From: patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov (Patty Howell)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: Dressage bitting
Date: 13 Nov 1992 21:17:55 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: alpha.larc.nasa.gov


Many people have posted what the rulebook says regarding what is
allowed bitting and how it's policed, but no one has really said
*why* it's done that way, beyond "tradition." So if you really 
want to know, this is what history tells us:


tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman)writes:

[stuff deleted re bitting and gatekeeper's responsibilities. Years ago,
when whips weren't allowed at the lower levels, the gatekeeper (ring 
steward) would also remind you to drop your whip before you went in, and
pick it up and hand it to you when you finished :) A good ring 
steward will also do your bit inspection as soon as you even get close 
enough to be identified as the next competitor (long before your "once
around the outside") so your concentration isn't broken.(not to
mention your nerves)]

>no tack or rope nosebands are permitted.  All of this is designed
>to encourage the rider of a young horse to train the horse properly
>in the basics and to get REAL bit acceptance before moving on to
>the higher levels.

Keep in mind that all of these rules for the lower levels (pre FEI)
are set forth by the *U.S.* dressage committee, who also make up
the tests. It is a massive responsibility, because many look to the
tests as guidance in their training programs. And there is *much*
argument about what should be included in the tests. Requirements/
levels/tests in other countries are completely different.

>reason the double bridle is required at these levels is because of tradition.  
>Dressage developed out of military training techniques, these military units
>most commonly used the double bridle, thus the double bridle used in upper
>level dressage.  This information was told to me by Dr. Max Gahwyler, "I" 
>dressage judge.  In his opinion dressage should require the upper level rider 
>to do the tests using only a standard snaffle bridle with no whip and no spurs 

This is a very common misconception. 
Truth is, dressage was more a pastime of the nobility than
a tool of the military. There was a move afoot to "convert" the
calvary to dressage, which most riders of "using" horses were against.
They claimed that dressage ruined good horses. In response,
as a matter of fact, the Duke of Newcastle asked "who would deny (the
nobility) this small pleasure ....(besides which)they inspire their
subjects to victory while leading grand parades." In case that argument 
didn't work, he also said that the horses would "lose their grand airs on 
the long marches to battle." After dressage was introduced to the calvary,
the soldiers "looked good on parade, but were miserable on the
battlefield." It was not unusual to compliment the regular army with
hussiers. They didn't look pretty, but their horses were handy.

As far as the double bridle goes, the only time it was used by the
great masters was as a "transition" bridle between the snaffle 
and the curb. They would put a horse in a snaffle until they 
could "carry a rider each direction around the riding hall." In
other words until they were green broke. Then they would go to a
curb that was actually more reminiscent of the western rider's
spade bit (quite severe) than todays dressage curb. If the
horse got panicky about this severe curb, they could go to the
snaffle reins. They even held the reins differently, fingers 
pointing up, so that subtle wrist motions were all that was
needed to effect bit action. On fully schooled horses, they
held the reins in the left hand only, with the little finger
separating the reins. de la Gueriniere said that the only time
he could see usefulness in having two reins was in battle, in
case one set of reins got cut. If we were really holding to
tradition, the top levels would be ridden in the curb alone,
with one hand on the reins.
I think this is something that has been forgotten, partially
because of the way the dressage tests are written. The 1932 (?)
olympic test included sections that were ridden with "one hand."

Realistically, by saying that the highest levels of 
dressage will be shown with a full bridle, we are admitting right
up front that we have no intention of schooling to the highest 
levels in the art of horsemanship.  

(The curb bit and spurs are not used as a backup to the snaffle or
the leg, but as refined aids, although I do understand the problem
with some people misusing them. Changing to a snaffle at the higher
levels will not make people better horsemen.) 

Having said all that, the real reason we use a snaffle at the lower
level tests *is* a legacy of one great master, de la Gueriniere.
(he didn't use a snaffle for long, as I have said, but he was
an extremely skilled rider who would not commit the errors most
people of today would, like overbending and getting the horse
behind the bit on the curb).
It is his "balance through bending" approach that emphasizes
bending in early training that lends itself to use of the snaffle.
Basically, you put a horse in this position (frame), and through
lateral bending exercises that require the hind legs to engage more
and more, the horse eventually discovers where his balance needs to
be. It is at this point that we go to the double bridle. Most
people use the snaffle to control bend and frame, and the curb
to control balance (although they probably wouldn't explain it
that way). It is also interesting to note that the horse starts
to close down on his hocks at 4th level.

So, that's the real reason dressage enforces plain, thick snaffles
at the lower levels and the full bridle at the higher levels. I hate 
to disagree with the judge, but he's wrong. (of course he's
absolutely right, couldn't agree with him more if I ever meet him
at the show ring).

Gosh, I get long-winded! sorry, guys.

patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov