the joints and storing the power that is generated by the weight of the horse landing on the hoof while in motion. If you had a device you could measure these things and give numbers. These other "new" words always need to be clarified so why use them? If an instructor called out to me "more impulsion" I would know what they mean - not more speed but a better flexion and engagement of the hindleg so that more energy "impulsion" was release. If they called out to me "more forward" I would have to ask "In what manner?"

But that of course, is just the way I see it and teach it.


LOL I actually spent more time trying to keep track of the quotes in that post than replying to the comments.

[Bats79]

Instead of trying to include all kinds of different meanings into one term, how about we just use each term to mean one thing? IOW, forward means the desire to move in a forward direction. Then, if we want to convey other aspects of the desire to move in a forward direction we can add other terms.

Same with impulsion. If we want to describe a particular kind of impulsion then add modifiers, but use impulsion to describe the forces that move the horse (forward, or up, or in a particular way).

There's no need to try to rewrite the training pyramid either, because without rhythm and relaxation all the impulsive forward movement in the world is not going to be of much use for dressage.

This too is true. Specially the first point about forward. I don't think "impulsion" needs any modifiers - you either get it or you don't, you have enough of it or you don't.

But this is exactly what I was trying to say in a much more round-about manner.

[Tsavo]

If they called out to me "more forward" I would have to ask "In what manner?"

Really? I would assume they want more alacrity in the response to the aids without running and without sucking back. What do you tell lower level riders who are no where near able to ride correct impulsion when you want them to move off without running? Do you tell them more impulsion? Do they get it? Are these lower level riders all nevertheless near the top of the pyramid somehow?

Can we agree a training level horse does not have upper level pyramidal elements like impulsion but still can move off with alacrity? What do you call that?

I love Dueck's definition of forward as obedient + IFOTL.

We measure obedient by how quickly and accurately the horse takes the aid. Completely measurable and night and day when riding it.

We measure IFOTL by the horse never sucking back (or running). Completely measurable and night and day when riding it.

[Bats79]

I tell lower level riders what the horse needs

to go faster if the tempo is too slow

to be quicker off the leg if the transition is lagging

to have more impulsion if the horse is lacking connection with the rein

I don't teach lower level riders as if they have less intelligence than upper level riders, just as if they have less knowledge (which I am trying to increase) or less skill (which we are also trying to increase).

I attended a Christoph Hess clinic with a GP judge and she also thought "foward" was a lazy judges word. Say what is needed, don't make the rider guess was her comment.

I have no problem with "in front of the leg" - just don't use the word "forward" to describe it.

Personally I don't understand why "impulsion" would be so high on the pyramid unless they actually mean "impulsion to carry a horse through a piaffe - passage tour". Because a green horse can have the correct impulsion to do a simple serpentine - if the hindleg is correctly flexed and engaged for the exercise then the release of energy within the step is impulsion. It is the impulsion that makes a connection at the working trot but not the impulsion that carries a horse from piaffe into passage - but it is still impulsion (in a forward direction )

[Tsavo]

I think IFOTL is less concrete than forward but these are things that reasonable people can disagree over.

Reading Dueck's definition of forward as obedient plus IFOTL, I instantly agreed with it and that is probably why the word forward is in such common usage. That is why vast swaths of people use it.

The other thing is the pyramid is for the training of the horse, not the rider. That's why impulsion and collection are high on the pyramid. Now a lower level rider may stumble into some amount of each on a trained horse but that would be by chance and the horse would eventually stop working correctly unless tuned up. Essentially, even an upper level rider could not get correct impulsion on a training level horse. That word simply doesn't apply to lower level horses just like collection doesn't apply.

Dekunffy says: "In riding, as in life, the means are different than the goals we aspire to reach. Great impulsion is developed gradually and systematically and is born from initial excessive slowing. This gives the horse the experience of how to increase the articulation of joints in order to remain in motion."

And: "Slowing the tempo allows the rider to create impulsion, the indispensable foundation of engagement of the haunches. “Impulsion” refers to the horse’s ability to use all joints in his haunches with equal and unhindered articulation and thereby produce an efficient—not rapid—source of energy. Impulsion improves with the gradual increasing articulation of the joints. Impulsion, not running, is the source for strengthening and suppling the joints. Impulsion is based on the taming of the flight instinct and altering it into effortless efficiency."

This implies to me that only upper level horses are doing correct impulsion which is why it is near the top of the pyramid. If so, lower level horses do not have impulsion (because they can't slow the tempo) but they have something that lets them get to the top. That something is forward in my opinion. Baby impulsion maybe.

[piedmontfields]

I'm with Charles on this. After all he is "always right!" lol But of course you do practice of this work before you achieve the upper levels with a horse. It is just part of training.

BTW, I still think kicking (aka strong leg) a horse into a stiff top line is counterproductive. Do the slow, warm-up work to get to the point that as needed a a strong leg makes sense. This is hard to practice, easier to grasp intellectually.

[Bats79]

As I'm not inclined to explain to my pupils everyone else's version of forward - specially for people who have never heard of CdK or Dueck but just hear other coaches yelling "more forward, more forward" or judges writing "not forward enough" on their tests sheets all the random suggestions are meaningless.

Unless you (as a rider) chase up every judge and ask 'what precisely did you meant' then forward (from them) remains a meaningless comment and I will NEVER teach it as a concept regardless of how well CdK or Dueck use it.

Instead I will say what I really mean at that time.... needs more energy, needs more speed, not going forward enough in the leg yield (direction).