I doubt there was much “pushing” at all for the rule - it would have been a given. Presumably it was enacted many many years ago when perspectives towards riding and competing were very different (and not yet bent to the will of modern capitalistic society). Someone who wasn’t skilled enough to use spurs would not have been considered skilled enough to ride FEI tests.
8 Likes
A double bridle once indicate educated hands and spurs an educated seat. Both were designed to produce the ultimate refinement of an educated rider’s aids. But in our world of quick results and huge prices for horses… they can become abusive.
8 Likes
In the olden days 
there wasn’t really much downside to requiring spurs and the few people who protested or who had weird edge case reasons for not wanting to wear spurs were easily dismissed as kooks.
With the new rules around blood and rubs and missing hair and scrapes, more people are realizing they could become an edge case.
In Dressage, we’ve always talked about harmony between horse and rider; I think we’re also coming around more to consent and the appearance of consent.
As far as stillness of the leg. I actually think spurs are helpful in creating more clarity for a lot of unclear legs. IMHO it takes more skill to ride a typical dressage horse without a spur. The horse has to decide - are those boots just bouncing on me or are they trying to say something? But with a spur, the horse can assume more intent.
IMHO the only/main prescriptions we should have on equipment are when it is needed to prevent discomfort or danger for the horse.
8 Likes
My very first Fearless Leader back in the day used to say that if you’re good enough to use spurs correctly, you’re good enough not to need them.
I’ve heard that the spur requirement was due to thinking that they counteracted the potentially restrictive nature of the full bridle.
4 Likes
Thank goodness. This was an archaic requirement that has led to unneccessary wear and tear on the horses and their emotional well being. The double bridles need to go and the cavessons need to get loosened. If people are not motivated enough to do these basic things in the interests of their own horses’ basic well being, they need to do it in the interests of not being run out of town like Shamu and circus elephants. A lot of people who would claim to have an educated leg and refined hands are deluding themselves on whether their horse is enjoying modern dressage and the current dressage seat. People have been wearing spurs like they are some kind of badge of sophistication…
4 Likes
Why does the double bridle need to go? Emotional well being? What is wrong with modern dressage? Is something better?
4 Likes
Yes, I’m aware of what a medieval spur looked like. First, don’t forget that the long legs and armor meant spurs needed to be longer to reach the horse. Second, riding a horse into battle was a lot different than dressage. Third, there is no way a spur can break a rib. Damage a hose’s sides yes, but break a rib no.
6 Likes
First, spurs are not forbidden, they are no longer required. Big difference.
Then, echoing @enjoytheride, why does the double bridle need to go? Used properly, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.
15 Likes
Well, when I was visiting the British Museum, I had a nice conversation with one the curators about medieval spurs and how barbaric they were. In battle, anything goes to keep yourself alive and if that meant inflicting wounds to their horse to get compliance so be it. And yes, to ribs being broken. Wickedly sharp, long and pointed spurs were in use long before the sharp and multi-pointed medievel roweled spur. I think I will go by what I was told by the curator as he is the expert on the subject.
I never said that today’s spurs would break a rib. They can cause wounds and bruising if misused out of ignorance or malice.
3 Likes
Amen.
I have a very good friend whose femurs come out of her hip joints very forward so she has to work very hard, and fails most of the time, to not have a very prominent chair seat.
Too many people try to shame lower level ammys dealing with physical issues with “just work harder” “get more out of the saddle exercise” “do pilates/yoga/PT” etc… without looking at the total package, seeing how happy the horse is and the appropriate level of ambition. They assume that everyone has aspirations to show beyond 1st level, which many, many ammies KNOW they will never move past and are there to have fun with barnmates and support their friends.
19 Likes
I believe that it could. Think about it - if you could break a rib with a hammer, legs are stronger than arms. Pony club kick with some good sized spurs, and I can totally believe ribs have been cracked.
1 Like
I don’t understand why we require specific tack at the upper levels.
If you can ride your Grand Prix test bareback and bridleless, more power to you. Instead we require things that are specifically easy to abuse.
12 Likes
A Grand Prix test requires accepting the bit so you can’t do that with no bit.
9 Likes
Well yeah but isn’t accepting the bit just an indicator of submission and training? In theory, couldn’t the verbiage on the tests be modified to reflect the same end goal?
I was being a bit hyperbolic with my statement in the sense that no, I don’t think people should be riding bridleless and bareback. But things like spurs, nose bands, and double bridles… I don’t understand why we still require them over the lesser option of going in a plain snaffle, without a noseband, without spurs.
I guess you can argue that the tack tests the rider’s skill as much as it reflect’s the horse’s training… but wouldn’t it be kinder across the board to just eliminate the requirement all together?
10 Likes
The problem with the bitless bridles is when the horse is “on contact” the noseband will be tighter than what’s allowed.
At least, I can see that being potentially a problem.
3 Likes
I was competing a very lazy, behind the leg horse years ago. I had to wear a spur to keep him forward. But he was a thin-skinned chestnut and even my dull little tiny Prince of Wales spurs drew blood. I was disqualified. But, I learned an important lesson. The horse needed more training to go forward from my leg aid, not a spur or whip. I got him to 3rd level and got pretty good scores on him after that - sans spurs.
When I’ve had students wanting to move up the levels, I’ve insisted they wear spurs at the lower levels because the were required at the FEI levels. You don’t want to train your horse up to PSG and then suddenly surprise him with spurs. IMO this removal of the requirement is a great thing and way too long in coming.
14 Likes
I don’t think it’ so much a matter of trying to shame anyone but rather more of a matter of different ideas about the sport in general.
Of course, it should be fun and safe for both the horse and the rider. I believe the skills of both horse and rider should increase as they move up the levels. This conversation is just, IMO, another version of the one about not sitting the trot.
Unfortunately, too often the rider has ambitions beyond their own skills or the ability of their horse and ultimately, it’s the horse that suffers and as pointed out above, judge comments do not seem to be sufficient to deter such behavior. One need only to think back on the video several years ago of an ammy riding GP in SoCal. I don’t recall anyone saying, poor rider, she shouldn’t have to wear spurs or sit the trot. Frankly, I see it most often at local shows at 2nd level and 3rd level so those ammies certainly are thinking beyond 1st. YMMV
I’ve been guilty myself in that it took a score of 48% to get me back in training.
ETA: I do not mean to imply that it’s unfortunate to have ambitions beyond one’s current skills but rather that it’s unfortunate to NOT work on one’s skills to match your ambitions.
3 Likes
This is the argument that always comes out but I think this is a literalist interpretation that misses the point. The point is that the horse allows herself to be guided; the point is that they are relaxed in the jaw while containing the forward energy.
Whether the horse is wearing a bridle and what type it is is not how this property is evaluated. A judge should be able to evaluate this and in exactly the same way even if the tack is invisible.
If you wanted to be extremely literal, “accepting the bit” could be interpreted to mean that if there is any drape in the curb rein that the horse is not “accepting” it. I really don’t think that is what we want.
If a horse and rider can create this same soft tension and energy bitless or even with no bridle at all, more power to them.
12 Likes
I agree, and I think that the folks championing bitless dressage should form their own organization with their own rules and shows.
5 Likes
Well, the bit IS a literal thing.
8 Likes
