Snaffle permitted at PSG

[bort84]

I really think this rule is a step in the right direction if we think of it as a rule that is being implemented for the horse NOT the rider. The horse has little choice as to who crawls on his back, so if a few riders who know their horses are happier in a snaffle use this rule, that’s a good thing.

You can call it the “dumbing down” of American dressage, but there are a LOT of ammies riding in American dressage that will never show at an international competition but may very well have the dollars to ride at the national level. A LOT of these riders may have bought a horse that is a bit too much for them, but they insist. Sure, trainers should tell them they HAVE to show at the level that they are actually capable of performing. Unfortunately, the reality is that many trainers have to be a little more flexible than they would like when it comes to certain customers. So let’s hope this gives the trainers some outs (and the horse).

An earlier poster did make a good point that some older schoolmasters have been spoiled in a double bridle (think of those overmounted ammies I was discussing earlier). So if you could show in a snaffle and have a happy horse, why is this so awful? I would guess this rule will not be taken advantage of by very many people, so hopefully it will benefit the horses of those few that do. I see no issue with this new rule if you think of it from the horse’s point of view.

Also, it certainly requires more skill to ride correctly in a double bridle… usually = ) I think the point some posters are making is that the curb bit can be used as a crutch, and often is. I see few people riding in a double bridle that I think are proficient, but I’m also a stickler about the double bridle. I usually see people with a curb so loose (thank goodness) that it is pulled completely horizontal in the horse’s mouth and there is absolutely no difference to the rider between the two reins. They just pull equally on both… why not just ride in a snaffle? Yes, they should learn proper technique, but until they do, give the horse a break…

Another point being made is that there are a lot of upper level horses that would be much much more difficult to ride through upper level movements in just a snaffle. The curb does allow a more refined communication, and if your horse is trained well enough to work at that level in a snaffle - well done.

And for riders with small hands - I grew up riding saddle seat (full bridle mandatory pretty much always), so as a tiny tot with tiny hands, we just used narrower reins. They really fit just fine. A lot of dressage people seem to ride with very wide reins, but smaller reins do exist, and I prefer them = )

Anyway, this rule is probably not going to affect many people because they will think they’ll look “silly” if they ride in a snaffle - these are often the same people putting all of their horses into doubles at 3rd that really aren’t ready. I guess I just don’t get the whole stink about it. If it makes a few horses happier in their mouths, I’m all for it. It’s hardly the end of American dressage as we know it…

[Quest52]

so… instead of encouraging people to ride correctly and ease up… we should just let them hang on a horses mouth in a snaffle instead of a double???

(I understand this is not every horse, but am responding to the above post)

[bort84]

@Quest52;4168455

so… instead of encouraging people to ride correctly and ease up… we should just let them hang on a horses mouth in a snaffle instead of a double???

(I understand this is not every horse, but am responding to the above post)

Well, that’s not really the only point from my post, but yes, I’d much rather have someone hang on my mouth in a snaffle than in a curb… Obviously.

Now, I really hate to see riders riding beyond their capabilities and forcing the horse to tolerate them. We all do. So maybe this rule will allow some trainers to convince their overachievers that a snaffle would be best. This probably won’t happen often since people want to look the part and ride in the double (again, think of those throwing all of their horses into a double at 3rd to look cool…)

Another point - some horses have issues that make riding in a curb challenging. Sure, they should be able to, and at international competitions they must. But for some ammies or even pros with horses that are the exception, this could extend their show career.

Also, think of sour schoolmasters (sour from someone hanging on that curb before they were ready, perhaps?) They might be able to introduce new riders to FEI if they can do it happily in a snaffle.

I can see why this rule could be irritating to some. On the one hand, it does seem like a “dumbing down” because some will use it that way. But I think it will benefit some horses, and it’s not likely to be put into use by our top riders that actually represent American dressage, so I’m not that bothered by it.

I also think it is reasonable to say that for many horses, being able to do the upper level tests in a snaffle would be an excellent showcase of their training. I’m thinking of pro’s horses that are light enough to be ridden in either a snaffle or double.

[ToN_Farm]

There are ongoing threads complaining about FEI horses cranked in and btv with horizontal curbs. So, are these riders using the double bridle correctly?

I really think ‘The Rules’ need to be rewritten in a lot of areas.

[Lori]

[QUOTE=Quest52;4166510]
there are many options out there for properly sized bits to fit in mouths, even the smaller cob sized horses.

If the rider has it all but one point… like the hand coordination… then that is the thing that is keeping them for moving up that level. Once they obtain that, then they should be able to move up… its one of the reasons for the separation of levels, the increased difficulty for both horse and rider.

Its like me saying, I want to do PSG, but I don’t have any tempi changes, so I’d like to replace that portion of my test with extended canter. Doesn’t make sense to make it easier, does it?[/QUOTE]

I agree.

[J_Lav]

I haven’t read through all the posts so my apologies if this has been said before.

We have had this rule for a couple of years in the UK and the fact of the matter is that the not so good riders still use the double, probably because most of the time they can’t get the same quality of work out of the horse in a snaffle!!

The people that actually are competing up and including GP over here in a snaffle, on the whole, are very experienced, established and well known FEI riders who certainly have no problem handling a double bridle.

I just can’t see anyone thinking they can now do PSG because they don’t have the skills to use a double, IME it’s usually the other way round and the less accomplished riders can’t wait to get their horses in a double as they think that will solve all their problems!

We have a rule here that you cannot ride at FEI until you have at least one score at 60% in an Advanced class (4th level), and that if you then get a score of 50% or below that you must re-qualify before riding at PSG again. This does keep some of the less able from riding at that level just to be able to say they are an “FEI” level rider.

[SisterToSoreFoot]

I think the spur issue, as described here, is more of an issue. I can see both arguments about the snaffle at PSG–on one hand, a horse/rider might be perfectly able to do the movements in it, and should be allowed. On the other, the full bridle allows for refinement that the snaffle might not, and since PSG level riding/movements should be refined, the double makes sense.

I guess the bottom line there is that the real thing being judged in a dressage test is the overall picture of the test/movements, not the rider’s use of the double bridle in isolation. So if the snaffle horse is lovely, he’s lovely, and the training/choice to use the snaffle was correct. If not, the bit, riding, or whatever might be at fault. I think acting as if PSG is a test of a rider’s full bridle skills is mispalcing the emphasis.

But spurs? What refinement comes from blunt pieces on the rider’s boot? They’re fine aids for some horses but the refinement argument doesn’t work for me here. And, unlike the full, the rider can keep them in complete “neutral” so to speak–not use them at all. So what’s the point of requiring them? If they are really required to show off a rider’s lower leg control, why not stick a lit match in the back of the rider’s boot instead? That way, jugdes could easily tell when the leg got a bit sloppy!

Some of the arguments for spurs and the full act as if a dressage test is a test of a rider’s ability to juggle gear, not the horse’s performance!

And finally, why should we care what the Europeans think of our dressage discussions?! The best way for American dressage to develop its own independent indentity is for us to hash out what “our” dressage is really about. I think the full/snaffle issue at PSG is a great discussion point that helps us do just that.

[Gloria]

Who got the ideas that using double has anything to do with riders’ skills? Tons of inexperienced riders use double to control their horses. Nothing to do with their skills. It is easier to collect horses with curb and the leverage allows users to use more subtle cue while delivering same or more force (hence the leverage).

It is much harder for riders to collect horses at the degree required for higher levels with a snaffle. If they can do it, they are MUCH BETTER riders than you and I. Hat off to them.

[narcisco]

I think it is a far greater sin for an FEI horse not to go in a snaffle than it is for him not to go in a double.

[Sonesta]

Good Gott in Himmel! What a tempest in a teapot!

[slc2]

I think that in some cases, it is a copout to show PSG in the snaffle, such as where the horse doesn’t have enough impulsion or gymnastic development and isn’t properly making a connection. Those horses tend to be much worse in the double bridle, so the double becomes like a ‘kimono opener’.

With a horse that is not going correctly into the bridle enough to go in the double bridle, the snaffle becomes a copout. The rider can show at the PSG in the snaffle and avoid fixing his problems.

But at the same time, the double can also be a copout. Say the horse is too strong and hard in the reins for the rider to ride in the snaffle bridle. He can, at least for a time, have the horse in the double, and avoid THAT problem…for a while.

The spur is meant for refinement of the aids. Some people have made mistakes in their early training so that the spur is not a refining aid, but some effort to get some basic obedience to the leg. The further he goes up the levels, the worse of a problem he has.

That doesn’t mean spurs are bad; it means most people are not perfect.

The truth is, most people struggle at the FEI levels, one way or another, for a very long time. For a lot of amateurs PSG will be their lifelong goal and the highest level they ever do. The PSG national classes are for a lot of people their end goal.

People with ideal horses, ideal instruction, and an ideal setup to do this thing, are far and few between. They go along and they struggle, usually for a very, very long time, and it’s not so pretty before it’s pretty for a long time.

A person doing their tests at PSG is no different from someone going to their first intro test 1 at the local show. Everyone’s learning, everyone’s got stuff to work on. For most amateurs it’s a big deal, and they’re doing as well as they are going to do.

Either the horse is too wadded up and won’t make a contact of he’s too strong. Either he gets goosey or he doesn’t respond well enough to the leg aids. Most people go to shows as they are learning as shows become a kind of destination, a goal, and a learning experience. Very few people feel they are perfect or doing a great job. Most riders are very hard on themselves. They aren’t at a show to impress but as a learning process.

I think allowing people to choose the bridle at PSG has the potential for being misused, but so does every other rule. I think giving people choices isn’t bad. I think they will have to learn one way or the other, at some point or another.

[D_BaldStockings]

Ok, I come from a time when I understood that you learned (often painfully), then you took a test to evaluate your level of comprehension and execution, then went back and learned some more, tested again, etc.

You didn’t go to a test to learn, or to compete against other riders, just yourself and your ability to elicit the best possible performance from the horse.

Levels to me implies that if you are less than proficient at lower levels, you will not do better showing at the higher ones if you are building correctly. This is the simple schooling concept in any subject from writing to mathematics.

If Dressage tests still score the horse responding to the aids and the rider correctly giving the aids, faking it can’t go unnoticed.
And shouldn’t go unmentioned /uncorrected.

This is all so basic I don’t know why it needs to be re-stated, yet I am reading very different experiences and expectations on this thread.

I read of people defending one type of bit based on abusive riding with other types…stop right there!
Abusive riding is abusive, period. The means of abuse are not to blame, the operator is.

One can’t justify writing with a lump of chalk because someone stabs people with a sharpened pencil. Saying we should use manual typewriters instead of computers because heavy fingers cause typos on the more responsive platform is unnecessarily limiting. No matter the platform, the writing doesn’t change; you can be a Shakespeare or an illiterate and it shines through regardless of how expensive or complex your gadgetry.

Bits aren’t fashion.
Direct vs. leverage bits have different effects on the horse. A rider at upper levels of performance needs to be able to understand and use them all properly, just as he should master seat, leg, weight and every other nuance of physical interaction influencing and reacting to the horse.
Contact is the way the horse and rider communicate to each other through the bit in use. Both of sides of a conversation; back and forth.
Contact is not bad, it is desirable. Lugging, boring, dropping behind the bit, getting above the bit and other evasions are insufficiencies and should be marked against the rider and the horse –the communication is not whole.
Lack of contact ends that particular conversation.

I would hope that one reason dressage is popular is because it displays thought for the horse’s well-being and education, and a rider who strives to educate themselves in the development of good or at least better riding. Learning to use precision tools subtly to refine your ability to give more exact and precise aids ought to be part of that education.

Testing displays and scores the learned skillset.

It’s hard and gets harder as the levels increase.
It is about always striving; not arriving.

Like I say, I’m old. I prefer to get 100 on a spelling test and get called out if I make a stupid mistake; not pass/fail everybody wins and nobody improves.

Double, yes. Snaffle, no. My vote.

[Carol_Ames]

one hand?

Should e resume the practice of requiring part of the test to be ridden with only one hand on the:winkgrin: reins? Amazing things happen when this is tried!:winkgrin:

[D_BaldStockings]

[QUOTE=Carol Ames;4169848]
Should e resume the practice of requiring part of the test to be ridden with only one hand on the:winkgrin: reins? Amazing things happen when this is tried!:winkgrin:[/QUOTE]

Oh, my! Now that would be entertaining! So many people are at a loss doing a stretching circle now…

Many horses actually go better with one hand on the reins -shows up the unevenness left to right of the rider’s hands very well; if anyone has been blaming their horse for one-sidednesss just try it!

[ESG]

@D_BaldStockings;4169783

Ok, I come from a time when I understood that you learned (often painfully), then you took a test to evaluate your level of comprehension and execution, then went back and learned some more, tested again, etc.

You didn’t go to a test to learn, or to compete against other riders, just yourself and your ability to elicit the best possible performance from the horse.

Levels to me implies that if you are less than proficient at lower levels, you will not do better showing at the higher ones if you are building correctly. This is the simple schooling concept in any subject from writing to mathematics.

If Dressage tests still score the horse responding to the aids and the rider correctly giving the aids, faking it can’t go unnoticed.
And shouldn’t go unmentioned /uncorrected.

This is all so basic I don’t know why it needs to be re-stated, yet I am reading very different experiences and expectations on this thread.

I read of people defending one type of bit based on abusive riding with other types…stop right there!
Abusive riding is abusive, period. The means of abuse are not to blame, the operator is.

One can’t justify writing with a lump of chalk because someone stabs people with a sharpened pencil. Saying we should use manual typewriters instead of computers because heavy fingers cause typos on the more responsive platform is unnecessarily limiting. No matter the platform, the writing doesn’t change; you can be a Shakespeare or an illiterate and it shines through regardless of how expensive or complex your gadgetry.

Bits aren’t fashion.
Direct vs. leverage bits have different effects on the horse. A rider at upper levels of performance needs to be able to understand and use them all properly, just as he should master seat, leg, weight and every other nuance of physical interaction influencing and reacting to the horse.
Contact is the way the horse and rider communicate to each other through the bit in use. Both of sides of a conversation; back and forth.
Contact is not bad, it is desirable. Lugging, boring, dropping behind the bit, getting above the bit and other evasions are insufficiencies and should be marked against the rider and the horse –the communication is not whole.
Lack of contact ends that particular conversation.

I would hope that one reason dressage is popular is because it displays thought for the horse’s well-being and education, and a rider who strives to educate themselves in the development of good or at least better riding. Learning to use precision tools subtly to refine your ability to give more exact and precise aids ought to be part of that education.

Testing displays and scores the learned skillset.

It’s hard and gets harder as the levels increase.
It is about always striving; not arriving.

Like I say, I’m old. I prefer to get 100 on a spelling test and get called out if I make a stupid mistake; not pass/fail everybody wins and nobody improves.

Double, yes. Snaffle, no. My vote.

Make that two. :yes:

And Carol Ames? Wonderful idea!!!

[bort84]

@Carol Ames;4169848

Should e resume the practice of requiring part of the test to be ridden with only one hand on the:winkgrin: reins? Amazing things happen when this is tried!:winkgrin:

At the upper levels, absolutely! At the lower levels… well, that would be pretty scary for most ammies and for the judges too, haha = )

I think it would be great to require it at the FEI levels, or at least grand prix. What fun! A horse and rider at that level should be able to execute most parts of the test with ease with just one hand = ) It would show how light and responsive the horse was at least - it’s hard to ride with one hand if the horse is lugging on you instead of carrying himself.

Also, just want to point out again that there may be more to this rule than just allowing less capable ammies to ride in a bridle they are more comfortable with (snaffle). I’m sure there are some very good riders out there that are completely comfortable and capable in a double bridle that may have horses that, for one reason or another, perform as well or better in a snaffle. If this is the case, then I think it’s great if you are skillful enough to ride in a double but are also skillful enough to train your horse to perform as well in a snaffle as he does in a double = ) That’s just another way to think about it.

And, even when it comes to the ammies that really aren’t good with a double so may choose to ride in a snaffle at PSG, why is this so bad if it keeps the horse happier? In a perfect world, nobody would compete above their level of skill, but people do and will continue to do so because that’s what they want to do. Let’s hope their trainers can now convince them to do less damage to their horses by riding in a snaffle instead. Not everyone thinks the same way as many of the people on this board. So what should be the case and what is actually the case are usually not the same.

[canyonoak]

This new ruling covers ALL the FEI level classes at a national or regional show, right?

PSG, Int. One and Two and GP…?

Just asking ,because so many of the posts keep referring only to PSG.

FWIW, I think it is great to have the option. Good riders will make use of the best tools for the job. Poor riders will make a hash of the job no matter what tools they use.

[slc2]

I’d actually like to see as a requirement/qualifier or almost like a soundness jog, for the GP, some simple riding on the buckle in all 3 working gaits.

Get rid of the problems of iffy soundness horses competing, chase away the complaints that the horses aren’t schooled properly or go ahead and prove they aren’t, etc.

I would like to see it as separate from the tests, so the horses expect and understand what’s coming up and it’s part of their routine.

[Arathita]

What an interesting thread.

I cannot imagine why people would not want PSG or even GP to be allowed to be ridden in the snaffle. And I cannot imagine that people equate the desire of a rider or horse to go in a snaffle as amateur-ish. There are PLENTY of International level riders who wish that they could continue the FEI tests in a snaffle for some of their horses. Ask around. Are they ignorant riders who cannot use their hands? ???

The HORSE is judged the same whether it goes in a double or a snaffle. If the horse performes piaffe, passage and pirouettes more correctly in a snaffle than the double, then what is the problem? The point of dressage training is to gymnasticize, loosen, and strengthen the horse. Period. Tradition once dictated that dressage riders rode in forward seat saddles and saddles with no knee rolls. If the rider can be made comfy, why not the horse?

[mandalea]

[QUOTE=Equibrit;4166995]
If you don’t NEED the equipment - why use it ??[/QUOTE]

That’s what I think.

Here in Australia, it used to be compulsory to use spurs with a double. Now, it is optional because many riders have proven they don’t need them.

I don’t see WHY you need to wear a double, since your not really supposed to use the curb, and most people train in a snaffle anyway…