Which is better?

[Wally]

In general, which makes for the better horseman?

A person who sticks to one sport/equestrian discipline or someone who is well versed in the basics and up to fairly well advanced level in several things? maybe 2 or 3 to an intermediate level?

Is it a bad thing to put all your eggs into ine basket?

[kedwards]

I thought I had an answer, but the more I've pondered the question, the more I realized I can't really answer it.

I do think that breadth of experience is admirable and desireable. A person with broad experience may be in a better position to teach people with varied interests, to bring along horses who may go on to different futures, and to understand how what they do fits into the larger world of horsemanship. Among other things, broad experience can help to avoid parochial views.

On the other hand, there is something sublime and transendental about the true "best of the best" in any specific thing. Their existence awes, inspires, and sets an ideal. We may not aspire to that goal, but their presence at least allows us to visualize what can be achieved and paves a path by which others can achieve it.

[Eli_Jay]

I agree with kedwards, the more experience you have had in different fields of horse related sports, the more you understand horses on a whole and the more apt you are to dealing with them.
Saying that, I've only ridden western once in my life and stock twice. I do ride bareback with a halter occasionally and take part in alot of 'english' type sports (games, poloX etc) but mostly i do eventing.
I guess its not ideal only focusing on one area, but eventing does comprise of XC, SJ and dressage, so there is variety in there of the horse as well as the rider.

[Just.Jump]

Horsemen come in any form. Some horsemen are fantastic when it comes to the dynamics of breeding, whereas maybe they can't ride anything properly off the trails. I think it's more of being a horseman in your section of horses, wether thats int he riding or non-riding category. There are two types of riding, english or western, and those hold alot of different venues in themselves. To be a good horseman, you can be either IMO. I would say I'm fairly alright in western, but I'm just beginning english. If you call bareback a different style than either western or english, then I'm most adept at that area, but my style has clumped english and western together.

Basically, to me, being a good horsemen means you don't have to bully a horse to do something, you can get on just about any horse, and you can try just about anything and still come out alive! A good english rider should be able to give western a go and the other way around, a SJ person should be able to do some dressage, etc. Some people are only focussed on one thing, like they started riding, and what they did from that time on was jumping lets say. Their good at their 'sport' but maybe they can't get on a dressage horse and do a half pass. I think regular riders can surpass olympic riders just because their more versatile. The more versatile, the better!

[Bay Mare]

I don't see a good horseman as being just about the riding. A good horseman to me is someone who is well versed in all aspects of horses and horse care.

My dressage trainer is a good horseman, he does mostly dressage now but has evented in his youth. He has bred and brought on horses to a high standard. He is excellent in all aspects of horse care.

My old dressage YO is a good horseman (woman), she did jumping to get through her BHS stages but is mainly a dressage rider. Again she has excellent knowledge in all aspects of horse care.

My old RDA YO cannot ride any more due to a back injury but she was competent to a fairly high level in a lot of fields (dressage, jumping, side saddle). Her care knowledge is second to none. She is a good horseman.

Someone else that I know is an excellent dressage rider but doesn't do squat with her horse. Her care is practically non-existant, she has someone do all that for her. I don't call her a good horseman.

[chev]

I'm not sure you can answer that one. I think the person who has more than one discipline is usually going to be more versatile, but if your interest lies exclusively in one discipline and you do that well - I don't think you are any less a good horseman.

And then there's those of us who don't really achieve much success in any discipline because we don't have ambition and don't compete! - does the fact that we don't work at a particular level mean we're not good horsemen?

I think the key is in how well you work with your horse, and how well you understand your horse, rather than how many discplines you take part in and at what level.

[Cheko]

I agree entirely with Chev. I dont do anything much with Falcon, schooling and hacking round the fields. We enjoy that. I'm at an age now and have been riding horses long enough to say, 'Been there, done it and got the t-shirt' so to speak. Just happy to hack Falcon round the fields now and do a bit of schooling with him. Just dont feel the need to be doing anything else with him. He's certainly not complaining. But, before anyone says, it's a waste of a good pony, actually it's not because he doesn't know there are other things he could be doing. Everyone has their own way of enjoying their horses. The main question is, do the horses enjoy doing what their owners ask them to do?

[eml]

Not sure that you can judge a horseman by what they do as so many other factors intervene.

I think I am a good horseman by the way horses react to me but know that these days I am not expert at doing anything because of age/minor infirmity etc.

I think that several people on this board including yourself are horsemen as your understanding shows through in your posts