From: tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: re: dressage bits
Date: 18 Nov 92 08:57:59 GMT
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ


In Article 9959 in rec.equestrian patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov (Patty Howell)
writes:

>[tracy writes:]
>>	Interesting commentary, I'm afraid I find the last bit somewhat 
>>hypocritical.  I don't mean this as a flame I'm just somewhat confused by
>>what you mean when you say you'd agree with him if you met him?

> Ouch. It was really just another "feeble attempt at humor." I have no
> problem discussing different viewpoints regarding methods of training in 
> dressage with the experts. I just meant it would be stupid to do so
> right before he's about to judge you. There is no point going into 
> competition with the judge (rightly or wrongly) biased against you for
> whatever reason.

	Sorry I missed the humor, it was very late at night when I first read 
your post (like it is now).  Actually though I would "speak the truth before
the thrones of kings" or in this case dressage judges, even if I disagreed
with them and was about to be judged by them.  It is obviously a subject
which you feel strongly about so you shouldn't have to edit yourself just 
because you would be judged.   Should the judge allow themselves to become 
prejudiced that reflects very badly on the judge.  Also should a judge score 
me lower for expressing my beliefs--what the heck it's just a dressage test, 
it's not the end of the world!   
	In any case the one thing I can tell you about Dr. Gahwyler is 
that he would never mark you down for expressing your feelings
or disaggreeing with him, he loves a good discussion!  He might mark you
down because he felt that the way your beliefs express themselves in your
riding is incorrect (in other words if he felt that the way you used the
curb caused your horse to show resistance) but if you rode well he would
not mark you down for simply disagreeing with him.   He loves a good ride,
but he is not an easy scorer, it must be a very good ride.

 >wrong on his historical facts, your quote was off. The point I was
 >trying to make was to dispell this notion about modern dressage developing
 >from the calvalry. There is this notion that caprioles and levades
 >etc, etc, were taught to war horses so that they could be used as 
 >"a weapon." This notion is completely false, yet people cling to it

	No, modern dressage evolves from the military in that we do
not use saddles that are like the old masters, we use saddles that
are more patterned on military saddles.  Both these saddles and
the double bridle come from the military not because the horses
were trained in dressage for war, that is a ridiculous concept,
but because the practitioners of modern dressage as expressed in
the early Olympics were military men.  They wore military clothes
and they preferred military tack.  That is why the double bridle
and the saddles we use come to us from the cavalry because those
practitioners who set down the rules for those early Olympics
were in the military.  This was what Dr. Gahwyler's reference was
to. 
 
>I have also read what educated people have had to say about what many
> of the above listed horsemen wrote (some of these books have not
> been published in english). Grisone, in particular, makes for some
> pretty grisly reading (not for the faint of heart....the SPCA would

	Absolutely correct, thus there are some things about which the
old masters were wrong.

>>	"Regrettably, spurs are worn today beginning in Training Level.
>>Fundamentally, I beleve the same consideration should apply to spurs as the
>>double bridle:  they should only be allowed at Fourth Level and above.
>>Uneducated legs should not be armed with spurs, just as uneducated riders with
>>poor hands are not allowed to ride with a double bridle until they are
>>sufficiently proficient to perform at Fourth Level or above."

> hmmmm.
> Does that mean that all lower level horses are ridden by novice horsemen?
> Conversely, that all upper level horses are ridden by experts? Wealthy
> families all over the country are importing upper level horses and
> trainers to work with them, but they still have uneducated legs
> and hands. Once someone gains a reputation for producing beautifully
> trained, higher level horses, should they then be allowed to  wear spurs?
> I completely agree that spurs should not be worn at the lower levels,

> discussion regarding his text. Am I misinterpreting what he said/ where
> does my reasoning go wrong/ or where is my reasoning right?

	Yes, I believe you are misinterpreting this, I believe he covered
it quite well by saying that he feels that "any properly schooled Grand
Prix horse can easily perform in a snaffle without the rider using any
spurs or a whip."  Thus he is indicating that spurs are unnecessary at
the higher levels for either horse or rider, and at the lower levels
they are an impediment.  Also in an earlier section of the book which
I did not quote he addressed the lower level rider buying an upper level
horse by saying, "But, after a while, even these horses regress to the level
of their riders.  No horse stays better than the rider on his back for very
long." 

> The double bridle, too, is a consideration for the *horse* not the rider
> (according to USDF opinion), otherwise, the rules would be "once a rider
> has shown proficiency at the upper levels, he/she may ride a horse
> at the lower levels with a double bridle, if they so choose." That
> is not what the rules say, however. From what I interpret from
> Dr. Gahwyler's statements, he would be in favor changing the rules 
> so that top level riders only (those who have demonstrated some
> level of proficiency at top levels) could ride their younger horses
> with spurs, while I would not. (although he would prefer that no one
> ever wear spurs)

	No, he would prefer that spurs not be used at all, he sees too
many upper level riders ruining good rides by over-using them, or
using them badly, or even using them as a crutch to cover lack of proper
training however barring that he would limit spurs to 4th level and above, 
no use on lower level horses regardless of the level of the rider.  He
would prefer that the double bridle not be used in high level competition
either because too many people rely too heavily on it as a crutch as with
spurs.
  
>>	"Today, the requirement to wear spurs and use a double bridle at the
>>FEI level is more an added difficulty rather than an asset for most riders.
>>An incorrect leg position frequently leads to interference with spurs.  An
>>improperly adjusted curb often leads to an instantaneous negative reaction
>>by the horse.  Both can lead to a reduction in the collective marks for the
>>rider, as well as for the score of the individual movement."

> 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
out that all it takes is to have the headstall for the curb slightly
longer on the left than the right, and the bridoon hanger slightly longer
on the right than the left and the higher level horse will ride the whole
test with its head tipped slightly to one side (sorry can't remember which).
He said he sees that all the time, he even pointed out a rider who did that
at our show.  After he told me of that I have looked for and seen that 
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, the horse
finally couldn't take it any more and bucked in the middle of the test.
She didn't lose that many points and I believe wound up with placement 
somewhere in the middle of the pack, he marked her down more for the
resistance her horse showed than the other judge.

> 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 
test.  How many times have we heard someone at a show exclaim with awe, "She 
(or he) rides Prix St. George!" as though that made the person spoken of 
all-knowledgable?  As for how these people managed to get there, what tests 
or requirements are there for a person to ride higher level?  Nothing stands 
in the way of them putting a double bridle on their horse and going into 
a 4th level test if they want.  They won't do well but they may fake it for a 
while before finally ruining the horse.  It was pointed out by Dr. Gahwyler 
that many parts of the country suffer from a dearth of good teachers as a 
result students learn from whoever is available regardless of quality and 
thus mistaken beliefs are perpetuated.

>>	(I must admit that at the show where I saw the two very wonderful
	{description of beautiful high level rides given by two women
	who were riding using plain ordinary snaffle bridles, and comparing
	to the woman listed below} 
>>by a woman using a full double bridle, spurs, and whip who was doing just
>>what Dr. Gahwyler said, forcing the horse into collection with no real

 >You are judging a philosophy you are against by the worst examples.
 >(and a philosophy you are for by its best) I have seen just as many
 >horrible rides on a snaffle, and breathtaking rides with a full

	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.

 >bridle. The important thing is the rider, not the bit. A bad rider
 >trying to strong arm a performance will never be a pretty picture, 
 >whether in a snaffle or a curb, although in a snaffle, "bad hands"
 >are not as obvious to the spectator.

	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.

 >Dr. Gahwyler's complaints seem to be aimed at "bad hand riders."
 >And he's advocating a fix to the problem by disarming their hands by
 >taking away the curb. While this will make things more tolerable
 >for the horse, it will not improve their hands (but I agree that

	Again I disagree forcing the rider to achieve collection with
a snaffle will of necessity force the rider to acquire better hands.

 >a curb does not belong in their hands). In dealing with that problem,
 >though, it seems to me that he's ignoring the riders who use
 >the curb with finesse. Furthermore, he's ignoring the fact that
 >a lot of riders can do a lot of damage with a snaffle. It seems to
 >me that he's treating the symptom, not the problem - bad hands.

 >patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov

	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 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!
	Again Dr. Gahwyler said that "any properly schooled Grand Prix 
horse can easily perform in a snaffle", etc.  Unfortunately many horses showing
in Grand Prix cannot perform without the double bridle because they have
not been properly trained, the riders are relying too much on the curb to
do what the training should have done.  Thus the question is not using the
curb with finesse, but rather is the finesse with the curb the proper way
to train the horse?  He says no.

	Please understand that I do not believe that the curb is a horrible
bit that should never be used.  Quite the contrary, I have ridden trails for
20 years and find a mild western curb to be an excellent bit when ridden
western style (little or no contact unless required) easy on the horse
and with a great deal of safety for the rider.  However I feel that to
achieve true bit acceptance for the purposes of dressage one must use the 
snaffle, anything else creates a false collection and resistance.  The same is 
true of snaffles that are uncomfortable to the horse but for the sake of this 
discussion I am assuming that everyone has found a snaffle that is comfortable 
for their horse.

	This has been and is a very interesting discussion.  Thank you.

					Tracy and everybody