Talk:Canter and gallop

Posting

Posting the canter really does exist. Here is a forum thread all about it. --Una Smith (talk) 04:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another forum discussing posting the canter. --Una Smith (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another, Yahoo Answers Australia --Una Smith (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, you are screaming for perfect textbook sources at lead (leg), yet here you are shoving google and yahoo "anyone can answer" pages that are less reliable than wikipedia at us here. Double standard, dear. So whatever this polo player thing is, you should be able to show us a book on polo where it is described or advocated. As the answer at the Yahoo page said, "there is absolutely no use to posting at the canter." This belongs, if anywhere, in the polo article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article merits durable sources but this is a talk page. Posting the canter belongs in this article; it concerns cantering and it is not specific to polo. --Una Smith (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Find a suitable source, then. Citation is what it's all about. Montanabw^(talk) 16:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will restore the text and put a fact tag on it. --Una Smith (talk) 21:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might mention that I am also a frequent provider of Yahoo answers, just in case you wonder about their reliability! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 05:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 web forums where posting the canter is called "treading", but that usage seems to be very uncommon. Most polo players who do it call it posting. --Una Smith (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different issue and not even a moral question!

Sincere question: Would there be any wisdom to renaming this article something like "Canter and gallop?" My thinking is that there are some references to galloping, galloping doesn't have its own article (just its own section in horse gait) and you have pointed out that they are both in the same gait "family." Would entail a bunch of redoing of some wikilinks, but would be more logical. (Could also make both canter and gallop as redirects). Just a thought, maybe something we can agree on, for a change. Maybe... Montanabw^(talk) 06:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on Talk:Horse gait, I propose to create Leaping gaits ~~(link now a redirect to Jumping),~~ to include cantering, galloping, stotting / pronking / pronging / bucking, and leaping (quadruped jumping); also to refer to (else merge) Lead (leg) and Lead change. Much of the content of Canter applies only to horses and probably should be an article titled Canter (riding). Gallop (riding) could redirect to Canter (riding), except that much of the horse-specific content of Canter does not apply to galloping so I don't know that merging the two topics would be all that useful.

I am vehemently opposed to labeling a horse article "leaping gaits," because other than a few biomechanics sorts, no one else in the horse world will have a clue what you are talking about. (Since you raised the topic, I found an article by Dr Hilary Clayton that verified this classificiation, but the term is certainly not used to any great extent in the horse world, where "leaping" would be solely associated with jumping, in the eyes of the average horse person). If you created an article called "leaping gaits" that addressed dogs, cheetahs, and whatever else, with no real emphasis on horses and links to this canter article, the bucking article, etc., that would be within the scope of general animal locomotion, and not a problem with me, IMHO. BUT, as far as being horse-specific, while other animals do a galloping gait (dogs, cows, etc.) the canter is, to some extent, a human-trained version of the gallop that is somewhat horse-unique. There are also special considerations about the gallop in horses that we don't concern ourselves with in non-riding animals (the difference between a hand gallop, a racing gallop, etc.) Horses are also unique because we ride them, hence gait quality is more of an issue than for, say, a cat. I haven't paid a lot of attention to animal locomotion, but I am of the opinion that the horse articles need to stay horse articles and the aficionados of other animals can do their own. Montanabw^(talk) 03:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am equally opposed to the Balkanization of Wikipedia, with each aficionado group writing its own stand-alone encyclopedia. And it isn't even necessary. One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that with hypertext linking we can use unfamiliar terms without digressing into tangential definitions. I see a place for an article on Leaping gaits (horse), particularly since they include (er) leaping (jumping but not jumping). To me, Montanabw's response here illustrates precisely why Wikipedia should have Canter (gait) and Canter (riding): to separate the biomechanics from the equitation issues. I suggest Canter (riding) because most of the particulars of cantering apply primarily or exclusively to horses being ridden (not driven), but for a broader scope Canter (equitation) might work (if drivers accept equitation as including driving). Canter (gait) would still fall within the scope of WPEQ, plus be within the scope of other projects. --Una Smith (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is sort of a different issue and not what I was asking here. My point was merely to inquire if you were going to throw a conniption fit if I renamed this article, as it sits, Canter and gallop or something similar, throwing in the gallop material from horse gait and then more tightly summarizing both gaits there. I also fail to fathom how breaking canter into separate riding and gait articles is not in fact the same kind of "Balkanization" that you so dislike. In fact, while other animals "run" and "lope" I don't usually hear of any other animal cantering, as the canter is, essentially, a trained gait of sorts. But, obviously, because it was my idea, of course you insist we must do something different. Sigh. Montanabw^(talk) 05:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Posting canter

(Copied from User talk:Cgoodwin by Una Smith (talk) 23:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Do you have knowledge of posting the canter? As in sit a stride, rise a stride? See edit history on Canter and discussion on Talk:Canter. --Una Smith (talk) 20:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry I'm not not able to help on this, although I have noticed that it is fairly common among polo players. Cgoodwin (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there is a more technical name for it than "posting." Montanabw^(talk) 02:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm told that "posting" is an old technical name for rising to the trot, so presumably the same for canter? --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found 2 web forums where it is called "treading", but that usage seems to be very uncommon. Most polo players who do it call it posting. --Una Smith (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, we still call it posting (some people call it "rising") to the trot. Una, if treading is uncommon, I guess I'll go along with it, but see my edits in the article, so as not to confuse it with the far more common practice of posting the trot. Montanabw^(talk) 04:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And why have we hijacked poor Cgoodwin's talk page? Let's move this to canter. Montanabw^(talk) 04:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seat Bones in Half-seat and Two-point

Half-seat in canter or gallop
In a half-seat position, the rider's seat bones are lifted out of the saddle, and only the pelvis has contact.
.......
Two-point in canter or gallop
Two-point position is ridden similar to half-seat, except the rider's seat bones are off the saddle.

So after reading this I'm confused what's the difference between having the seat bones lifted out of the saddle and having the seat bones off the saddle? :D And I would appreciate if somebody could explain me the difference between seat bones and pelvis. --Antanas26 (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably need a human anatomy person to help too. Basically, it's a fussy difference. When you sit, you are square on your seat bones, spine straight, pelvis tipped slightly back (the opposite of a swayed or lordosis-looking position, half seat, your weight is mostly in your stirrups, you have rolled your hips forward and have swayed your back a bit to do so, but your butt LOOKS like it's still in the saddle, you've moved your seat so you sit lightly on the horse. . Then, in two-point, your butt is visibly out of the saddle. Here is a discussion of the difference, with photos. Some people say there actually is no difference between the two. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename proposal

For anyone currently watchlisting this article, what do you think about renaming this article to "Canter and gallop". We really should merge the two topics. Also wondering if we should merge the articles on leads and flying changes in here too, they are kind of content forks. Thoughts, anyone? Montanabw^(talk) 00:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

Does anybody care to uphold the most basic wikipedia policy that text in wikipedia aritcles must be referenced? -M.Altenmann >t 20:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older article that was created before the more rigorous sourcing requirements in use today, anyone who wishes to add source material to it is more than welcome to do so! Montanabw ^(talk) 05:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Canter and gallop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other languages

Other languages are not linked in correctly into this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.98.135.42 (talk) 01:19, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Gallop" should redirect to the dab page, not here

"Gallop" currently redirects here, even though many other animals gallop. I think it should redirect to Gallop (disambiguation) or to a general gallop page if and when it is created. 108.56.130.251 (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Inside" and "outside": definitions?

The article freely uses the terms "inside" and "outside" without defining them. What do they mean? And, would someone add the definition to the article? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]