NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/rec/equestri/5719

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-19 | 9.2 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!gumby!destroyer!ncar!noao!amethyst!organpipe.uug.arizona.edu!news
From: [e-mail] (Tracy Scheinkman)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: re: dressage bits
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 19 Nov 92 22:59:28 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Lines: 168

In Article 10004 in rec.equestrian [e-mail] (Patty Howell)
writes:
>>    "Regrettably, spurs are worn today beginning in Training Level.
>>Fundamentally, I believe the same consideration should apply to spurs as the
>>double bridle:  they should only be allowed at Fourth Level and above.
    {above quote from The Competitive Edge by Max Gahwyler}
 >*My* reasoning is because of the level of the *horse*. I agree with
 >Steinbrecht, who said the seat should be adjusted to accomodate
 >the horse's level of training. In other words, it is impossible
 >to have a deep, comfortable seat on a lower level horse, thus
 >spurs cannot be used with finesse until about fourth level.

    No, here you and Dr. Gahwyler (and me) would be in disagreement.
He feels that spurs are UNNECESSARY at ANY level as evidenced by his
comment that "any properly trained Grand Prix horse can easily perform
in a snaffle without the rider using any spurs or a whip."  The question
is not using spurs with finesse it is the necessity of using them at all.
In his premise (here please keep in mind that I am interpreting from
what Dr. Gahwyler has said, unfortunately the man is not here to speak
for himself so I could be wrong) a horse that would require the use of
spurs however fine the control of the rider would be an improperly
trained horse.  A properly trained horse would be ridden without spurs.

>>> It is hard for me to believe that there are people at the top levels
>>> that still don't know how to properly adjust a curb. If so, they are

>>    Unfortunately there are, I have only been riding dressage for
>>2 years and yet I have seen it.  Dr. Gahwyler in our conversation pointed

> You've certainly picked up more in 2 years than many dressage
> riders ever learn (certainly more than I learned in my first 2 years -
> of course I was only about 11 yrs old at the time ;> )

    Thanks, I'm really trying very hard.

>>many times.  BEFORE he said that I watched a rider do an Intermediare I
>>test where the horse she was riding was sorely pissed because every time
>>she asked for a change of lead she jabbed him with her spur [...]

> I, too have seen similar use of the spur, and it is very ugly. The
> "hoppy hop" at every lead change is also yucky, as is the tail
> switching in the piaffe, and the pumping rider at the piaffe
> (Robert Dover does this all the time and it drives me crazy) and
> the basically freight train, bunched up performance (this last was
> being *rewarded* at the L.A. olympics

     Yup, that's exactly what I saw!

>> a bigger impression) If a double bridle is an added difficulty, they
>> don't belong in the higher levels.
    {meaning the rider}

>>    The problem here is that there are many people who will copy a person
>>who rides bad higher level tests just because they are riding a higher level

>  You have enough intelligence to distinguish a good ride from a
>  bad one, don't you think other people can, too? And if they can't
>  they'll never make it in dressage anyway, whether all the
>  examples at higher levels are perfect or not.

    Unfortunately it seems to be a matter as much of knowing what to
look for as of intelligence.  I've stood next to very intelligent people
at shows who oohed and aahed over just such a performance as we were
talking about above.  Some of these people simply don't know any better,
because their instructors have not taught them what is needed, some of
them just simply haven't got the eye to see it.  It's not just a matter
of intelligence, these were bright people who really wanted to learn!


>>    But few of those horrible rides with snaffles were above the
>>lower levels, I'd guess!  Horrible rides and problems are supposed to
>>be worked out at the lower levels with a snaffle before proceeding
>>higher.  Unfortunately many people look at the higher levels as a
>>chance to get around a problem by using a double bridle rather than
>>as a reward for solving the problem.

> You would guess wrong. I have also *ridden* horses trained to higher
> levels, with their trainers coaching me along, (in snaffles by the
> way), who finally took the reins and "played horse" to my rider -
> the "feel of the horse's mouth" was incredible! By the end of
> that session, I thought I'd dislocated my arm sockets!

    Ah, here we get into another controversy of dressage, lightness.
I believe it was Dominique Barbier who said that "very few dressage
riders today know how to make a horse that is truly light." (referring to
light in the hand of the rider, I may be getting the quote wrong or
attributing it to the wrong source, I don't have the book in front of
me right now to check.)  I and my instructor (and Dr. Gahwyler) feel
that a horse should have constant steady contact with the rider through
the bit and yet be light.

>>    I disagree it is just the other way around, bad hands with a snaffle
>>can be seen much more easily as the horse immediately hollows and loses
>>collection, a curb tends to cover it up unless the errors are outrageous.

> Balogna. If you can't do it in the snaffle, there's No Way
> you can do it in a curb. Even Dr. Gahwyler says that
> the curb is a detriment to most riders - it is more difficult and

    Dr. Gahwyler points out that the double bridle is difficult
because the horse is likely to go behind the bit, rather than be
on the bit.  The horse will not stretch as easily into the bit.
Also a simply flaw in adjustment will cause the horse to move
differently, not to hollow, just to go crooked.  A local dressage
judge here, Marilyn Quinto, pointed out to me that it is extremely
difficult for a judge to distinguish between a horse that is behind
the bit vs. one that is taking good contact but is behind the
vertical.  She said that as a result most judges will give the
rider the benefit of the doubt when seeing the horse behind the
vertical (unless the horse is also gaping or doing something
equally obvious) and score them as for the lesser fault.

> requires more finesse. You can take an extremely hard feel
> on a horse w/ a snaffle, put a dropped noseband on so they
> can't open their mouths, and no spectator will be the wiser.
> And that is still a bad hand rider. If you can hollow their back in
> a snaffle, you can do it ten times easier in a curb.

    I use a standard noseband which is adjusted rather loosely
to the point where there is still two fingers worth of room between
the noseband and my horse's mouth.  When she takes contact with that
bit it is because she wants to not because she has to.  I have seen
people doing what you say with a drop noseband, however I have
also seen the horse going very hollow and stiff with little
engagement behind and with the horse constantly fighting to wrest
control from the rider in front, often seen when the horse suddenly
throws its head up.  The kind of false collection you get with a
curb is visible but it is more subtle than what you see with a
snaffle the horse in that case pulling back from contact or diving
down with poll no longer the highest point, stiffness in the back,
though not obvious hollowness, and a stiffness laterally.

>>    I have often talked to high level riders who when asked
>>'what is the curb bit used for on the double bridel?' answer 'nothing,
>>the horse should be ridden solely on the snaffle'.  Yet you
>>will see riders relying on the curb to achieve collection and balance
>>and the snaffle rein going loose.  How many high level riders can actually
>>drop their curb completely and ride a high level test on just the snaffle?

> Well, I can't speak for others, but I know I can. I also used to do
> reining patterns and jump courses without any headgear at all (with
> my third level 1/2 arab pony I had as a kid. I admit it, I was
> showing off).

    Good for you!  Then it would be no problem for you to use a standard
snaffle instead of a double bridle.

>>Well the two women I saw could and did, and did a better job riding those
>>tests than many I have seen riding those same tests in a full bridle.  This
>>doesn't mean it is impossible to ride well in a full bridle, but it does show
>>a true test of horsemanship to ask them to ride without!

> It is a "true test" of horsemanship only if you regard horsemanship
> as a test of strength instead an art.

    No, these women were not using strength to muscle their horses
around the arena, they were using light legs and light seat and light hands!
Their horses were willingly stretching into the bridle, their necks relaxed,
their mouths foamy, their eyes soft!  Their horses visibly compressed and
lengthened their frames when asked.  The riders hands and shoulders were
soft and giving!  Forgive me if I have given you the wrong impression but
these ladies had truly light horses!  If you have not seen something like
this in your area then I am not surprised that you think it requires
strength to ride a Prix St. George test on the snaffle alone.  But it does
not.  It was a pleasure to watch.  It was art!

                    Tracy and everybody