What are the benefits/drawbacks of the stronger bits on XC?

[EventerAJ]

[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8388570]

I am not for over-regulating and and trying to control rider choices with a lot of rules. I am for using rules to protect horses, where experience has shown it is necessary. Do these bits represent that point, in general practice? I’m honestly not sure.

How many bleeding mouths are actually out there? Can we say specifically what caused the bleeding? Hands - bit design - improper adjustment or tack?

What, exactly, is it that needs to be regulated about cross-country bitting? The effect of the bitting, or the bit itself? If it’s just bleeding mouths, that’s one path. If it’s the bit - which aspects of the bit?

Port size? direct contact? shank/leverage length? gag stoppers? some combination of all these and other factors? It seems to me that it is going to be very difficult to pinpoint specifics of this complex subject, unless it sticks to just very basic principals.

If these things can’t be pinpointed fairly definitely, new bitting rules will be confusing and open to interpretation and argument. That’s going to do more harm than good. IMO

At this time, at least, it’s not clear to me what direction new rules about bitting should take. There is a general feeling that things have gone too far and enough riders are making poor choices that it’s time for some rules - but what rules, exactly? Maybe there are others who are very clear as to what they think should not be allowed, and what should be.[/QUOTE]

Great post, Over and Onward.

I also am not sure that we need new bitting rules. I fear it could be a slippery slope; what is perceived as cruel to some is useful and appropriate to others. I think there is some agreeance when a line is crossed…but where does the line begin between “allowed” and not allowed?

http://eventingconnect.today/2015/11/02/do-we-need-bitting-rules-on-cross-country/

[vineyridge]

Dressage has a list of allowed bits. All others are forbidden. People learn to deal with those rules; people would probably learn to deal with a list of allowed XC bits.

[fordtraktor]

Well, Lady Eboshi makes a really good point. The horses would be much better off if we could make a rule against bad hands, rather than bits.

George Morris prefers twisted bits to leverage bits, if I understand correctly. He is quick to recommend a slow twist or corkscrew so that a rider can gain control over a horse instead of getting drug around. He knows a lot more about riding than I do so I am the first one to say my preference is just a personal one.

[omare]

Whether bits and chain nosebands etc, need to be regulated might also have to do with whether it is determined that a super-bitted up horse is symptomatic (or can be strongly symptomatic) of a less than safe team x-country…I will leave that to those with greater wisdom than myself.

[BaroquePony]

Well, in all fairness, George also brought us the crest release so that people who really weren’t ready to show over jumps, could. There are people who blame him for some of the dumbing down in the hunter / jumpers that we have seen.

[fordtraktor]

And Denny points out that he doesn’t favor the auto release ever on XC and that some of the best of the best, like Mark Todd on Charisma, are never seen using it in pictures. Don’t blame George Morris for the crest release.

George is a stickler for details and correct riding. The problem with most people is that they aren’t.

[Nadia1990]

I think the major thing that should be considered is the horse ‘soft’ in the mouth piece. If you have a strong bit in your horse mouth and it is going around of finger tip control, not fighting and listing to the aids (and your not getting left behind) then there is not really a problem as the bitting choice is not causing the horse stress/unhappiness or pain and the choice of bit is still backed up by quality education.

But if you have bitted a horse up to its eyeballs and it is still fighting and resisting, tossing his head and has no respect for the aids then there is a problem as this horse will be strong no matter what bit you put him and chances are there is a fundamental point in the horse education missing or the horse has been ‘fried’. To me this a problem that needs to be addressed as it can be very dangerous for horse and rider

[OverandOnward]

[QUOTE=fordtraktor;8388834]
Well, Lady Eboshi makes a really good point. The horses would be much better off if we could make a rule against bad hands, rather than bits.
…[/QUOTE]

Amen to that. And that goes to rider education and preparation - not just knowing, but doing as well.

So maybe it’s about bad hands, rather than bad bits? If so, hypothetically maybe what’s needed is not rules about bits, but a different set of qualifications requiring a riding test that will show up these weaknesses. Not a suggestion, just a what if.

@omare;8388849

Whether bits and chain nosebands etc, need to be regulated might also have to do with whether it is determined that a super-bitted up horse is symptomatic (or can be strongly symptomatic) of a less than safe team x-country…I will leave that to those with greater wisdom than myself.

This is a good thought that would be a guide for avoiding making rules that don’t accomplish the purpose. That is, not singling out bitting options just to make a rule, but keeping a focus on the end result of a safer horse & rider team on cross-country.

[QUOTE=Nadia1990;8389184]I think the major thing that should be considered is the horse ‘soft’ in the mouth piece. If you have a strong bit in your horse mouth and it is going around of finger tip control, not fighting and listing to the aids (and your not getting left behind) then there is not really a problem as the bitting choice is not causing the horse stress/unhappiness or pain and the choice of bit is still backed up by quality education.

But if you have bitted a horse up to its eyeballs and it is still fighting and resisting, tossing his head and has no respect for the aids then there is a problem as this horse will be strong no matter what bit you put him and chances are there is a fundamental point in the horse education missing or the horse has been ‘fried’. To me this a problem that needs to be addressed as it can be very dangerous for horse and rider[/QUOTE]

This is a great idea in theory, but … we are talking cross-country. I agree that the training of horse & rider, and the selection of the bit, should not result in a horse that is fighting the aids all the way around. But this goes to the education of the rider and the training of the horse over and above the bit selection, IMO.

The nature of cross-country itself is that horses go up the excitement-adrenaline meter - that’s what gets them around, and makes the time. They will be less responsive. They will be more inclined to do what horses (esp. with TB genes) instinctively do - solve their questions by turning up the speed. The nature of the sport will always take this discipline to this type of conundrum - just as each discipline faces different self-imposed challenges of fairness to the horse.

I do not believe it is not reasonable or even fair to expect that a cross-country horse will be as sweet to the bit, and the seat & leg & aids, as these lovely examples …
2015 ASPCA Maclay Finals - rounds of the top 3

We can change the sport to minimize issues like this … or we can learn better ways to ride and disseminate that knowledge throughout the eventing community, and beyond. It is part of what this sport should be, as a sport, IMO. If we are doing it effectively is a good question to ask on a regular basis.

[JER]

Today, Mike Plumb uses the same bit on every horse – a full cheek snaffle.

If you ride with him, he tells you to use that bit. If you decide otherwise, he continues to harp on it.

But the tack room at JMP Farm, which is a cluttered museum of vintage equestrian paraphernalia, tells another story. There are all kinds of bits on the wall and in boxes, and we can’t quite figure out the purpose of many of them. My guess is that they’ve all had their use – or were tested for a specific purpose – at some point over the last 60 years.

Training a horse is usually more complex than simple. Even a straightforward program is rarely straightforward on the individual level. You adjust as necessary, sometimes just for a session or two, but you might go through a phase where clarity is more important than kindness.

Mary King, in her first book or somewhere along her career, talked about how she rides her horses in a Magenis snaffle – a square mouthpiece set with sideways rollers – periodically as a reminder to stop leaning on the bit. She said you only have to use it once and they get the message.

[JER]

[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8389470]

I do not believe it is not reasonable or even fair to expect that a cross-country horse will be as sweet to the bit, and the seat & leg & aids, as these lovely examples …
2015 ASPCA Maclay Finals - rounds of the top 3[/QUOTE]

Those are specialist eq horses that go in a headset and jump flat. The pelhams with double reins help maintain that headset.

You can’t really get a true feel on a pelham but if the horse will accept the pelham (I’ve had some who won’t), it can be an effective bit on XC or out hunting if you have strong horse who needs the occasional strong forward correction.

[subk]

The FEI rule says you can’t use equipment “that is likely to wound the horse.”

I hear people saying that “well, sometimes a loose ring snaffle can pinch and be a problem.” The problem with that argument is that we (and the officials) have seen thousand upon thousands upon thousands of horses go out on xc in loose ring snaffles and the number that come back wounded is approaching zero. So we know through experience very clearly and certainly that a loose ring snaffle is NOT “likely” to create a problem.

So lets say you have a rider with a combination of leverage, mouth pieces and nosebands. Some of these combos are literally unique–riders using equipment that people have literally never seen used in combination with each other on upper level xc courses. So how would a judge know whether this equipment is “likely” to wound?! Quite simply they don’t. They might be able to speculate, but they are in no position to make a determination of likelihood–as the rules require–whether or not the equipment is a problem because actual real life experience with that particular set up is slim to none.

I think the rules are already in place to regulate some of the problem–not that I think officials are willing–but I do think the can if they want.

You want to ride in some medieval setup? Fine. Since the judges can not determine how “likely” that set up is a problem then your ride will determine it. If your horse comes back with a single hair out of place since our one time experience with your unusual and/or unique equipment combination resulted in a problem (so a rate of one use/one problem=likely) you get the book thrown at you.

Use your unique equipment, but do so at the risk of elimination/disqualification/set down.

[Madeline]

[QUOTE=gardenie;8384595]
I think that it isn’t so much about bits. It is about combination of bit and method of forcing a mouth shut that is really the issue. [/QUOTE]

I really think that this is the crux of the problem. Why does almost everyone , from the highest 4* rider to the lowest BN rider seem to feel the need to strap ( or chain) their horse’s mouth shut?

[Bogie]

@OverandOnward;8389470

I do not believe it is not reasonable or even fair to expect that a cross-country horse will be as sweet to the bit, and the seat & leg & aids, as these lovely examples …
2015 ASPCA Maclay Finals - rounds of the top 3

Lovely ride but you can’t compare a Big Eq horse to an upper level eventer.

[NeverTime]

Great post, subk. I think that pretty much hits everything, and I like your proposed solution. Not to bring any names into this thread, but She Who Will Not Be Named come from a world where customer bit-makers are steadily employed to create novel, mechanical solutions to almost any proposed control issue; it is totally reasonable to think that eventing stewards are seeing, and will to an increasing degree, things they’ve never seen before and don’t have a handy picture of in their rulebooks. I like the one strike idea – and I predict a side effect would be bit-guard use jumping to 100%.
The only place I’d quibble with your post is about the willingness of officials to enforce the rules. From my personal experience, helping manage a series of horse trials that includes an annual CIC***, these people care very deeply about the sport and want to be fair to horses and riders alike. Reading the other thread, I suppose I gave them a little bit more credit in the FHI situation – while so many posters were clamoring abuse, exactly zero of them had a chance to examine the horse in person and put fingers inside its mouth. I do believe that the vets and officials who did have that opportunity used it to make what they felt was the best decision (to let the horse continue). The resulting outcry likely will have them rethinking that for the future, but I don’t believe they saw something they truly recognized as a abuse and chose to overlook it. Maybe I’m too Pollyanna, but I’ve just never personally seen it play that way.

[Nadia1990]

[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8389470]
Amen to that. And that goes to rider education and preparation - not just knowing, but doing as well.

So maybe it’s about bad hands, rather than bad bits? If so, hypothetically maybe what’s needed is not rules about bits, but a different set of qualifications requiring a riding test that will show up these weaknesses. Not a suggestion, just a what if.

This is a good thought that would be a guide for avoiding making rules that don’t accomplish the purpose. That is, not singling out bitting options just to make a rule, but keeping a focus on the end result of a safer horse & rider team on cross-country.

This is a great idea in theory, but … we are talking cross-country. I agree that the training of horse & rider, and the selection of the bit, should not result in a horse that is fighting the aids all the way around. But this goes to the education of the rider and the training of the horse over and above the bit selection, IMO.

The nature of cross-country itself is that horses go up the excitement-adrenaline meter - that’s what gets them around, and makes the time. They will be less responsive. They will be more inclined to do what horses (esp. with TB genes) instinctively do - solve their questions by turning up the speed. The nature of the sport will always take this discipline to this type of conundrum - just as each discipline faces different self-imposed challenges of fairness to the horse.

I do not believe it is not reasonable or even fair to expect that a cross-country horse will be as sweet to the bit, and the seat & leg & aids, as these lovely examples …
2015 ASPCA Maclay Finals - rounds of the top 3

We can change the sport to minimize issues like this … or we can learn better ways to ride and disseminate that knowledge throughout the eventing community, and beyond. It is part of what this sport should be, as a sport, IMO. If we are doing it effectively is a good question to ask on a regular basis. :)[/QUOTE]

Having competed and trained multiple horses to 3* all in a snaffle I can testify that it can be done, yes these horses moved into the bridle and wanted to eat up the course but never did I feel they needed to move onto a stronger bit and I’m only 5’4" each horses was taken up the grades slowly and if I ever took them out and they weren’t listing i would turn that round into a training round (and sometimes a few rounds afterwards) where I forget about time an would focus on making sure the horse remained ridable around the course because at the end of the day the rideable horse is so much quicker than the strong horse .

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=JER;8389568]
Today, Mike Plumb uses the same bit on every horse – a full cheek snaffle.

If you ride with him, he tells you to use that bit. If you decide otherwise, he continues to harp on it.

But the tack room at JMP Farm, which is a cluttered museum of vintage equestrian paraphernalia, tells another story. There are all kinds of bits on the wall and in boxes, and we can’t quite figure out the purpose of many of them. My guess is that they’ve all had their use – or were tested for a specific purpose – at some point over the last 60 years.

Training a horse is usually more complex than simple. Even a straightforward program is rarely straightforward on the individual level. You adjust as necessary, sometimes just for a session or two, but you might go through a phase where clarity is more important than kindness.

Mary King, in her first book or somewhere along her career, talked about how she rides her horses in a Magenis snaffle – a square mouthpiece set with sideways rollers – periodically as a reminder to stop leaning on the bit. She said you only have to use it once and they get the message.

:)[/QUOTE]

^^ Thank you. I have some sharper bits that come out rarely but when they do, it is just for a session or two and they are used with very light hands.

And hey all, some of the most complex and sharpest looking bits are the old Cavalry bits.

http://www.shadowlandstudios.com/2nd_US_Cav/Equipment/Allegheny_Arsenal_Cavalry_Bit.jpg

[frugalannie]

I was deleting old subscribed threads when I came across one from 2011. Of course I deleted before saving the link, but the title was “A Kineton, a Figure Eight and a Gag” and it referred to a bitting set up someone was using for a stallion. By and large this very board was supportive of the choice the rider made (and I have no idea who it was).

Best post was from Snoopy: “…go into a bar…”

Anyway, there is a time and a place for heavy metal*, but causing tissue damage (bruising, bleeding) is a sign that the set up needs modification IMHO.

*My barn’s generic name for stronger bits, nosebands and assorted gizmos.

[vineyridge]

[QUOTE=Winding Down;8390741]
^^ Thank you. I have some sharper bits that come out rarely but when they do, it is just for a session or two and they are used with very light hands.

And hey all, some of the most complex and sharpest looking bits are the old Cavalry bits.

http://www.shadowlandstudios.com/2nd_US_Cav/Equipment/Allegheny_Arsenal_Cavalry_Bit.jpg[/QUOTE]

That/s a very poor comparison. Those bits were usually used in one of two situations: at the very end of the horse’s education and ridden without contact most of the time; and in battle, where the chance of a horse bolting is far greater than anything that could possibly occur in XC. They were emergency brakes, not normal brakes. They are also NOT contact bits. That sort of bit has been used on chargers since medieval times.

[Winding_Down]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8390882]
That/s a very poor comparison. Those bits were usually used in one of two situations: at the very end of the horse’s education and ridden without contact most of the time; and in battle, where the chance of a horse bolting is far greater than anything that could possibly occur in XC. They were emergency brakes, not normal brakes. They are also NOT contact bits. That sort of bit has been used on chargers since medieval times.[/QUOTE]

I was not comparing anything to anything, but merely noting that severe bits have been around for a very long time.

http://harmonycross.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Custer-Ramener.jpg

[BaroquePony]

In some cases you’re talking about shooting a long rifle using both hands off the back of a galloping horse … I’d probably use a bit like that, too. There were a few records denoting horses that bolted and it didn’t matter what bit was in their mouth. In old historical records I think it mentioned that those particular horses were of a very nervous temperament … maybe not the best choice of mount for a heated battle. Their riders got shot … dead.

Sometimes riders got stuck with 2nd and 3rd string horses …