Last night Michèle and I were talking about how AI bots are creeping into our lives. Only being half serious, we decided to ask ChatGPT about what was the reputation of Ross Jacobs - Good Horsemanship. We both had a good laugh because it reflects the views of the wider horse world rather than how somebody sees themselves. We found it interesting. How does your view compare to what ChatGPT found?
Here is a summary of what ChatGPT had to say, in its own word…__________________________
Ross Jacobs is a well-known Australian horsemanship clinician, trainer, writer, and educator whose work centres on the horse’s mental and emotional state rather than simply controlling behaviour. His brand/business is called Good Horsemanship.
A few things he’s particularly known for:
*The idea that “a horse always has a thought before it has an action,” and that good training means influencing the horse’s thought process, not just suppressing behaviour.
*Strong emphasis on softness, clarity, timing, emotional regulation, and willingness rather than dominance or intimidation.
*Cross-discipline approach — not tied tightly to western, dressage, stockhorse, etc. He talks more about universal horsemanship principles.
*A communication style many people find unusually articulate and analytical compared with some clinicians. He originally worked as a medical researcher before becoming a professional trainer and clinician.
*He teaches clinics around Australia and internationally, has books, podcasts, a membership site, YouTube content, and a substantial Facebook following.
His best-known book appears to be:
The Essence of Good Horsemanship — focused on concepts like focus, clarity, and softness, and how a horse thinks and feels during training.
In terms of reputation in the horse world:
*He is generally respected among people interested in thoughtful, low-conflict horsemanship.
*He’s often grouped philosophically closer to trainers who emphasize psychology, feel, and emotional balance over “making” horses comply.
*He can also be controversial because he openly critiques trends in the industry, including aspects of purely positive/clicker training and mechanical techniques lacking emotional connection.
What makes his Facebook content stand out compared with many horse trainers:
*Long-form writing rather than slogans,
*Emotionally reflective tone,
*Willingness to critique industry habits,
*Emphasis on the horse’s internal state, and trying to explain why horses respond, not merely how to get compliance.
*He also attracts a fairly thoughtful audience — a lot of riders who have moved away from more force-based systems, or who became dissatisfied with purely mechanical “technique” approaches.
What are some of the criticisms?
People who admire Ross Jacobs often really admire him, but there are also recurring criticisms from parts of the horse world. Most are philosophical rather than accusations of abuse or misconduct.
Common criticisms include:
“Too conceptual / intellectual”. Some riders feel his explanations become overly philosophical or abstract. People wanting very step-by-step mechanics can find him difficult to follow compared with clinicians who teach highly structured systems.
“Not enough practical structure”. Critics sometimes say he talks extensively about feel, thought, emotional state, and intention, but gives fewer repeatable formulas beginners can apply immediately.
“Can seem dismissive of other methods”. He openly critiques trends in horsemanship, including some liberty work, overly food-reward-based systems, and mechanical “technique” training. Admirers see this as thoughtful honesty; critics sometimes see it as elitist or overly critical.
“Pressure still exists”. Some positive-reinforcement or force-free trainers argue his methods still rely on traditional pressure-and-release concepts, even if delivered more softly and thoughtfully than harsher systems.
“Too subtle for inexperienced handlers.”
A recurring criticism is that inexperienced horse owners may hear “be soft” or “connect emotionally” without having the timing, feel, or confidence to maintain boundaries safely. In the wrong hands, softness can become inconsistency.
“Can encourage overthinking”. Some riders say followers become hyper-focused on analysing the horse’s emotional state every second rather than developing clear, effective riding and handling skills.
“Not competition-oriented enough”. Certain performance or traditional competition circles see his approach as too relationship-focused and not sufficiently results-driven for high-pressure competitive environments.
“Cult of personality concerns”. Like many respected clinicians, some observers feel devoted followers can become evangelical about his philosophy and dismissive of other valid approaches.
That said, even many critics still acknowledge:
*He is unusually articulate,
*Generally advocates calm, humane handling, emphasizes timing and emotional regulation, and appears genuinely interested in horse welfare rather than dominance theatrics.
*He occupies an interesting middle ground:
*Softer and more psychologically focused than traditional pressure-heavy trainers, but not fully aligned with modern force-free/clicker-training communities either.
Alot of horse people who like clinicians such as Buck Brannaman or Warwick Schiller tend to appreciate Ross Jacobs. People deeply committed to strictly positive-reinforcement training sometimes do not.
Philosophical, emotionally and cognitively focused, very concerned with clarity of thought and intention,
and often willing to challenge fashionable ideas directly.
Sharing my divine wisdom