Questioning the Clinic Format

If you've been following along for awhile, it should come as no surprise that I have a penchant for the occasional.... rant haha. Usually it stems from a place of striving for righteous justice, sorta. Or like, empowerment. Idk.

Mostly, I rant against what I perceive as external forces getting in the way of the normal, everyday amateur rider just trying to live their best horsey lives however they see fit.

pictured: me, living my horsey life

For example, who remembers my "Constructive Criticism v Public Shaming" rant?? Wherein a judge and "understudy" (apparently self-described, see below for details) trainer from within my local circle commented negatively on a friend's facebook post.

The post was simply a picture of my friend jumping what felt like an enormous square oxer, and she was enormously proud of it. Bc horses are exciting, right? And my friends and I firmly believe we should enjoy every HIGH moment we get, bc we all know there's always another low lurking around the corner.

Anyway, read that post for the full story, but essentially that judge/trainer/troll basically felt like my friend's position wasn't good enough, she wasn't helping her horse out, was basically sucking. And even after my friend took down her post out of sheer mortification, the trainer continued the conversation her diatribe on her own business page.

It.... made me really mad. Especially bc, even when you strip away my own personal connections to that specific instance, ultimately I felt like the trainer was straight up missing the point.

is getting runaway with also considered "not helping your horse"?!?

So when this same trainer/judge/person posted the below, all those same simmering feelings of indignation immediately boiled over again haha.

Now full disclosure: bc this person is part of my loose horsey circle, and a number of riders from this circle have been discussing entering and/or auditing an upcoming clinic with Phillip Dutton, I am making what seems like a not-illogical assumption that the below is in reaction to that haha. Of course it's entirely possible that it's also coincidental. Hardly matters, to be honest.

Anyway, she writes:

 

My thoughts? Well, there are many. Haha.

1. Finances. The writer claims to acknowledge that finances play a role in this, but seems to limit that influence to the clinic host, rather than the clinician themselves. Fact is, tho, lessons, instruction and, yes, clinics play a critical role in business development for professional riders.

They can be a relatively steady source of income in an otherwise turbulent volatile market of fragile horses, fierce competition, and fickle sponsors. They're also a great way to continue building a brand and suite of services. A positive clinic experience often leads to repeat customers and referrals.


2. Some clinicians might actually like teaching the basics. Look no further than Janet Foy. She's built an incredible clinic format called "Through the Levels" featuring a progressive two day curriculum that's just as educational for the auditor as it is for the rider. Riders must literally apply (I believe with VIDEO) to participate, the fees are high, and auditors pay too.

And? As the title suggest, ALL levels are filled for these clinics, including Training and First. Bc even tho Janet Foy is world class in every measurable aspect, she still recognizes that upper level dressage is rooted in correct basics developed and refined through the lower levels.

pictured: charlie don't need no damn basics! at least, not according to him lol

4. Since when are training issues + homework applicable only to UL riders?! You don't have to be jumping 3'6 to recognize that drifting over a fence is a problematic habit, for example. David O'Connor has developed a practically-canned clinic format that puts riders at all levels through the same "land in the circle" exercise. And guess what? Basically everyone struggles with it. (2017 recap here, and 2015 recap here)

Just bc that particular bad habit isn't likely to cause serious issues until riders start facing turning questions or skinny fences on course doesn't mean you can't start working on it earlier in the horse and rider's education.

And that's just one example. Sure, it's true that "understudy" trainers can similarly work through these training issues. But what's wrong with getting a fresh perspective from a clinician who might be able to better explain how these issues fit into the bigger picture.

Like when my lessons with dressage clinician Stephen Birchall basically served to give me glimpses of what the future could hold for me and Isabel. (incredible Isabel lessons here and here, less insightful lessons with Shen here and Charlie here)

training issues like not wanting to touchy the water can crop up at any time!

5. I fully agree that there ARE arguments against the clinic. Some of which maybe echo some of the above writer's thoughts. Clinics are expensive. And yes, you can often derive the same insights and outcomes at a lesser cost with a more "every day" style trainer.

For example, this is the exact reason I'm not likely to ever pay to ride with DOC or Boyd Martin after auditing them, when I could ride with Dan for a fraction of the cost. And yes, I totally recognize that I may feel the same way after observing Phillip Dutton teach.

Clinics also lack context. The format is characterized by clinicians teaching unknown horse and rider pairings, with very limited background. Some riders lie or exaggerate their experiences. Some horses have bad days. It can be risky.

Clinicians can minimize that risk by sticking to simplistic exercises (like Ralph Hill) or a pre-determined routine (like DOC), and others adopt more of a "sink or swim" attitude (Boyd Martin probably falls more into this category).

This can produce very real challenges and risks for a rider lacking in confidence, or a sensitive horse. It can also be problematic for the rider looking for a challenge, or the rider who entered the appropriate level who ends up feeling overlooked when the lesson is taken hostage by the struggling or unprepared rider...

Or. Ya know. Maybe you just really really REALLY don't mesh with the clinician and end up feeling like it was a waste of time. Or worse. This is always a possibility, as I learned all too well in that one fix-a-test experience...

None of this has ANYTHING to do with the idea that it's a "personal insult" to the clinician to bring a green or low level horse to a clinic, however.

who could ever be insulted by this cute mare anyway?!?

6. Because riding is a Base Heavy sport. It's a simple fact that there are many more riders and horses at the lower levels than there are at the upper levels. It's undeniably a bigger market.

Raise your hand if you currently or in the near future believe you and your horse can competently get around a BN course. I would bet money that virtually anyone reading this who jumps (even if you're new to it or dabbling!) might realistically feel this way. Now, same question, except the jumps are prelim height. Probably fewer of you are raising your hand, and fewer still are in the "my horse and I can do today" category.

Even without concrete statistics, it's not controversial to say that only a fraction of riders ever make it to the upper levels of any given horse sport. I'd go so far as to bet that roughly 3 in 5 (if not more) English discipline riders top out around 1st/2nd level dressage and ~3' jumping.

maybe this horse could have gone farther. we'll never know tho

The highest echelons of horse sports are made possible by the membership and participation of this base of low level riders. You can argue all you want that it's watering down the sanctity of the sports. That today's safe, quiet hunters in their 2'6 derbies are a far cry from the catty brave field hunters of days past. Or that re-configuring the FEI eventing levels to a 5* system, effectively introducing a lower (ie more accessible) FEI level, dilutes the value of achieving FEI status.

But. Eh. Personally, I don't feel that way. I feel that the sport is strengthened by inclusion and accessibility.

Besides, top level riders, educators, and decision makers in this sport recognize the critical importance of developing the pipeline of future riders. Considering US Eventing's latest round of soul searching following our repeated poor team performances and failure to qualify on the world stage, it's hard to argue otherwise.

this local circuit of unrated hunter shows was the highlight of my summers!

7. Anyway, tho, the most fundamental argument against the above writer's position is simpler than any of that. To me, it boils down to: What does means to identify as a rider at the low levels?

More specifically? What are the eligibility requirements to call yourself a "Rider" or a member of any particular sport? And who is enforcing that criteria? How good do you have to be before you're not considered a "waste of time" any more?

This thought process first entered my mind when Marilyn Little's repeated and ethically repugnant bloody mouth episodes exploded into the mainstream dialogue. Many immediately dismissed her as "not a real eventer anyway," which.... made me wonder what on earth that made *me* if even ML wasn't considered legit.

I'm not a USEA member, I've never ridden in a USEA recognized event. It's not clear if I ever will. I may never wear a watch while running a cross country course. I may never do a multi-day show, or travel farther than ~2hrs to a venue. Cantering around an unrecognized novice cross country course this past summer may as well have been Kentucky, as far as I'm concerned.

i just dare you to try telling this younger version of myself that i don't count as a "real" rider

8. And that's ok, right? In my mind, the typical single-horse adult amateur working a full time job should live their riding life as they see fit.

Which, realistically, means different things to different riders. In everything from taste in clothing or gear, choices about riding in weather or sub-optimal conditions, decisions on when and how often to lesson, and what degree of autonomy we maintain.

And yes: choices about whether we want to spend our hard earned dollars on a one-off lesson with some big name star in the equestrian world. A lesson that could mean a major breakthrough in training, or... ya know, not. I don't even care the motivation.

The writer above says that this should only happen for upper level riders looking for validation or to solve a specific problem. I feel differently tho. I think, if you want to, why not?

first: we conquer the pony ride! next? the world!!

The clinician is offering the lesson spaces presumably bc he wants them filled. If the lessons are marketed for "BN to Advanced," then... presumably BN riders are welcome.

I see no value in projecting any other eligibility requirements on that, or saying that my interest in riding with a world class professional is "insulting" to that professional if I'm not already riding at a high level. And, frankly, I reject that way of thinking and am immediately skeptical of anybody espousing that belief.

If you're thinking about entering a clinic? It's worth evaluating why. It's worth being practical about expectations and goals for a single lesson with a stranger, and about whether you can actually afford it or if the funds would be better used elsewhere.

If, after that thought process, you decide that, YES, you want to do it? Then have at it! That's what clinics are for - that is literally why they exist haha. So riders like us can pay a prescribed fee for this new experience and everything that comes with it: Like riding with different people! Experiencing a different style of teaching! Getting to check out a new venue! And hopefully walking away with more tools in your chest! And maybe pictures too!!

go riding! or the terrorists win!!

I mean, why else do we ride? What, exactly, is the existential purpose of riding in the year 2018? Like.... it's all kinda pointless anyway, right? We're here for the joy! The fulfillment! Bc ponies are awesome and it's a great way to enjoy a weekend! We certainly do not need some killjoy gatekeeper telling us we're not good enough or whatever, in the misguided hopes that maybe we'll decide to pay her for lessons instead lol....

And idk about you, but the idea of taking a lesson with Phillip Dutton or any other super star celebrity rider sounds hella more exciting than spending the equivalent on a new purse or whatever. Isn't "focusing on experiences" supposed to be the big new trend replacing consumerism anyway?

What about you - what do you think? Do you agree with my laissez-faire attitude towards riding in general, and clinics in particular? Or maybe you think there's a kernel of truth in the above writer's position? Has your opinion been colored by your own clinic experiences?