Trigger a cowboys mount, or the horse below who was a 12th Calvary Officer's mount. Good or bad? Can you tell the difference? Or are they right, the public can't tell the difference?
Friday, June 20, 2008
It is suggested that the public can not tell a good horse from a bad horse. Let's put that to the test.
Posted by
Wade G. Burck
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Wade - I guess that would depend on what you mean by a good or bad horse. Trigger was a movie star, flashy and pretty, which is what the public looks for. However, he was also a good working horse. I read somewhere that Roy said he never took a false step. He was well trained and suited for what he did. Would he be a good horse in another environment? Maybe, maybe not. As for the cavalry horse, he did not need to be "pretty". He needed to be sound, well trained, and dependable. Would he fit as a movie star horse? Probably not, but could be used as an "extra" in group scenes such as a cavalry charge. Would you take him to a horse show and put him in a halter class? Well, no. But, I have no use for halter horses either. What good is a horse that can just stand at the end of a lead rope and look pretty? Halter classes were supposed to show correct conformation for a good working horse, but that is just not the way it is these days.
So, I guess good or bad just depends on who is looking and what they are looking for.
Jeannie
Jeannie,
Oh brother!!!! Both animals doing high school or liberty in a ring surrounded by people with all attention focused on them. Could the people tell the difference between quality and dog food. My contemporaries always try to convince me that the public can't tell the difference between a 1000 dollar Arab, and a 10,000 dollar Arab. Or the difference between a 5000 dollar Andulusion and a 50,000 dollar Andulusion, and I think you can.
Wade
here is roy with some good horses: http://www.happytrails.org/_images/trigger/11-sm-Illustration%20Photo.jpg
the definition of 'good' meaning, among other things, 'still in the ring'.
Rambly,
I don't know who you are, and some may whine because I let you on, but that is a great site you offered that I was not aware of. Thank you so much for sharing it. Come back often, and contact me at wburck3@aol.com and introduce your self and you are welcome to use Rambly.
Regards,
Wade
Never mind the audience, some circus trainers don't seem to be able to tell the difference. It might be a money thing, after all who has the cash to lay out 10 grand a piece to put together a 6 horse act?
It is a bit unfair to expect the same from an act on a show like Ringling as a smaller tent show. A run of the mill horse that has been properly fed, groomed, trained and harnessed can still be satisfactory in the ring - in my opinion.
A band that plays clubs has just as much place in the music world as a mega stadium rock band.
Ian
Ian,
Who would want to even carry hay to a 10,000 horse. I love a good horse with all my heart and soul because I have learned what a good horse is. If you ever meet Madame Col. Olds Rossi he will tell you how much I love a good Arabian. I will train a good one for free, just be have the chance to put my hands on him, and breath his air. But you will have to pay me a lot to train the 5,000 horse depending on what you want him to to.
And you are mistaken about the music analogy. Although the name Circus may be all encompassing, like "musician" when we say Snuffy Smith and the Happy Fiddlers are appearing at Bobs Supper Club the world knows it is not the same thing as Bill Monroe and the Blue Grass Boys appearing for one night at Radio City Music Hall. The differences are instantly recognized. If you go to an Elvis Impersonators conventions you will see and hear some great singers who look like and sound like, but they are not. That's a fact. If you go to Europe and say Knie or Krone they know you are not talking The Happy Time Cirque although they use the same identifying word Cirque.
Wade
Yeah, but in every field of endeavour, whether it be art, music, cooking, or circus there is every level of skill. I don't think the audience in the seats at the show set up on the town ball park expects the same thing as the audience at the Spanish Riding School. In the days when I went to circuses I was occasionally surprised and entertained by small shows without much in the way of skilled performers.
Though not a world class trainer myself, I have an eagle eye when it comes to recognizing tiny things that would be un-noticable to the average circus goer. It seems that that is what sets the greats apart from the average. Taking months to achieve a trick that takes 30 seconds to perform regardless whether or not it is recognized by the uninformed. I really admire that type of personal pride in accomplishment.
But, when it comes to animals in the circus, big or small, there is no excuse or compromise when it comes to the animal's physical and mental well being. If you don't have the time, money or equipment or skill to provide the proper enviroment for animals, then you shouldn't have them. Likewise, if you can't train a particular trick or species without aversive means, then that animal doesn't belong in the circus.
Ian
Ian,
They are not wanting to close down the Spanish Riding School because of those clowns in the city park. Speaking of which, I don't recall that "little thing riding the big horse" being a standard at the Riding School. If it was do you know what kind of crap they would be doing, and trying to pass off as classical dressage. I will say again, what is the standard. The "little thing chasing the lions or big Charlie Baumann rolling over 6 tigers? Handsome Gunther walking 2 tigers on their hind legs or the cutie wagging her finger and shaking her head no, when an animal refuses a simple behavior like a sit up. Or the good looking young man sitting up one lion and making it "clap", or short Dr. Marcan sitting up 16 animals?
Wade
Yes, I know, but the mirror ball sit up gets as much or better response as the hind leg walk, so it goes back to the circus as entertainment. Can't you have the mirror ball AND the hind leg. I've read you saying that you don't consider the lay down a trick, but it certainly must take quite a bit of time to achieve, doesn't it? And the audience seems to like it, so what's wrong with a lay down presented as a trick?
If you presented only those tricks that are admired by other trainers and ignored the audience favorites, what would you gain beyond personal satisfaction?
I imagine that European audiences must be a bit more knowledgeable, because from the film I've seen there are very few announcements for big tricks. Contrast that to Mexico, where the running commentary makes pointing a toe seem like a the greatest trick on earth. America seems to be something in between.
Ian
Post a Comment