|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 24, 2016 17:11:49 GMT
By no stretch is "agreeing to disagree" a meeting of equals - in that I completely agree.
For the sake of social niceties, I filter what I say to hopefully allow people to see my meaning and not be put off by what I say. That is a difficult thing for me, but I make the effort at least as far as talking about horses as a topic are concerned.
I don't care anymore if someone thinks that they are above me as far as horses are concerned. The horses tell me what I need to know
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Feb 25, 2016 14:55:12 GMT
It's not about anyone "being above" anyone. It's about respect. You expressed a judgment about an equestrian endeavor that goes back more than centuries. Polo deserves more respect than the dismissive comment that you made. Furthermore, in doing so, you were, I believe, in effect "being above" countless great horsemen.
I really dislike Morris and Parelli for their impact on horsemanship. Still, I have purchased their books and read them. We must, I believe, show respect for those who have committed their lives to the furtherance of horsemanship, even if their contributions contain flaws. I do not think polo deserves to be dismissed as negative based on a bit and a bridle by someone who has not played, or seen a game. In saying this, I am not placing myself above you as a horseman, but as a moderator. It's my job. I hope we can be friends.
|
|
|
Post by rideanotherday on Feb 25, 2016 15:31:20 GMT
It's not about anyone "being above" anyone. It's about respect. You expressed a judgment about an equestrian endeavor that goes back more than centuries. Polo deserves more respect than the dismissive comment that you made. Furthermore, in doing so, you were, I believe, in effect "being above" countless great horsemen. I really dislike Morris and Parelli for their impact on horsemanship. Still, I have purchased their books and read them. We must, I believe, show respect for those who have committed their lives to the furtherance of horsemanship, even if their contributions contain flaws. I do not think polo deserves to be dismissed as negative based on a bit and a bridle by someone who has not played, or seen a game. In saying this, I am not placing myself above you as a horseman, but as a moderator. It's my job. I hope we can be friends. I had to go back and re-read everything. I'm not sure where I wasn't respectful. Polo deserves the same respect I give to everything else, no more and no less. I know that it has centuries of history but history doesn't mean I want to engage in polo. I get to have an opinion, just as you do. A dissenting opinion isn't disrespectful. I'm not telling others not to engage in polo. I have stated that I'm not willing to AND why I'm not willing to. I support my opinions, not just state them. I understand that polo and the military seat are near and dear to your equine upbringing and you will defend them strongly, as you should. If anyone was disrespectful, take a moment to go back and read what you said about me and my horsemanship. "I believe that you, like my student, do not have the slightest grasp of what a horse can do, and thus can love to do. You have been coddled, protected and misled with regard to horses." That is dismissive and disrespectful. You do not agree with my opinion, which is completely your perrogative (sp?) However, to assume that I have no grasp of what a horse can do, that I have been coddled or misled, THAT my dear Horseguy is absolutely disrespectful and dismissive of 30 years of my blood, sweat, tears and money. Friends? I have no issue with discussion and disagreement.=)
|
|
|
Post by horseguy on Mar 3, 2016 17:54:37 GMT
I have been thinking about this and discussed the topic with rideanotherday. It's been a process, but I think I have learned something. Karen, my wonderful partner, also helped with an analogy of a chainsaw artist with a 8 1/2 hp, 20 plus pound chainsaw doing fine sculpture.
A gag bit, especially the polo rig set up with a ring gag, is a powerful instrument. You can make a real mess of things with both the ring gag and the big chainsaw, and when you do it happens very quickly. Also, the consequences of misusing both can be destructive and dangerous. But still, in the hands of the right "artist" it can be a tool of precision and sometimes beauty. The word refinement can mean different things in different contexts. Polo at the tournament level is a unique context of speed and power. It is, as Gen George Patton, a wonderful polo player and cavalryman, said, "the closest thing to war" on a horse, and Patton knew war.
The word refinement was used here and it generated an interpretation of the horse's perspective to the "warlike" use of the ring gag. The point was made that the use of the word refinement to describe such a harsh and powerful tool on a horse seems by definition incorrect and abusive would be more accurate. It can be abusive, along with many other abuses of horses in polo by the wrong hands, of which there are many. It is a foul to be abusive to horses in a polo game, and this is why I went through the process of becoming a certified US Polo Association Umpire. Of all the club polo games (sand lot) and tournaments I umpired over the years, I would have always rather been a player. But the Umpire's whistle is the only way to curtail abuse, which is why you find qualified but often reluctant players serving in that role. The vast majority of experienced players, regardless of nationality, care about horses (with the disclaimer of a horse "making the cut") and they protect from abuse as best they can.
Once a horse makes the cut and becomes a made polo horse, the sport protects them more than the players because they are players in our care. For example, the handicap system that adjusts for unequal teams in a game is based on ratings generally calculated 75% on the quality of horses and 25% on the players ability. The horses play the game just as the humans, and they are "in the game" (thank you John Madden).
One quick story. One time in a game I was riding a very good experienced polo horse, playing 4, the defender. The number 3 player took the ball up the 300 yard long field in a fast break. I was behind the 3 as his defender, should a lightning fast opponent horse come close to him and try to take the ball or bump him in order to make him lose the ball. I was running interference galloping forward, looking backward in order to block opposing players. There was an opponent closing in on us with a fresh TB (polo horses can be very, very fast. (I guy named Peter Brant played a horse that ran in the Kentucky Derby) so I was very alert to the rear, leaving my horse to follow my teammate. Then out of the blue and to my great surprise, my horse leapt forward and slammed into my teammate. My horse played defense and figured, incorrectly, that his job was to catch and bump the horse in front of him, my teammate (this, by the way, is evidence that horses are color blind. We had the same color shirts and the horse missed that important fact). You can image the words that came out of my teammate's mouth and at me as he lost the ball thanks to my horse bumping him hard at the gallop.
The point is that this horse loved the game and understood it. He just made a mistake that day. That's what it means when a horse is called a made polo horse. They are committed to the game as much or more than many players. They love it. They live for it. I had an old Appendix racehorse I played for may years, but had to retire him due to arthritis. He lived to be 38 after being retired at 16. We'd take him to games and let the kids ride him before the game and at halftime on the field when players would be warming up. Every time he heard the crack of the mallet on the ball, he'd look 10 years younger. It was such a treat for him. It is this level of understanding and commitment in the horses that allows, I believe, for the refined use of the ring gag rig in what I think is a non-abusive way. But yes, there are new players, or just jerks who misuse this bit out of ignorance or a character flaw, and that is abusive, which is why there are Umpires and rules.
A common generalization that may be true is that women are more sensitive than men. Polo by the 1990s was seeing more and more women on the field. There were new rule changes that testosterone found offensive, but the game began to evolve. For all I know, ring gags are now illegal, maybe. The game came from the British who learned it in India/Pakistan during the British Empire expansion. I think it was largely unchanged up until the 90s. But now I hope it is better, more refined. I haven't been to a game in many years. I'm a terrible spectator.
|
|