05/18/2026
Superbe Article by Elizabeth Uhl. DVM, PhD, DACVP. The approach is abundantly used and taught in the Science of Motion's courses
Thoughts on Dynamic Synchrony vs Mechanical Technique
Horses are our dance partners, in the sense that our goal is to make our combined movements easy, beautiful, efficient, effective and healthy. To do this mechanical technique and dynamic synchrony of forces must be perfected. While both are important, they are very different. Mechanical technique is quantifiable and reductionist. It involves postural things such as position of the head, neck and back, placement of the legs, angles of joints etc. that can be measured. It is what equitation has traditionally been based upon. In contrast, dynamic synchrony is about the qualitative features that make movement beautiful, powerful and efficient. Easily recognizable, both by sight and feeling – even by non-horse people, the qualitative features of movement, for which biotensegrity provides an explanation, include the ease or floating like quality of how movements are connected together as well as the feeling of easily directed and controlled power. Traditional biomechanical considerations are focused on the geometry of motion (i.e.: kinematics) but not the forces that create movement, which are very hard to measure. While such a focus can identify kinematic conditions that enhance dynamic synchrony (i.e.: slowing the motion and improving balance), too much emphasis on the geometry of movement can inhibit the development of dynamic synchronization, which requires the focus be on how the forces that create movement are being managed.
It is mastery of these forces (dynamic synchrony) that sets great dancers and riders apart from others who may be technically correct but lack the ‘magic’. Dynamic synchrony is thus the gold standard that directs technique, as it determines which postures/exercises will enhance force management and which are inhibiting and likely damaging. It is a fundamental mistake to think that the beauty of dynamic synchrony can be created by simply trying to fit a horse and rider to a set of standardized kinematic, and mechanically reductionist criteria. The reality is the opposite is true: forcing such a one-size-fits-all standard will cause the horse, and potentially also the rider, to break down. The reason is obvious: horses and riders are not machines; they are highly individualized living organisms that move and interact with each other and the environment through the unique ways forces are generated, managed and interact.
Practically this means that which exercises and movements should be used is determined by whether they improve or inhibit the dynamic synchrony between a specific horse and trainer. For example: as Jean Luc has pointed out, the usefulness of shoulder-in is determined, not by fitting a horse to an arbitrary geometrical angle, but whether the exercise enhances or inhibits ease of movement in real time. Similarly, how long a horse should stay in a gait or how much a horse should bend its thoracic spine is determined in real time by whether the movement gets easier or harder. Determining when to continue versus stop doing an exercise is challenging, as an exercise that does enhance dynamic synchrony can be difficult and thus resisted when first applied. However, if the horse (or trainer) is becoming tense and stressed to the point that increasing as opposed to decreasing force is being used to do the movement it is time to stop and try something else. A focus on enhancing dynamic synchrony, the conditions of which are always changing, also makes it easier to understand why an exercise is useful one day but not the next. In contrast a strict kinematic perspective will lead to a trainer clinging to an exercise because of its theoretical benefits even if the horse indicates doing the exercise is generating painful and damaging forces. Dynamic synchrony also puts as much, if not more emphasis, on how the rider is managing forces, as opposed to what the horse is doing ‘wrong’. At Jean Luc’s last clinic, he focused on the rider’s dynamic synchrony, and the result was the horses’ issues were corrected as well if not better than when the emphasis was on what the horse was doing. This should not be a surprise as the ultimate connection between a horse and a rider is a dynamically synchronized dance between two equal partners, not a one-way forced obedience test.
Focusing only on mechanical technique will inhibit dynamic synchrony. In contrast, an emphasis on dynamic synchrony will identify the most effective exercises for a specific horse and rider in real time.
So how do you tell if you are too focused on mechanical technique versus dynamic synchrony? A few questions I have found helpful: 1) Am I focused too much on correcting the horse and judging the success of my correction by a reductionist metric (i.e.: angle of the body, position of a leg)? 2) How am I reacting to the forces generated by the horse’s movement - am I statically resisting them or dynamically directing them? Am I overreacting to them? 3) Most importantly how much attention am I giving to how forces are being managed in my body? Repeatedly, I have found that if I first dynamically synchronize the forces to produce the quality of movement I want in myself, the less I have to correct my horses as they will immediately match me.
Finally, just as dancers can be dynamically synchronized while doing very different movements, being in dynamic synchrony with a horse does not require that we match the geometry of their gait - which is a physical impossibility given we have 2 legs and they have 4. While we can geometrically match the movement of their front legs at the walk and a slow trot, it is not essential to being dynamically connected. In the picture of me lunging Bentley, we are dynamically in sync, but the geometry of our movements is very different - he is doing a flying change. See less
