From: deblev@nimoy.ipac.caltech.edu (Debbie Levine)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: Re: dressage bits
Date: 19 Nov 1992 02:19:48 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology
NNTP-Posting-Host: nimoy.ipac.caltech.edu

In article <1992Nov18.085759.16886@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman) writes:
>	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. 

Ah... but that's the difference between "modern" and "classical"
dressage that Patty pointed out!  So this may be an issue of
semantics.

I had heard (I think it may even be in Xenophon somewhere) that the
'airs above the ground' were originally taught as military maneuvers.
Has this for once and all been debunked?  Are they really only "tricks"
then?

>	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.  [...]

This is true.  I should point out, though, that same danger applies
to copying ANYONE at ANY time, including the classical masters and 
our trainers!  Anything that we pick up based on someone else's
viewpoint, until we can validate it with our own experience, may
NOT BE CORRECT!  Or, it might work in situation a, but not in situation
b.  That's one of the great advantages to clinics, videotapes, this
newsgroup, books, and years & years of experience!  But, even if
we all ride for the next 50 years, not a single one of us will
have "figured it all out".  That's one of the things *I* want 
out of dressage, that sort of ultimate quest for "equestrian
truth", an inexhaustible goal!

>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.

This is a very good point.
 
>	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.

I disagre, unless the horse's mouth has become insensitive 
through abuse.  He might "curl himself up into a little ball"
rather than hollowing, but he sure as heck won't be happy!

In my (fairly limited) experience with curb bits, I have never
noticed that I can create true roundness with a curb where I couldn't
get it with a snaffle.  After all, if we are being stickler's for
correctness, shouldn't it mostly come from the leg, anyway?

>[...] 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.

Tracy, have you worked with a double bridle?  Are your comments from
your own experience, or are they primarily philosophical?  I've been
"dabbling at" dressage for about 9 years now, and I have to say, I
think I know fewer right answers now than I did when I started!  Granted,
I have never competed above first level, and have had limited
schooling time on upper-level horses, and I have very little experience
with the double -- but, you say you've been studying dressage for
2 years, and you seem to have gotten a great deal of your influence
from a single source.  I'm not putting ANYONE down, least of all
Dr. Gahwyler, whose book I thought was excellant.  BUT, I would 
encourage you to keep as open a mind as possible and to try first-hand
as many (reasonable) approaches as you can.

Down, soapbox!

Debbie
deblev@ipac.caltech.edu