I’m of mixed feelings on this one; primarily because a person I know who complains the loudest about having to wear spurs in FEI classes is the same person whose legs apparently have a mind of their own!
I believe that expectations for rider skills should increase and not just the horse’s as one moves up the levels. If you can’t avoid unintentional spurring, perhaps the spurs aren’t the problem.
I think it’s wonderful that they’re optional now. There’s no reason at all they should be required.
I had a horse that would get rubs from the spur branch, not the spur point.
Judges are free to penalize a wiggly leg and certainly a wiggly leg makes it harder for the horse to follow the rider’s instructions/conversation. There is no reason to make it worse by forcing the rider to wear a spur.
personally I think it’s good to allow people to use “less” equipment and concentrate the rules on stopping too much equipment if that makes sense. Same as with the bits - if you want to ride your upper level tests in a snaffle have at 'er - the scoring should be on the quality of the training irregardless of what you hang on the horse’s face.
And yet, having to wear spurs has not stopped them from competing, nor does it seem that judges have penalized them enough for their poor riding to force them to improve.
I’m in favor of spurs being optional. In an ideal world, they require a more educated leg to use, but that has stopped no one in the history of ever from using them. One could also argue that not having spurs could demonstrate a rider has an even more educated seat and refined aids! (Again, ideally, though perhaps not realistically when it comes to looking at competitors)
But at least in the context of modern dressage competition, the tests are about the education/training of the horse, not the rider. Unless that changes anytime soon, I’m in the camp of “allow for less” because requiring more equipment won’t stop anyone who has a capable horse but less than capable skills from competing and (mis)using said equipment. FWIW, I feel similarly about double bridles.
Excellent point, thanks for that.
I’m all for allowing people to show in a snaffle for any level. I know too many people that skip 2nd level to get to 3rd so they can use a double instead of improving their training.
For sure. Like the fallacy of black gloves hiding bad hands, no spurs is not going to hide a loose lower leg on a rider. Judges, particularly by the time they have at least an S card have a eye well trained enough to spot a bad leg.
I agree that it is a great step forward to stop requiring such specific tack at the upper levels. Some horses do better in the double, others are a complete mess in the double and it isn’t necessarily about the training, but about the horse’s level of tolerance, mouth size, skin sensitivity & thickness, etc…
I knew a good pro trainer in my area that imported a lovely young mare, brought her up through the levels carefully and with quality training, but she simply WOULD NOT tolerate the double bridle. Would not step into contact, would be sucked way behind the vertical even on a loose rein, regardless of trying essentially every legal bit combination. This was before the rule change at the national level that said a snaffle was fine all the way through GP. So she could not show the mare above 4th for several years, until the rule change went effective.
I don’t see any reason why they shouldn’t be optional. It’s silly to make riders wear dummy spurs because their horses don’t need them but they are forced to wear them.
This rule change was made for Eventing dressage (both National at Intermediate/Adv. and FEI) a while back, and we see quite a few riders without them now. Horses can be particular about all kinds of things, so the ability to choose is great!
This is how I always felt about requiring dummy spurs rather than allowing no spurs. So very silly to require dummy spurs. I wonder what the reasoning was.
There can be no other reason than appearance or “tradition”.
Good. Now maybe work towards removing obligatory nose bands: they are designed to hide so much poor training.
My mare is violently opposed to spurs - as soon as you get on, before you have even moved and certainly without touching them to her, she will pin her ears and bite at them. I’m very happy to hear we don’t need to wear them to move up!
Maybe they can add a new class - nosebandless - and we can all take note of who never enters.
Would be interesting.
I applaud this rule. I didn’t show my TB because he was a total nut in public, but he was one of those horses with thin skin which would rub and bleed from anything. I had a pair of winter boots i couldn’t wear on him because the wrinkle at the ankle fell so it would rub and cause blood, and I couldn’t use saddle pads with reinforced edges because they also would make him bleed. Spurs would have been an issue, even though my legs are very still.
Which brings me to - leg stillness is often a human conformation thing, too. I am 5’1", and my tall friends always marvel at how still my legs are. It’s just because it’s how I’m built. Even when I correctly absorb motion through my hips, knees, and ankles - my legs don’t move. For effectiveness, I’ve had to consciously make my legs more mobile. It’s like nature’s reward for being incapable of looking elegant on a horse, rather than a sign of ability. I know of multiple people who have leg abnormalities - pointing different directions, joints are misshapen, etc., who are physically incapable of keeping their legs still and facing entirely the correct way (and in fact can’t control their feet from the saddle or necessarily tell what they are doing) but are quite capable of doing FEI tests. While they could likely qualify for para dressage if they wished, they haven’t sought dispensation or recognition as para and now cab simply not use spurs.
I have only done lower level dressage for fun so I’m not familiar with the rules.
Why were spurs made mandatory in the first place?
I don’t understand why spurs would be required. Why it would be controversial to leave the decision to use spurs or not up to the trainer and rider?
In modern time, it is suppose to be a sign that the rider has a very educated leg and has complete control of when it is used to give a very refine aid. Tradition also plays a role. I see spurs on many riders at all levels who should not be wearing them. They don’t have control of their legs. In the day of horses being used in battle, spurs were used crudely to enforce the will of the rider. The rider’s life depended on complete obedience of their horse. They did not care if the horse’s side was a bloody mess or ribs broken.
Misuse of the spur can break a rib on a horse?
Yes. I doubt the legal spurs of today can, but the spurs of the past, yes. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/29621 Our spurs are nothing compared to the spurs once used in warfare.
Interesting, thanks!
Geneeal musing: You’d think that if the theory is that spurs are evidence of an educated leg, the elite riders would have opposed the rule from the beginning,l. Theoretically, spurs would be a way for the elite riders to visibly indicate their superior horsemanship relative to the allegedly less skilled riders who didn’t use spurs.
Or was the rule originally pushed by the allegedly less-skilled riders to eliminate any bias by judges who might assume the rider with spurs is automatically having a better ride?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
