I have been reading a lot about the Past Perfect tense recently and I think that I am getting more and more confused with the logic behind it the more I read about the tense. Many sources say that we only need to use the past perfect when the sequence of events is not clear without it. Also, they say that we do have to use the past perfect tense every time you mention two things that happened in the past. But many examples that are given about the tense include something like this: "I had switched off the lights before I went to bed" or "after they had had breakfast, they left for the park". Could someone explain to me why the past perfect is necessary in these examples when it is already clear from the sequence of events which action had occurred before the second action?
Learn English – Tricky Past Perfect Tense
past-perfect
Related Solutions
This is my opinion as an American. The past perfect is not gone, but it is my impression that we don't use the past perfect when the simple past is sufficient to relay the intended meaning. Most of the time, as in your sentences, there are other constructions to supplement the simple past and convey it as perfect past.
I heard about her before I met her.
The temporal marker "before" supplements "met", turning this simple past into the past perfect. But the following certainly wouldn't sound foreign to an American.
I had heard about her before I met her.
or, using the contraction...
I'd heard about her before I met her.
As for the following...
Yesterday, I heard about her for the first time.
This isn't past perfect. It's simple past, but an American might say the following.
I had heard about her when I met her yesterday.
Without the temporal marker "before", the past perfect is essential to convey the meaning. However, for that sentence to sound natural, I'd have to hear it as a response to a question, such as, "Didn't someone tell you about her?"
As for the following statement:
By the time he got to Phoenix, he had had enough to drink to make him stagger.
This is something that Word will fuss about and I'll ignore or modify to mollify. Word isn't the expert; it's a tool to help those who aren't. If you're an expert and Word is catching stuff, either it's wrong or you're too tired. An easy way to modify the above sentence and more closely resemble how I would actually speak it is to use a contraction.
By the time he got to Phoenix, he'd had enough to drink to make him stagger.
On the other hand, you can turn the verb around.
By the time he got to Phoenix, he had drunk enough to make him stagger.
The past perfect isn't gone in American English; we don't always use it when we don't have to.
The perfect construction uses have, but always with the past participle of the following verb.
When I entered she had already left the room.
I have done that pose many times.
In your sentence #1, however, have is not used with a past participle but with a 'marked' infinitive (marked, that is, with to):
I had to do that pose ...
This construction is not a perfect but a 'periphrastic modal'—that is, an expression which 'paraphrases' a modal verb (can/could, may/might, must, shall/should, will/would) and has the same meaning. HAVE to VERB means the same thing as must VERB; but HAVE to is much more flexible than must because it HAVE has all the forms of an ordinary verb, where must has only one form.
I must do that pose.
HAVE to in your sentence #1 is cast in the preterite tense, had to, and has past reference. It can also be cast in the non-past tense, with present or future reference:
PRETERITE: I had to do that pose ...
NON-PAST: I have to do that pose ...
It has an infinitive form which can combine with the modal will for future reference, or head an infinitival clause:
MODAL FUTURE: I will have to do that pose ...
INFINITIVAL: I hoped not to have to do that pose any more.
It can be cast as a past participle and employed in a present, past or future perfect construction:
PRESENT PERFECT: I have had to do that pose ...
PAST PERFECT: I had had to do that pose ...
It also has a gerund-participle form, which can be employed adjectivally or in a progressive construction or a gerund clause:
ADJECTIVAL PARTICPLE: Anybody having to do that pose thinks about quitting.
PROGRESSIVE: These days I'm having to do that pose at every session.
GERUND CLAUSE: Having to do that pose was tedious.
Best Answer
In your case both constructions would work. I would not use the past perfect in these cases because "after" and "before" already clarify the sequence of events. If you didn't have those, I'd probably go with the "Past Perfect" construction.