F&I Talland Study Day
The F&I’s ability to provide food for thought served up another feast at the Talland Study Day on 19 March.
Led by Pammy (despite a ghastly cough), Adam, Islay and Tim, along with an amazing 19 incredibly varied and willing horses, ranging from 4 to 27 years old.
The moment everyone was gathered Pammy and Adam briefed us with the question: ‘What is a Fellow?’
After the somewhat predictable ageist (“Pulse or no pulse?”) jokes had subsided, some great conversations transpired, with every delegate being challenged to provide their views and help to set the theme for the day.
Pammy generously gave us copies of her Fellowship exam reports from 1979, 1981 and 1982, which were very enlightening, while also showing that little has changed over the years.
Adam stated that the syllabus is the ‘minimum standard’ for the Fellowship. Candidates would be expected to be able to shine in their particular areas of strength.
“Don’t try to be what you think they want to see – be yourself,” was a recurring sentiment.
Four bold riders stepped up to ride young horses, swapping to ride two each. They then did the same with four experienced horses.
Where else would students get such an opportunity (and for such a nominal fee)?
Adam and Pammy gave advice, signposting riders towards improvement. Although there was no holding back, in this wonderful safe and supportive environment, tough corrections were delivered in a palatable and constructive manner. At this level no one wants to be soft soaped, but there has to be a clear direction for improvement.
Pammy advised the audience to “Watch as if you were a Fellow examining”.
Maggie Doel raised the pertinent question as to why in our exams we ride horses with no prior knowledge, when there’s nowhere else where you wouldn’t be given some background information before hopping on board?
Many agreed – and Pammy kindly then gave the riders a short brief on each horse before they rode them.
Adam advised the spectators “not to assume that the rider is as knowledgeable as you”. He challenged them to try to ascertain when each rider had finished their initial assessment and when they had started striving for improvement. With some it was very clear, with others, not so. A useful prism to view a rider through and, after all, one important question that the Assessor would be asking themselves.
A conversation ensued around the need for Assessors to ride the exam horses.
Adam believes that some people have the skill of being able to appraise a horse from the ground, but those folk are few and far between.
If the horses are ridden for those Assessors who don’t ride, we are dependent on competent riders who communicate effectively.
Adam states that in a normal training environment the advanced horses need 25 minutes for assessment and warm up before tackling the movements.
The riders were then asked to appraise their rides, which was generally done in a clear and succinct way. One clear message, though, was not to appear apologetic for your performance!
The second group of four riders then went through the same process with an entirely new set of horses and one that appeared unsound was immediately replaced with another equally suitable mount. Where do they all come from?!
Talland staff were unbelievably efficient in bringing beautifully-turned-out horses in and out, always ahead of time.
Tim explained from his judging position that if the horse is not working through its body, it’s a maximum of a 7, which prompted a discussion around a correct way of going.
Adam firmly believes that if a horse has ever been on the bit in its life, an I or a Fellow must be able to work it round and correctly. We must have them in front of the leg and on the bit!
Pammy: “I don’t need to see the half pass, I need to see him on the aids!”
“Was the horse’s body creating the contact problem, or was it purely a contact problem?” (Adam)
Inevitably, this gave rise to the question of Round, On the Bit and Working from Behind – you get the idea… but nothing beats pondering these thoughts with some of the best equestrian brains, the most curious students and quality horses working under our gaze.
Tim: “Be prepared to stay in walk to find the balance and connection.”
Pammy recommends that riders wear spurs on the advanced horses in the exam – “You can always take them off.”
Adam then pointed out that one rider had ridden well, but that he hardly noticed them when observing the session. He feels that candidates need a certain level of arrogance to stand out at this level (is that Showmanship?)
“Charlotte does everything better than everyone else, even mounting or holding the reins! I’d rather watch Charlotte on a loose rein on a 3 year old than a sloppy rider on a Grand Prix horse!”
“Do everything with awareness and standards.”
There is a concern that standards at the top level of dressage have improved in recent times, while the greater numbers in the middle and lower ranges have deteriorated.
He suggests that part of the cause may be the change from sport governing bodies to business models.
One rider mentioned that they felt a particular horse was their ‘type of horse’. This is felt to be an inappropriate statement for a prospective Fellow, as Fellows must be sufficiently versatile to accommodate all types of horse… gentle slap on the wrist from Adam!
Another useful tip was not to appraise your ride as if you’d just given yourself a riding lesson (the assessor will decide). You are assessing and improving the horse.
Becky Monk (the organiser of the day) had listened to feedback from last year and arranged the afternoon coaching sessions as three simultaneous lessons, each with a guinea-pig rider, overseen by one trainer each – Adam, Tim and Islay, with Pammy (whose voice was beginning to struggle by this time) floating between and whispering (!) encouragement and advice to each group.
This enabled smaller study groups of spectators for each lesson. A really positive initiative.
Islay was determined that coaches must teach to the level, be prepared to “push the envelope” and take some risks.
She was also bold enough to say whether she saw the lesson as being up to the standard, or not – with well-argued reasons – and was clear where each candidate could improve. Incredibly helpful.
Adam inadvertently raised the old chestnut of teaching versus coaching by suggesting that the coach (who was more experienced than their rider) should ‘ride the horse from the ground’ to help the rider to feel the quality required – in this case the canter for the pirouette. There was a light bulb moment for the rider as a result and the lesson immediately went to another level.
Tim used the opportunity to explain his theory of the Performer and the Educator. The performer might fall to a poor halt at X, then pick the horse up to repair the balance and ride their heart out for the next movement. The Educator might take the horse on to a circle, spend a few minutes schooling for better balance, then re-present for a better halt.
It’s pretty clear which one would score better in competition and which one would improve the horse in the long term.
The ideal for us, as coaches, is a healthy ability to move from one type to the other, according to the circumstances. Most of us, though, lean towards one or other system according to our experience and nature.
One reflection was how fortunate we were at Talland to have guinea-pig riders on hand who were able to give good quality and realistic feedback, which may not always be the case. Sometimes the coach may have to dig deeper.
That’s my snapshot of an encyclopaedic day of learning and sharing ideas in the classic F&I ‘Safe Space’ environment, where people are encouraged to test out ideas, form opinions, modify accepted practices and dip toes in fresh waters.
Thank you F&I for another gem; thank you to Becky Monk for organising; thank you to the Talland Team for your hard work, endless patience and good humour; and thank you to Adam Kemp, Pammy Hutton, Islay Auty and Tim Downes for your wisdom, generosity, open mindedness and the occasional hilarious moment (well, if you weren’t there, you missed it… next time perhaps?)
Please add and amend and anything that I’ve misquoted or missed out, if you were there – it’s a lot to take in.
Danny Anholt