From: patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov (Patty Howell)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: dressage bits
Date: 17 Nov 1992 18:54:15 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alpha.larc.nasa.gov


In article <1e1623INNl96@rave.larc.nasa.gov> patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov (Patty Howell) writes:
[LOTS of stuff deleted]
>>... If we were really holding to
>>tradition, the top levels would be ridden in the curb alone,
>>with one hand on the reins.
>>...

[deb levine writes]
>Well, this is only true if you assume that the ancient masters were
>absolutely correct and that horsemanship has made no progress in
>the intervening time!  One certainly HOPES that that is not the case,
>though arguments can be made for giant steps backward...

 In same cases, we've progressed, in others we've declined, I think.
 This is really nothing new....for instance, it is clear that by
 de la Gueriniere's time, there were few, if any, riders who knew
 how to "take a horse's balance in hand" *without* collection
 like Newcastle did a century before. 

>What is the argument, aside from simply tradition, for the "superiority"
>of a severe curb as sole bitting?
		    ~~~~
  Well, the argument was that we ride with a double bridle only 
  due to tradition, where in fact, tradition would dictate the
  curb alone.
  I didn't say severe (that's one area where we have progressed,
  I think), I just said curb. and the reason one hand
  on the curb is a higher form of horsemanship is because only
  the very best schooled horses can properly respond to a 
  single hand alone - the aids become even more subtle with
  one hand. There was one rein aid that the old masters understood
  that today's dressage experts do not, and that is the neck rein.
  (it is incorrectly associated with the bearing rein, because
  they have seen too many examples of "bad neck reining") When 
  riding properly w/ one hand, the well schooled horse will
  respond to the neck rein alone.

>>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).

>Many lower level riders prove you can also do this with a snaffle!

 EXACTLY. Can you imagine how bad it would be with a curb!?

>Since a number of upper level riders do school in a snaffle, it
>seems to be the case that balance can also be contolled with
>the snaffle. 
  Oh absolutely, otherwise they would all be going around on
  their forehands! I was just explaining how the double bridle
  is generally used. 

> Also, how do you seperate "frame" from "balance"?
>It seems to be that "frame" without balance is a "headset", and
>incorrect by definition.  Bending is something else entirely.

 Go the other way -> how about balance without frame? That is
 perfected in the western reining horse.
 Balance can be controlled by the hand alone, while frame cannot.

>This implies that the curb is what CAUSES horses to begin to close
>down on the hocks -- the curb does seem to be a more refined tool
>for longitudinal control, I am not disputing that, but I thought
>it partially went the other way around -- you begin with the curb
>when the horse is sufficiently advanced!  It also does SEEM to make
>sense to me that a snaffle is a better aid for bending than
>a curb, so why, other than convenience, would one want to do
>away with it?

 No, you are right, the curb is not what causes a horse to close down
 on his hocks, but it is when he begins to close down that he is
 ready for the curb to allow the rider to tell him "how much" to close
 down.  That is how I use the curb on higher level horses, anyway.

>What IS the real goal of modern dressage?  Is it the same as 
>what de la Guerniere was after?

 ohhh, good question....

 Well, it depends on what you mean. We are (were?) both after
 the goal of training a horse to give its rider control of its
 balance, posture, stride and energy to exhibit its full
 potential for grace and beauty in motion. So in that regard, yes.

 If you stress the word "modern" over "classical" then no.
 There is a distinction in most peoples minds (among educated
 dressage people) between "classical" dressage and "modern" dressage.
 "Modern" dressage is an attempt to bridge the gap between
 classical dressage and outdoor riding (exemplified in the 
 lower levels of dressage). In that regard, I think we still
 have a long way to go. (and that is why de la Gueriniere is
 known as the "father of modern dressage." Because is book laid
 down the *principles* of dressage and the whole basis for the
 book was to dispell myths about dressage that had led the outdoor
 riders of the time to "turn to false practices" To his credit,
 in describing his *method* told what worked well for him and
 what other masters did that did not work well *for him* but
 sanctified the difference by saying there are "many roads to Rome."

patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian