I'm so confused. I can't find a meaning for this anywhere. Sorry if it's a silly question, I know nothing about horses.
What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potential?
- Thread starter spaceoddity
- Start date
Re: What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potent
"Breaking" is a shortened form of "halter-breaking". It refers to the process of taking a young horse and training it to accept first a halter or bridle, then saddle and rider - basically, turning an untrained horse into one which is trained and suited to a particular purpose. They use as an example a racehorse trained to run in (and presumably have a shot at winning) the Kentucky Derby (though I'm not sure that was the most apt example they could have chosen to represent Kirk at this or any stage of his career.)
Re: What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potent
Yes, but it's also a metaphor for discipline. It's a physical word implying a period of pain needed to overcome selfish immaturity. Breaking a youths rebellious nature, or scaring staight a juvenile's temper tantrums is alluded to with this statement from Spock. It's a very un-PC and antiquated concept, but still true in many ways. Most people will never reach their full potential until they have passed through a trial or crucible.
Yes, but it's also a metaphor for discipline. It's a physical word implying a period of pain needed to overcome selfish immaturity. Breaking a youths rebellious nature, or scaring staight a juvenile's temper tantrums is alluded to with this statement from Spock. It's a very un-PC and antiquated concept, but still true in many ways. Most people will never reach their full potential until they have passed through a trial or crucible.
Re: What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potent
a horse owner sez: If you have a horse (gender is mostly irrelevant) it's just a four legged animal that eats and shits. If you train said horse then you can make use of it in some way, and if it's good enough it can race, or showjump, or event, or do dressage and win prize money.
"breaking" is the old fashioned word for starting that training process. Essentially you had to break the horse's spirit in order to make it compliant. Nowadays we're not so uncouth and are aware that you don't need to 'ruin' a horse in order to ride it, and use the term "backing" to describe the process of teaching a horse to carry a rider.
More advanced training is called schooling.
Unless you're an American, then you use completely different words to describe the same things.
In the context of the quote from the movie I have no idea WTF Spock is on about, obviously you need to teach the horse how to race with a jockey on it's back, otherwise you can't enter the Kentucky Derby.
And the horse needs to be a 3 year old colt (male) horse.
And it has to be a registered Thoroughbred.
Yeah he's talking out his rear...
a horse owner sez: If you have a horse (gender is mostly irrelevant) it's just a four legged animal that eats and shits. If you train said horse then you can make use of it in some way, and if it's good enough it can race, or showjump, or event, or do dressage and win prize money.
"breaking" is the old fashioned word for starting that training process. Essentially you had to break the horse's spirit in order to make it compliant. Nowadays we're not so uncouth and are aware that you don't need to 'ruin' a horse in order to ride it, and use the term "backing" to describe the process of teaching a horse to carry a rider.
More advanced training is called schooling.
Unless you're an American, then you use completely different words to describe the same things.
In the context of the quote from the movie I have no idea WTF Spock is on about, obviously you need to teach the horse how to race with a jockey on it's back, otherwise you can't enter the Kentucky Derby.
And the horse needs to be a 3 year old colt (male) horse.
And it has to be a registered Thoroughbred.
Yeah he's talking out his rear...
Re: What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potent
spooky spice, not to be picky, but mares can run in the Kentucky Derby. However, it is kind of rare to see a mare entered, as most mares tend to be slower than stallions. Still, three mares have won the race down through time.
The best three year-old mares have a race of their own at Churchill Downs on the day before the Kentucky Derby. It's called the Kentucky Oaks. It is their version of the Derby.
On subject, I found the metaphor stretched but apt. Thoroughbreds are born to run, but untrained, they can be moody and temperamental beasts. Properly trained, they are both powerful and graceful athletes.
To me, the scene reminds us of how immature Spock is at that point. Spock discards Kirk at the very time he needs him because he can't understand him. In ST09, Spock doesn't appreciate or see Kirk the way McCoy did at that point (McCoy having been Kirk's friend for three years). I think the exchange was a good way of showing that. At that point, Spock believes the traits that will make Kirk the man he'll become are detrimental and dangerous. Hence, he has to be "broken."
What Spock doesn't yet realize is that Kirk will never be "broken" in the conventional sense. We also know that in time, Spock will come to admire and understand Kirk's spirit and his ways just as Spock Prime did.
spooky spice, not to be picky, but mares can run in the Kentucky Derby. However, it is kind of rare to see a mare entered, as most mares tend to be slower than stallions. Still, three mares have won the race down through time.
The best three year-old mares have a race of their own at Churchill Downs on the day before the Kentucky Derby. It's called the Kentucky Oaks. It is their version of the Derby.
On subject, I found the metaphor stretched but apt. Thoroughbreds are born to run, but untrained, they can be moody and temperamental beasts. Properly trained, they are both powerful and graceful athletes.
To me, the scene reminds us of how immature Spock is at that point. Spock discards Kirk at the very time he needs him because he can't understand him. In ST09, Spock doesn't appreciate or see Kirk the way McCoy did at that point (McCoy having been Kirk's friend for three years). I think the exchange was a good way of showing that. At that point, Spock believes the traits that will make Kirk the man he'll become are detrimental and dangerous. Hence, he has to be "broken."
What Spock doesn't yet realize is that Kirk will never be "broken" in the conventional sense. We also know that in time, Spock will come to admire and understand Kirk's spirit and his ways just as Spock Prime did.
Re: What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potent
You dat' city folk, you parts rnt' from 'round her are dey now? basiclly horse is potty
You dat' city folk, you parts rnt' from 'round her are dey now? basiclly horse is potty
Re: What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potent
I think it's an interesting example, and the moment that I think about in terms of relevance is that point where Kirk is trying to persuade Spock to not run away to hang out with the rest of the Fleet.
Behind this situation are two orders that may or may not be look at as conflicting. Captain Pike ordered the Enterprise to withdraw and hook up with other Federation ships, and he also said "You're probably going to have to bail me out of captivity." Could be a divide in terms of priority, and I expect the ship's officers know that they have leeway to interpret the priority of orders and suggested courses of action.
At issue is whether Spock is right about which set of suggested courses of actions he has chosen to prioritize. However, another issue arises during the course of Kirk and Spock's argument. Is Kirk going about it the right way? As First Officer he is obligated to suggest alternative courses of action. He is also part of the chain of command, and he is placed second in command, and ethically should he help maintain moral by respecting Spock's command status, while working with him in a less confrontational way that doesn't undermine the command structure while forwarding a better course of action?
Both characters are kind of overreacting. Yet, in light of Spock's comment, we see that Spock is the one who is broken (even though he has quite a great deal of personal discipline). Kirk barrels through the challenges of getting kicked off the ship, thrown back onto it, and successfully challenging Spock's emotional state. The only pause we get to see in Kirk, where he takes a moment to reflect on himself and his position, is when Uhura questions his confidence that he's doing the right thing, it is at this point that Kirk stops and genuinely reflects, "I hope I'm doing the right thing." He's been given the easy answer from the Older Spock, and perhaps he's reflecting on the Older Spock at that moment; but we can only speculate if that's Kirk's moment when he experiences a character shifting moment of humility. Does he feel empathy for Young Spock, because Old Spock has been unreserved and trusting in his emotional disclosure?
In a sense it is ironic that Spock is the one who most overtly endures that breaking of spirit, a character who is admirable for when he is self disciplined and who we might feel is justified for the occasions where he looses it. While Kirk...well, we just don't know. There's raw story/character material there worth developing and exploring. When I think about all this, it feels like the scale needs to be re-balanced a little, to help Kirk's character as a likeable fellow, and Spock deserves it because he's been pretty gracious in the wake of his conflict with Kirk.
I think it's an interesting example, and the moment that I think about in terms of relevance is that point where Kirk is trying to persuade Spock to not run away to hang out with the rest of the Fleet.
Behind this situation are two orders that may or may not be look at as conflicting. Captain Pike ordered the Enterprise to withdraw and hook up with other Federation ships, and he also said "You're probably going to have to bail me out of captivity." Could be a divide in terms of priority, and I expect the ship's officers know that they have leeway to interpret the priority of orders and suggested courses of action.
At issue is whether Spock is right about which set of suggested courses of actions he has chosen to prioritize. However, another issue arises during the course of Kirk and Spock's argument. Is Kirk going about it the right way? As First Officer he is obligated to suggest alternative courses of action. He is also part of the chain of command, and he is placed second in command, and ethically should he help maintain moral by respecting Spock's command status, while working with him in a less confrontational way that doesn't undermine the command structure while forwarding a better course of action?
Both characters are kind of overreacting. Yet, in light of Spock's comment, we see that Spock is the one who is broken (even though he has quite a great deal of personal discipline). Kirk barrels through the challenges of getting kicked off the ship, thrown back onto it, and successfully challenging Spock's emotional state. The only pause we get to see in Kirk, where he takes a moment to reflect on himself and his position, is when Uhura questions his confidence that he's doing the right thing, it is at this point that Kirk stops and genuinely reflects, "I hope I'm doing the right thing." He's been given the easy answer from the Older Spock, and perhaps he's reflecting on the Older Spock at that moment; but we can only speculate if that's Kirk's moment when he experiences a character shifting moment of humility. Does he feel empathy for Young Spock, because Old Spock has been unreserved and trusting in his emotional disclosure?
In a sense it is ironic that Spock is the one who most overtly endures that breaking of spirit, a character who is admirable for when he is self disciplined and who we might feel is justified for the occasions where he looses it. While Kirk...well, we just don't know. There's raw story/character material there worth developing and exploring. When I think about all this, it feels like the scale needs to be re-balanced a little, to help Kirk's character as a likeable fellow, and Spock deserves it because he's been pretty gracious in the wake of his conflict with Kirk.
Re: What does it mean for a stallion to be broken to reach it's potent
Well, characters simply can't be smarter than their author.
a horse owner sez: If you have a horse (gender is mostly irrelevant) it's just a four legged animal that eats and shits. If you train said horse then you can make use of it in some way, and if it's good enough it can race, or showjump, or event, or do dressage and win prize money.
"breaking" is the old fashioned word for starting that training process. Essentially you had to break the horse's spirit in order to make it compliant. Nowadays we're not so uncouth and are aware that you don't need to 'ruin' a horse in order to ride it, and use the term "backing" to describe the process of teaching a horse to carry a rider.
More advanced training is called schooling.
Unless you're an American, then you use completely different words to describe the same things.
In the context of the quote from the movie I have no idea WTF Spock is on about, obviously you need to teach the horse how to race with a jockey on it's back, otherwise you can't enter the Kentucky Derby.
And the horse needs to be a 3 year old colt (male) horse.
And it has to be a registered Thoroughbred.
Yeah he's talking out his rear...
Well, characters simply can't be smarter than their author.
Similar threads
