>>On 01/03/07, Judy Ryder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why do you say he's on >>the forehand?
>>>> To my eye, he looks like he is. What do you think? Not bad though, but >>>> still on the forehand. Gee, I wonder about Gusti's walk...maybe I'll get >>>> a video of him to compare to. I don't even think about things like that with horses so young, and just starting in their training. It certainly didn't jump out to me that he is. I'd have to ask the same thing Judy did - why do you think so. I think of "on the forehand" as being one of those "degrees" things, like collection. Sure, we don't want a horse who's been under saddle for a while to be heavy in our hands, hitting the ground hard in front. But how much "off" the forehand does a good trail horse need to be? Do we even all use the same definition of the term? I know what I think of being on the forehand meaning - my old QH was the very definition of strung out and on the forehand when I got him. Didn't matter to his ability to be a safe, dependable horse though. Once he and I bonded, we went to work on it...but that was back when I had a more serious interest in dressage, even thinking I might someday have a horse suitable for showing. (Not going to happen...) I think Sundance had a pretty extreme case of being on the forehand - he WAS a classic QH, even shown a little local-level w/p in his early days before I got him. He was SO on the forehand that it affected his ability to canter smoothly, etc. I don't see many horses as extreme as he was though. Karen Thomas, NC -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date: 2/28/2007 4:09 PM
