Not if it precludes the rider being competent with, and the horse being accepting of, the double bridle. It’s an FEI requirement - period. You don’t see this rule being instituted at Intermediare or GP, do you? So what’s the point? Pre- or beginner-PSG? Yeah, that’ll do a lot for the standard of riding in this country.
Please. :rolleyes:
Some of them national rides at psg would look better in a snaffle, LOL.
I just don’t think the national classes matter that much. If they did it at the cdi level, then I’d be plotzing.
[QUOTE=ESG;4167413]
So what’s the point? Pre- or beginner-PSG? Yeah, that’ll do a lot for the standard of riding in this country.
Please. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]
Yes please!
There is great controversy over whether it actually requires more skill to ride in a double at PSG or to ride well in a snaffle at PSG.
Pre-beginner PSG is called Third level, beginner PSG is called Fourth, so no need to create new levels already, ESG! :lol:
And it’s that kind of thinking that guarantees that American dressage riders will always finish behind the Dutch and the Germans.
When you go to a show, the PSG test is the same whether it’s the national test or a CDI. Why not have all the rules the same? Doesn’t make sense. Too much like “Obama dressage” - “Oh, let’s level the playing field so everyone will have an equal chance to win!”. Saints preserve me. :dead:
OK, OK, I give. I hate it too.
No, you’re the one making new levels. PSG is FEI. It’s a step up, or it should be. Riders have to step up and be able to ride in a double. Horses have to step up and be able to work in a double. That’s the standard. Dumb it down, and the effects will be seen elsewhere. Stupid, stupid idea.
[QUOTE=ESG;4167442]
And it’s that kind of thinking that guarantees that American dressage riders will always finish behind the Dutch and the Germans.
When you go to a show, the PSG test is the same whether it’s the national test or a CDI. Why not have all the rules the same? Doesn’t make sense. Too much like “Obama dressage” - “Oh, let’s level the playing field so everyone will have an equal chance to win!”. Saints preserve me. :dead:[/QUOTE]
OK - YOU are free to ride in a full bridle, so I guess you’ll be winning everything ! Just don’t bitch when somebody beats you riding in a snaffle ! People will be going with whatever produces the best result.
[QUOTE=Quest52;4167338]
I’m a good driver, but I wouldn’t want all the confusion of a race car, the level of instruments is too high for my level of knowledge.
race car----- double bridle[/QUOTE]
And if someone can take their commuter ford and beat all the racecars…? I would have to consider them exceptionally skilled, not lacking in training. Its almost like they’re handicapping themselves - sure I could use a race car and beat you all by a mile, but instead I’ll be sporting and make it interesting.
[QUOTE=Equibrit;4167346]
I think it requires more skill to ride a horse at those levels without more hardware ! Whatever your take on the skill required the new rule allows MORE alternatives - and that is good. The skill level of the rider or trainer does not automatically rise because you slap a full bridle on a horse, but the LACK of it would show in a snaffle. Imagine what would happen if you asked everybody to show without a cavesson !! Would that display acceptance of the bit ?[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with this statement. :yes:
[QUOTE=ESG;4167442]
And it’s that kind of thinking that guarantees that American dressage riders will always finish behind the Dutch and the Germans.
When you go to a show, the PSG test is the same whether it’s the national test or a CDI. Why not have all the rules the same? Doesn’t make sense. Too much like “Obama dressage” - “Oh, let’s level the playing field so everyone will have an equal chance to win!”. Saints preserve me. :dead:[/QUOTE]
I doubt that seriously. I don’t forsee Steffan Peters, Courtney King, Lauren Sammis or any of the other big time American riders who will actually compete internationally being affected by a rule basically put in for amateur riders.
agree with that, and agree that it takes MORE skill to ride in the double than the snaffle, but i think that’s why it is being allowed in the national classes.
Wasn’t the full bridle at 3rd rule supposedly put in for amateurs ?
[QUOTE=gholem;4167465]
And if someone can take their commuter ford and beat all the racecars…? I would have to consider them exceptionally skilled, not lacking in training. Its almost like they’re handicapping themselves - sure I could use a race car and beat you all by a mile, but instead I’ll be sporting and make it interesting.[/QUOTE]
No, you missed my point completely. You tell me if you could drive a raccecar… you can’t .
Many of the people riding in these snaffles are doing so because they themselves cannot handle their seat and their hands enough to ride in a double.
Why not just call it 4th level test 5???
Its like moving up in karate belts… you have to actually move up to gain the next belt. Move up to PSG, suck it up and learn how to ride like an FEI rider… gain your shadbelly. (FIGURATIVELY)
Put the average person in a race car and they die.
They don’t get in them.
They train themselves to drive with all those gadgets.
When they are really good they don’t need all the gadgets, they can do without!
Driving has become instinct, touch, sensation - no crutches required.
I just want to adhere to the standards of the level. I’m a traditionalist, I admit; I like to do what works. :winkgrin:
If I were to extrapolate on your theory that the dumbing-down to the snaffle is good, then one might reasonably conclude that we should give Training through Third level riders the option of using other bits than snaffles, as they would make it easier for the riders to get the horses round. And maybe we let the schoolmasters show in wraps or boots, just to give everyone the benefit of being able to ride in a show, without a perfectly sound horse.
You see where this is going, right?
But it’s not just put in for amateur riders. It’s the national classes, and they come in open and amateur divisions.
And Courtney King et al, are going to be riding in the CDI classes, so will be unaffected by the stupid rule change.
[QUOTE=ESG;4167510]
I just want to adhere to the standards of the level. I’m a traditionalist, I admit; I like to do what works. :winkgrin:
If I were to extrapolate on your theory that the dumbing-down to the snaffle is good, then one might reasonably conclude that we should give Training through Third level riders the option of using other bits than snaffles, as they would make it easier for the riders to get the horses round. And maybe we let the schoolmasters show in wraps or boots, just to give everyone the benefit of being able to ride in a show, without a perfectly sound horse.
You see where this is going, right?[/QUOTE]
Not really. I have more of a problem with “smarting up” 3rd level by allowing the double bridle.
I just personally don’t think the double is all of that and a bag of chips. I’ve seen many riders use it as a crutch…sure I can get my horse on the bit in a double, but not in the snaffle. Me personally, I’m more of a [purist…why put all of that hardware in my horse’s mouth if the horse will do it with less??? I’ve never understood the spur rule either…if the horse doesn’t require spurs, why do they have to be used? I’m more impressed with a horse/rider who can do the movements with less, not more.
Exactly. :yes:
It hasn’t been established that the new rule is “dumbing down”.
I’m excited to hear this
because I have such tiny hands. I wear a youth XL glove and all that rein has nowhere to go.
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
