From: GC.GGG@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gwyn Gordon)
Subject: Re: half pass vs leg yield (was flying changes)
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 17:14:35 GMT

In article <Bvr7vM.C5E@news.larc.nasa.gov>,
patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov (Patty Howell) writes:
>>
>>I got this from "Basic Dressage Handbook" by, uhhh, shoot, I can't
>>remember his name. Lundquist, that's it. And, yes, certainly I am

>Blue cover
> with a head shot of a grey horse? I long ago gave up trying to remember

Yes, this is the one.

>>My understanding of a half-pass was this:
>>
>>|
>>|
>>|\
>>|\   ^
>>|\   |  horse moving along rail with body straight
>>|\
>>|
>>|
>>|
>>
>>Correct me, please, I don't like to make fox paws to an
>>international audience.....


> The point about the haunches leading in a half pass is that to go sideways,
> they really don't have to engage their backend and *cross* the back legs.

> What you have described above is called a haunches-in movement. Except
> that I wouldn't use the term "with body straight." He is bent into the
> direction of movement slightly (head at wall, haunches on inside track)

Wait! Yes! That's what I meant! I have re-read the book and seen
the error of my ways. What I was mistakenly calling a leg-yield
is a half-pass.  Whatever the heck it's called, I use it as you say:
'bent in the direction of movement' slightly to make sure that the
weight IS NOT on the forehand.  I'm sorry if my first post didn't
explain this correctly, but in using the half-pass along with the
haunches-in, I have found that I can get green horses to understand
that 'leg' doesn't always mean 'faster.' I ease from the haunches-in
to the half-pass, because I think of the half-pass as a more
difficult movement that needs to be prepared for with the
haunches-in.  Like, build up the muscles and responsiveness with the
haunches-in, then slowly introduce the half-pass.  It's incredible
to feel them say to themselves, 'Oh!  This is hard (but hey, I'm
doing it!)."

> as apposed to a shoulder-in, where he is bent away from the direction
> of movement (forehand brought to inside track, hauches on rail)
> Clear as mud? I hate having to draw ascii art, too.

Yes, I get it. The whole 'bend' thing is what causes the
misunderstanding. It's not a question of bend, it's a matter of
where the horse's weight is, and whether they're engaged or not.
It's easy to get the wrong idea from just talking about bending.

SORRY I used the wrong turn. I will never forget (until tomorrow).

> because it tended to put a horse on his forehand. (Newcastle wrote that
> it *initially* tended to put a horse on his forehand, but that in time
> the horse learned to do the movement in good self balance). Apparently,

I wonder how long it took, and how he avoided the problem of horses
learning to balance on HIM. Is there any note of this?

> The point is that it is easy to misinterpret the written word...
> I must have re-read two or three of my favorite books on horsemanship
> more times than I care to admit. I always get something new out of them.
> patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov

Thank you for the correction. Now, if I can absorb the true meaning
and purpose (and difference) of 'leg yield.'

Bonk! Bonk! Bonk! (sound of head hitting against desk)

=gwyn
From: wendy@hpfcmgw.FC.HP.COM (Wendy Milner)
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:55:09 GMT
Subject: Re: Wanted: Calm Trailering Tips
Organization: HP Fort Collins, CO