From: tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: re: mechanical hackamores (just good stuff,no flames honest!)
Date: 19 Aug 92 07:27:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In Article 8306 AS.GGG@forsythe.stanford.edu (Gwyn Gordon) writes:

>>>wouldn't do the jumpers in a hollow snaffle?
>>Karen Karlsson posted about her half-Arab that she is currently
>>retraining, he no longer tosses his head because of fear of bad hands.

>I don't think we were talking about head-tossing. We were talking
>about, um, the horse that was strong on the trail and whether or not
>she should change to a stronger bit during competition? I think?

	I believe the subject of head tossing came up as a symptom
of a problem, but it was secondary to the main discussion.

>Yes, horses are to some extent retrainable. Something occured to me:
>with a horse that has bad habits, the idea is to 1) do training at
>home, 2) reinforce the training at shows (don't let them get away
>with it in the show environment) and then 3) bring the two closer
>and closer together. Duh, I can't say this well. I mean, I would
>start out riding that horse in a different bit at shows, and then as
>the horse got better and better, I would decrease and
>decrease the strength of the bit at shows until I was using the same
>bit for both schooling and showing. SLOWLY decreasing the disparity
>between the two situations. Of course, this could take a lifetime,
>but it would be worth it.

	Ok, I can go along with this, though I think it really would
not take very long before you could use the same bit at shows.  One
of the things the experts we had at the clinic I gave on Bitting and 
Dentistry agreed on was that horses generally do better with
less bit than they do with more.  In otherwords some bits are just
too strong and can be so uncomfortable that they precipatate problems.
	However just so I don't wind up in trouble over this one I don't
feel that many so-called strong bits are strong, merely different,
for example I think most pelhams and kimberwickes are relatively
mild bits, whereas I think that fat or hollowmouth snaffles are
generally too big for many horse's mouths and therefore they
are uncomfortable for most horses.  In the clinic we discovered that
a number of ordinary-looking snaffles are Very uncomfortable because
they pinch the tongue, while a kind of wild intensely curved looking
snaffle was very comfortable because it not only did not pinch it
didn't flex upward and hit the roof of the mouth when rein pressure
was applied.
	I'm also not saying that you can't use a thinner snaffle (as
long as it is not a twisted wire I unequivocably hate those [I saw
a mare get her mouth all cut up on one once, I could have killed
that rider])  or a slow twist, or a pelham, or a double bridle
just use that at shows too and your horse might relax like they
do at home.

>>        Yes but why change those aids for a show when the horse is
>>going properly in training.  You'll just confuse them.

>same aids + more bit = same response, but more of it
     ****        ***

>different aids + any bit, same or different = confusion
          ****
	Sorry if this is a problem, but it was my understanding that
the bit was considered one of the aids.  In any case I still think
that changing bits for a show will confuse the horse, and that the
horse will become more relaxed at shows with time and experience.

>>pointers and the horse will understand that just because it is a
>>show they cannot get away with things.

>Yeah, very important. Smart little buggers, aren't they?

	Indeed they are.  

>>        The requirement for 4th level and above, which includes FEI
>>(Olympic) level is that the horse be ridden in a double bridle, the
>>bradoon must be of either straight, jointed, or french mouth snaffle,
                                                 ************

>What's a french mouth? Sorry if this has been explained before. Is
>that one with 2 joints, what I call a "breaking bit"? I'd appreciate
>knowing this.

	No problem, I think this is a good question.
	A french mouth snaffle does have 2 joints, but there are
several bits with 2 joints.  A Dr. Bristol has a flat plate piece
joining the outer two portions of the snaffle, with the flat plate
set at an angle so that it may exert more pressure on the tongue
(I've often wondered if you purposely turned this bit around so
that the angle of the plate was now following the angle of the
horse's head whether you would have a more comfortable bit), a
so-called breaking bit (don't know if this is what you are 
referring to) has a ring joining the two pieces to which are attached
copper dangles called "keys" it is designed to increase saliva
flow and give a young active horse something to play with and
mouth and for that reason it is sometimes referred to as a "mouthing
bit".   The french snaffle has a short bar attaching the
two pieces of the bit together but that bar is not set at an
angle at all, the bar itself is not meant to act on the mouth just to join the
other two pieces together.  It and all the above bits are very
good bits for a horse with a low sensitive palate for whom a regular
snaffle would poke the horse in the roof of the mouth if contact was taken on
the reins.  I believe I need to try one of these on my horse.
	Interestingly at the clinic I ran on bitting the equine
dentist brought several skulls and we took several of the bits
and draped them on the lower jaw of one skull just to see how
the bits acted, surprisingly the flat plate of the Dr. Bristol
spanned the bars of the horse's mouth completely to rest flat
and quiet with the two outside pieces draping off to either side!
So it probably acts on the corners of the lips and the tongue
exclusively with no nut-cracker action whatsoever unlike other
snaffles.

>I'm also interested to know why upper-level dressage is done in a
>double bridle, whereas lower levels are done in a plain snaffle.
>Does this mean that the amount of collection/control needed is too
>difficult (or impossible?) to get in a snaffle?  This would seem to
>suggest that the horses aren't well-schooled enough, if we're going
>to be critical.  That doesn't make sense, though, because the double
>bridle is the "classic." PLEASE HELP THIS POOR HUNTER/JUMPER RIDER
>UNDERSTAND. It's very interesting to me.

>-gwyn
	Actually I discussed this question with Dr. Gahwyler (the "I"
judge I mentioned who schools his horses Grand Prix in just a snaffle)
and he said it is a hold-over from the days when dressage was a
military training technique.  In essence the double bridle is there
at higher levels because of tradition, not because it is or should
be needed.  For some reason the dressage rules also require that
the rider of horses going 4th level and above wear spurs.  He says 
this is ridiculous, the rider should not need spurs to ask the
horse to go properly.  The whole idea is that as the horse gets
more trained they should become lighter, freer, and more cadenced so
you should not need spurs.  Or a whip, we discussed that also.  He's
really a fascinating person to talk to.  Very classic.  Thanks for
asking. 

				Tracy and everybody
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian