From: patty@alpha.larc.nasa.gov (Patty Howell)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: dressage bits
Date: 17 Nov 1992 18:51:30 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA  USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: alpha.larc.nasa.gov

[aside:
Tracy, consider my commentary below in response to your quotes from 
Gahwyler's text a discussion/ interpretation of what he said.
Where I consider what he said misleading, I have discussed the reasoning
behind my arguments. Sometimes what an author *doesn't* say is the
most frustrating part in trying to determine where they really stand
on issues.I didn't comment on *all* the quotes, since this was getting
too long.]

[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.

>The Competitive Edge, that he has read not only de la Gueriniere (1729), but 
>(1834), Oyenhauser (1848), Steinbrecht (1895), and the more recent authors
 
 I was not disparaging his knowledge nor his opinion. Where I declared him
 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
 (I guess because it sounds romantic). So when you said dressage developed
 from the calvalry, I wanted to clarify that point. If anything, the 
 calvalry picked up dressage from the Royal riding halls. From the excerpts 
 you quote, Gahwyler doesn't claim dressage came from the military, just
 the double bridle and spurs. Spurs were used by the masters (de la G)
 but as I said before, the only time de la Gueriniere could think of a logical
 reason for a second set of reins was in battle, in case one set got
 cut. (this was in response to Newcastle's use of a second set of reins
 attached to a smooth, leather padded cavesson to introduce a horse
 to bending exercises.) So two sets of reins may already have been in
 use in the calvalry, or his comment may have inspired the calvalry to
 start using two sets of reins. It is not clear from his book. 
 	
 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
 have this guy behind bars) Having read as much as I have, I am always
 surprised at how easily their writings are misinterpreted. 
 For example, something that
 the USDF has never understood is that the rider's seat should be adjusted
 depending on the level of the horse. Steinbrecht understood this and wrote
 about it, but dressage authorities still insist on teaching
 "dressage equitation" to beginning riders on *green horses*

>	"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,
 not because of the rider, but because of the horse. The "classical seat"
 is only appropriate on a higher level horse, as Steinbrecht wrote, and
 it is only the classical seat that allows refined use of the spur. (again,
 take my comments in the spirit in which they were intended - as a 
 discussion regarding his text. Am I misinterpreting what he said/ where
 does my reasoning go wrong/ or where is my reasoning right?

 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)


>	"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
 just as likely to improperly adjust a snaffle. If they do show, like he 
 said, it is reflected in their marks. I don't have any problem with that.
 There are a whole bunch of lower level riders getting low scores, I don't
 have any problem showing spectators bad examples of higher level
 riding. (although one wonders how they ever managed to get there) 
 Someone can learn just as much about what not to do by watching bad rides 
 as they can by watching good ones (maybe more, bad rides certainly leave
 a bigger impression) If a double bridle is an added difficulty, they
 don't belong in the higher levels. 


>	(I must admit that at the show where I saw the two very wonderful
>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
 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.

 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
 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