Why classical German principles beat Natural Horsemanship (and where both need to evolve)
Let’s talk about a fundamental divide in the horse world that often gets masked by marketing: The German Scale of Training (Skala der Ausbildung) vs. Natural Horsemanship (NH).
When you peel back the layers of both systems through the lens of modern hippology, equine biomechanics, and learning theory, you see two completely different worldviews—and some major blind spots in both.
1. The Scale of Training: Biomechanical Mastery (Without explicit "Agency")
The Skala der Ausbildung was built as an objective, biomechanical blueprint to turn a young horse into a sound, athletic, and long-lived riding horse.
The Good: It understands the physical horse better than almost any system ever created. You cannot jump straight to Collection (Versammlung) without Rhythm (Takt), Relaxation (Losgelassenheit), and Contact (Anlehnung). The physics of carrying a human rider demand this sequence to prevent physical breakdown.
The Gap: Historically, the Scale of Training is a purely physical and biomechanical roadmap. It does not explicitly account for agency—giving the horse cognitive choices, opt-out signals, or utilizing Positive Reinforcement (R+). It assumes the human sets the parameters, and the horse’s job is physical compliance (even if achieved softly).
2. Natural Horsemanship: Pseudoscientific Foundations & Biomechanical Sabotage
NH rose to prominence by promising a "natural" connection based on how wild horses communicate. Modern ethology and equine behavioral science have thoroughly debunked these foundational claims—there is no "alpha leader" constantly driving herd mates around in nature.
Beyond the pseudoscientific "dominant herd leader" narrative, NH practices are frequently diametrically opposed to sound equine biomechanics.
Case Example: The Constant Direction-Change in the Round Pen / Lunge Line
A classic NH exercise involves sending a horse around a circle, stepping in front of their drive line, turning them into the fence or micro-managing rapid direction changes to "claim their space" or "get their attention."
From a biomechanical standpoint, this is a disaster:
Destroys Rhythm (Takt) & Relaxation (Losgelassenheit): A horse requires time and spatial continuity to establish a steady tempo, drop its neck, release the back muscles, and find a rhythmic gait. Constant direction changes keep the horse’s nervous system in a state of high arousal and physical deceleration/acceleration.
Torques the Joints: Forcing a horse to rapidly spin or turn back on a tight circle without prior bent preparation puts severe shear force on the hocks, stifles, and distal limb joints.
Inverts the Topline: Because the horse is reacting defensively to pressure blocking its path, it hollows the back, raises the head, and bracing replaces real longitudinal stretch.
The Synthesis:
Where Modern Horsemanship Must Go
If we want truly ethical, high-performance training, we don't need to invent a new "guru" system. We need to marry the best of both worlds:
Keep the physical rigor of the German Scale of Training. Respect the time it takes to build a back, establish rhythm, and cultivate biomechanical balance. Reject ground exercises that break up the gait and cause joint stress under the guise of "getting respect."
Upgrade the psychological framework with modern Learning Theory. Fill the historical gap in the German system by explicitly integrating agency, clear pressure-releases (R-), and positive reinforcement (R+).
When a horse is given the cognitive agency to process questions and is trained according to sound biomechanical principles, you get a horse that is physically sound, mentally confident, and truly relaxed.
How do you handle ground preparation with your horses? Do you see these biomechanical conflicts in popular ground-work exercises? Let’s discuss below!
I have attached my summary about both training methods for you to download and read