Riding bitless for dressage

P

padarco

New User
Joined
25 March 2011
Messages
4
Visit site
If the art of dressage is riding a horse in its own natural balance and it working in harmony with its rider without the need for force why will nobody allow bitless bridles to be considered legal in unaffiliated or affiliated dressage even at the lower levels?

I have a horse who I have tried every bit known to man in his mouth and he just cannot bear a bit in his mouth - always goes behind it. Against my better judgement I rode him in a Dr. Cook Bitless bridle and the transformation was nothing short of a miracle - he went forward was relaxed in his neck and back and worked in self-carriage. Now I would like to compete him, I can jump and XC but no dressage!!!

Could anyone tell me why a bitless bridle is not seen to be acceptable. By bitless I am talking a totally non-mechanical bridle not a hackamore.

I would like to get a rule change and I wondered if anyone has any advice on how to go about this.
 
If i remember rightly the FEI's response to this question was on the lines of that a dressage horse to be working correctly should be accepting of the contact and by using a bitless bridle there is effectively no contact and so the horse is not in acceptance of that contact and therefore not working correctly!

I agree though that some hroses just go far far better without a bit! I remember there being a very top rated stallion which should have gone a long way dressage on the continent that broke its jaw and could only be ridden in a bitless bridle so there it's competition career ended!
 
Unfortunately in the scales of training it says:
Rhythm
Suppleness
Contact
Impulsion
Straightness
Collection
 
In response you do get

Rhythm
Suppleness
Impulsion
Straightness
Collection

in a bitless bridle if a horse is working in correct self-carriage you get all these things.

As far a contact is concerned you do also have a contact but it is slightly different it is the first time I have had a contact with my horse. When I ride in a bit on my horse a lot of people think he looks fantastic but he certainly is not taking a contact it is like riding with nothing there.

What I think people should do is open their minds to bitless; I would prefer to see a horse in lower levels working softly in a bitless bridle than being hauled on the mouth and their mouths slammed shut with flash nosebands which I think we have all seen at competitions but it is legal to tighten a noseband till a horse can hardly breath but to let a horse ride in a bitless bridle is considered to be wrong! Where is the logic?

Also if people are happy to compete against people riding in a bit surely they would be judge on the same merits and it might make people realise that the bit is not necessary to achieve a correct, rythmical, forward going, horse that is being worked from the leg and not the hand.
 
I have been asking the same questions since my horse developed a bone spur in his lower jaw and is ridden bitless until I can have it operated on. He jumps SJ and CX superbly and in balance minus a bit. I lunge him in a bendy bit covered in chamois leather in a Chambon so there is no pressure on the spur.
I have toyed with the idea of a leather bit for eventing dressage as they are legal under BE rules but not under BD nor are they easy to come by in the UK.
I also find it quite bewildering that BD allow all manner of metal bits and crank nosebands.
I am not some dippy, trippy, hippy type but a very competitve rider with one horse who now prefers to go without a bit.
 
I asked this question in NL, think it was yesterday in another thread about bitless bridles, didn't get many replies but had a few :), having said that it's probably because there is lack of good enough reasons I guess.... apart from it being in the rules that is.

After watching some clips yesterday after a comment from on of the replies (the power of youtube and all it's glory :D) it's clear that a bit it not necessary and it seems so unfair to those who choose or have to ride bitless, if anything some of those videos of people doing dressage bitless illustrates perfectly what dressage is about in my eyes.

Perhaps one day it may be accepted?
 
I too am not a natural horsemanship (although absolutely not against it) person have ridden horses for the past 43 years with bits and probably would never have questioned why bitless is not allowed if I had not had the problem with the horse I have at present but I would like to see bitless as something that would be looked at and not just dismissed.

I think we use bits because of tradition and that nobody likes change. Personally I think we should be putting the welfare of our horses before tradition.

Originally horses were ridden bitless the bit was invented when humans wanted more control over them in a war situation.

Again I go back to "leg before hand" and I am going to start campaigning to bet Riding Clubs and Dressage organisations to start thinking about bitless as being allowed to compete against people with bits - perhaps they would be surprised!
 
As most of the hroses ridden in competition are overbent and definitely not in self-carriage I, for one, agree that the rule is pointless. Maybe they are worried that a bitless partnership may show all the others how it should be done!

I asked an international judge the same question and the reply was that the bit enabled the horse to engage it's bracheocephalic (sorry, spelling escapes me!) muscle. As this muscle is neither attached to the tongue nor jaw I fail to see the logic and just illustrates how appallingly ignorant the 'experts' out there are. Tell that to all the horses out there in beautiful self-carriage in the field that they shoudln't be able to do it as they don't have a bit!
 
I would like to agree 100%. 18 months ago I bought a 15.2 thoroughbred who had been neglected. For over a year I tried every mild bit available, the mare spent all this time avoiding the bit in any and every way possible.
I grew up during the 50's and 60's at the best known riding establishment worldwide and was thoroughly instructed on all things BHS and BD.
My mare is of showing quality and loves flat work, I would love to show her and enter dressage competitions, from the bottom up. In desperation I tried her in a cross under/over bitless bridle . . . the change was nothing short of miraculous, I found it hard to believe this was the horse I had ridden yesterday, she relaxed and started working through her back.
Why do people think that there is NO contact with a bitless bridle? Perhaps they don't understand how it works or are unable to use their legs and seat correctly.
Why are so many horses overbend? Could it have anything to do with pain on the most sensitive parts of their body. The sooner bitless bridles are allowed to prove that they are better in many ways than a bit, including the ability to STOP, the better horse welfare will be.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of photographs of horses from years ago when the "contact" in the fully trained dressage horse was the weight of the rein, no tension on it at all. The current day rider would say "but that isn't what dressage competitions would allow." By fully trained I mean doing all the current Grand Prix movements, plus some more that are not asked for in a test, like spanish walk and trot.

Also, there is a wonderful photo that I have in my feed room, of a western rider, with a completely slack rein, doing the most perfect, balanced, rounded canter with his head and neck in the "correct" position.
 
I always found the 'contact' part of the scales of training to be a pointless statement on it's own - contact *through the bit* then yes, you have a point, but is a contact really not a contact if it's not via a lump of something foreign in the horses mouth? O.o :P
I'm not for/against bitless, just think it's an odd argument. Obviously, the rules themselves do state a need for 'acceptance of the bit' - but it's ok to strap your horse's mouth shut if he isn't too keen, of course. (sarcasm here guys!). It'd surely be a small thing to adjust that to 'acceptance of the bridle', no? I've failed so far to see what a huge difference this would make - BD have found time in their agendas to rule in blingy plaiting bands, afterall, I'm sure there are other things that they could consider that are perhaps more beneficial to the horse?
I do think it would be interesting to see horses compete bitless along side bitted, and I do think too much is staked on the 'contact' that many riders, especially younger riders, can misunderstand for just sheer pressure. To me, contact is acceptance of the rider using the rein to influence the horse and not all about having an unyielding connection between hand & metal, so their is in my mind, room for manoeuvre with that?

I think there is also an equestrian centre running regular bitless tests now? It might be a trek for some though!
 
resurrectionvt7.jpg
 
For f's sake! If you cannot achieve contact with a bit you are probably doing something wrong!

As with horses, we have to accept that some of them will have injuries and cannot compete. I have just gone through this myself. I did not petition to BE asking for a new rule to compete a horse with a dodgy leg!

I admire bitless riders and the relationship they have with their horses but I don't think we need a competition for it! It would be like judging couples!

There is also a safety aspect, I'm not sure everyone who rides bitlessly does it as beautifully as the pictures I have seen and will no doubt lose control of their horse in a public place!

Why not complete in pleasure competitions ( where the contact / outline is completely different) or start up your own bitless dressage organisation that chooses to omit the scale of training that you disagree with!

Isabel werth rode satchmo beautifully bare back in a head collar recently, however the training was achieved via 10 yrs + of graft with a bit in the mouth, don't think they she would be doing 5yr old classes in a head collar.

Also last weeks thread indicated that there are some concerns over the use of bitless bridles. Certain types if bitless can be quite severe in their action?
 
But then so can certain types of bits! There some humdingers out there! Even leaving that out the bit selection allowed for dressage is tiny relative to the selection in common use.

As I said on the other thread, I am unmoved by the actual debate - dressage is full of arbitrary rules! - but I'm surprised at the number of people who 'know' how horses do/don't go without bits and what is/isn't possible without even being curious enough to try. Argue on the basis that them's the rules and part of the test is being able to ride the horse in a bit, sure, but don't be so quick to pronounce that it's impossible to ride well without one. You might be surprised!
 
I don't normally post but Noname what an incredible ignorant and judgemental reply!

I am neither for or against bitless, if I'm honest it's something I've never used or needed to use, but to me dressage is all about harmonious communication between you and the horse through the hand, seat and leg aids, not about whether or not a horse is submissive to the piece of metal in its mouth - this should be a consequence of training and should be to all the aids, not just the hands, (and imo it should therefore not matter whether the horse does or doesn't have a bit if it has thoroughness and submission). If what you are saying is true regarding being unable to achieve all 6 scales of training in a bitless bridle then surely the horse's progression will be limited anyway and this will reflect in the marks.

Comparing a horse who is fit, well, healthy and mechanically sound but for whatever reason objects to having a piece of metal in its mouth (but is still accepting of the riders rein aids and of the bridle), with one that is mechanically broken/unsound and therefore unable to compete is really quite unfair and very different.

Whether or not rule changes should be considered and endorsed is down to developing an understanding of what "contact" means and BD need to carefully consider this. If it is acceptance of the bit then of course a bit should be used but if it is acceptance of the bridle and rein aids then I see no reason why *some* bitless bridles should be allowed (and I am not taking English hackamores as IMO if they were allowed then you should also allow gags).

The question therefore for debate and whether it not a rule amendment is needed is how do you define contact...
 
Ginn said:
Comparing a horse who is fit, well, healthy and mechanically sound but for whatever reason objects to having a piece of metal in its mouth (but is still accepting of the riders rein aids and of the bridle).

The question therefore for debate and whether it not a rule amendment is needed is how do you define contact...
Click to expand...

Interesting definition of ignorant! Were you also aware that contact was defined many years ago by the German scales of training. Does BD need a different one?

A correctly trained horse should not object to a correctly used bit.

I don't object to bitless competitions but think you need to set up a separate organisation!
 
Last edited:
Re horses not objecting to the bit, then you could argue we should not allow drop, flash or crank nosebands. ;) I think Ginn's point was similar to mine - how is it possible to KNOW a horse cannot work 'correctly' without a bit if you haven't tried?

Which is neither here nor there to this discussion because the actual conversation is about the definition of 'dressage'. What we are actually talking about is competition in the Modern German Competitive School. This is, in fact, quite a limited definition of riding and hardly universally applicable. To be done 'properly' - as in to the rules - it requires a bit. It isn't always and only about 'harmonious communication' though, it's about training horses to go in a very specific way, which you tacitly agree to when you take up the sport.

Personally, I think they should allow bitless bridles and also the option of no noseband in the sport as most people here and in North America practice and understand it. But, hey, rules are rules. I'm amazed the Americans have allowed shaped mouthpieces - proven to convey no advantage other than comfort - although no one else seems keen to follow suit.
 
The scales define contact yes, they do not state that contact is purely through the bit... I see nothing ignorant about raising questions on how contact is defined. Would you say that Isobel Werth rode without contact in your example above?

As I said, I am neither for nor against bitless. I do not however have any issue with certain bitless bridles being permitted for dressage and come back to my question of how do you define contact as in my opinion that is where the misconceptions and ambiguity on the matter stem from.
 
Totally agree. Surely dressage should be as non-invasive as possible! I've seen horses moving in self carriage, and collecting beautifully, with no tack on at all, and to me that shows better training than a horse pulled into a frame with a bit of metal in it's mouth.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top