While the definition of a Baucherist may depend on who you talk to, the most recognizable cornerstone of Baucher’s philosophy is “hand without leg and leg without hand.”
In certain circles (of folks not flatwork), the very name Baucher will stir up controversy, as it has for a hundred years or so. That’s what happens when you make a big deal out of what you believe (Baucher’s First Method) and then change your mind later (Baucher’s Second Method). Just ask David Stockman, the Reagan Budget Guru turned Liberal Pundit.
As a self-proclaimed Baucherist, I believe there are sound reasons for the “hand without leg and leg without hand” philosophy. The first and most obvious is to make your desires clear to the horse, without conflicting signals (or aids). Put simply, if I ask you (the horse) to go forward (with leg aids), I won’t ask you to stop going forward (with rein aids).
What hangs people up, I think, is that it takes some time to be able to be proficient with your aids — to know what aids to use instinctively, to create an immediate response from your horse, and to release when the horse responds correctly. Until that time, you won’t be able to ride effectively as a Baucherist.
But everyone has to start somewhere, and “hand without leg” is a great place to start. Beginning riders are often taught this way. If instructors stayed with it, they might produce better riders. And if horses had their say, well…you know what I think already.
The good news is that as one’s riding progresses, hand without leg and leg without hand becomes easier, until the switching between them is so quick that it’s as if the hand and leg are being used simultaneously. That’s the path to lightness.
But back to Buck and his back-to-basics teachings on the hand and leg. His instruction is “learn to ride with your legs so your hands are more effective.” Learning to ride with your legs includes learning how to use them to create lateral as well as longitudinal movement as well as to do nothing at all. As he says, “If your legs are only gas pedals, way too much responsibility is in your hands and it will be hard for them to be soft.”
It turns out Buck also believes in flexions, another cornerstone of Baucherism. I promise to address that largely forgotten art in another post, so if you’re interested, be sure to check back.
To learn more about Baucher and his methods, I highly recommend the book Academic Equitation by General Decarpentry. I have yet to read Hilda Nelson’s Francois Baucher: The Man and his Method, which especially intrigues me given the use of the singular “Method” in its title. Since I am unlikely to purchase a copy anytime soon, as a used one starts at $499.99 (a ridiculous price on two counts), I will unfortunately have to wait. Have any of my readers gotten their hands on a copy?
Reflections on Riding 
I’ve been cogitating on this and I’m not sure if I really get it or not. I know that when Coriander was a super greeny and now that Gwen is a super greeny I tried/try really hard to only use one aid at a time so I didn’t/don’t confuse them. Eventually though, I try to get too complicated and end up applying more than one at a time- mostly with the reins. I’m good about releasing the leg aids but no so much with the hands.
LikeLike
It IS complicated! And not just greenies need the support of your hand, if only to know it’s there. So contact doesn’t go away. But aids are only applied if you’re asking for something.
It’s automatic for all of us to go to our reins — I think in large part because we think about directing what we can see, which is the head and neck of the horse. That’s why we need to feel the hind end and keep remembering to ride back-to-front.
That’s fantastic that you’re good about releasing the leg aids, and the release with the hands will keep getting better as you practice. Keep up the good work!
LikeLike
Dear Katie: Well you are absolutely correct about Buck Brannaman being a baucherist! More to the point Bill Dorrance one of Bucks most influential teachers was a self identified Baucherist.( though Dorrance didn’t use the label baucherist that i’m aware of) I say this because Dorrance freely spoke about using the books of both de Kerbrecht and Beaudant as one of the pillars of his method. Yes method. Now it may very well be that a lot of the natural horsemanship guys and gals will claim that what they do is somehow,’new,’ or unique. NH is of course far superior to the cruel and abusive german show system school which should be consigned to ash heap of history.But NH is really only slightly modified from Bauchers supplings and flexions with Vaquero tack. For example Ray Hunt another guru of NH and one of Brannamans teachers, spoke about disengaging or untracking the hindquarters as a foundation movement if you will for everything that is to follow- Buck Brannaman also wrote about getting the horse to step underneath and over with an inside hind leg in a forward to Dorrances book. And deKebrecht stated that the most important schooling movement is teaching the horse to step under and slightly over with the inside hind leg. And Mike Schaffer the High School trainer first teaches a lateral engaging step which amounts to the same thing. My point here is that ALL classical training sets about dealing with the problem of getting the horse to relax and be supple and collect so that the horse can redistribute his and the riders weight evenly. That is why the ancient Romans called the horse Equs from the root word equal. Any show system that does not advocate releasing the horse as soon as the horse responds to the riders request is inherently abusive. And release- as Anderson says is the horses paycheck. Freeing of the hand and leg- descente de maine descente de jambs is part and parcel of Baucherism, rewarding the horse for his willing co-operation. Bauchers method of jaw flexions- or as Debby Bennet calls it twirling the head is immediately followed by the trainers releasing ALL pressure- physical and psychological as a reward to the horse. I have found very little menthion of releasing the pressure on the horse- both physical and psychol;ogical- in the german show system literature. This is why Buck Brannamans teaching is much more of a worthy successor to Classical French High School of the school of Versaille than the German school is.
LikeLike
Bruce — Thank you for your wonderful and enlightening comments! We’d love to hear more from you!
LikeLike
Well thank you Katie for your generous statement. In the course of looking for a schooly I could buy I have been trying many horses, and finding that lots of people just don’t know how to ask the horse to bascule under saddle i.e. move with a lifted back in a weight carrying posture. It may be that the show system trainers out there under time pressure to produce a horse that LOOKS like its’ collected- head at the ramener- don’t know about the necessity to induce the horse to bascule. Bascule is needed so that the front legs of the horse aren’t overloaded causing unsoundness
down the road. It is simply the moral imperitive of horsemanship, not to mention good business sense because it greatly prolongs the useful life of our expensive investment the companionable horse who can teach us the proper way to relate to him-her.
Best Wishes
Bruce Peek
LikeLike
Yes, the position of the head alone will not help the horse resift its balance. Forcing the head to be at the vertical (and we often see it forced behind the vertical) usually goes along with a compression of the neck, thereby making it more difficult for the horse to raise the rest of its spinal column. Ultimately, using the head alone to “frame” the horse is an unsuccessful short-cut.
It’s also a completely unnecessary one. The horse must first learn to reshift his weight towards the rear and use the spring of the hind legs as primary propulsion. Once he does, the horse will naturally raise his back and flex his neck (this usually appears first at the trot, perhaps because it is the most symmetrical gait). This will often come with the slightest request or none at all.
Of course, first the horse must develop the necessary strength behind and the necessary suppleness in the neck and back. This takes some time. Then, delightedly, with the subtlest request of the hand (why good hands are so important) and a subsequent release (why release is so important), the horse will offer what can’t be forced and start to carry himself.
We see a similar phenomenon of “faux collection” reflected in the current popularity of the short-backed horse over the long-backed horse. The short-backed horse gives the impression that he is stepping underneath himself when he isn’t. The distance between front and hind legs is shorter only because of the shorter back, which allows a natural stride to appear more as an overstep.
Unfortunately, when the horse is asked to perform more advanced movements, the curtain is pulled aside to reveal that the Great Wizard of collection is nothing more than a horse with a short back and a forced rotation at the axis (or more commonly, the third vertebra).
This is often why riders stall moving from First Level to Second or Second to Third. The horse’s lack of training and proper muscular development often leads to greater forcing, rather than returning to fill in the holes in training — strengthening the hind end, suppling the neck and spine, and developing the mouth.
LikeLike
Racinet explains Baucher is a much better book then Academic Equitation.
LikeLike
Hi Nicole — That’s an interesting statement! While Racinet puts his own personal spin on things (to my mind, to a fault), certainly his perspective and analysis is interesting and well worth reading. I do find that General Decarpentry’s presents Baucher in a less personal context, and in the context of so many others –primarily D’Aure and L’Hotte but also Beudant, de Kerbrech, Fillis, Raabe, Steinbrecht and others — and that gives his presentation of Baucher’s work a depth and perspective that Racinet’s lacks. Beyond that, overall, I find it a vastly superior book with a broader scope. You have your opinion, and I have mine, and as they say, “that’s what makes horse races.” Having read, finally, Hilda Nelson’s book, which I was able to purchase affordably, I would recommend it highly as well.
LikeLike
I think that you will find Hilda’s book very informative. In my humble opinion it is worth the investment being a student of Baucher myself.
LikeLike
Hello David — Thank you!
LikeLike