What action does a hanging snaffle give?
- Thread starter Tangaroo
- Start date
luckyhorseshoe
Well-Known Member
Op my mare is very fussy in the mouth and prefers the hanging cheek. I agree with those that have said it keeps the bit stiller in the mouth.
Hehe - Carl Hester is welcome to ride my mare in another bit, show me how it's done
Hehe - Carl Hester is welcome to ride my mare in another bit, show me how it's done
Mike007
Well-Known Member
The purpose of the hanging cheeks is to stabilise the position of the bit in the horses mouth. A loose ring bit is particularly prone to dropping onto the tongue. Even an eggbut snaffle will tend to , But because the hanging cheek is.....hanging, it cant. Also makes it harder for them to get their tongue over the bit. It DOES NOT PRODUCE poll pressure. Incidentaly my general definition of poll pressure ,as used by most people is" I havnt a F++++++ clue how this bit works but if I say poll pressure everyone will nod and agree,(cos they havnt a clue either )"An awfull lot of what passes for poll pressure is in fact the bit rolling onto the tongue and applying pressure.
Last edited:
meardsall_millie
Well-Known Member
No direct criticism of anyone but this is the key comment to take from this thread (along with what Mike said at the end of his post).
So many people use tack because someone suggested it, because they've seen someone else use it, because it's the latest trend, etc, etc, without ever having any idea of what action it's likely to have.
Everyone should take the time to research the basics before sticking a big chunk of metal in their horses mouth (or using any other piece of tack for that matter!)
Elfen
Well-Known Member
Tried one on my boy and he felt very wooden - he's fussy in his mouth but ive found that now my contact is better so is his fussiness I use the ns verbindend.
I use the ns verbindend.
*hic*
village idiot :D
No direct criticism of anyone but this is the key comment to take from this thread (along with what Mike said at the end of his post).
So many people use tack because someone suggested it, because they've seen someone else use it, because it's the latest trend, etc, etc, without ever having any idea of what action it's likely to have.
Everyone should take the time to research the basics before sticking a big chunk of metal in their horses mouth (or using any other piece of tack for that matter!)
I absolutely agree with you. The problem is that when people come to do their "research" they come across threads like this, giving direct and incorrect quotes from the fount of all knowledge, Wikipedia, as well as other incorrect "info-pinions".
Dirtymare
Well-Known Member
Agree with part of this staement.
However, if you dont have a trainer to suggest the correct bit for your horse (as my trainer did for my horse) then where do you go?
I have researched this bit and wherever I go I find the same statements for this type of bit - such as this from Horse Riding UK -
"This causes poll pressure (dressage legal as a Snaffle or as a Bradoon used in conjunction with a Weymouth). When a contact is taken the upper arm is angled forwards causing the mouthpiece to lift - thereby suspending it in the mouth and reducing the pressure across the tongue and the bars - this is often beneficial for cases of over sensitivity. Any extension above the mouthpiece causes poll pressure - this in itself has a head lowering action. However, if the horse is going forward into a contact and active behind this will encourage a rounding action and help tremendously with the outline. I have recently sought clarification from BD and in turn the FEI regarding the legal limit on the Baucher arms and there actually was none!! From the 1st Feb 2005 the maximum height of the baucher/hanging cheek snaffle will be approximately 12cm - this is from top to bottom - not just the upper."
Tell me then, where does one go for the *correct information* if you cant trust Wikepedia or any other site that gives information on this subject?
Dotilas
Well-Known Member
I snorted very loudly at this, and then edited the part of the article about poll pressure.
Dotilas
Well-Known Member
Sites that aren't written by people who have been informed incorrectly.
You can't trust anything on the internet, information can be published by anyone and noone can say whether it is correct or not, you would need to look in a good, well researched book for that.
kerilli
Well-Known Member
Brilliant!
Dirtymare
Well-Known Member
Was there any need for this?
I'm truely interested to know why everyone thinks that saddleries publish so called wrong information on this subject. Surely they would be open to some sort of legal action for mis- selling products?
The same can be said for books. People can publish any old rubbish (and do) in books.
If I have got it dreadfully wrong all these years, I thank you all for pointing this out (albeit some of you not very politley!)
Tangaroo
Well-Known Member
Ah well, didnt realise i would cause quite such a reaction by asking this question ! 
I think i will just try it next time im schooling him and see what he feels like.
I think i will just try it next time im schooling him and see what he feels like.
zxp
Well-Known Member
I think it is just a bit of folk-law. And a very common misconception. I dont think anyone is ever going to sue a saddlery for saying it has poll pressure! But it would be defying to laws of physics!
FWIW, I have no problem with people quoting websites / citing internet references. But Wikipedia is essentially an uncontrolled gossip-column! Probably not the best place to reference for anything!
And as for politenes... there was no need for your capital letters in response to my original post, but I will write it off as misinterpretation on my half
!
TarrSteps
Well-Known Member
I think you mean folk lore.
Which gives us a perfect example of how things get turned around sometimes. Perfectly understandable misconception, even makes a sort of sense.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone but my issue was with the idea that natural laws are debatable. There seems to be a lot of that in horses - we decide which result we want, then we make up reasons to support the practice. If something works, it works. But knowing HOW it works is important. Leverage devices are particular bug bears of mine because they do what they say on the tin - they make the rider FEEL like the horse is lighter but they do it by making the rider feel MUCH stronger to the horse. If you think the pull in your hand is the pull in the horse's mouth, you're wrong. It doesn't mean it's a good or bad choice.
The hanging cheek debate is the opposite. If people want to believe the increased force is doing the trick, I guess that's sort of a good thing - the rider gets the benefit of believing he/she is using more force, the horse doesn't get the risks. But it also confuses the rider's understanding. To be completely blunt, MAYBE the bit works better for some because it 'muddies' a moving hand? If so, the real solution is not in the bit.
Which gives us a perfect example of how things get turned around sometimes. Perfectly understandable misconception, even makes a sort of sense.
I'm sorry if I offended anyone but my issue was with the idea that natural laws are debatable. There seems to be a lot of that in horses - we decide which result we want, then we make up reasons to support the practice. If something works, it works. But knowing HOW it works is important. Leverage devices are particular bug bears of mine because they do what they say on the tin - they make the rider FEEL like the horse is lighter but they do it by making the rider feel MUCH stronger to the horse. If you think the pull in your hand is the pull in the horse's mouth, you're wrong. It doesn't mean it's a good or bad choice.
The hanging cheek debate is the opposite. If people want to believe the increased force is doing the trick, I guess that's sort of a good thing - the rider gets the benefit of believing he/she is using more force, the horse doesn't get the risks. But it also confuses the rider's understanding. To be completely blunt, MAYBE the bit works better for some because it 'muddies' a moving hand? If so, the real solution is not in the bit.
Luci07
Well-Known Member
However, even when you research and found a bit that will suit your horse ( theoretically) it often still doesn't work. I have collected a lot of bits over the years and sometimes it's a question of trial and error!
zxp
Well-Known Member
I think you mean folk lore.
Hehe, thanks. I dont think I've ever hand to write it down before!
And to some extents I agree. If the bit is making the horse work into a more confident contact then the problem is probably the riders hands. But no-one is perfect
and there are much worse "aids" masking riders imperfections than a hanging cheek snaffle!
*hic*
village idiot :D
I'd have thought yes, there's every need. As a result the Wiki article has been corrected so that others looking for enlightenment on what can be a very useful bit are now getting the right information.
This is a good thing
TarrSteps
Well-Known Member
Oh, no argument zxp, if it improves the situation, it's a good thing. Just saying, you could see the thought process - that leverage bit that's legal for dressage worked so well, of things start to go downhill again, the obvious answer is MORE leverage. Whereas if the answer was more stability, then you might go a different way.
As Luci says, bitting is hardly an exact science. Not every horse reacts the same way for the same reasons, not every horse has the same conformation/history/rider etc. And bits are just as much for riders as horses - people tend to have a feel they like, so the bit you like a horse in might not be the one I like the same horse in. Plus, a bit may produce a temporary improvement in a situation that isn't really about the bit, or it may have a long term negative consequence.
And some of it is fashion. There are go to bits in one school/discipline that are unpopular in others. You never see a D ring here, and yet many people in North America consider it the default cheek piece for green horses. Look how drop nosebands have come back 'in'.
The thing that entertains me about the Baucher is that it was invented for such a specific purpose and was very contentious at the time. Now it's used for reasons so far from the original. Like all the western bits remade for the english market - and cheerfully promoted by people who would lie down in the road before they put a cowboy bit on their horse.
Whereas if the answer was more stability, then you might go a different way. As Luci says, bitting is hardly an exact science. Not every horse reacts the same way for the same reasons, not every horse has the same conformation/history/rider etc. And bits are just as much for riders as horses - people tend to have a feel they like, so the bit you like a horse in might not be the one I like the same horse in. Plus, a bit may produce a temporary improvement in a situation that isn't really about the bit, or it may have a long term negative consequence.
And some of it is fashion. There are go to bits in one school/discipline that are unpopular in others. You never see a D ring here, and yet many people in North America consider it the default cheek piece for green horses. Look how drop nosebands have come back 'in'.
The thing that entertains me about the Baucher is that it was invented for such a specific purpose and was very contentious at the time. Now it's used for reasons so far from the original. Like all the western bits remade for the english market - and cheerfully promoted by people who would lie down in the road before they put a cowboy bit on their horse.
vallin
Well-Known Member
Nothing constructive to add. However I feel a slight need to defend wikipedia (G-d help me! ).
It is an incredibly useful resource and along with Google Scholar has so far got me first in neuroscience And from the look of some of the articles on there a lot of my lecturers use it as 'reference material' for the lectures too 
Yes, not 100% of everything on there is 100% accurate, but as long as you cross-reference with other sources is a damn good starting point!
). It is an incredibly useful resource and along with Google Scholar has so far got me first in neuroscience
And from the look of some of the articles on there a lot of my lecturers use it as 'reference material' for the lectures too Yes, not 100% of everything on there is 100% accurate, but as long as you cross-reference with other sources is a damn good starting point!
zxp
Well-Known Member
Nothing constructive to add. However I feel a slight need to defend wikipedia (G-d help me!
It is an incredibly useful resource and along with Google Scholar has so far got me first in neuroscience
Yes, not 100% of everything on there is 100% accurate, but as long as you cross-reference with other sources is a damn good starting point!
Haha, yes, I have had a few lectures (vet) where Wikipedia has featured heavily. But God-forbid us referencing it. Ever. For anything. I agree, when cross referenced, it has its uses. But there is no denying it can be edited by anyone at any point, and if you reference info from it today, there is no guarantee it will still be on the website tomorrow!
vallin
Well-Known Member
Ah but that's why don't reference it directly, you click on the little number buttons that take you to the source, read the abstract then reference that
Jesstickle
Well-Known Member
I do love you guys
I ride in a hanging cheek and constantly tell people it doesn't give poll pressure. They just look at me like I'm mental. The only person who believes me in RL is my OH as he understands physics!
Phew. I'm not alone at least. I use it as my horse seems to like it. The other thing he likes is a full cheek with keepers so I assume that he isn't keen on the bit moving about in his mouth. I CBA to mess around putting keepers back on his bridle when I clean it as I can't ever do it right first time so he wears a hanging cheek. Horses for courses and all that
I ride in a hanging cheek and constantly tell people it doesn't give poll pressure. They just look at me like I'm mental. The only person who believes me in RL is my OH as he understands physics!
Phew. I'm not alone at least. I use it as my horse seems to like it. The other thing he likes is a full cheek with keepers so I assume that he isn't keen on the bit moving about in his mouth. I CBA to mess around putting keepers back on his bridle when I clean it as I can't ever do it right first time so he wears a hanging cheek. Horses for courses and all that
ester
Not slacking multitasking
vallin yup wiki can def be good but is def not gospel either . I think the poll pressure thing has come from people considering it a smaller gag or smaller pelham rather than what it actually does.
It seems to have been the key to mum mum's mare with a mullen mouth, she responds very well to the fact that it stays so still (she is v. fussy in her mouth generally)
. I think the poll pressure thing has come from people considering it a smaller gag or smaller pelham rather than what it actually does. It seems to have been the key to mum mum's mare with a mullen mouth, she responds very well to the fact that it stays so still (she is v. fussy in her mouth generally)
Dotilas
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I wasn't intentionally impolite. It was just the way you asked, almost incredulously, that someone might suggest Wikepedia is not to be trusted. My first comment wasn't based on your perception of a hanging cheek snaffle, but on your comment about Wikipedia. This is why I did not quote all of your original post, but only the part that I was referring to.
I have just found this, and not only does it explain how Wikipedia works, but it goes into the reliability of the site. Here is the link, and feel free to have a smile at the irony... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
This is a pretty cool bit I have just pulled from the above article: 'In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."' Which pretty much sums up the general feeling about Wikipedia.
It also reiterates my previous point about books and publishing them. I would suggest doing some reading into the process. I am aware of self publishing, and that it is a major exception to my point.
And in answer to your question, yes, I am sure that you could open up some sort of legal case against a saddlery who had described an item on the website incorrectly. If your instructor recommended you needed a bit with poll pressure and you purchased a hanging-cheek snaffle from a saddlery, specifically because they advertised the bits as providing poll pressure; You could subsequently perform a physics experiment, proving the bit could not provide this pressure and hence the product is not as described and hence not fit for purpose.
This is not a very good metaphor, but bear with me: if you bought some window locks on eBay, under the guarantee they would keep your windows tight shut, but when you put them on the windows, you found that the locks allowed the window to open when even in place properly, you would be entitled to return the window locks as they had been incorrectly described and not fit for purpose. It would turn out that they are for keeping windows ajar and preventing them from flapping open in the wind. Only a very slightly different purpose, but maybe a huge misconception in the window world, who knows?
I also think that many saddleries have pre-prepared blurbs for the products on their sites. If you contacted them, they would probably change it PDQ. And also, it would not be a commonplace misconception, if the misconception was not to be commonly found!
If you guys bear with me, until I have these exams out of the way, I might hunt down a hanging cheek and do some simple force and motion based physics on the bit, and share it with you guys on here. It shouldn't be hard to do.
zxp
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I wasn't intentionally impolite. It was just the way you asked, almost incredulously, that someone might suggest Wikepedia is not to be trusted. My first comment wasn't based on your perception of a hanging cheek snaffle, but on your comment about Wikipedia. This is why I did not quote all of your original post, but only the part that I was referring to.
I have just found this, and not only does it explain how Wikipedia works, but it goes into the reliability of the site. Here is the link, and feel free to have a smile at the irony... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
This is a pretty cool bit I have just pulled from the above article: 'In a 2004 interview with The Guardian, self-described information specialist and Internet consultant Philip Bradley said that he would not use Wikipedia and was "not aware of a single librarian who would. The main problem is the lack of authority. With printed publications, the publishers have to ensure that their data are reliable, as their livelihood depends on it. But with something like this, all that goes out the window."' Which pretty much sums up the general feeling about Wikipedia.
It also reiterates my previous point about books and publishing them. I would suggest doing some reading into the process. I am aware of self publishing, and that it is a major exception to my point.
And in answer to your question, yes, I am sure that you could open up some sort of legal case against a saddlery who had described an item on the website incorrectly. If your instructor recommended you needed a bit with poll pressure and you purchased a hanging-cheek snaffle from a saddlery, specifically because they advertised the bits as providing poll pressure; You could subsequently perform a physics experiment, proving the bit could not provide this pressure and hence the product is not as described and hence not fit for purpose.
This is not a very good metaphor, but bear with me: if you bought some window locks on eBay, under the guarantee they would keep your windows tight shut, but when you put them on the windows, you found that the locks allowed the window to open when even in place properly, you would be entitled to return the window locks as they had been incorrectly described and not fit for purpose. It would turn out that they are for keeping windows ajar and preventing them from flapping open in the wind. Only a very slightly different purpose, but maybe a huge misconception in the window world, who knows?
I also think that many saddleries have pre-prepared blurbs for the products on their sites. If you contacted them, they would probably change it PDQ. And also, it would not be a commonplace misconception, if the misconception was not to be commonly found!
If you guys bear with me, until I have these exams out of the way, I might hunt down a hanging cheek and do some simple force and motion based physics on the bit, and share it with you guys on here. It shouldn't be hard to do.
PMSL! Dotilas. I think I just fell in love with you!
****ZXP "lol"'s all the way back to re-read the Reliability of Wikipedia site just for entertainment's sake ****
meardsall_millie
Well-Known Member
That would be really interesting - while you're doing that could you also do the same test on a 3-ring gag/snaffle (whatever we're calling them these days.....?)
Dotilas
Well-Known Member
I actually could, I could solve the actual "poll pressure" problem very easily, but would probably want to go into more detail with tongue pressure from different mouth pieces also included. The mouthpieces would be more complicated, I would need to find a way to measure action of the bit on the mouth area.