IN Depth Analysis Of The Traditional Training Scale:
- Isaac Ares
Why It May Lead to Unintended Consequences and How It Could Be Re Envisioned from a Modern, Ethical, and Functional Perspective
The First Step: “Rhythm” A Conceptual Priority That May Require Reevaluation
Placing rhythm as the starting point can contrast with ethological and neurophysiological principles that govern equine movement.
Rhythm, understood as fluid, stable, and repeatable coordination, arises naturally from a state of internal regulation rather than from imposed activity.
Before rhythm can emerge organically, the horse needs:
Clear communication: signals that are understandable, consistent, and predictable.
Emotional calmness: absence of fear, anxiety, or hypervigilance.
A sense of safety: trust in the environment and in the aids; a sense of control and anticipation.
In many training approaches, horses are encouraged to "move their legs" before these prerequisites are fulfilled. This can result in horses that appear active but show signs of:
Internal acceleration
Sensory disconnection
Obedience based on avoidance
Hypervigilance under pressure
Ethological observations suggest that a stable motor pattern only arises when the nervous system is calm. When horses operate in a sympathetic state, their bodies may exhibit:
Dorsal stiffness
Thoracic immobility
Cervical tension
Disrupted diagonal coordination
This is not functional rhythm; it is defensive movement.
Beginning with movement before establishing emotional balance may lead to:
Signal confusion
Escalating pressure
Persistent tension
Physical and cognitive resistance
Functional gymnastic training requires a regulated nervous system. Otherwise, the wrong muscle chains (e.g., brachial triceps, neck flexors, lumbar extensors) are recruited, counterproductive to the development of a carrying posture.
A Suggested Functional Order:
1. Communication
2. Calm
3. Regularity
4. Rhythm
Only then can concepts like contact, impulsion, straightness, and collection be fully and ethically developed.
The Concept of “Submission”: A Cultural and Semantic Misunderstanding
Though not formally listed in the official Training Scale, the term "submission" has gained strong cultural traction in the equestrian world.
This may stem from:
a) Linguistic Interpretations in Historical Regulations
Originally, the term was used to assess:
Acceptance of the aids
Absence of resistance
Willingness and mental availability
It was meant as a judging criterion, not a training phase.
However, tradition based instruction often blurred this into an unofficial "training step."
b) Ethological Implications
In behavioral science, "submission" refers to:
Behavioral inhibition
Conflict avoidance
Reduced initiative under pressure
This does not equate to cooperation, engagement, or understanding. Despite this, it was historically congruent with dominance based training models.
Common phrases such as "He needs more submission" or "He hasn’t submitted yet" have normalized an interpretation rooted in compliance rather than communication.
Emotional Suppression Misread as Training Success
A horse showing signs of:
Retracted neck
Sunken back
Tense poll
Passive jaw
may be perceived as "accepting contact" or "ready for collection," when in fact these are often indicators of emotional withdrawal.
Such horses may:
Collapse through the chest
Disconnect the dorsal chain
Compensate with neck use
Move with visible restriction
Rather than promoting progression, this state may hinder true development.
Reframing Contact
Contact should not be introduced before communication and calm. When it is, the bit may become a source of pressure, prompting reactions like:
Neck flexion to avoid the bit
Hyperflexion
Artificial "on the bit" posture
Authentic contact is defined by:
A free poll
A lifted back
Hindquarters reaching toward the center of gravity
Cervical stabilization through deep muscle chains
Phrases like "push into the hand" or "fill the rein" can result in:
Thoracic rigidity
Rein dependency
Loss of self carriage
True contact emerges from dynamic balance, not as a means to enforce it.
Structural Concerns: The Scale as a Linear Manual
Horse learning is non linear. It occurs in loops, spirals, and cycles.
Treating the scale as a rigid, sequential ladder can lead to:
Normalized tension
Control based responses
Emotional disconnection
Image driven training
Biomechanical compromise
A Proposed Reformulation Based on Modern Science and Ethical Principles:
1. Communication
2. Calm
3. Regularity
4. Rhythm
5. Contact
6. Impulsion
7. Straightness
8. Collection
Conclusion
The classical scale, as commonly applied, may reflect outdated translations and assumptions that don’t align with modern understanding of horse behavior and biomechanics.
Re envisioning the scale is not about rejecting tradition, but about refining it to better serve the horse’s emotional and physical integrity.
True collection arises from calm, not control; from understanding, not suppression. It is the result of harmony not hierarchy.
Isaac Ares
https://www.youtube.com/@isaacaresdressage
Legal Disclaimer and Statement of Intent
This document presents a technical and reflective analysis of the International Training Scale within the context of equestrian practice, specifically Classical Dressage. Its purpose is to contribute to a constructive dialogue, offer a critical perspective grounded in current biomechanical, ethological, and neurophysiological principles, and propose alternatives that align more closely with the ethical and functional well being of the horse.
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are based on professional experience, scientific research, and practical observation. They are not intended to discredit any individual, institution, or tradition, but rather to provide a technical and ethical framework aimed at fostering a more conscious, healthy, and sustainable approach to equestrian training.
This analysis should be understood as a professional interpretation made within the bounds of freedom of expression and critical thinking in educational, artistic, and scientific contexts. Any reference to traditionally accepted concepts is made with respect and with the intent to promote knowledge evolution, not personal or institutional confrontation.