Hyperflexion

I am yet to see a sincere, well-worded and biologically sound argument for the use of hyperflexion in training horses.

The name itself is cloying enough to turn the stomach. At what point does the word "hyper," accompanied by a reference to the horse's musculature, suggest anything other than stress and strain on the animal? By definition it is excessive and painful. In reality it is these things and more.

As far as I can see, the basic premise of stretching a horse to such a ridiculous extent is to open up the back muscles, hyperextend the neck and to also encourage the horse to work up and under the rider. There are also issues of submission and dominance coming into play. However, the basic anatomy of the horse reveals that all of the above ideas are complete nonsense.

If the horse's neck is bent to such a horrific degree, chin stuck on its chest, then this move is inherently counterproductive. The back is being blocked, not lengthened. Energy and impulsion that should be transferred through the back muscles and through the length of the horse's frame is trapped in the shoulders, rather than pushed out and lengthened through the neck. These horses are not being taught to power along: they are jacked-up, held in, and invariably, in excruciating pain. What is even more inexcusable is the fact that highly esteemed, world champion dressage riders regularly utilise this method of "flexing" their horses.

Phillipe Karl has much to say on this subject and I am inclined to agree with his classically-founded and scientifically evidenced approach. If a horse is critically bent in the fashion demanded by hyperflexion or rollkur, then the horse is not only in pain, partially blind and being forced into a frame that actually tears the muscles that it seeks to "flex," but the rider is demonstrating the worst kind of ignorance for their partner's welfare.