Horse gurus, tack, and never enough money
L7 Ranch
to haunt the Western and English Sales Association (WESA) Expo.
Lots of neat new stuff there as usual, and I found it terribly hard
to enforce any self control <snicker>
As such, I have acquired several new pieces of art by some of my
favorite artists (Sheri Greves-Neilson, Tim Cox, et al.)
I got an =exquisite= short shanked argentine-type snaffle from
the Garcias. Got a new hat, and oh, how I wanted to buy
a saddle, but didn't. Got a lovely tooled leather cell phone carrier
that's just western as all getout. Garcia had yet another pair of spurs
that I coveted, but I had to pass them up.
In my wanderings, there was a display of Buck Branaman stuff-
videos, books, etc., plus other books by the Tom and Bill Dorance.
This particular vendor was a media vendor (no kidding?) anyway,
on their little tv, they were runing Branaman videos. Both that I saw
had me howling. The worst one though was the one where he was
showing off his horsemanship with his finished "bridle horse".
To begin with, his horse was nice enough, ok, but he was
riding two-handed with his hands low, in what appeared to
be a spade bit. Now, I cannot be sure, becuase of course
I couldn't see the port, but the shanks were of the type ususally
associated with a spade bit. Now, can someone please tell me
why he was riding two-handed? Then he was doing endless
cantering, proving time and again I guess, that his horse had
mastered the flying change and responded to the subtlest of
cues. The big problem for me happened when, reliably,
when changing from the right lead to the left, the horse
consistently only changed in front <snicker> and good Ol'
Branaman, just cantered on and on and on....
Now, I'll grant him this- he had a nice horse, he was on
the thin side, but had an elegant air about him,
but the mistakes? ON a VIDEO that was for sale????
Come on! And of course it was all buckaroo central.
The horse wore a collar, and a slickfork saddle with
all the trappings (I was wondering why, when he was
doing an arena demo and not out in the pasture
working cows..)
I was picking out my artwork, when a guy
wandered in. Oh, he looked authentic enough, tall
and lean and had an air about him, but then I had to
walk away when I saw that he had a grubby pair
of spurs on, because I was about to ask him about
it. This is a trade show. This is where all the stores
go to pick out their lines for the year. There are reps from
every conceivable company that manufactures anything
to do with horses, what they wear, how to care for them etc.,
and here's this guy who cannot remove his spurs. Well,
ok, maybe they are glued to his boots. But surely he
has more than one pair of boots?
Anyway, I saw that buckaroo is still terribly in vogue.
Vintage clothing is still in. And using gemstones on
bridles seems to be a fad this year. I don't care for it
personally, but maybe it sells. Professionals Choice
has teamed up with Wrangler and will be marketing
some new products with a slightly reduced price.
Well that's the end of my report. I'll be back to the expo
another time or two before it ends to see how much more
trouble I can get into, and to talk more to my suppliers.
Although my website isn't 'fully functional' yet,
and has been under contruction for a LONG
time, I'm going to try to put some of the items
under the gifts or tack section if anyone is looking
for a neat gift item.
www.littlefieldranch.com
Sue in CO
L7 Ranch
Quarter Horses and Commercial Corriente cattle
Ken Brown
> 'Tis the time of year for my annual journey north into Denver
> to haunt the Western and English Sales Association (WESA) Expo.
I hate you.
> I got an =exquisite= short shanked argentine-type snaffle from
> the Garcias. Got a new hat, and oh, how I wanted to buy
I will show you my short-shank if you show me yours.
> a saddle, but didn't. Got a lovely tooled leather cell phone carrier
> that's just western as all getout.
Pic? Please?
> showing off his horsemanship with his finished "bridle horse".
> To begin with, his horse was nice enough, ok, but he was
> riding two-handed with his hands low, in what appeared to
> be a spade bit. Now, I cannot be sure, becuase of course
> I couldn't see the port, but the shanks were of the type ususally
> associated with a spade bit. Now, can someone please tell me
> why he was riding two-handed? Then he was doing endless
Two-reining is done with a spade and a pencil bosal/mecate ... were there
two sets of reins? If so, the horse wasn't a finished bridle horse. And
two-reining isn't done with the hands that low, but kinda low.
> cantering, proving time and again I guess, that his horse had
> mastered the flying change and responded to the subtlest of
> cues. The big problem for me happened when, reliably,
> when changing from the right lead to the left, the horse
> consistently only changed in front <snicker> and good Ol'
I bet he was traveling slow, wasn't he? Oopsie. And missed the leg
bump/hip over.
> Branaman, just cantered on and on and on....
Heh.
> walk away when I saw that he had a grubby pair
> of spurs on, because I was about to ask him about
What's wrong with grubby spurs? I like grubby spurs.
> every conceivable company that manufactures anything
> to do with horses, what they wear, how to care for them etc.,
I hate you.
> and here's this guy who cannot remove his spurs. Well,
> ok, maybe they are glued to his boots. But surely he
> has more than one pair of boots?
What's wrong with grubby spurs? And I always wear my favorite boots. Why
have two pairs of boots anyway? And some leathers are tough to get off, so
you just keep the spur/boot combo together all the time. Or slip the spurs
off the top of the boot. But then you have to take the boot off, and that
sucks, too.
> Anyway, I saw that buckaroo is still terribly in vogue.
> Vintage clothing is still in. And using gemstones on
> bridles seems to be a fad this year. I don't care for it
Yuck. But remind me to make some buckaroo gemstone bridles and sell them
on eBay as "hand made" and "very rare" (no shit.. as if I will make more
than a couple anyway).
> personally, but maybe it sells. Professionals Choice
> has teamed up with Wrangler and will be marketing
> some new products with a slightly reduced price.
SMB's with the "W" on them instead? Denim SMB's??
> trouble I can get into, and to talk more to my suppliers.
Think Garcia. Get me a catalog. Get me some goodies anyway. You know you
want to .. come on, Sue ...
> under the gifts or tack section if anyone is looking
> for a neat gift item.
> www.littlefieldranch.com
Define "gift" <grin>. I still want a skinny, starving-to-death-cow-hide.
------------------------------
Those of you that think you know
everything about horses really annoy
the hell out of us that know we don't.
L7 Ranch
> I hate you.
I knew ya did, but it's good to finally just hear you say it.
> I will show you my short-shank if you show me yours.
Ok, I'll get pics if you will
> Pic? Please?
Will do.
> Two-reining is done with a spade and a pencil bosal/mecate ... were there
> two sets of reins? If so, the horse wasn't a finished bridle horse. And
> two-reining isn't done with the hands that low, but kinda low.
Nope, no two sets of reins. Just doing circus tricks, making mistakes
that most folks who are into gurus won't notice anyway...
> I bet he was traveling slow, wasn't he? Oopsie. And missed the leg
> bump/hip over.
Yup. Missed it completely.
> What's wrong with grubby spurs? I like grubby spurs.
Not a gol dang thing, actually. I got a pair or real grubby
spurs. But I don't wear them to dinner, the theater,
or the expo...
> I hate you.
Look, ya wanna come to Denver in January, I'll get you in.
But you'll need to either like me, or act like you do, because
you will not be able to leave my presence whilst there. Guests
cannot be 'turned loose' so to speak. What I like about the
expo, well one of the things, is you get to talk to the folks
who actually make the saddles, the trees, etc. Heck
Dan Crates is at his own booth. He has another rep,
but if you want to talk to Dan, you can. Billy Cook is
always at his booth too. He has a large booth with many
reps there, but Billy is there and you can talk to him
about his stuff if you like. It's a grand place.
> What's wrong with grubby spurs? And I always wear my favorite boots. Why
> have two pairs of boots anyway? And some leathers are tough to get off,
so
> you just keep the spur/boot combo together all the time. Or slip the
spurs
> off the top of the boot. But then you have to take the boot off, and that
> sucks, too.
Excuses, excuses. If you're gonna wear your spurs to the show, I
rescind my invite.
> Yuck.
=EXACTLY=
But remind me to make some buckaroo gemstone bridles and sell them
> on eBay as "hand made" and "very rare" (no shit.. as if I will make more
> than a couple anyway).
Well the gemstones weren't really buckaroo- more like
barrel racer central (double yuck)
> SMB's with the "W" on them instead? Denim SMB's??
No, a special splint boot, and several neoprene-backed SMx
pads with the 20x logo on. Some gear bags, um, some
rope bags, stuff like that. They still have their regular line
without 20x the logo. I'm a PC dealer in case you're needing
anything...
> Think Garcia. Get me a catalog.
Garcias don't put out a catalog. I swapped that 7 shank for the
short shanked snaffle I got. Good trade. Anyway, I've talked
to Eduardo (Sr.) many times and they don't do a catalog.
However, if you have a special item in mind, they'll make
it for you. Doesn't matter how custom it is, they'll do it.
But it's like he told me- it's on Mexican time so don't
be in a hurry.
> Get me some goodies anyway. You know you
> want to .. come on, Sue ...
I =so= want to. Send me your credit card info.
> Define "gift" <grin>. I still want a skinny, starving-to-death-cow-hide.
Gift- that thing you =buy= to give to a loved one <snicker>
Sue in CO
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>> I got an =exquisite= short shanked argentine-type snaffle from
>> the Garcias. Got a new hat, and oh, how I wanted to buy
>I will show you my short-shank if you show me yours.
You two ride with short-shank snaffles?
Pfui.
jrw
Una
action, but is it jointed, or just set up for double reins?
If the latter, I am interested. My polo pony doesn't really
like her current bit (though it's much better than the one
she used to wear) which is a straight mouth but rather long
shanked Pelham.
Una Szinger
Schmdthaus
shanks, because by definition it works without leverage. Therefore, "short
shanked snaffle" is an oxymoron.
There are jointed-mouth pelhams and curbs with varying shank lengths available.
I don't consider them a particularly mild bit, but I know people who think
they're wonderful. I put a slobber bar on mine, to keep the cheek pieces
stable; but again, I don't think it's a mild bit.
Laurie
John Hasler
> What is a short shanked snaffle anyway?
An oxymoron.
--
John Hasler
jo...@dhh.gt.org (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Ken Brown
Transition to a curb from a snaffle. Nice introduction for a greener
horse. They don't stay in them forever .. well .. they *could* I reckon,
depends on the horse.
> Pfui.
Going Chinese tonight?
Ken Brown
> What is a short shanked snaffle anyway? It must have a curb
> action, but is it jointed, or just set up for double reins?
Just a curb with short shanks and a broken mouthpiece (like a snaffle,
hence the slang term "short shank snaffle")
> If the latter, I am interested. My polo pony doesn't really
> like her current bit (though it's much better than the one
> she used to wear) which is a straight mouth but rather long
> shanked Pelham.
They have some that could be used with double reins - go look at the
Reinsman bits. US made and I like them myself. Decent selection.
If the horse doesn't like the bit, reduce the shank length? Of course, we
realize that isn't really a horse issue, don't we? <grin>
Ken Brown
> At the risk of inciting yet another terminology war, a snaffle does not
> have shanks, because by definition it works without leverage.
> Therefore, "short shanked snaffle" is an oxymoron.
Uh yeah .. but we are talking Westernese slang to each other. We knew
immediately what the other was talking about. And you are quite
technically correct. But we are *still* going to call them Argentine-type
snaffles (they aren't really snaffles) or short-shank snaffles (they aren't
really snaffles).
> There are jointed-mouth pelhams and curbs with varying shank lengths
> available. I don't consider them a particularly mild bit, but I know
> people who think they're wonderful. I put a slobber bar on mine, to
> keep the cheek pieces stable; but again, I don't think it's a mild bit.
Slobber bar helps. You can also use a piece of leather or braided nylon to
hobble the bottoms of the shanks together. Good idea and practice,
actually.
Hmm.. you say you don't consider them a particularly mild bit, but then
state you use a slobber bar on yours? Is this a pelham you are discussing?
Or the Argentine-type short shank snaffle? <grin>
Fun question for the moment: Can you tie a futurity knot in a single piece
of leather to hobble your shanks? And do the same for your snaffles so you
aren't playing with buckles and get the exact length of strap you wish?
Ken Brown
> "Ken Brown" <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote in message
>
>> I hate you.
>
> I knew ya did, but it's good to finally just hear you say it.
I don't really hate you, but I do for the moment.
>> I will show you my short-shank if you show me yours.
>
> Ok, I'll get pics if you will
I can get pics done tonight. Mine has a nice cactus flower on the cheek,
so there.
And remember .. pic of bit(s) and pic of case.
> Nope, no two sets of reins. Just doing circus tricks, making mistakes
> that most folks who are into gurus won't notice anyway...
Then Buck deserves to get smitten over that mess. For shame!
>> What's wrong with grubby spurs? I like grubby spurs.
>
> Not a gol dang thing, actually. I got a pair or real grubby
> spurs. But I don't wear them to dinner, the theater,
> or the expo...
Depends what I was doing right before dinner, the theater or the expo. But
I get the point ... sheesh. Hardly like stopping off for a BBQ samwich for
lunch knowing in 30 minutes you're back on a horse.
>> I hate you.
>
> Look, ya wanna come to Denver in January, I'll get you in.
> But you'll need to either like me, or act like you do, because
> you will not be able to leave my presence whilst there. Guests
> cannot be 'turned loose' so to speak. What I like about the
Wahoo!! OK. I wanna go. I can always start my own tack business before
then and beg an invite so you won't have to muzzle .. err ..claim knowing
me. And I promise not to wer a t-shirt that has a large arrow on it
pointing to the right (with you to the right) that says "I'm With Her".
> expo, well one of the things, is you get to talk to the folks
> who actually make the saddles, the trees, etc. Heck
I am gonna make a saddle starting next month.. got a list of tree makers?
Can you get one? I know of one decent maker in Texas and that's it.
<snip saddle maker info>
That makes me froth at the mouth. Without rabies, even.
> Excuses, excuses. If you're gonna wear your spurs to the show, I
> rescind my invite.
No spurs.
> Well the gemstones weren't really buckaroo- more like
> barrel racer central (double yuck)
Barrel racing buckaroos? What will they think of next. Reminds me .. I
was at The Leather Factory and saw this 3-D barrel racer stamp. Two bucks.
So I snagged it and made a quickie key fob from a scrap. One lonely rivet
(not even double-capped .. heh). Drum runner at the barn loved it. I told
her to tell all her friends and I will stamp (literally) them out and they
can have them for $3 per.
> I'm a PC dealer in case you're needing anything...
I am always needing something. Go look at Classic Equine - they have this
neat knee-boot thingie. Tell PC to make one so I don't have to get it from
CE (expensive muthas). If you are lost as to what I am talking about, I
will take a pic for you.
>> Think Garcia. Get me a catalog.
>
> Garcias don't put out a catalog. I swapped that 7 shank for the
I heard they did? A black and white photocopied thing, really. Have you
seen Capriola's web site? They have black and white pics up and I swear it
is from the same E Garcia source. A California EG dealer told me it was
and told me about the "catalog" (that isn't really a catalog).
> However, if you have a special item in mind, they'll make
> it for you. Doesn't matter how custom it is, they'll do it.
> But it's like he told me- it's on Mexican time so don't
> be in a hurry.
How does one get the order to EG? Let me guess ... through the dealer.
Such as yourself.
>> Get me some goodies anyway. You know you want to .. come on, Sue ...
>
> I =so= want to. Send me your credit card info.
Pfft. I meant freebies. All trade shows have freebies. I used to do
Comdex years ago and walked out with armloads of crap.
>> Define "gift" <grin>. I still want a skinny,
>> starving-to-death-cow-hide.
>
> Gift- that thing you =buy= to give to a loved one <snicker>
Oh. So I need to have a loved one, then buy something for same. Gotcha.
> Sue in CO
Ken, in FL. It isn't as cold here. So there.
Schmdthaus
one made by Tietjen, which has a ring connecting the two bars of the
mouthpiece, and one Fleming which doesn't have the additional ring. Shanks are
8" measured from the top of the cheekpiece ring to the bottom of the rein ring.
No place for a second set of reins :).
I have two horses who just don't care for any bits but broken mouthpieces --
one (an appy) has a fairly low palette and fairly big tongue. The Tietjen bit
is hers. The other (an Arab) lips the cheeks incessantly of every bit I've ever
put on him, except the Fleming.
These are broke horses -- I'm not using the reins much at all on them, just an
occasional elevation or side movement with my hands on a draped rein.
I've got a broken mouth, shortshanked pelham that I bought at a garage sale,
thinking the Arab might like it for English, but without the slobber bar
option, I opted for a shortshanked mullen mouth instead. I figure one can never
have too many bits . . .
I'm not purposely being a PITA about terminology. I figure if you're going to
learn and/or compete, it helps to speak the same language as the rule book
does, whenever possible -- makes it easier to understand and avoid unpleasant
"you had a great ride but that's an illegal bit" experiences.
I remember nearly 40 years ago my brother giving me a bit he called a "Colt
Training Snaffle." It was an interesting bit, shanks were not particularly
short, had a bar running from the rein ring on the shank to the cheekpiece ring
(which was also the hookup for the curb strap). The mouthpiece was fairly large
in diameter. Don't remember who made it, and don't know where I lost it or to
whom I loaned it. Wish I had it now, if for no other reason than to hang it on
the wall . . .
Laurie
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>Transition to a curb from a snaffle. Nice introduction for a greener
>horse. They don't stay in them forever .. well .. they *could* I reckon,
>depends on the horse.
Sorry. Don't buy into the method, and I've done the transition with a
few of 'em.
If you need something with a bit more lateral movement when
introducing leverage work, the correction bit is preferable in my
book...or riding with 4 reins in a western pelhamish arrangement. I
know broken mouth curbs are the transition fad in the reining world,
but it's not one I like.
Don't care if you call it a Tom Thumb, an Argentine snaffle,
broken-mouth curb or a short shank snaffle, it's all still a piece of
crap in my book. I don't like the effect of broken mouth bits and
leverage, especially since in my experience you can get equal
effectiveness with running four reins on a properly rigged out curb
(that is, one with a snaffle rein slot) for schooling a horse over
into the transition.
After all, if it's the lateral effect you're after, remember it's not
the broken mouth which drives that but the placement of the rein.
jrw
Schmdthaus
bits in the late 1960's. And a LOT of them with pencil bosals under their
bridles, too.
I don't think the broken mouth curbs are the be-all and end-all. I do think,
however, that the structure of some horse's mouths make a flexible mouthpiece
(with a slobber bar) a viable option, AFTER the horse is responsive to leg cues
and carrying itself round and comfortably.
Laurie
Una
>If the horse doesn't like the bit, reduce the shank length? Of
>course, we realize that isn't really a horse issue, don't we? <grin>
I think she dislikes the weight and the noise made by the extra
links on the curb chain. She does not object to my hands, which
I suspect is what Ken is hinting at.
I only have so much tack. Before I bought her, she wore a combo
Pelham/Gag. Way too much bit. I tried a mild snaffle, which she
hated. The long-shank Pelham she packs now is almost right, and
since I leave the curb reins alone 99% of the time the length is
mostly irrelevant. But the bit is just too big: too long, too
wide, and perhaps also too thick. I am looking for a better one,
but tack shops everywhere (?) carry mostly high port, long shank,
twisted wire, etc. contraptions. Why? I haven't seen much of it
on horses, so who buys it? Or is it in tack shops because no one
buys it?
Una Szinger
L7 Ranch
[snip]
> They have some that could be used with double reins - go look at the
> Reinsman bits. US made and I like them myself. Decent selection.
Oh how I =love= Reinsman bits. I have so many. But, alas, they won't
do business with a small shop like mine, so like everyone else, I gotta
buy retail <<<sigh>>>
Sue in CO
L7 Ranch
[snip]
> broken-mouth curb
Talk about oxymoron. The definition of a curb bit is that of a fixed
(read onepiece) mouthpiece. It's as much of an oxymoron to say
broken-mouth curb, as it is to say shanked snaffle. Call it what
you will, but it's still a hybrid bit. And just out of curiosity, why is
a Kimberwick still a Kimberwick when it has a snaffle mouthpiece,
but also a chin strap and a low rein slot to provide leverage???
There's no answer really. But in reality, it =is= a leveraged
snaffle mouthpiece...
Sue in CO
L7 Ranch
[snip]
> I don't think the broken mouth curbs are the be-all and end-all. I do
think,
> however, that the structure of some horse's mouths make a flexible
mouthpiece
> (with a slobber bar) a viable option, AFTER the horse is responsive to leg
cues
> and carrying itself round and comfortably.
I have a couple finished rope horses that wear short shanked snaffles
(no slobber bars.) One ropes in a colt shank by Reinsman. Certainly
not an interim bit at this place. Then again, as I have discussed in this
forum, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, if my horse works well in something,
he'll stay in it. I find the practice of progressive bitting useless in most
circumstances. I have horses that rope in O ring snaffles. Then again, I
don't 'show' and as such, am not subjected to association rules and
regualtions
pertaining to proper bits. There are a few folks in this forum who have met
me, taken lessons from me and/or have ridden my horses, and know I speak
the truth.
Sue in CO
L7 Ranch
> I don't really hate you, but I do for the moment.
Of course you do! <snicker>
> I can get pics done tonight. Mine has a nice cactus flower on the cheek,
> so there.
So there. I'll have my pics done when I get them done :-)
Sorry, been kinda busy, and, ahem, I'm going back to the expo manana.
Gonna look again at some spurs (among other things.)
> And remember .. pic of bit(s) and pic of case.
yes sir.
> Then Buck deserves to get smitten over that mess. For shame!
yea, he shoudl be ashamed as far as I'm concerned.
> Depends what I was doing right before dinner, the theater or the expo.
But
> I get the point ... sheesh. Hardly like stopping off for a BBQ samwich
for
> lunch knowing in 30 minutes you're back on a horse.
Look mister, dinner and a quick bite to eat are two different things :-)
Uh, I don't really want ta admit this, but I don't wear my spurs at all
once I'm off my horse because the way I walk, I trip on them sometimes.
So bloody unlady-like- to do a faceplant and trip someone else up...
> Wahoo!! OK. I wanna go. I can always start my own tack business before
> then and beg an invite so you won't have to muzzle .. err ..claim knowing
> me. And I promise not to wer a t-shirt that has a large arrow on it
> pointing to the right (with you to the right) that says "I'm With Her".
As long as it doesn't have an arrow and say "I'm with Stupid"
I'm ok. Really... Next year it's Jan. 10-14
> I am gonna make a saddle starting next month.. got a list of tree makers?
> Can you get one? I know of one decent maker in Texas and that's it.
I'll see what I can locate. If I find anything, I'll e-mail.
> No spurs.
See? I knew we'd get along.
> Barrel racing buckaroos? What will they think of next. Reminds me .. I
> was at The Leather Factory
Hermann Oak leather has a booth.... And the other good leather company
too (cannot remember the name right now.)
> and saw this 3-D barrel racer stamp. Two bucks.
> So I snagged it and made a quickie key fob from a scrap. One lonely rivet
> (not even double-capped .. heh). Drum runner at the barn loved it. I
told
> her to tell all her friends and I will stamp (literally) them out and they
> can have them for $3 per.
Kewl. Some folks will buy anything. No accounting for taste and all that ;-)
Some foklsk bought red/white/blue saddles after 9/11 too. And this year,
jungle print came into vogue. I'm not even going to say how I felt about
that....
> I am always needing something. Go look at Classic Equine - they have this
> neat knee-boot thingie.
I'll look tomorrow. CE has a booth. All their wares are there.
> Tell PC to make one so I don't have to get it from
> CE (expensive muthas). If you are lost as to what I am talking about, I
> will take a pic for you.
I'll need it by tomorrow am. And yes, I'm confused.
> I heard they did? A black and white photocopied thing, really.
Ok, if ya wanna call that a catalog, I have one.
> Have you
> seen Capriola's web site?
Nope. Never went there.
> They have black and white pics up and I swear it
> is from the same E Garcia source.
Probably. As I said, they all build the same stuff.
> A California EG dealer told me it was
> and told me about the "catalog" (that isn't really a catalog).
True, it isn't really a "catalog" and I had to beg to get it from the
Garcias.
> How does one get the order to EG? Let me guess ... through the dealer.
> Such as yourself.
Yup. And we need all the specs. You can draw it out, send a sample,
whatever.
It doesn't matter to them, they'll make it for you. You just =cannot= be in
a hurry
for it. I talked to them yesterday about a bit they had that I was thinking
about doing modifications on. "No problem" was the answer.
> Pfft.
Gads. I see that you're kinda hard to get along with <snicker>
> I meant freebies. All trade shows have freebies. I used to do
> Comdex years ago and walked out with armloads of crap.
I'm a VitaFlex dealer and I usually leave with tubs of Vit C
and stuff like that. And yea, I did get some freebies, but
hey, I'm keeping and using 'em!
> Oh. So I need to have a loved one, then buy something for same. Gotcha.
Well, you can feel free to buy gifts for your not-so-loved-ones too if'n you
like :-)
> Ken, in FL. It isn't as cold here. So there.
Rub it in, Ken, rub it in. Just see if I sent you any goodies.
Sue in CO
mag...@rahul.net
<l7r...@earthlink.net> created
> The definition of a curb bit is that of a fixed
>(read onepiece) mouthpiece.
Cite?
Everywhere I've read, a curb bit is a bit with leverage action
and a chin strap, with any type of mouth piece (one piece or
broken mouth piece).
jc
Catherine Mee
inteeerrresting!! I thought he was the "expert bridle
horseman".................. I audited his clinic this year and he was
split fingering the bridle then.........
Catherine
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
>"Joyce Reynolds-Ward" <j...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
>[snip]
>> broken-mouth curb
>Talk about oxymoron. The definition of a curb bit is that of a fixed
>(read onepiece) mouthpiece.
Wrong. Absolutely, positively, wrong.
The definition of a curb bit is that it operates off of a leverage
principle...ie the ratio between how the headstall attaches to the bit
and how the reins attach to the bit, coupled with the effect of the
curb chain.
Name me a *legitimate* definition other than old alleged cowboy lore
to support your assertion. Otherwise, you're full of ignorant crap.
Additionally, there *are* one piece snaffles...such as the mullen
mouth snaffle, which is a straight bar mouthpiece with a slight curve.
>It's as much of an oxymoron to say
>broken-mouth curb, as it is to say shanked snaffle. Call it what
>you will, but it's still a hybrid bit. And just out of curiosity, why is
>a Kimberwick still a Kimberwick when it has a snaffle mouthpiece,
>but also a chin strap and a low rein slot to provide leverage???
>There's no answer really. But in reality, it =is= a leveraged
>snaffle mouthpiece...
A Kimberwick is a leverage bit. Period. Only the ignorant focus on
the mouthpiece instead of the cheekpiece action. Snaffle bits operate
on lateral action; curb bits on leverage action.
You need to go back and do some reading about bits.
jrw
Ken Brown
> Oh how I =love= Reinsman bits. I have so many. But, alas, they won't
> do business with a small shop like mine, so like everyone else, I gotta
> buy retail <<<sigh>>>
I dunno .. Largo Feed gets them regularly and they aren't a big shop. They
also might buy from a distributor. Still cheaper than retail.
Reinsman .. at least you have good taste in working bit manufacturers.
Ken Brown
> "Joyce Reynolds-Ward" <j...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>> broken-mouth curb
>
> Talk about oxymoron. The definition of a curb bit is that of a fixed
> (read onepiece) mouthpiece. It's as much of an oxymoron to say
> broken-mouth curb, as it is to say shanked snaffle. Call it what
I know .. I know .. but how else to appease the Snaffle Police? It is a
snaffle, or something else. So it is a curb to them, because it isn't a
pure snaffle.
Hell, an Offset-D will give you some leverage .. must be a curb, eh?
> you will, but it's still a hybrid bit. And just out of curiosity, why is
Short-shank snaffle works for me.
> a Kimberwick still a Kimberwick when it has a snaffle mouthpiece,
It is an English Curb Bit. Heh.
Ken Brown
> Everywhere I've read, a curb bit is a bit with leverage action
> and a chin strap, with any type of mouth piece (one piece or
> broken mouth piece).
Where have you read *that* info? Cite?
Ken Brown
> The definition of a curb bit is that it operates off of a leverage
> principle...ie the ratio between how the headstall attaches to the bit
> and how the reins attach to the bit, coupled with the effect of the
> curb chain.
I hold to this as well. The purchase and shank length, as well as how the
bars connect to the cheek, determine the leverage ratio.
> Name me a *legitimate* definition other than old alleged cowboy lore
> to support your assertion. Otherwise, you're full of ignorant crap.
None <grin>. A "curb" around these parts has a fixed mouthpiece.
Otherwise we call them "short shank snaffles" or "shanked snaffles" or
"correction mouthpiece", etc. A curb, by common definition, would indicate
an unbroken mouthpiece. Curb with cricket/roller - obvious description.
And because I say "curb" and Sue says "curb" and we both know we are
meaning a leverage bit with an unbroken mouthpiece, we are doing fine
communicating. I understand her fine as I am not being so hung up on
"proper definitions" that I lose sight of the entire POINT of the exercise.
And if "old cowboy lore" means a curb in her world has an unbroken
mouthpiece, then By Gawd it means JUST that in her part of the world!! It
means the same thing in at least 75% of the world down here, too. Call it
wrong, call it stupid, call it "ignorant". It works.
If I were to conduct a class on bit types and definitions, it would not be
the same discussion at all and things would be proper.
ITRWW (in the real working world), it is more common to go for
understanding than precise definitions. As long as everyone knows what is
what and communicates and gets things done, folks are pleased.
> Additionally, there *are* one piece snaffles...such as the mullen
> mouth snaffle, which is a straight bar mouthpiece with a slight curve.
Naww.. that would be a mullen mouth bit. A snaffle is a snaffle. <grin>
In fact, a snaffle (as in broken mouthpiece) operates differently than a
mullen. A mullen is a hybrid. Like those pesky shanked snaffles.
> A Kimberwick is a leverage bit. Period. Only the ignorant focus on
> the mouthpiece instead of the cheekpiece action. Snaffle bits operate
> on lateral action; curb bits on leverage action.
A Kimberwick is a Kimberwick <grin>.
If I show you a curb bit operating on lateral action, will you take all of
that back?
Only the ignorant will focus on the cheekpiece action and ignore the
mouthpiece.
Bitting is a fine concert of bit action, design, weight and how it all fits
together on a particular horse witha particular rider.
Only the ignorant will define a bit based on lateral vs. leverage when
there is more to it than those two principles. Kinda like saying "It is a
car or it is a truck" and leaving out all the in-betweens. Sport utility
vehicles really messed up the car-truck dichotomy, as well as station
wagons, mini-vans, jeeps, and so forth. Note that mini-vans and SUV's got
their own classification to make real life fit "rigid classification".
Maybe like "shanked snaffle"?
> You need to go back and do some reading about bits.
I know a wee bit about bits. Not a lot, but some. I promise to keep
reading on them, too. And listening to anyone that talks about bits. I
like bits and bit-talk.
FWIW, I call a solid bar curb with a port and without a cricket a "grazer"
bit. Not a curb (it is in that FAMILY) but a grazer. Or low port grazer,
medium port grazer, high port grazer .. hmm .. back to focus on the
mouthpiece to *describe*, not to define.
Describe versus define. Fascinating concept!!
Lets you get stuff done, too. Without overly focusing on "proper
definition". Time and a place for everything, ya know. Depends on the
circumstances, etc.
Sheesh ... vernacular vs. precision. Hardly means anyone is that off base.
As to broken-mouth curb vs. curb - both curbs. But if you were to ask "get
me *a* curb bit from the tack room" around here, you get "which one? (from
me)" OR you get a solid mouth bit. Say "get me that curb on the left wall"
and you have a choice between a broken mouth and a solid mouth, you get the
solid mouth back, even by me. Say "get me the shanked snaffle on the left
wall" when there is also other curbs and you get the shanked snaffle.
Simple ease of communication.
Sometimes, function is better than form when you are trying to get a job
done efficiently.
Now .. just for kicks ... how about naming the parts of a bit? And
describing the parts of the bit that give you the leverage action you were
speaking of above?
Or as Nancy once asked me: "Which part of the cheekpiece actually
determines the amount of leverage?" (She thinks it is one thing, I
think/know it is two parts together .. err.. maybe three.)
(I am makng a demonstration tool from dowels and leather to illustrate the
point of leverage. Trying to weasel in a way to use PlayDoh to show the
pressure on curb groove and poll from rein pressures, too. I might even
make a mini-movie of it all and post that at the pic site. Gimme until
after the show this week. Ya see, it isn't just good enough to read about
it or be told about it in my little world, I want to see it in action and
poke around and really *dig* into how it all works. Curiosity.)
Ken Brown
> "Schmdthaus" <schmd...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> [snip]
>> I don't think the broken mouth curbs are the be-all and end-all. I do
>> think, however, that the structure of some horse's mouths make a
>> flexible mouthpiece (with a slobber bar) a viable option, AFTER the
>> horse is responsive to leg cues and carrying itself round and
>> comfortably.
> I have a couple finished rope horses that wear short shanked snaffles
> (no slobber bars.) One ropes in a colt shank by Reinsman. Certainly
Nice bit, isn't it? Just enough in-between.
> not an interim bit at this place. Then again, as I have discussed in
> this forum, ad nauseum and ad infinitum, if my horse works well in
> something, he'll stay in it. I find the practice of progressive bitting
> useless in most circumstances. I have horses that rope in O ring
> snaffles. Then again, I don't 'show' and as such, am not subjected to
> association rules and regualtions
That's it in a nutshell. I had mentioned "depends on the horse" if you go
any further than a simple snaffle. If you have a horse that works well in
a snaffle, by all means stay right there!
But see... Western types can be such savages! Not using the right term at
the right time precisely enough for all to agree, etc.
I look at it this way:
The English world is for pleasure/show and is far removed from its original
working roots. It is recreation. Proper use of this and that is part of
the recreation.
The Western world still exists as a working field. It also has parts that
are recreation/pleasure/show. But the working roots are still there and
still practiced every day. Thus, when you get to those that work day-to-
day with horses, you are going to see more regional differences, more
vernacular, etc. And function will beat out form every day when you are
working vs. recreating (is that a word??)
Ken Brown
> :-) Uh, I don't really want ta admit this, but I don't wear my spurs at
> all once I'm off my horse because the way I walk, I trip on them
> sometimes. So bloody unlady-like- to do a faceplant and trip someone
> else up...
LOL .. clutz. Why not get a shorter shank? <snicker> Learn to walk
better <snicker>. Spurs are common adornment in a lot of places where
folks are working-working. Areas of Lakeland, down in central Florida,
etc. A lot of folks have sneakers - slip off boots, put on sneakers. I
simply don't bother. If the boots go on to do work, the spurs are with
them and stay on until the days work is done.
I have removed them on several occasions. Trips to airport. Wearing boots
and *not* going to do any horsie work. Just slip the spurs off and forget
about them.
> As long as it doesn't have an arrow and say "I'm with Stupid"
> I'm ok. Really... Next year it's Jan. 10-14
A. It is cold then. Brrrr.
B. Remind me.
> I'll see what I can locate. If I find anything, I'll e-mail.
Please do. Hell, email me any supplier info. Look for leather, too. As
in entire cow hides tanned. Hermann Oak quality is slippin the past few
months and the color is not uniform. Thickness looks good and even, but
color is splotchy. Maybe it was just a bad run? I know there are at least
two other US tanneries still out there producing good leather.
> Hermann Oak leather has a booth.... And the other good leather company
> too (cannot remember the name right now.)
Screw Hermann Oak. I want the name of the other one!! Need it, actually.
> this year, jungle print came into vogue. I'm not even going to say how
> I felt about that....
Just throw up. I will when I see it.
>> look tomorrow. CE has a booth. All their wares are there.
It is a knee boot. Really sweet. Expensive.
> I'll need it by tomorrow am. And yes, I'm confused.
I took a pic and emailed it.
>> I heard they did? A black and white photocopied thing, really.
> Ok, if ya wanna call that a catalog, I have one.
Duh... that is the catalog! Photcopy. Send me. Please.
>> seen Capriola's web site?
>
> Nope. Never went there.
go there. www.capriolas.com
Cath showed me this one: www.lostbuckaroo.com <--- killer site!
> for it. I talked to them yesterday about a bit they had that I was
> thinking about doing modifications on. "No problem" was the answer.
You need tolearn to speak vendor-ese. "No problem" means "we will try ..
maybe .. sorta ... probably..."
> and stuff like that. And yea, I did get some freebies, but
> hey, I'm keeping and using 'em!
Want to know what I learned in Kindergarten today? S-H-A-R-I-N-G.
>> Ken, in FL. It isn't as cold here. So there.
>
> Rub it in, Ken, rub it in. Just see if I sent you any goodies.
Oh. Nevermind. We are also in a cold spell the past few weeks. It has
been in the 40's at night!! And the highs have been in the mid-60's!!
Ken, waiting for this week when it gets to high-60's and low-70's again.
Schmdthaus
Laurie
L7 Ranch
> LOL .. clutz.
Yup! I was born to ride. I have difficulty with my own ambulation.
> Why not get a shorter shank? <snicker>
Um, they are short. Quite short. I don't like a long shank because when
I apply a spur I want to have to 'apply it' no just poke. As a rule, I don't
even ride with spurs because none of my horses need them. But I had a
mare in this year who did, and where my legs hit her, a long shank would
have been a problem.
> Learn to walk
> better <snicker>.
Easy for you to say!
> Spurs are common adornment in a lot of places where
> folks are working-working. Areas of Lakeland, down in central Florida,
> etc. A lot of folks have sneakers - slip off boots, put on sneakers. I
> simply don't bother. If the boots go on to do work, the spurs are with
> them and stay on until the days work is done.
Here too. But I find it tacky that a person cannot remove spurs
when going someplace that is clearly a 'dress up affair'.
> I have removed them on several occasions. Trips to airport. Wearing
boots
> and *not* going to do any horsie work. Just slip the spurs off and forget
> about them.
*Horsie* work? What kind of word is THAT?
> > As long as it doesn't have an arrow and say "I'm with Stupid"
> > I'm ok. Really... Next year it's Jan. 10-14
>
> A. It is cold then. Brrrr.
> B. Remind me.
I cannot remember what I did the day before yesterday.
If it's real important that I do something out of the ordinary,
I gotta put a stickie on the bathroom mirror, otherwise
I'm likely to forget. Remind you? If you want to go,
you'd better remind =me=.
> Please do. Hell, email me any supplier info. Look for leather, too. As
> in entire cow hides tanned. Hermann Oak quality is slippin the past few
> months and the color is not uniform. Thickness looks good and even, but
> color is splotchy. Maybe it was just a bad run? I know there are at
least
> two other US tanneries still out there producing good leather.
> Screw Hermann Oak. I want the name of the other one!! Need it, actually.
I'll see what I can dig up.
> It is a knee boot. Really sweet. Expensive.
I didn't get the e-mail. Is it for horses or for people?
Can you describe it in a small bit of detail?
> go there. www.capriolas.com
> Cath showed me this one: www.lostbuckaroo.com <--- killer site!
I'll check it out manana.
> You need tolearn to speak vendor-ese. "No problem" means "we will try ..
> maybe .. sorta ... probably..."
Nah. Eduardo Garcia Sr. owns the company. When he says he'll mak me whatever
I need, I believe him. Espeically since the conversation was over the phone
in the middle of the year. I do believe him.
> Want to know what I learned in Kindergarten today? S-H-A-R-I-N-G.
For nearly two days now, I =have= been sharing. I've been sharing
information, ideas, you name it. I =love= to share. And tomorrow or the
next day, I'm gonna share some pictures with you :-)
> Oh. Nevermind. We are also in a cold spell the past few weeks. It has
> been in the 40's at night!! And the highs have been in the mid-60's!!
>
> Ken, waiting for this week when it gets to high-60's and low-70's again.
Gads. Well, you probably still have flies and high humidity.
At least my leatherwork doesn't mildew. It just gets dusty.
So there. Feh.
Sue in CO
L7 Ranch
> I dunno .. Largo Feed gets them regularly and they aren't a big shop.
They
> also might buy from a distributor. Still cheaper than retail.
I have talked to Reinsman and I have talked to their distributor.
No go. Oh how I tried.
> Reinsman .. at least you have good taste in working bit manufacturers.
I have good taste period. You'll not see me riding any crap, riding
with any crap, or using any crap. I'm a tack snob. Sometimes the
truth hurts.
Sue in CO
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>None <grin>. A "curb" around these parts has a fixed mouthpiece.
>Otherwise we call them "short shank snaffles" or "shanked snaffles" or
>"correction mouthpiece", etc. A curb, by common definition, would indicate
>an unbroken mouthpiece. Curb with cricket/roller - obvious description.
The problem, Ken, in focusing on the mouthpiece instead of the shanks
as a definition of a curb/leverage bit is that the less-experienced
then consider *anything* with a broken mouthpiece to be a snaffle, not
a curb, and therefore milder in action than a curb. This also leads
to the slippery slope of folks using ineffective Tom Thumb bits (the
western sort, not the English sort) thinking that they are indeed
milder than a comparative short-shank fixed mouthpiece mullen mouth
curb. They aren't. They're nutcrackers.
Monte Foreman (please note, I'm talking about the excellent Western
horseman known in cutting, reining and roping circles NOT Monty
Roberts the charlatan) *himself* makes this distinction in his _Monte
Foreman's Horse-Training Science_. Pages 11-17:
"Nonleverage (Snaffle) Bit
The nonleverage bit has no shank or leverage attachments. The design
of the mouthpiece does not determine the type of bit: nonleverage bits
can have a variety of mouthpieces--jointed, solid, bar, port, wrapped,
and so on. The _U.S. Horse Cavalry Manual_ calls nonleverage bits
_snaffles_, as do hunter-jumper and polo riders. No bit with leverage
shanks should be called a snaffle.....
Leverage (Curb) Bit
A leverage bit has shanks that mechanically increase the strength of
the force on the reins. It is necessary to use a curb strap or a flat
curb chain with this bit for proper action......
Fig. 4.14 This jointed mountpiece, loose-jaw leverage (curb) bit, has
been misscalled a "cowboy snaffle." The short upper shank causes
extremely painful lip pinching.
Fig. 4.15. The action of the jointed mouthpiece in combination with
the loose-jaw swivel cheek creates more problems. A lateral pull on
the lower shank causes the upper shank to gouge the horse's lip
against the teeth.
Fig. 4.16. The upper shank gouging the horse's skin against the teeth
painfully contradicts the lateral control when used on the lower
shank.
Fig. 4.17. This leverage (curb) bit hhouse the same conflicting
action as that shown in figs. 4.14-4.16, except that the lower shank
is shorter. This bit is misnamed a "Tom Thumb snaffle." It is *not*
a snaffle."
Now, you think you're smarter than Monte Foreman?
>And because I say "curb" and Sue says "curb" and we both know we are
>meaning a leverage bit with an unbroken mouthpiece, we are doing fine
>communicating.
Bullshit. You're both ignorant and full of shit on this issue and
pleasantly deluding yourselves that you're riding with milder bits
than you are; furthermore, because this is a public forum you're
contributing to the general public ignorance with regard to these
bits.
I also find this highly amusing in light of Sue's past postings where
she lambasted some riders she saw pictures of in the Western Horseman,
claiming her own superiority in riding because she used snaffles and
not curbs.
Well, guess what, Sue. Your hypocrisy is showing. Those broken-mouth
curbs you ride are as severe as any of those you pretentiously
lambast. How the mighty are fallen. And you *do* use curbs--you just
ignorantly call them snaffles.
I repeat--as a Western rider, I find the usage of broken-mouth curbs
(especially when they're referred to as snaffles and viewed as
snaffles) as appalling; I don't care *who* uses them. If someone
needs lateral effects along with the leverage effects, then they're
best off looking at correction bits or acquiring the skill level to
stick a second set of reins on a curb which is designed to be ridden
as a Pelham. I prefer the Pelham-slotted Western bits (I knew them as
Farnam Change-a-bits many years ago, I guess they're now Sliester
bits) but they do require the ability to ride with four reins. Not
that hard a skill to acquire, really. Especially when you realize
that dressagistas also look at the ability to ride four reins with one
hand as being one of those ultimate sort of skills (at least according
to Podhasjky).
> I understand her fine as I am not being so hung up on
>"proper definitions" that I lose sight of the entire POINT of the exercise.
Yeah, right, just another justification for ignorance and spreading
ignorance.
>And if "old cowboy lore" means a curb in her world has an unbroken
>mouthpiece, then By Gawd it means JUST that in her part of the world!! It
>means the same thing in at least 75% of the world down here, too. Call it
>wrong, call it stupid, call it "ignorant". It works.
Yet another excuse to go around spreading crap and patting oneself on
the back for Not Using Nasty Evil Curbs. Which Sue has done in the
past.
snip
>Naww.. that would be a mullen mouth bit. A snaffle is a snaffle. <grin>
>In fact, a snaffle (as in broken mouthpiece) operates differently than a
>mullen. A mullen is a hybrid. Like those pesky shanked snaffles.
I hope to hell you never teach a class on bits; your ignorance is
rampant and showing.
snip
>If I show you a curb bit operating on lateral action, will you take all of
>that back?
Nope. Been there, done that, used it as part of a Pelham setup, both
English and Western.
>Only the ignorant will focus on the cheekpiece action and ignore the
>mouthpiece.
Only the ignorant so openly reveal their total lack of a clue. Or are
you now going to call Monte Foreman--who spent years studying bits and
bitting, complete with stop-action photography, as ignorant? Are you
going to call the U.S. Cavalry Manual writers ignorant?
Ken, you haven't the faintest clue in the world and I pity anyone who
turns to you for bitting knowledge.
snip
>Only the ignorant will define a bit based on lateral vs. leverage when
>there is more to it than those two principles.
So Monte Foreman is ignorant, then?
So the U.S. Cavalry manual was written by ignoramuses, then?
Cite me your sources which say that the mouthpiece defines whether a
bit is a snaffle or a curb. Written sources, with training
credibility, not tack catalogs which have been shown to be incorrect.
I've got a score of quotes to the contrary, from English AND Western
sides.
You, Ken, are the ignoramus here. You're just too ignorant to realize
it.
jrw
Sue from Auckland
actually a kimblewick - sorry had to say it :-)
Kris Carroll
sue.m...@clear.net.nz (Sue from Auckland) wrote:
> Just to stir things up a bit more, around here a kimberwick is
> actually a kimblewick - sorry had to say it :-)
Actually it is spelt kimblewicke
but pronounced kimberwick where I come from
how do you say it in Oz?
K :)
The Kingdom of Wallace
> sue.m...@clear.net.nz (Sue from Auckland) wrote:
>
> > Just to stir things up a bit more, around here a kimberwick is
> > actually a kimblewick - sorry had to say it :-)
and Kris C replied
>
> Actually it is spelt kimblewicke
> but pronounced kimberwick where I come from
> how do you say it in Oz?
>
> K :)
Small geography lesson: Auckland is in New Zealand, an independent country
east of Australia (Oz).
The Waitress.
The Kingdom of Wallace
> Bullshit. You're both ignorant and full of shit on this issue and
> pleasantly deluding yourselves that you're riding with milder bits
> than you are; furthermore, because this is a public forum you're
> contributing to the general public ignorance with regard to these
> bits.
Who died and made you a "bit" goddess?
The Waitress
Get a life, buy a horse.
L7 Ranch
Uh, thank you, thank you verrry much (insert Elvis tone there...)
She's the one who is deluded.
Sue in CO
L7 Ranch
news:ecb8d66c.02011...@posting.google.com...
> Just to stir things up a bit more, around here a kimberwick is
> actually a kimblewick - sorry had to say it :-)
'Tis ok. In case you didn't read all the stuff, Ken asked that folks not
get hung up on vernacular. I agree; you can have your Kimblewick :-)
Sue in CO
Jim & Nancy DeMarco
>Uh, thank you, thank you verrry much (insert Elvis tone there...)
>She's the one who is deluded.
Aren't we all. :) She's right about the bits, though.
Nancy DeMarco
L7 Ranch
> Additionally, there *are* one piece snaffles...such as the mullen
> mouth snaffle, which is a straight bar mouthpiece with a slight curve.
No such thing as a one piece snaffle. Ask the bitmakers I talked to today.
> A Kimberwick is a leverage bit. Period. Only the ignorant focus on
> the mouthpiece instead of the cheekpiece action. Snaffle bits operate
> on lateral action; curb bits on leverage action.
Then by golly, what do =you= call one of the thousands of hybrids?
You cannot just focus on the cheek pieces either. But if you need to
keep it simple so you can understand it, by all means.
> You need to go back and do some reading about bits.
Apparently so do you because the folks who actually design and
manufacture the silly things don't agree with you.
Sue
L7 Ranch
> The problem, Ken,
There was no problem until you created one.
> in focusing on the mouthpiece instead of the shanks
> as a definition of a curb/leverage bit is that the less-experienced
> then consider *anything* with a broken mouthpiece to be a snaffle, not
> a curb, and therefore milder in action than a curb.
No one =ever= said anything about mild, severe, etc.
What you've come up with here is some way to justify
your rant and you cannot. We were talking about shanked snaffles
and you just hit the roof over it. What the novice does think, or doesn't
isn't tied to this discussion in the "this bit is more severe than this
other one" context, becasue no one has claimed an issue of severity.
> This also leads
> to the slippery slope of folks using ineffective Tom Thumb bits (the
> western sort, not the English sort)
PLEASE tell me the difference between an english Tom Thumb
and a western Tom Thumb.
> thinking that they are indeed
> milder than a comparative short-shank fixed mouthpiece mullen mouth
> curb. They aren't. They're nutcrackers.
Who even claimed such a thing? Did you have bad dreams last night
then decied to take it out on us? NO ONE in this converstaion, except you,
was even discussing the severity of bits. If you think so, you dreamed it.
> Monte Foreman (please note, I'm talking about the excellent Western
> horseman known in cutting, reining and roping circles NOT Monty
> Roberts the charlatan) *himself* makes this distinction in his _Monte
> Foreman's Horse-Training Science_. Pages 11-17:
Good gawd, Joyce, you think you're the only one who knows who Monty
Foreman is? When I was 14 years old, I was using one of his bits on my
mare. However, it was the short shanked version of the "Foreman bit" which
typically had about 7" shanks. For those who are wondering, it was a medium
port curb (at the time) and had an extra ring at the mouthpiece for an extra
set
of reins.
> The _U.S. Horse Cavalry Manual_ calls nonleverage bits
> _snaffles_,
Does underlining help? That's their interpretation. Apparently
things have changed. Or would you like to say that Al Dunning,
Les Vogt, and company haven't a clue what =they're= talking about?
[snip]
> The short upper shank causes
> extremely painful lip pinching.
I will add that a lot of poorly designed bits cause "extremely painful lip
pinching."
> >And because I say "curb" and Sue says "curb" and we both know we are
> >meaning a leverage bit with an unbroken mouthpiece, we are doing fine
> >communicating.
>
> Bullshit. You're both ignorant and full of shit on this issue and
> pleasantly deluding yourselves that you're riding with milder bits
> than you are; furthermore, because this is a public forum you're
> contributing to the general public ignorance with regard to these
> bits.
I see you're gonna fix the world here Joyce. You are the one full of crap.
I will point out again that we never entered into the world of severity
in bits in our discussion. You dremaed that up and still want to hold us
hostage over it. If you have trouble with your comprehension, take
a class or get your nose back into a book.
> I also find this highly amusing in light of Sue's past postings where
> she lambasted some riders she saw pictures of in the Western Horseman,
> claiming her own superiority in riding because she used snaffles and
> not curbs.
Uh, golly, I see your comprehension problems are nothing new. I
"lambasted" some riders who were using spade bits and hauling, for all they
were worth, on their horse's faces. Get it right or don't quote it.
Further, I stated that I didn't agree with progressive bitting. I think you
should check the archives. They will prove to be your enemy.
> Well, guess what, Sue.
What Joyce?
> Your hypocrisy is showing.
Really? What about your dimentia?
> Those broken-mouth
> curbs you ride are as severe as any of those you pretentiously
> lambast.
Where in the world, did I lambast curbs????
> How the mighty are fallen. And you *do* use curbs--you just
> ignorantly call them snaffles.
You need therapy.
> [...] Not
> that hard a skill to acquire, really.
Golly, are you now claiming that you are the only one qualified,
or the only one who knows how to ride with four reins?
I've been riding that way when necessary, as long as you
have. Get some therapy. This anger you carry around is unhealthy.
> Especially when you realize
> that dressagistas also look at the ability to ride four reins with one
> hand as being one of those ultimate sort of skills (at least according
> to Podhasjky).
I can run speed events with four reins in one hand. I was taught how to
do that in formal, horse-related education when I was 12 years old.
Too bad you harbor such a complex.
> Yet another excuse to go around spreading crap and patting oneself on
> the back for Not Using Nasty Evil Curbs. Which Sue has done in the
> past.
Please post it, where I said I never used curbs. Check the archives.
I have a BIG problem with spades in the wrong hands. But I do not believe
I ever said I didn't use curbs. Currently, I'm not using one on anything,
but I have a wall of them in all different configurations and I'll use one
when
it's warranted. I also have a huge selection of snaffles, and I'll use
whatever
I need to, to keep a horse happy.
> I hope to hell you never teach a class on bits; your ignorance is
> rampant and showing.
As is yours.
> Nope. Been there, done that, used it as part of a Pelham setup, both
> English and Western.
So you say....
> Only the ignorant so openly reveal their total lack of a clue.
Your hostility is unhealthy.
> Or are
> you now going to call Monte Foreman--who spent years studying bits and
> bitting, complete with stop-action photography, as ignorant? Are you
> going to call the U.S. Cavalry Manual writers ignorant?
I'm going to say that they were dated. Are you going to claim that the
Myler bits and the associated manual is a bunch o' crap? Are you going
to say that Dutton, Vogt, Mylar, and company are full of shit?
Go ahead. They hold more credibility than you will die holding.
> So Monte Foreman is ignorant, then?
He used what was available at the time and also developed
one bit himself. Woohoo. I tend to look at many sources.
I have found that hero worship is a wreck waiting to happen.
> So the U.S. Cavalry manual was written by ignoramuses, then?
It was dated.
> You, Ken, are the ignoramus here. You're just too ignorant to realize
> it.
I spy, with my little eye, someone who's acting like a 12 year old.
Did too, did NOT. DID TOO! Good grief.
Sue
Ken Brown
No, she is not 100% correct. She is quoting two sources, one which is
quite outdated and would have been rewritten by now to follow modern
practices and deal with the "hybrids" out there.
More in a separate post.
Ken Brown
> "Joyce Reynolds-Ward" <j...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
>
>> Additionally, there *are* one piece snaffles...such as the mullen
>> mouth snaffle, which is a straight bar mouthpiece with a slight curve.
>
> No such thing as a one piece snaffle. Ask the bitmakers I talked to
> today.
*IF* you narrowly define a snaffle as lacking leverage properties (via
shanks), then a mullen mouth on a ring is a snaffle. Hell, a chain on a
piece of string is a snaffle, a war bridle is a snaffle, etc. *However*,
if snaffle is defined as a broken mouth, a mullen mouth on a ring is not a
snaffle.
The good news is that a mullen mouth on a ring *is not* a leverage bit, so
you can go from there as to classification.
I figure there are leverage bits, and non-leverage bits. With subdivisions
in each. A bit that is a hybrid will probably get lumped over into one
side or the otherdepending on percent of characteristic. E.g., call an
item a leverage bit if it is over 50% leverage.
Even so, categories change and we are not limited to A or Not A when
describing bits. Perhaps authors from the US Cavalry many years ago
limited themselves in such a fashion, but it is no longer required.
Furthermore, the US Cavalry manual was most likely describing its own bits
- snaffles and curbs. They ordered the same thing (as the military often
does) and stuck to a rigid structure (as the military often does).
"Judgement is now judgment", and there are many more examples. Spelling
changes, for good or bad. Definitions evolve, for good or bad. Blindly
clinging to the past cartainly reduces your ability to communicate in the
present.
------------------------------
Madeline Rockwell
"L7 Ranch" <l7r...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TPt08.29193$Vz3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> PLEASE tell me the difference between an english Tom Thumb
> and a western Tom Thumb.
Well, If you can't find the answer on your own...
A western Tom Thumb is a jointed leverage bit with one rein slot. Combining
leverage with the nutcracker action produced by any jointed mouthpiece. A
poorly designed bit used by those who don't know how it works, or don't
care.
An English Tom Thumb is a short shanked ( usually about a total cheekpiece
length- above and below the mouthpiece- of about 4 inches). Though available
in a jointed version that reproduces the worst characteristics of its
western cousin, the mullen mouth is a pretty useful bit in a number of
cases.
If you don't know what a pelham is, write again.
madeline
Ken Brown
Joyce,
Let me begin by stating I have always considered you a knowledgable and
level-headed poster. I am somewhat taken aback by your hostile post, but I
see a common thread with prior posting swhere you get off on a rant:
You are trying to police the terms and techniques posted, thus protecting
all readers from your notions of incorrect information or, worse yet, a
reader actually believing something that you, yourself, do not hold to be
"the one true way".
You're a zealot, Joyce. Not always a bad thing, but it can be.
>The problem, Ken, in focusing on the mouthpiece instead of the shanks
>as a definition of a curb/leverage bit is that the less-experienced
>then consider *anything* with a broken mouthpiece to be a snaffle, not
>a curb, and therefore milder in action than a curb. This also leads
So you assume, so you fear. Nobody discussed "mild" or "severe". FWIW, I
know of snaffles that *could be* far more severe than a curb I can pick
out. Snaffle *does not* mean mild, any more than curb means severe.
Severity is in the hands of the user, of course. Some items are more
difficult to make severe compared to others, however - e.g., an egg butt
snaffle versus a borken mouthpiece curb.
>to the slippery slope of folks using ineffective Tom Thumb bits (the
>western sort, not the English sort) thinking that they are indeed
Define the difference, please.
>milder than a comparative short-shank fixed mouthpiece mullen mouth
>curb. They aren't. They're nutcrackers.
You, evidently, dislike broken mouth bits - more specifically of the
shanked family. This is fine and yes, they can be nasty devices. A
snaffle can also be a nasty device in the wrong hands. I prefer to use a
simple snaffle whenever possible, and all horses are started with simple
snaffles around these parts. But I do not have a knee-jerk rejection of
curb bits such as yourself. Nor do I try to convince everyone I am
correct.
>Monte Foreman (please note, I'm talking about the excellent Western
>horseman known in cutting, reining and roping circles
I am aware of Monte Foreman and some of his work.
> NOT Monty
>Roberts the charlatan)
Why mention St. Monty? Did you once get the two confused?? Roberts is an
idiot and a charlatan, IMO.
> *himself* makes this distinction in his _Monte
>Foreman's Horse-Training Science_. Pages 11-17:
A. Horse training is not science, it is ART. And I say again, it is
*ART*!!
B. I disagree with that right off the bat, but rather than poke at Monte
for his editor's crappy choice in a book title, let's move forward.
C. I don't hold Monte as the be-all, end-all. It is a reference source.
Note I said "a", not "the".
>"Nonleverage (Snaffle) Bit
He defines bits by action. A decent beginning for classifications.
>The nonleverage bit has no shank or leverage attachments. The design
Sure? No exceptions? What if I can demonstrate how to get leverage out of
a snaffle? Or is he being unclear and meaning leverage as in acting on the
poll, curb groove, etc.? I bet he is just being unclear there ...
>of the mouthpiece does not determine the type of bit: nonleverage bits
>can have a variety of mouthpieces--jointed, solid, bar, port, wrapped,
>and so on. The _U.S. Horse Cavalry Manual_ calls nonleverage bits
>_snaffles_, as do hunter-jumper and polo riders. No bit with leverage
>shanks should be called a snaffle.....
Ahh.. NOW he says "shank" and makes a distinction. OK .. good. So if
there is shanked leverage action, it should not be called a snaffle.
Because, by his (note it is HIS, not the world's) defintion, leverage bits
are not snaffles.
I gave him points because he is classifying without regard to shanks (he
isn't, really, it is by action) or mouth piece.
>Leverage (Curb) Bit
>A leverage bit has shanks that mechanically increase the strength of
>the force on the reins. It is necessary to use a curb strap or a flat
>curb chain with this bit for proper action......
Uhh... "increase the strength of the force on the reins". What the hell?
From the reins, perhaps? Monte is a tad unclear here about the curb groove
action happening. And so far no mention of the forces on the poll, etc.
Monte is really focusing in on the mouth alone .. not a good thing.
Before you jump in and say "read all of it in context", I wish to point out
to you our own demands: this is an international forum and lots of
uneducated and "newbie" readers. Please post completely to avoid any
confusion.
"If you post at all, post it all, because the reader assumes you post it
all." ... personally, I hate that attitude, but you seem to like it.
And while we are at it - where's the remarks I wanted about leverage points
on a shanked bit? What are the parts called? Does the term "purchase"
ring any bells? How does the purchase relate to the shank and create the
overall leverage effect? Same bitch I had with Dr. Bennet's "severity"
index - incomplete McNuggets of info. You are providing incomplete info,
and urging the readers to get the book and read it through is a damn fine
idea.
Do you suggest anyone read up? No, you state samples and incomplete info
and rest alone on your selected cites and snippets. You use your cites to
attack, not to educate. That is not very honest, is it Joyce?
>Fig. 4.14 This jointed mountpiece, loose-jaw leverage (curb) bit, has
>been misscalled a "cowboy snaffle." The short upper shank causes
>extremely painful lip pinching.
It *can* cause pinching. So can the way a snaffle acts on the corners of
the mouth. FWIW, a lip cannot get caught on the connection between the
mouthpiece and the cheek on the bit(s) I use. A simple snaffle can pinch
sensitive tissue, but you knew this.
A simple snaffle can really hurt a horse. Use it incorectly. Cross the
reins under the horse's neck and then yank back hard and see what damage
you can do.
I have no idea what bit he is describing, but I hobble my bits to prevent
too much independent movement. I am also not harsh in their use.
>Fig. 4.15. The action of the jointed mouthpiece in combination with
>the loose-jaw swivel cheek creates more problems. A lateral pull on
>the lower shank causes the upper shank to gouge the horse's lip
>against the teeth.
Ahh... it has a loose-jaw swivel cheek. You can prevent that to some
extent by hobbling the bit, placing a rigid "slobber bar" across the
bottom. You can still do some damage, but all bits can do damage in the
wrong hands. A particular bit probably has a particular purpose, don't you
thnk?
>Fig. 4.16. The upper shank gouging the horse's skin against the teeth
>painfully contradicts the lateral control when used on the lower
>shank.
Then don't *do* that!! The potential for harm is not the same as *always*
harming, regardless of how you use the bit.
>Fig. 4.17. This leverage (curb) bit hhouse the same conflicting
>action as that shown in figs. 4.14-4.16, except that the lower shank
>is shorter. This bit is misnamed a "Tom Thumb snaffle." It is *not*
>a snaffle."
What does that have to do with anything? He is biching on saying a TT
snaff isn't a snaff. OK, by his definition it isn't. But I am *still*
going to tell people "toss your Tom Thumb snaffle off a bridge" before I
say "toss your Tom Thumb curb off the bridge".
Which do you want to do more - communicate with as many people as possible
o be semantically correct (according to Monte) and lose your audience and
lose the entire message in terminology you and Monte like? Sure, those
more educated "get it", but it is often best to make baby steps in
correcting things, not trying to cram things down throats.
Just like training a horse .. build on a foundation. If the foundation is
incorrect before you arrived, communicate in a way the audience can
understand to get some attention, then correct.
>Now, you think you're smarter than Monte Foreman?
No. But I think I am more up-to-date this second in this context <grin>.
>>And because I say "curb" and Sue says "curb" and we both know we are
>>meaning a leverage bit with an unbroken mouthpiece, we are doing fine
>>communicating.
>Bullshit. You're both ignorant and full of shit on this issue and
That's not very nice. Wrong, too.
>pleasantly deluding yourselves that you're riding with milder bits
>than you are; furthermore, because this is a public forum you're
No we aren't. I think we both know exactly what we are riding with and
how. If you care to come visit and watch, feel free. I am going to try to
get some video for you, too, and post little segments. I had someone take
a few pics of me yesterday working a mechanical cow and damn.. not a gaping
mouth, not an unhappy horse, no problems.
Reins reinforce the legs cues, IME. Reins/bits are secondary control
devices for most movement that I request. That is a clue right there.
>contributing to the general public ignorance with regard to these
>bits.
As if you aren't? Spouting incomplete information that anyone with a entry
level logic course can't tear through? If you think everyone is thinking
"jrw posted that, it must be gospel" you are wrong. If you think readers
are thinking what Sue or I post is gospel, you are wrong again.
What's with the personal crusade anyway? It is your way or no way??
>curbs you ride are as severe as any of those you pretentiously
>lambast. How the mighty are fallen. And you *do* use curbs--you just
>ignorantly call them snaffles.
Who is talking severity? You are. Sure seems odd ot me your experience
with curbs equate to severe and a "very bad thing". Perhaps you should get
out a bit more and see the proper use of curbs so that you can change your
opinion?
>I repeat--as a Western rider, I find the usage of broken-mouth curbs
>(especially when they're referred to as snaffles and viewed as
>snaffles) as appalling; I don't care *who* uses them. If someone
That's your opinion. You aren't gospel. I suggest you haven't seen them
used properly and all that tells me is the caliber of rider you are
observing is less-than-optimal.
>needs lateral effects along with the leverage effects, then they're
>best off looking at correction bits or acquiring the skill level to
Oh really?? A correction bit .. hmm.. like a correction mouthpiece curb?
Think hard here, as you are moving into some murky waters with snaffle
mouths, nutcracker effects, leverage, etc.
>stick a second set of reins on a curb which is designed to be ridden
>as a Pelham. I prefer the Pelham-slotted Western bits (I knew them as
Pushing your own preferences for riding gear is hardly the ultimate answer.
Your way is not the only way, Joyce. Any decent trainer will tell you
that, I swear to it.
>Farnam Change-a-bits many years ago, I guess they're now Sliester
>bits) but they do require the ability to ride with four reins. Not
Oopsie!!!! Joyce stepped into deep shit. Sliester is a bit manufacturer,
not a bit type. Care to see a selection of Sliester bits? I have two. I
can point you to a few web sites to see more. They are nothing like you
describe and do not take 4 reins.
Repeat: Sliester is a bit manufaturer, NOT a bit type. Like Myler.
<snip effete crap>
>> I understand her fine as I am not being so hung up on
>>"proper definitions" that I lose sight of the entire POINT of the
>>exercise.
>Yeah, right, just another justification for ignorance and spreading
>ignorance.
Nope. Different issues. Different context. Get a grip, Joyce. You have
lost sight of the entire exercise and are focusing on specific terminology
you prefer rather than education and getting a decent message out there.
>>And if "old cowboy lore" means a curb in her world has an unbroken
>>mouthpiece, then By Gawd it means JUST that in her part of the world!!
>>It means the same thing in at least 75% of the world down here, too.
>>Call it wrong, call it stupid, call it "ignorant". It works.
>Yet another excuse to go around spreading crap and patting oneself on
>the back for Not Using Nasty Evil Curbs. Which Sue has done in the
Read for context: "in her part of the world". I bet you go to Rance and
expect them to call a hat a hat because that is the proerp term, isn't it?
I bet they use a word that sounds funny. And a pen? Go to Germany and
that is different, too.
Curbs are ot necessarily evil and nasty.
>>Naww.. that would be a mullen mouth bit. A snaffle is a snaffle. <grin>
>>In fact, a snaffle (as in broken mouthpiece) operates differently than a
>>mullen. A mullen is a hybrid. Like those pesky shanked snaffles.
>I hope to hell you never teach a class on bits; your ignorance is
>rampant and showing.
A snaffle with a broken mothpiece operates diffently than a mullen. A
mullen is a hybrid. Prove me wrong.. naww.. let me clear this up for you:
a broken mouth snaffle has the ability to hit the palate, a mullen
typically does not (should not unless mighty damn low palate, mullen has
something that resemble more of a port (then not really a mullen, is it)
and you are doing something very, very wrong .. like putting the mullen on
sideays.. heh). A mullen will exert pressure at the corners of the mouth
faster than a broken mouth, due to the simple fact there is no break in the
mouthpiece and pressure on the corners is applied immediately from rein
pressure. A jointed mouth has some "give" there as the mouthpiece breaks.
>>If I show you a curb bit operating on lateral action, will you take all
>>of that back?
>Nope. Been there, done that, used it as part of a Pelham setup, both
>English and Western.
Laugh. Go see what they call a "training snaffle" - curb with broken
mouth. Has places on each side of the mouthpiece to attach reins. Simply
move reins to the side rings versus the shank ring and voila - "snaffle"
via lateral action. But ... there is a purchase and a curb strap, yes? Is
it still effective? Hmmmm
>>Only the ignorant will focus on the cheekpiece action and ignore the
>>mouthpiece.
>Only the ignorant so openly reveal their total lack of a clue. Or are
Why don't we let the world-wide readership make up their midns as to
whether I have a clue.
>you now going to call Monte Foreman--who spent years studying bits and
>bitting, complete with stop-action photography, as ignorant? Are you
>going to call the U.S. Cavalry Manual writers ignorant?
Naww .. I call them resources for information based on what they believe
and have learned. I call the US Cav dated info for some portions.
>Ken, you haven't the faintest clue in the world and I pity anyone who
>turns to you for bitting knowledge.
Thanks for your opinion. I, on the other hand, think you have a clue but
that your clues are getting mred in your own zeal to push your personal
preferences and agenda. This nasty trait can have your message diluted or,
worse yet, totally ignored.
snip
>>Only the ignorant will define a bit based on lateral vs. leverage when
>>there is more to it than those two principles.
>So Monte Foreman is ignorant, then?
No. He is a good point to beging research, but hardly the end. You are
ignorant taking his work and posting portions when he is trying to
explain/define/classify how bits work in general. By taking a generality
and trying to make it act as a specific, you get into trouble.. Like the
trouble you are in now.
>So the U.S. Cavalry manual was written by ignoramuses, then?
Dated. It is a good point to begin research, but hardly the end.
>Cite me your sources which say that the mouthpiece defines whether a
>bit is a snaffle or a curb. Written sources, with training
Never did I say they did. Nor did I say the cheek defines the bit. I use
a multi-part defintion, depending on the bit. If I say "short shank
snaffle" it is one thing. If I say "the Nevada cheek Salinas" it means
another.
I hardly say "snaffle" and "curb" and then expect anyone to know precisely
which one. Which is, of course, the entire point of this exercise. The
point you lost as you decided to micro-define.
>You, Ken, are the ignoramus here. You're just too ignorant to realize
>it.
OK. Your opinion and you are entitled to it.
Ignatzmom
The Waitress, who should perhaps be back busing tables, could perhaps
benefit from a short course in physics, common sense, and the use of
bits through history, as well as the NAMES these bits are commonly
known by in English.
Has a shank and strap/fulcrum = a curb, no matter what the shape of
the mouthpiece.
Has no shank, no leverage = a snaffle -- no matter what the shape of
the mouthpiece.
FYI, in most cases, an Uxeter is classified as a Pelham, a Kimberwicke
as the shortest shank (lowest leverage) curb available.
A Tom Thumb, also a term applied freely by those who think they know
what bits do, actually refers to the length of the shank, a short
shank bit being a Tom Thumb, in homage to the vertically challenged
person once employed by old Phineas himself. Around here, we call the
stupid things Cowboy Snaffles, and wish they could all be melted down
to mend pots.
Ken Brown
> The Waitress, who should perhaps be back busing tables, could perhaps
> benefit from a short course in physics, common sense, and the use of
> bits through history, as well as the NAMES these bits are commonly
> known by in English.
Common sense has nothing to do with physics. Physics has everything to do
with applying "common sense".
> Has a shank and strap/fulcrum = a curb, no matter what the shape of
> the mouthpiece.
So where does the term "curb" come from? Historically speaking, of course.
> Has no shank, no leverage = a snaffle -- no matter what the shape of
> the mouthpiece.
No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct? Sure?
> FYI, in most cases, an Uxeter is classified as a Pelham, a Kimberwicke
> as the shortest shank (lowest leverage) curb available.
English. Go Western.
> A Tom Thumb, also a term applied freely by those who think they know
> what bits do, actually refers to the length of the shank, a short
Maybe in your part of the planet. Down here a TT is a TT. It describes a
particular bit nobody seems to like very much. The uneducated seem to like
them, though; probably being unaware that good alternatives abound.
Of course, I prefer to attempt to educate the TomThumberites, rather than
chastise them and slam on them as "think they know what bits do".
> shank bit being a Tom Thumb, in homage to the vertically challenged
> person once employed by old Phineas himself. Around here, we call the
> stupid things Cowboy Snaffles, and wish they could all be melted down
> to mend pots.
Is that just another way to denigrate "cowboy" to those of the English
Riding Style persuasion? What has the English folk so against "cowboys"
anyway? Pick a few bad examples and get up on the high and mighty throne
of horse rightousness and slam away? Why be so damn effete about it all?
Good riding is good riding, regardless of saddle, gear or the hat/helmet
you happen to be wearing.
Isn't there some other crusade folks could pick up and carry the banner
for? Like orphaned waterfowl?
Schmdthaus
<<"Judgement is now judgment", and there are many more examples. Spelling
changes, for good or bad.>>
Back when I was in school and dirt was young, Ken, "judgment" was the preferred
spelling. It has been in "modern" times that the alternative spelling of
"judgement" became acceptable.
<<Blindly
clinging to the past cartainly reduces your ability to communicate in the
present.>>
I believe that blindly following current linguistic trends has an equally
detrimental effect on one's communication skills.
Laurie
L7 Ranch
> If you don't know what a pelham is, write again.
I know what a pelham is, I've used them. Four reins and all.
A TT is TT. And the english version is no more superior
to any western TT. They are both leverage bits. However, the old
style TT (that I'm familiar with that I have never used) was very
poorly designed and was the pinchingest SOB one could imagine.
As Ken said, there are multitudes of better choices out there.
Depending of course, on what makes the horse happy.
Sue
Ken Brown
> Ken Brown wrote:
> <<Blindly
> clinging to the past cartainly reduces your ability to communicate in
> the present.>>
>
> I believe that blindly following current linguistic trends has an
> equally detrimental effect on one's communication skills.
Sure can!
But if I canget your attentin by using the common terms/spelling then
educate you, isn't that better than being ignored altogether?
For examle, if I say "I am ging to discuss Tom Thumb Snaffles" and I get
the attention of all such bit users I may then expoound on the bit itself.
If I say "I am going to discuss curb bits/leverage bits" they may all pass
the subject right on by, thinking it has no application to their TT
"snaffle."
The goal should dictate the approach - if one wishes to be "right" over the
goal of getting an audience to educate, then so be it. But they don't get
to spread the education very well, do they? If one wishes to get someone's
attention, then educate, the chances of education rise dramatically.
IOW, speak to your audience in terms they can understand, then educate to a
higher level. You can hardly discuss the finer points of bit history and
mechanics to someone that cannot discern the difference between a full
cheek snaffle and an offset-D.
BTW .. does that full cheek have a shank? Hmm....
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>No, she is not 100% correct. She is quoting two sources, one which is
>quite outdated and would have been rewritten by now to follow modern
>practices and deal with the "hybrids" out there.
Is that so.
Ken, I've got more sources than that.
You and Sue are two shining examples of why non-Western trainers scorn
Western stuff.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>Is that just another way to denigrate "cowboy" to those of the English
>Riding Style persuasion? What has the English folk so against "cowboys"
>anyway? Pick a few bad examples and get up on the high and mighty throne
>of horse rightousness and slam away? Why be so damn effete about it all?
>Good riding is good riding, regardless of saddle, gear or the hat/helmet
>you happen to be wearing.
Because only cowboys are ignorant enough to insist that the mouthpiece
defines whether a bit is a snaffle or a curb.
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
snip
>No one =ever= said anything about mild, severe, etc.
>What you've come up with here is some way to justify
>your rant and you cannot.
Bullshit.
>We were talking about shanked snaffles
>and you just hit the roof over it.
Again, there *is* no such animal. What you are talking about is a
broken-mouth curb, and all your temper tantrums insisting that a
mouthpiece defines a bit instead of whether it has leverage or not
doesn't change that.
>What the novice does think, or doesn't
>isn't tied to this discussion in the "this bit is more severe than this
>other one" context, becasue no one has claimed an issue of severity.
Oh, so we can talk to no ends about "don't try this at home" stuff in
a public forum, with no cautionary notes or attempts to use correct
terminology just because you don't give a rat's ass about what a
novice does or doesn't think?
Let's see, I wonder how long it will take to have someone justify
their use of a broken mouthed curb because it's a "snaffle"--I read
some folks on line who say so.
snip
>PLEASE tell me the difference between an english Tom Thumb
>and a western Tom Thumb.
As I understand it, the English Tom Thumb is a Pelham variant. The
Western Tom Thumb is a broken-mouth curb.
snip
>Who even claimed such a thing? Did you have bad dreams last night
>then decied to take it out on us? NO ONE in this converstaion, except you,
>was even discussing the severity of bits. If you think so, you dreamed it.
And you're not the one who occasionally queens it over everyone else
riding western because you don't use those awful curbs? Hrmph.
snip
>Good gawd, Joyce, you think you're the only one who knows who Monty
>Foreman is? When I was 14 years old, I was using one of his bits on my
>mare. However, it was the short shanked version of the "Foreman bit" which
>typically had about 7" shanks. For those who are wondering, it was a medium
>port curb (at the time) and had an extra ring at the mouthpiece for an extra
>set
>of reins.
Then you must not have read his book, or skipped over his definition
of curbs and snaffles.
snip
>Does underlining help? That's their interpretation. Apparently
>things have changed. Or would you like to say that Al Dunning,
>Les Vogt, and company haven't a clue what =they're= talking about?
So? I don't agree with their usage of broken-mouth curbs, especially
if they're calling them "snaffles."
And, as the discussion on poling and the dead horse at a George Morris
jumping clinic goes to show, just because someone's a Big Name doesn't
necessarily mean they're doing the Right Thing.
snip
>Uh, golly, I see your comprehension problems are nothing new. I
>"lambasted" some riders who were using spade bits and hauling, for all they
>were worth, on their horse's faces. Get it right or don't quote it.
>Further, I stated that I didn't agree with progressive bitting. I think you
>should check the archives. They will prove to be your enemy.
Oh, bullshit, Sue. You were taking out after some Idaho cowboys on
roundup that you *assumed* were riding with spades--when it was
patently clear they were riding with ordinary grazing curbs. Your
ignorance was showing a mile on that one.
And it's interesting that you don't agree with progressive bitting,
but in all effect you're riding some horses in curbs.
snip
>Please post it, where I said I never used curbs. Check the archives.
>I have a BIG problem with spades in the wrong hands. But I do not believe
>I ever said I didn't use curbs. Currently, I'm not using one on anything,
>but I have a wall of them in all different configurations and I'll use one
>when
>it's warranted. I also have a huge selection of snaffles, and I'll use
>whatever
>I need to, to keep a horse happy.
Spades? Come on, where in that WH story did it say those men were
riding with spades. You also were making a big deal about curbs.
Or do you have X-Ray eyes, that you can look at a picture of a horse
in a curb and automatically what mouthpiece is in that critter's
mouth? Mind you, remember that Capriola's sells all sorts of
spade-looking cheekpieces with a standard curb mouthpiece.
snip
>I'm going to say that they were dated. Are you going to claim that the
>Myler bits and the associated manual is a bunch o' crap? Are you going
>to say that Dutton, Vogt, Mylar, and company are full of shit?
>Go ahead. They hold more credibility than you will die holding.
As far as I'm concerned the Mylar bits aren't that great. We'll see
if they evolve to be anything more than a major fad.
>> So Monte Foreman is ignorant, then?
>He used what was available at the time and also developed
>one bit himself. Woohoo. I tend to look at many sources.
>I have found that hero worship is a wreck waiting to happen.
And how many of those sources you cite insist that whether a bit is a
curb or a snaffle is defined by the mouthpiece?
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
wrote:
>"Joyce Reynolds-Ward" <j...@aracnet.com> wrote in message
>> Additionally, there *are* one piece snaffles...such as the mullen
>> mouth snaffle, which is a straight bar mouthpiece with a slight curve.
>No such thing as a one piece snaffle. Ask the bitmakers I talked to today.
Bullshit! I have here a book on snaffles by Carolyn Henderson, put
out by a British publisher.
Here are the one-piece, straight bar, unjointed snaffle types she has
pictured in her book (Compass Points for Riders: Snaffles, put out by
Compass Equestrian, London, 1997, ISBN 1-900667-20-7):
Straight bar flexible rubber loose-ring
Straight bar vulcanite loose-ring
Straight bar Happy Mouth loose-ring
Straight bar vulcanite eggbutt
Straight bar vulcanite full cheek
Mullen mouth stainless steel eggbutt
Mullen mouth Nathe loose-ring
Flexible rubber half-spoon
KK snaffle with port
Care to try that one again?
Or do you want to go on ahead and show those who ride English (and are
very much acquainted with the concept of unjointed snaffle bar
mouthpieces) just how iggnerent Western riders are?
jrw
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>You are trying to police the terms and techniques posted, thus protecting
>all readers from your notions of incorrect information or, worse yet, a
>reader actually believing something that you, yourself, do not hold to be
>"the one true way".
No, Ken, what's going on is that unlike you, I have read and studied
this matter of bits and bitting and haven't limited myself to one
discipline but looked around to see what is what.
But go on ahead, as I told Sue above, if you want to go ahead and
reveal just how ignorant you are to those English riders who know that
your insistence that the mouthpiece defines the bit and that a solid
mouthpiece snaffle is not a snaffle, be my guest. Go ahead and
confirm all those stereotypes about the ignorance of Western riders
and trainers.
Fact is, you and Sue are in the minority on this one when it comes to
the definition of snaffle versus curb.
snip
>You, evidently, dislike broken mouth bits - more specifically of the
>shanked family. This is fine and yes, they can be nasty devices. A
>snaffle can also be a nasty device in the wrong hands. I prefer to use a
>simple snaffle whenever possible, and all horses are started with simple
>snaffles around these parts. But I do not have a knee-jerk rejection of
>curb bits such as yourself. Nor do I try to convince everyone I am
>correct.
No dear, the problem is that I have encountered far too many people
riding a broken-mouth curb who think (and ride comparably) that they
are riding in a snaffle. Nor do I reject curbs--I am comfortable in
their usage. It's your buddy Sue who took out a few years ago about
some pictures of cowboys in Idaho and claimed they were roughhousing
in curbs--now she claims she was taking out after them because they
were riding in spades, but it was pretty dang clear to me, looking at
the picture, that they were in curbs.
snip
>Sure? No exceptions? What if I can demonstrate how to get leverage out of
>a snaffle? Or is he being unclear and meaning leverage as in acting on the
>poll, curb groove, etc.? I bet he is just being unclear there ...
Y'know, Ken, I do have to wonder about you sometimes.
Do you regularly use snaffles in such a way as to be leverage devices?
Sure, you *can* turn a snaffle into a leverage device (look at the
gag-type snaffles), but is that what it's designed to do for the
general rank and file? Or are you so determined to interpret The
World According To Ken that you can't go along with what is commonly
defined and accepted?
Sure, I can make a leverage out of a snaffle. Doesn't mean it's the
best tool for the job. Same holds true with lateral usage of a curb.
snip
>Ahh.. NOW he says "shank" and makes a distinction. OK .. good. So if
>there is shanked leverage action, it should not be called a snaffle.
>Because, by his (note it is HIS, not the world's) defintion, leverage bits
>are not snaffles.
Um...Ken?
Guess what. It's not just HIS definition, it IS the world's
definition. Richard Shrake makes the same distinction. So do more
recent books on bits, including one which talks about, of all things,
"leverage snaffles(!)" which are more properly gag bits.
Just about every bitting authority I have encountered refers to
anything with a shanked leverage action as a curb, irregardless of the
mouthpiece. Some trainers incorrectly call broken-mouth curbs
snaffles, but they aren't writing books on bits.
snip
snip
>A snaffle with a broken mothpiece operates diffently than a mullen. A
>mullen is a hybrid. Prove me wrong.. naww.. let me clear this up for you:
>a broken mouth snaffle has the ability to hit the palate, a mullen
>typically does not (should not unless mighty damn low palate, mullen has
>something that resemble more of a port (then not really a mullen, is it)
>and you are doing something very, very wrong .. like putting the mullen on
>sideays.. heh). A mullen will exert pressure at the corners of the mouth
>faster than a broken mouth, due to the simple fact there is no break in the
>mouthpiece and pressure on the corners is applied immediately from rein
>pressure. A jointed mouth has some "give" there as the mouthpiece breaks.
I eagerly await our English riding compatriots to set you straight,
Ken.
Or else look at my response to Sue to see the number of unjointed
snaffles known to English riders...including a *ported* mouthpiece.
jrw
Sheryl Huckaby
>But go on ahead, as I told Sue above, if you want to go ahead and
>reveal just how ignorant you are to those English riders who know that
>your insistence that the mouthpiece defines the bit and that a solid
>mouthpiece snaffle is not a snaffle, be my guest.
Well now, I don't think that the definition they are using (defining the bit by
mouthpiece) is all that uncommon. I think that the first time I heard it
defined the other way was on this forum. I simply adjust my terminology to
what the audience understands and mention as a bynote that some people define
it another way. Saves time & arguments.
Sheryl
Ashland City, Tennessee
If a small thing has the power to make you angry, does that not indicate
something about your size? - Sydney J. Harris
Bill Kambic
> > The Waitress, who should perhaps be back busing tables, could perhaps
> > benefit from a short course in physics, common sense, and the use of
> > bits through history, as well as the NAMES these bits are commonly
> > known by in English.
>
> Common sense has nothing to do with physics. Physics has everything to do
> with applying "common sense".
Well, actually, the relationship between "common sense" and physics is
non-existant.
Einstein is said to have described "common sense" as the "summary of all the
prejudices learned before the age of sixteen." Pretty good definition,
IMO!<g>
>
> > Has a shank and strap/fulcrum = a curb, no matter what the shape of
> > the mouthpiece.
>
> So where does the term "curb" come from? Historically speaking, of
course.
A "curb" is anything that restrains or controls. It is also, most
correctly, the chain or strap under the jaw.
> > Has no shank, no leverage = a snaffle -- no matter what the shape of
> > the mouthpiece.
>
> No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct? Sure?
This seems to be the overwhelming "majority" position!<g>
> > FYI, in most cases, an Uxeter is classified as a Pelham, a Kimberwicke
> > as the shortest shank (lowest leverage) curb available.
>
> English. Go Western.
I ride a Pelham either Engish or Western, sometimes with four reins.<g>
Nothing wrong with "mix and match" at home!!!!!!
>
> > A Tom Thumb, also a term applied freely by those who think they know
> > what bits do, actually refers to the length of the shank, a short
>
> Maybe in your part of the planet. Down here a TT is a TT. It describes a
> particular bit nobody seems to like very much. The uneducated seem to
like
> them, though; probably being unaware that good alternatives abound.
True here in the Mountains, as well.
>
> Of course, I prefer to attempt to educate the TomThumberites, rather than
> chastise them and slam on them as "think they know what bits do".
Well, occationally the Tom Thumberites need the same treatment you sometimes
have to give to a mule "to get his attention."
>
> > shank bit being a Tom Thumb, in homage to the vertically challenged
> > person once employed by old Phineas himself. Around here, we call the
> > stupid things Cowboy Snaffles, and wish they could all be melted down
> > to mend pots.
>
> Is that just another way to denigrate "cowboy" to those of the English
> Riding Style persuasion?
No, I don't think so. Lee writes from CO. You can go to any tack shop
around East TN and ask for a "cowboy snaffle" and get the same thing she
would. It does not matter whether the shop specialized in English, Western,
or neither.
I will not deny that there is a vast amount of bigotry in some parts of the
English world against anything that is not like them (this is part of the
minimum requirement to be a DQ). Still, in this instance, "cowboy snaffle"
is not a pejorative aimed at Western riders (at least not in my part of the
world).
What has the English folk so against "cowboys"
> anyway? Pick a few bad examples and get up on the high and mighty throne
> of horse rightousness and slam away? Why be so damn effete about it all?
> Good riding is good riding, regardless of saddle, gear or the hat/helmet
> you happen to be wearing.
This is a door that "swings both ways."<rueful G>
> Isn't there some other crusade folks could pick up and carry the banner
> for? Like orphaned waterfowl?
"Crusaders," no matter the "cause," are always good for a laugh or two as
they tilt with their particular "windmills."
That, of course, brings us to the question: I jousting an English or
Western discipline?!?!?!?!?
Bill Kambic, Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Hills/1816
Mangalarga Marchador: Style, Stamina, Symmetry, & Smoothness
Ken Brown
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 12:19:06 GMT, Ken Brown
> <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>No, she is not 100% correct. She is quoting two sources, one which is
>>quite outdated and would have been rewritten by now to follow modern
>>practices and deal with the "hybrids" out there.
>
> Is that so.
Then show the statement is not correct. "Is that so" is hardly a fact-
filled and informative response.
> Ken, I've got more sources than that.
Within context and in recent history, please state a few. Preferably one
or two from people who actually *make* bits.
> You and Sue are two shining examples of why non-Western trainers scorn
> Western stuff.
Shrug. Perhaps. It must be tough to think your world is the only world
and then someone comes along that says different, and backs it up.
------------------------------
Schmdthaus
<<Oh, so we can talk to no ends about "don't try this at home" stuff in
a public forum, with no cautionary notes or attempts to use correct
terminology just because you don't give a rat's ass about what a
novice does or doesn't think?
Let's see, I wonder how long it will take to have someone justify
their use of a broken mouthed curb because it's a "snaffle"--I read
some folks on line who say so.>>
We had just such an outburst on our local open circuit (which, for the most
part, confirms to AHSA rules) recently. A child was riding western and the
judge patiently explained to her that she could not ride with two hands with a
curb bit. The child insisted that her mother said it was okay, because it was a
snaffle bit and the rules allow using two hands on a snaffle. The judge
subsequently disqualified the child, after explaining that a jointed mouthpiece
does not make a leverage bit a snaffle.
The mother was furious, insisting that when she purchased the bit, it was
called a snaffle, and how could the judge be such an ignoramus, yadayadatyada.
Now, before someone gets their undies in a bunch over whose responsibility it
is to know the rules, I fully agree -- the parent and the child should learn
the rules before throwing hissy fits. And this was not an earthshattering event
in the great scheme of things. But it was unpleasant for a young horsewoman and
a kind, competent judge, and ultimately embarrassing for her mother. And it was
completely unnecessary.
If it were not an increasingly common practice to refer to a shanked curb bit
with a jointed mouthpiece as "some-kind-or-another snaffle," the confusion
would not exist.
Laurie
Schmdthaus
<<IOW, speak to your audience in terms they can understand, then educate to a
higher level. You can hardly discuss the finer points of bit history and
mechanics to someone that cannot discern the difference between a full
cheek snaffle and an offset-D.>>
You might want to consider that the intellectual and expertise level of "your"
audience is not guite as homogenous as you assume, Ken.
Laurie
Ken Brown
>>From: j...@aracnet.com (Joyce Reynolds-Ward)
>
>>But go on ahead, as I told Sue above, if you want to go ahead and
>>reveal just how ignorant you are to those English riders who know that
>>your insistence that the mouthpiece defines the bit and that a solid
>>mouthpiece snaffle is not a snaffle, be my guest.
>
> Well now, I don't think that the definition they are using (defining
> the bit by mouthpiece) is all that uncommon. I think that the first
> time I heard it defined the other way was on this forum. I simply
> adjust my terminology to what the audience understands and mention as a
> bynote that some people define it another way. Saves time &
> arguments.
Bingo. That is my point - speak in a language the audience understands
rather than in "correct, precisely so" statements that may, or may not be,
germane to the entire issue.
And to clear this up:
I have *never* stated a mouthpiece defines a bit, nor have I ever stated
the cheeks define the bit. I *have* stated that rely solely on one or the
other as the final definitive bit description is folly, given hybrids, etc.
Joyce has her dander up over something I never ascribed to .. I did,
however, say that to describe a bit via parts of it sure saves time and
hassle. I call a broken mouthpiece curb that has a single break in it,
with shanks, a short shank snaffle. Everyone knows what I am talking
about, so I let it go to make certain I am understood. it is a curb bit
with a broken mouthpiece, but am I going to say "curb bit" and stop there?
Naww... "shanked snaffle" is something the people I work with understand
quickly.
IIRC, this entire thing started with Joyce saying "You two ride in short
shank snaffles? Ptui." I didn't see her say "There is no such thing as a
short shank snaffle." She knew exactly what was being discussed and, most
likely, has made reference to same herself in the same manner when the
occasion called for it. The entire rant rose later.
Seems to me that when it is time to post to a NG, all hell breaks loose and
common usage goes out the door as some folk insist on precision and the
"true and only way". Beats me why ...
tenwheels
> "Joyce Reynolds-Ward" vented the following bluge:
>
> > Bullshit. You're both ignorant and full of shit on this issue and
> > pleasantly deluding yourselves that you're riding with milder bits
> > than you are; furthermore, because this is a public forum you're
> > contributing to the general public ignorance with regard to these
> > bits.
You must be a real delight in person! Do you ever have repeat
customers?
> Who died and made you a "bit" goddess?
Amen!
I've been reading this ng for months now and have been very
unfavorably impressed with many of the regulars. Aside from the
obvious rudeness that so many display (beyond normal Internet
nastiness) it seems that to many, their's is the only "right" method.
I don't claim to train, I don't give unsolicited advice and I don't
believe that my methods supplant all others. OTOH, I have been riding
nearly 5 decades now and will listen to learn if another's POV is
worth listening to. Reading all the anti-guru messages, I can only
conclude that jealousy is behind the remarks. Of course Roberts or
Parelli or Lyons or Shrake or whoever don't have all the answers, but
I doubt many who criticize have ever applied their means - at least
not with an open mind. And do you really think they got there by
doing dumb stuff and not delivering?
I read today that horsemanship is about time and wet saddle blankets.
Well, yeah, that's part of it, but hardly the whole enchilada. What
about knowledge? What about techniques? How about imagination? I
see many people longeing their horses 'round and 'round mindlessly, to
no end.
I'm sure many of you are good horsepeople and good riders and maybe
even regular people. But anyone who claims to have all the answers
doesn't. FWIW, the "names" didn't get there by calling names on the
Internet and putting down others. If you have something worth
listening to, you'll find a market; if you don't, keep posting - your
message is worth just what you're paid for it.
Kris Carroll
> I know what a pelham is, I've used them. Four reins and all.
> A TT is TT. And the english version is no more superior
> to any western TT. They are both leverage bits. However, the old
> style TT (that I'm familiar with that I have never used) was very
> poorly designed and was the pinchingest SOB one could imagine.
> As Ken said, there are multitudes of better choices out there.
> Depending of course, on what makes the horse happy.
The most common use of english Tom Thumb is for kids overmounted on strong
ponies. No approval or endorsement implied, just stating the facts.
I can't believe all y'all are starting up this bit thread again. I thought
it was flogged to death by now.
K
Ken Brown
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 13:54:22 GMT, Ken Brown
> <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>You are trying to police the terms and techniques posted, thus
>>protecting all readers from your notions of incorrect information or,
>>worse yet, a reader actually believing something that you, yourself, do
>>not hold to be "the one true way".
>
> No, Ken, what's going on is that unlike you, I have read and studied
> this matter of bits and bitting and haven't limited myself to one
> discipline but looked around to see what is what.
How do you know what I have done? Because I disagree with you I am wrong?
And how do you know the pace at which I learn? Seems to me you're thinking
mighty damn high about yourself and your knowledge.
Why not back off a notch and realize you aren't the bit master of all time,
nor are the references you have read. Read for yourself, form your own
opinions and conclusions, THEN form a personal opinion.
But don't come running around saying your opinion is *the* opinion. It
isn't.
> But go on ahead, as I told Sue above, if you want to go ahead and
> reveal just how ignorant you are to those English riders who know that
> your insistence that the mouthpiece defines the bit and that a solid
> mouthpiece snaffle is not a snaffle, be my guest. Go ahead and
> confirm all those stereotypes about the ignorance of Western riders
> and trainers.
Never said the mouthpiece defines the bit. Never said a solid mouthpiece
wasn't a snaffle bit. You're wrong. Evidently, you are reading into posts
something that isn't there or are exposing a pre-set bias on your part
regarding what I may, or may not, hold as correct.
I am not in the habit of forming my sentences to please English riders.
Perhaps you fear their scorn, opinion, wratch, etc. and have taken a
posture to minimize same. I have not. I will not. If there is to be a
dialog between people wishing to discuss an issue in an educated manner, I
am all for it. You also seem to lump those English folk into some kind of
"anti-Western bigot" camp - I don't think they are all in that camp.
> Fact is, you and Sue are in the minority on this one when it comes to
> the definition of snaffle versus curb.
Shrug. Perhaps so. Depends on how you define the data set, doesn't it?
I think a *lot* of your confusion comes from mistaking a TYPE of bit with
THE bit itself. Types, there being two of them, are primarily lateral and
primarily leverage. Also know as snaffle and curb. Within these two broad
definitions there are various sub-types of bits.
>>You, evidently, dislike broken mouth bits - more specifically of the
>>shanked family. This is fine and yes, they can be nasty devices. A
> No dear, the problem is that I have encountered far too many people
> riding a broken-mouth curb who think (and ride comparably) that they
> are riding in a snaffle. Nor do I reject curbs--I am comfortable in
What do you give a shit what they think they are riding in? As long as the
horse is being ridden correctly (in the manner appropriate to this
discussion), I could care less if they refer to their bit as a
"whatmacallit thingie". I am not one to fancy form over function. Once
function works, and works correctly, form may (or may not) follow. Is yur
world so desirous of order that you can't handle other people referring to
things in a manner that is incorrect?
BTW, this "stuck on the *proper* way to refer to things every second or you
are *wrong*" is what makes Western people think people like you are a pain
in the ass and prevent real work from getting done. And no, I don't care
if you and those around you use terms the group understands and that also
fit your statements. That is the point of this exercise - speak to the
audience.
Want to argue over barbed wire types and history before you go to string
same? Is it a single strand, single twist or a double twist, ad nauseum.
Or is it easier to say "get the barbed wire out of the truck"?. Sheesh.
> their usage. It's your buddy Sue who took out a few years ago about
We aren't buddies. We have already established we hate each other. But at
least we can communicate.
> some pictures of cowboys in Idaho and claimed they were roughhousing
> in curbs--now she claims she was taking out after them because they
> were riding in spades, but it was pretty dang clear to me, looking at
> the picture, that they were in curbs.
You can roughhouse in anything - the bit is irrelevent.
A spade is a type of curb bit. A curb bit may, or may not be, a spade.
Now, without seeing the mouthpiece and what else is going on (did you see
the mouthpiece of the bit in the pics?) you don't know if they are a spade
or a "curb". In fact, your ignorance is showing by lumping all curb bits
into a single category of "curb". That is like saying all types of snaffle
are simply "snaffle" - as if a twisted wire snaffle is anything like a
smooth snaffle or an eggbutt.
So she was bitching at the way some riders were roughhousing. I don't like
harsh treatment either. I haven't seen anything in any of her posts I have
read that indicates what you have stated.
Not referring to Sue, but the past is the past, let it go. If opinions
change and knowledge improves, if that be the case, why knock the person
down and bitch about hyposcrisy and all that sort of crap? be happy things
are moving forward.
> snip
>
>>Sure? No exceptions? What if I can demonstrate how to get leverage
>>out of a snaffle? Or is he being unclear and meaning leverage as in
>>acting on the poll, curb groove, etc.? I bet he is just being unclear
>>there ...
>
> Y'know, Ken, I do have to wonder about you sometimes.
I also notice you are not directing any specific information or answers,
just making "you know .." remarks.
This isn't a "contest" to be right or wrong, Joyce. IMO this is a forum to
share information. So far you aren't sharing a lot but sure are good at
criticizing. And then ducking questions that have some meat in them. A
little low on hard data at this point?
> Do you regularly use snaffles in such a way as to be leverage devices?
Hell no. Why would I?
> Sure, you *can* turn a snaffle into a leverage device (look at the
> gag-type snaffles), but is that what it's designed to do for the
Oh. So a "gag snaffle" isn't a snaffle because it has leverage. So it is
a curb. Not a snaffle. So why did you call it a snaffle?
FWIW, I call it a "gag snaffle" like everyone else. It is a "curb-type" of
bit because it is leverage-oriented to get the job done. I also think they
are harsh and counter-productive bits. I never would have thought of that
example .. hmm .. do you use a "gag snaffle" at all?
See the problem?? Hybrids have really screwed up the neat "is or isn't"
categories of the past.
> general rank and file? Or are you so determined to interpret The
> World According To Ken that you can't go along with what is commonly
> defined and accepted?
Laugh. I had to chuckle when I saw that. Seems to me I am espousing
"speak to the audience" and you are stating "it is only this way".
> Sure, I can make a leverage out of a snaffle. Doesn't mean it's the
> best tool for the job. Same holds true with lateral usage of a curb.
Duh. That's why there are so many different kinds of bits, eh? So because
you *can* do something with a particular bit doesn't make it *that* kind of
bit. For example, if I take a curb and use it in a lateral way only
(remove curb strap and attach reins at the mouthpice/cheek juncture), it
has gone to lateral. This doesn't make it a snaffle-type bit, it is a
curb-type bit being used as a snaffle. Are all of these technical points
getting confusing yet?
Note: according to your Monte bible, to have lateral use only makes it a
snaffle. So I take my curb and use it as a snaffle-type bit and voila -
exception to the rule.
Monte was defining bits by *primary intended action*. I am sure he would
re-write some of the gospel today.
> Guess what. It's not just HIS definition, it IS the world's
> definition. Richard Shrake makes the same distinction. So do more
> recent books on bits, including one which talks about, of all things,
> "leverage snaffles(!)" which are more properly gag bits.
Leverage snaffles are curbs. You said anything with leverage has to be a
curb. The recent book on bits must be "hybrid moving" because there is no
such *THING* as a leverage snaffle according to you, Monte and now Richard.
Leverage snaffle is an oxymoron, yet you just cited to it. So what is it
going to be? Move on with the times or keep hanging tough on your narrow
definitions? There are general classes and then there are sub-classes and
so forth. Get with it, joyce. It isn't A or NOT A. That is a logically
correct FORM, not the application of the data in this particualr case.
Simply becase A is not always A. It must logically follow that "A is not
not always A, therefore Not A is not always Not A. Which is my point.
> Just about every bitting authority I have encountered refers to
> anything with a shanked leverage action as a curb, irregardless of the
Side bar note: The grammar police just told me "irregardless" isn't a
word. Try "regardless".
> mouthpiece. Some trainers incorrectly call broken-mouth curbs
> snaffles, but they aren't writing books on bits.
Well ... shanked leverage action is, by definition accepted by all I think,
the main/general characteristic of a curb bit. I have never argued
otherwise. Why do you think I am arguing contrary to the obvious?
>>A snaffle with a broken mothpiece operates diffently than a mullen. A
>>mullen is a hybrid. Prove me wrong.. naww.. let me clear this up for
>>you: a broken mouth snaffle has the ability to hit the palate, a mullen
>>typically does not (should not unless mighty damn low palate, mullen
>>has something that resemble more of a port (then not really a mullen,
>>is it) and you are doing something very, very wrong .. like putting the
>>mullen on sideays.. heh). A mullen will exert pressure at the corners
>>of the mouth faster than a broken mouth, due to the simple fact there
>>is no break in the mouthpiece and pressure on the corners is applied
>>immediately from rein pressure. A jointed mouth has some "give" there
>>as the mouthpiece breaks.
>
> I eagerly await our English riding compatriots to set you straight,
> Ken.
Let them come at it. A mullen operates differently than a broken
mouthpiece snaffle. Prove the contrary.
> Or else look at my response to Sue to see the number of unjointed
> snaffles known to English riders...including a *ported* mouthpiece.
What does port have to do with anything? The mouthpiece doesn't define the
class of the bit. Never stated differently. All things together define
the class of the bit.
Common "slang" being the real issue here, who gives a damn if a "shanked
snaffle" is "really" a broken mouth curb? Who died and left you to police
common verbage? Give it another 20 or 30 years and you are likely to have
a new class of bits for common reference.
And if the rider is going around thinking "I ride a snaffle, not a curb. I
am gentle on my horse." so WHAT? If they are, indeed, riding correctly
they are doing the horse justice and why bother correcting the FORM to be
"correct/right" when the function and application is really the final word?
"Excessively anal retentive" comes to mind as an issue ...
Hell, according to your way of thinking people like Bill and Tom Dorrance
never would have been near an animal because they weren't "using the right
terms" when describing what they were doing.
Ken Brown
> Ken Brown wrote:
I do strive to keep that fact in mind.
And I can't resist because you set it up:
OK, Laurie. I will try to drop it down a notch for you.
<grin>
Ken Brown
> I've been reading this ng for months now and have been very
Glad to see you're still reading <grin>.
<snip>
> I don't claim to train, I don't give unsolicited advice and I don't
> believe that my methods supplant all others. OTOH, I have been riding
> nearly 5 decades now and will listen to learn if another's POV is
> worth listening to. Reading all the anti-guru messages, I can only
Admirable qualities. When do you want to go riding? How close are you to
Indiantown?
> I read today that horsemanship is about time and wet saddle blankets.
> Well, yeah, that's part of it, but hardly the whole enchilada. What
> about knowledge? What about techniques? How about imagination? I
That's it in a nutshell.
> even regular people. But anyone who claims to have all the answers
> doesn't.
As far as I know, that's true. Never seen it proved different.
P.S. I apologize for some of my "nasty" Internet behavior. I try to keep
it in check, but you know .. sometimes there's a little buck to get out.
Ken Brown
> I can't believe all y'all are starting up this bit thread again. I
> thought it was flogged to death by now.
Beating a dead horse bit.
Ken Brown
Hi, Bill. Long time no post see.
> "Ken Brown" wrote in message:
>
>> Common sense has nothing to do with physics. Physics has everything
>> to do with applying "common sense".
>
> Well, actually, the relationship between "common sense" and physics is
> non-existant.
Pfft. Tell that to the person attempting to apply common sense and the
laws of physics leap up and smack them in the face <grin>.
> Einstein is said to have described "common sense" as the "summary of
> all the prejudices learned before the age of sixteen." Pretty good
> definition, IMO!<g>
I'll go with that.
>> So where does the term "curb" come from? Historically speaking, of
>> course.
>
> A "curb" is anything that restrains or controls. It is also, most
> correctly, the chain or strap under the jaw.
<grin>
>> No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct? Sure?
>
> This seems to be the overwhelming "majority" position!<g>
Grin. Depends on how you define shank, doesn't it? See a hole in there
counselor?
>> Of course, I prefer to attempt to educate the TomThumberites, rather
>> than chastise them and slam on them as "think they know what bits do".
>
> Well, occationally the Tom Thumberites need the same treatment you
> sometimes have to give to a mule "to get his attention."
Do what I do - offer "try this bit! It really rocks and your horsie is
going to love it!!" And have it set up on a headstall with reins so they
don't have to remove their bit, etc. An easy path is more likely to be
followed.
<snip>
> That, of course, brings us to the question: I jousting an English or
> Western discipline?!?!?!?!?
Jousting is .. err.. I don't know. I think it is a hybrid?
Ken Brown
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:29:44 GMT, Ken Brown
Bait tossed. Bait snarfed up.
Joyce's prejudice exposed.
Thank you, ma'am. I had a sneaking suspicion it was sitting in there and
motivating your posts.
Ken Brown
<snip story of curb vs.snaffle and tack store advice and show rules>
> was unpleasant for a young horsewoman and a kind, competent judge, and
> ultimately embarrassing for her mother. And it was completely
> unnecessary.
Evidently it was necessary for the mom and competitor - they failed to do
their homework before entering a show pen. Lesson Number One learned
quickly - read and know the rules.
> If it were not an increasingly common practice to refer to a shanked
> curb bit with a jointed mouthpiece as "some-kind-or-another snaffle,"
> the confusion would not exist.
I understand your point. I also understand it is the responsibility of the
competitor, and their mom, to know the rules and definitions. No sympathy.
Ken Brown
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 05:15:31 GMT, "L7 Ranch" <l7r...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>We were talking about shanked snaffles and you just hit the roof over
>>it.
>
> Again, there *is* no such animal. What you are talking about is a
> broken-mouth curb, and all your temper tantrums insisting that a
> mouthpiece defines a bit instead of whether it has leverage or not
> doesn't change that.
LOL .. we were talking about a commonly referred to bit. If this were Bits
101, we would be talking in another fashion.
> Oh, so we can talk to no ends about "don't try this at home" stuff in
> a public forum, with no cautionary notes or attempts to use correct
> terminology just because you don't give a rat's ass about what a
> novice does or doesn't think?
Not at all. But neither can you cover every conceivable aspect of a
novice's own stupidity and gullibility. If anything, your rabid insistence
on form over function, when communication is the key and it is functioning
well without confusion between the participants and followups make things
clear for the reader (see followups when someone asked "what's a short
shank snaffle" and the response - by me?? - was "it is really a curb with
short shanks and a snaffle-type mouth")
> Let's see, I wonder how long it will take to have someone justify
> their use of a broken mouthed curb because it's a "snaffle"--I read
> some folks on line who say so.
Your agenda is "NO CURBS!", as if you are the bit police and nobody but you
and your personally known gurus can handle a curb.
It is not your business, nor your place, to condemn the use of a curb
because you have seen it abused/misused. "Tis better to condemn the rider
than the equipment when the equipment is not to blame per se.
> As I understand it, the English Tom Thumb is a Pelham variant. The
> Western Tom Thumb is a broken-mouth curb.
LOL .. so ANY broken mouth curb is a Tom Thumb? A TT is a type of broken
mouth curb. Sure seems to me that you have those generalties down, but
lack specifics.
Talk about purchase, curb strap/chain placement, shank length, bar size and
type and taper .. talk about specifics. A Tom Thumb actually has some
specific characteristics when in action - one of which is to have a horse
desire to throw its nose out. Why do you think this would be?
Knowing some academic classification for bits is hardly the same as
understanding why and how bits work specifically. Hence the problem with
your "reading so many books and authorities".
Talk some specifics, Joyce. What about the Tom Thumb's purchase? Why
would a horse throw its nose out when in a TT?
> So? I don't agree with their usage of broken-mouth curbs, especially
> if they're calling them "snaffles."
Nomenclature has nothing to do with usage, Joyce. Your "NO BROKEN MOUTH
CURBS!!" agenda is showing again.
> And, as the discussion on poling and the dead horse at a George Morris
> jumping clinic goes to show, just because someone's a Big Name doesn't
> necessarily mean they're doing the Right Thing.
Good words. Now apply them to Monte Foreman, Richard Schrake, etc.
> Oh, bullshit, Sue. You were taking out after some Idaho cowboys on
> roundup that you *assumed* were riding with spades--when it was
> patently clear they were riding with ordinary grazing curbs. Your
> ignorance was showing a mile on that one.
How do you know? See the mouthpiece? What kind of cheeks? A spade is a
spade because of the mouthpiece, braces and spoon, as well as shank length,
purchase and a few other niceties.
I would whine about anyone hauling on a horse's face - spade, curb,
snaffle.. regardless.
> And it's interesting that you don't agree with progressive bitting,
> but in all effect you're riding some horses in curbs.
Progressive as in "go to the next 'level up' regardless of need" is what
she is discussing. She also stated she does what the horse requires, no
more, no less. Go back and read it again.
> Or do you have X-Ray eyes, that you can look at a picture of a horse
> in a curb and automatically what mouthpiece is in that critter's
> mouth? Mind you, remember that Capriola's sells all sorts of
> spade-looking cheekpieces with a standard curb mouthpiece.
And vice versa - where are your xray eyes? Shrug. Coulda been spades,
coulda been grazers. But they WERE curb bits, yes? And hauling on a face
is a no-no, more so in a curb than a snaffle. Both are big no-nos. but I
believe a curb is a bit more of a no-no when it comes to potential harm ..
the bars, the bars!
> As far as I'm concerned the Mylar bits aren't that great. We'll see
> if they evolve to be anything more than a major fad.
Might need a new classification! Heh. I doubt it. MylEr (been down that
road before.. myler vs. mylar the baloon material) bits don't impress me,
either.
And Joyce... that's twice you have made the same mistake in regard to bits
and bit types. Myler is a bit manufacturer. They sell various bits.
Sliester is a bit manufacturer, they sell various bits. To classify a bit
as to TYPE, based upon the manufacturer, is incorrect and can lead to a lot
of confusion.
Do you understand that a bit type is different from a bit manufacturer?
Make the same mistake a third time and I am going to have to put you in the
"read a lot, repeated a lot, comprehended squat" column.
> And how many of those sources you cite insist that whether a bit is a
> curb or a snaffle is defined by the mouthpiece?
Don't know about her, but none of mine do. But then I don't define a bit
by the mouthpiece, either. Do you? I have been known to say "could you
get the Garcia frog off the wall and bring it to me?" and thus *referred*
to a bit by its mouthpiece. Like a "shanked snaffle" - looks like a
snaffle mouth, has shanks. Doh. But it is a curb bit.
Referring to an item hardly defines the item specifically with any
precision. At least not around here. Within certain contexts, yeah it
can.. but generally if you say "look at that yellow car" you hardly denoted
it as a Ford or a Chevy or whether it is a coupe or a sedan. Just a yellow
car.
BTW, Joyce.. want to see a pic of my short-shanked snaffle? Purty sucker
and I plan on using it this season when I show Iggy.
Schmdthaus
<<Evidently it was necessary for the mom and competitor - they failed to do
their homework before entering a show pen. Lesson Number One learned
quickly - read and know the rules.>>
No shit, Ken -- the part of my post you didn't cite stated that very same
thing!
But repeating it won't hurt -- if it reminds us all to be personally
responsible for our own decisions, what harm can it do?
Laurie
Schmdthaus
<<OK, Laurie. I will try to drop it down a notch for you.>>
You are too kind.
Laurie
Sue from Auckland
> In article <ecb8d66c.02011...@posting.google.com>,
> sue.m...@clear.net.nz (Sue from Auckland) wrote:
>
> > Just to stir things up a bit more, around here a kimberwick is
> > actually a kimblewick - sorry had to say it :-)
>
> Actually it is spelt kimblewicke
> but pronounced kimberwick where I come from
> how do you say it in Oz?
>
> K :)
Yes, but everyone knows you North Americans can't spell :-) (and your
geography is shocking too - I'm a Kiwi, not an Aussie :-) )
We say kim-ble-wick cos that is how it is spelled. Just checked "The
Country Life Book of Saddlery and Equipment" edited by Elwyn
Hartley-Edwards which shows on page 128 a photo of "the Kimblewick,
sometimes known as the Spanish jumping bit, although employing a
single rein, is still a member of the Pelham group". Picture shows a
d-ringed bit, ported one pice mouthpiece. The reins attach to the d
rings and there is a slot slightly higher up the cheekpiece to which
the bridle headpiece would attach and near where the curb chain is
attached. Very similar photo in our NZ Pony Club manual page 179.
In looking through the UK book and the groupings it places, it would
"seem" that the conventional English/European definition of a snaffle
would be any bit where the reins and the cheekpieces attach to the bit
ring (ie non-leverage), and a curb would be one where the reins do not
attach to the same ring as the cheekpieces (ie leverage) and it is not
dependent on the mouthpiece (which can be straight or jointed in a
snaffle).
Sue from Auckland
> > sue.m...@clear.net.nz (Sue from Auckland) wrote:
> >
> > > Just to stir things up a bit more, around here a kimberwick is
> > > actually a kimblewick - sorry had to say it :-)
>
>
> >
> > Actually it is spelt kimblewicke
> > but pronounced kimberwick where I come from
> > how do you say it in Oz?
> >
> > K :)
>
> east of Australia (Oz).
>
> The Waitress.
Oops sorry. Should have read further before posting. Well done
waitress. Although how long we will continue to be independent is
open to debate - the aussies already own half the country!! :-)
Ken Brown
> Ken Brown wrote:
>
> <<Evidently it was necessary for the mom and competitor - they failed
> to do their homework before entering a show pen. Lesson Number One
> learned quickly - read and know the rules.>>
>
> No shit, Ken -- the part of my post you didn't cite stated that very
> same thing!
Didn't mean to imply you didn't say it as well.
> But repeating it won't hurt -- if it reminds us all to be personally
> responsible for our own decisions, what harm can it do?
None.
Show rules ought to have specific descriptions (and pictures when
necessary) of allowed bits, etc. Wouldn't hurt to have a clinic for the
same purpose - legal/illegal show gear. But then ... the trainer, if there
is one, is supposed to relay that info, right?
Jody Z Miller
> Guess what. It's not just HIS definition, it IS the world's
> definition. Richard Shrake makes the same distinction. So do more
> recent books on bits, including one which talks about, of all things,
> "leverage snaffles(!)" which are more properly gag bits.
A rose is a rose............ Snaffles have rings or d's on the mouthedge,
curbs have leverage devices. Snaffles NEVER have leverage, regardless of how
you think they should be named snaffles, the rule is Leverage = curb; Direct
action = snaffle.
You can make anything or look like anything, but rules of bitting are
twofold: Leverage and direct. It's either/or.
>
> Just about every bitting authority I have encountered refers to
> anything with a shanked leverage action as a curb, irregardless of the
> mouthpiece. Some trainers incorrectly call broken-mouth curbs
> snaffles, but they aren't writing books on bits.
Broken mouthpieces with all due respect are not not ALL snaffles, just as
Joyce notes. Even a Pelham or a Kimberwick with a broken *snaffle looking*
mouthpiece is still a curb bit.
>
>> A snaffle with a broken mothpiece operates diffently than a mullen. A
>> mullen is a hybrid. Prove me wrong.. naww.. let me clear this up for you:
>> a broken mouth snaffle has the ability to hit the palate, a mullen
>> typically does not (should not unless mighty damn low palate, mullen has
>> something that resemble more of a port (then not really a mullen, is it)
>> and you are doing something very, very wrong .. like putting the mullen on
>> sideays.. heh). A mullen will exert pressure at the corners of the mouth
>> faster than a broken mouth, due to the simple fact there is no break in the
>> mouthpiece and pressure on the corners is applied immediately from rein
>> pressure. A jointed mouth has some "give" there as the mouthpiece breaks.
>
> I eagerly await our English riding compatriots to set you straight,
AT this point I'll mention I could give a rolly good rat's ass what Ken
thinks; he's blind, cold stoned wrong, and he doesn't care. A mullen can be
a snaffle, it can be a curb, and it can be what he refers to as a "hybrid";
which IMHO are bastardized bits with little real use. Fast fix, get the
mouth, not the horse works of art.
Jody
E.F.Seidler~1837:
"Unconditional obedience arises only out of the horse's complete trust in
his rider that the latter will never demand more than the former can give.
That nothing unfair will ever happen to him, but that, on the other hand,
the rider does not tolerate disobedience."
Jody Z Miller
> Joyce.. want to see a pic of my short-shanked snaffle?
You'd be wrong, again, it's a short shanked curb with a broken mouthpiece.
~View~ Clay Ridge Farm at Webshots
http://community.webshots.com/user/cridgefarm
Ken Brown
Actually, my point was that a broken mouthpiece snaffle and a mullen
mouthpiece snaffle do *not* operate the same way - one exerts pressure a
tad more a tad faster on the corners of the mouth and one lacks the ability
to go to the palate. And this is wrong?
A mullen is a mouthpiece type, not a bit. For the most part, a lot of bits
are referenced by their mouthpiece, or shank, or maker, or originator, etc.
This does not classify them as to *type*, but is merely a reference point
for identification.
Although it may irk you to no end that a broken mouth curb with a snaffle-
type mouthpiece is referred to as a "shanked snaffle" by a lot of the great
unwashed, it is true and it won't change any time soon. It is a common
"slang" term and is understood by much of the masses. It is incorrect to
argue that a "short shanked snaffle" is a snaffle - it is not. It is a
curb-type bit with a snaffle-type mouth (the most commonly seen snaffle in
Western circles, that is - 3 inch rings or offset-D and a broken
mouthpiece).
Joyce has also posted that a Mylar (sic) is a bit and a Sliester is a bit.
They are both bit manufacturers, irregardless (sic) what Joyce may think or
believe.
Or are you caught up in thinking I think a snaffle is a curb and a curb is
a snaffle? While I know Joyce is your buddy, it would be best to read for
comprehension on your own rather than believe what she thinks to be true
regarding my own beliefs and statements.
Here's a question for you: what is the advantage to an unbroken
mouthpiece? How does it differ in action from a broken mouthpiece? On a
curb and on a snaffle? Generalities will do.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>Never said the mouthpiece defines the bit. Never said a solid mouthpiece
>wasn't a snaffle bit. You're wrong. Evidently, you are reading into posts
>something that isn't there or are exposing a pre-set bias on your part
>regarding what I may, or may not, hold as correct.
Sigh. Once again, Ken, you're redefining what you actually said. And
you wrote the below items just yesterday, in response to me
upthread....
You wrote:
>>None <grin>. A "curb" around these parts has a fixed mouthpiece.
>>Otherwise we call them "short shank snaffles" or "shanked snaffles" or
>>"correction mouthpiece", etc. A curb, by common definition, would indicate
>>an unbroken mouthpiece. Curb with cricket/roller - obvious description.
snip
Further down, you wrote (yesterday):
(actually, I wrote:)
>>> Additionally, there *are* one piece snaffles...such as the mullen
>>> mouth snaffle, which is a straight bar mouthpiece with a slight curve.
You wrote:
>>Naww.. that would be a mullen mouth bit. A snaffle is a snaffle. <grin>
>>In fact, a snaffle (as in broken mouthpiece) operates differently than a
>>mullen. A mullen is a hybrid. Like those pesky shanked snaffles.
Now, it seems pretty clear that yesterday, at least, you were defining
"curbs" and "snaffles" by mouthpieces.
Care to rethink what you wrote? Or are you once again going to
squiggle and play the lawyer word game thing again?
snip further duck and weave games.
jrw
Bill Kambic
> Hi, Bill. Long time no post see.
Been out of town for a couple of days!
>
> > "Ken Brown" wrote in message:
> >
> >> Common sense has nothing to do with physics. Physics has everything
> >> to do with applying "common sense".
> >
> > Well, actually, the relationship between "common sense" and physics is
> > non-existant.
>
> Pfft. Tell that to the person attempting to apply common sense and the
> laws of physics leap up and smack them in the face <grin>.
Understood!<g>
> >> No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct? Sure?
> >
> > This seems to be the overwhelming "majority" position!<g>
>
> Grin. Depends on how you define shank, doesn't it? See a hole in there
> counselor?
Folks talk about the "shank" as the defining characteristic; actually
"leverage" is the defining characteristic. The "curb" gives the leveraged
bit something to work against.
By this definition there really are just two kinds of bits, "leveraged" and
"unleveraged." Popular synonyms being "curb" and "snaffle."
Or do we really need to try and define "is?"<GGG>
You brought out an important item to consider, and that is mouthpiece.
Whether the subject is "curb" or "snaffle" the characteristics of the
mouthpiece (size, shape, action, etc.) at AT LEAST as important as the
presence of absence of leverage.
>
> >> Of course, I prefer to attempt to educate the TomThumberites, rather
> >> than chastise them and slam on them as "think they know what bits do".
> >
> > Well, occationally the Tom Thumberites need the same treatment you
> > sometimes have to give to a mule "to get his attention."
>
> Do what I do - offer "try this bit! It really rocks and your horsie is
> going to love it!!" And have it set up on a headstall with reins so they
> don't have to remove their bit, etc. An easy path is more likely to be
> followed.
The "Walking Horse Bit" (up to 9 1/2 inches of shank and often found with a
very thin, single or double twisted wire mouthpiece) is "de riguer" in our
little corner of the world if you have a Walker. One of the most satisfying
"training evolutions" is to watch the change in horse AND rider when a
properly fitted snaffle (or even a Pelham) with an easy mouthpiece is
substituted for that monstrosity. The biggest thrill is usually finding out
that the horse has no conception of "whoa." (It was always the bit, before,
that did the stopping.) After a bit of ground work you find a "resigned"
horse becomes a "willing" horse. Owners are shocked by this change (and
then "double shocked" to find out that they must now learn to ride, not just
be a passenger).
>
> <snip>
>
> > That, of course, brings us to the question: I jousting an English or
> > Western discipline?!?!?!?!?
>
> Jousting is .. err.. I don't know. I think it is a hybrid?
I think it's crazy!!!!!!!!!!!<GGG>
Ken Brown
> 1/14/02 4:10 PMKen Brown
>
>> Joyce.. want to see a pic of my short-shanked snaffle?
>
> You'd be wrong, again, it's a short shanked curb with a broken
> mouthpiece.
Define wrong, within specific contexts please.
A. You took my remark out of context.
B. You are being humor-impaired.
Want to see a pic of my "short shanked snaffle", Jody? It really is pretty
decent work. Sweet iron with copper inlay, 5" mouth, approx. 2.5"
purchase, 3" shanks with a 1.5" sweep back off from the shanks, 6" total
cheek length. Silver inlay. Cactus flower just behind the
mouthpiece/cheek connector. Hinged at the front, not center, of the cheek.
Nice chasing.
It *has* two slots for reins at dead center whereupon I could attach reins
and make it a damn-long-full-cheek-snaffle <grin>, but the cactus flower
goes over that so it is a dead issue.
It rated an 8 on the "severity" scale of Dr. Deb. 1-5 being mild and 6-19
being moderate.
Bill Kambic
> "The Kingdom of Wallace" <Where'sMyD...@TheDiner.com> wrote in message
news:<a1tfg...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
> > "Joyce Reynolds-Ward" vented the following bluge:
> >
> > > Bullshit. You're both ignorant and full of shit on this issue and
> > > pleasantly deluding yourselves that you're riding with milder bits
> > > than you are; furthermore, because this is a public forum you're
> > > contributing to the general public ignorance with regard to these
> > > bits.
>
> You must be a real delight in person! Do you ever have repeat
> customers?
Hmmm, in light of your comments that follow on manners, what could we say
about your opening?
> > Who died and made you a "bit" goddess?
>
> Amen!
One of the great things about America is that any opinion and its supporting
fact can be posted. And then can be debated and questioned. Except that
"net nazis" always demand that all opinions be treated equally, even if they
are based upon myth, legend, or foolishness.
Got something to say? SAY IT!!!!! But don't get your feathers too badly
ruffled if someone disagrees.<g>
>
> I've been reading this ng for months now and have been very
> unfavorably impressed with many of the regulars.
To quote an old professor of mine, "so what!" If no one died and thus no
"bit goddess" was created, did someone die and make you Chief of the Quality
Of Posting Police?
Aside from the
> obvious rudeness that so many display (beyond normal Internet
> nastiness) it seems that to many, their's is the only "right" method.
While in many things there is not always one right method, there are
frequently many "wrong" methods.
> I don't claim to train, I don't give unsolicited advice and I don't
> believe that my methods supplant all others. OTOH, I have been riding
> nearly 5 decades now and will listen to learn if another's POV is
> worth listening to.
Seems to me that you said in an earlier post (some months back) that you
were relatively new.
But, beyond that, mere age or months or years of experience mean little. We
had the 4-H Horse Project on our farm for almost five years. We had kids
who, in a few months, absorbed more knowledge and became better horsemen
than some "gray heads" who were alwarys ready to to tell you "I've had
horses all my life."
It was often said that Bourbon Kings of France forgot nothing and learned
nothing. I know a LOT of horsmen who must be long-lost French Royalty.
Reading all the anti-guru messages, I can only
> conclude that jealousy is behind the remarks.
Bullshit. Many of us just don't like "deus ex machina horsemanship."
Of course Roberts or
> Parelli or Lyons or Shrake or whoever don't have all the answers, but
> I doubt many who criticize have ever applied their means - at least
> not with an open mind.
Bullshit is bullshit, whether or not you have an open or closed mind.
And do you really think they got there by
> doing dumb stuff and not delivering?
They got there by being "good hands" and better marketers.
By the way, one of the busiest attactions in Pigeon Forge, TN is the
"Believe It Or Not" attraction.
Or, put another way, "Phineas was an optiomist."
>
> I read today that horsemanship is about time and wet saddle blankets.
> Well, yeah, that's part of it, but hardly the whole enchilada.
No, merely 90% of the enchilada.
What
> about knowledge?
You get a lot of that from wetting the blanket.
What about techniques?
Where do you master those techniques?
How about imagination?
Huh? Visualization, sure. Imagination? No, not likely.
I
> see many people longeing their horses 'round and 'round mindlessly, to
> no end.
And, thus, you see poor horsemanship. What does that have to do with
anything? Or are you on such unsure ground that you must slay a strawman or
two to gain "credibility?"
> I'm sure many of you are good horsepeople and good riders and maybe
> even regular people.
Well, thank you for that. (And you have been waxing rhapsodic about others
being rude.)
But anyone who claims to have all the answers
> doesn't.
Indeed.
FWIW, the "names" didn't get there by calling names on the
> Internet and putting down others. If you have something worth
> listening to, you'll find a market; if you don't, keep posting - your
> message is worth just what you're paid for it.
This may rank as one of the most obscure things I have read in recent
memory.
Ignatzmom
> Smthr...@msn.com (Ignatzmom) posted this verbage:
>>
> Common sense has nothing to do with physics. Physics has everything to do
> with applying "common sense".
Excuse me???
>
> > Has a shank and strap/fulcrum = a curb, no matter what the shape of
> > the mouthpiece.
>
> So where does the term "curb" come from? Historically speaking, of course.
>
> > Has no shank, no leverage = a snaffle -- no matter what the shape of
> > the mouthpiece.
>
> No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct? Sure?
>
> > FYI, in most cases, an Uxeter is classified as a Pelham, a Kimberwicke
> > as the shortest shank (lowest leverage) curb available.
>
> English. Go Western.
>
> > A Tom Thumb, also a term applied freely by those who think they know
> > what bits do, actually refers to the length of the shank, a short
>
> Maybe in your part of the planet. Down here a TT is a TT. It describes a
> particular bit nobody seems to like very much. The uneducated seem to like
> them, though; probably being unaware that good alternatives abound.
>
> Of course, I prefer to attempt to educate the TomThumberites, rather than
> chastise them and slam on them as "think they know what bits do".
>
> > shank bit being a Tom Thumb, in homage to the vertically challenged
> > person once employed by old Phineas himself. Around here, we call the
> > stupid things Cowboy Snaffles, and wish they could all be melted down
> > to mend pots.
>
> Is that just another way to denigrate "cowboy" to those of the English
> Riding Style persuasion? What has the English folk so against "cowboys"
> anyway? Pick a few bad examples and get up on the high and mighty throne
> of horse rightousness and slam away? Why be so damn effete about it all?
> Good riding is good riding, regardless of saddle, gear or the hat/helmet
> you happen to be wearing.
>
> Isn't there some other crusade folks could pick up and carry the banner
> for? Like orphaned waterfowl?
Ignatzmom
Ken Brown <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote in message news:<Xns919675D138793kr...@198.252.32.180>...
> Smthr...@msn.com (Ignatzmom) posted this verbage:
>
> > The Waitress, who should perhaps be back busing tables, could perhaps
> > benefit from a short course in physics, common sense, and the use of
> > bits through history, as well as the NAMES these bits are commonly
> > known by in English.
>
> Common sense has nothing to do with physics. Physics has everything to do
> with applying "common sense".
>
>Again, excuse me??? works both ways, you know, fulcrums, levers,
screws, etc?>
> So where does the term "curb" come from? Historically speaking, of course.
Good question -- in the "real world" the term is bit, as in "bit and
bridoon" -- and I suppose curb has to do with stronger ability to
"curb" an impulsive horse. Anyone own an Oxford English Dictionary?
>
> > Has no shank, no leverage = a snaffle -- no matter what the shape of
> > the mouthpiece.
>
> No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct? Sure?
Yes, if there is a leverage possibility and the bit does not rise in
the mouth (gag) if shank -- if curb strap, curb ...
>
> > FYI, in most cases, an Uxeter is classified as a Pelham, a Kimberwicke
> > as the shortest shank (lowest leverage) curb available.
>
> English. Go Western.
I do, all the time. What that has to do with the terminology of bits
is a bit beyond me.
>
> > A Tom Thumb, also a term applied freely by those who think they know
> > what bits do, actually refers to the length of the shank, a short
>
> Maybe in your part of the planet. Down here a TT is a TT. It describes a
> particular bit nobody seems to like very much. The uneducated seem to like
> them, though; probably being unaware that good alternatives abound.
NO, anywhere -- I have lots of old catalogues for ENGLISH bits where
the thing is called a Tom Thumb if it has a really really short shank
-- this little term osmosed over into the western world about the time
the broken mouth shanked horror began to be inflicted on the western
horses of the world ... in the mistaken idea that is was "kinder and
gentler" than a solid mouthed bit. Sigh
>
> Of course, I prefer to attempt to educate the TomThumberites, rather than
> chastise them and slam on them as "think they know what bits do".
If you think you can educate a Tom Thumberite by defending a broken
mouth shanked curb as a snaffle, you are on the wrong path.. but more
power to you.
>
> > shank bit being a Tom Thumb, in homage to the vertically challenged
> > person once employed by old Phineas himself. Around here, we call the
> > stupid things Cowboy Snaffles, and wish they could all be melted down
> > to mend pots.
>
> Is that just another way to denigrate "cowboy" to those of the English
> Riding Style persuasion? What has the English folk so against "cowboys"
> anyway? Pick a few bad examples and get up on the high and mighty throne
> of horse rightousness and slam away? Why be so damn effete about it all?
> Good riding is good riding, regardless of saddle, gear or the hat/helmet
> you happen to be wearing.
Nope. I ride cowboy, have ridden that way all my life, I talk
cowboy, I have cowboy genes (and jeans) and have moved my share of
cows, steers, heifers, bulls etc. I have also had the good fortune to
also ride English all my life, as well, smashing timber and doing that
dreaded warm up stuff Terry is so het up about. What I don't talk is
ignerrant -- as in " if it has a broken mouthpiece it is a snaffle"
... that sort of thinking is what gets people in trouble with horses
because they put their mounts mouths in nutcrackers, having heard
that snaffles are mild, and if that bit is called a snaffle, it must
be mild, right?
>
> Isn't there some other crusade folks could pick up and carry the banner
> for? Like orphaned waterfowl?
Ignorance is a good thing to crusade against, at least in my book.
Lee Z, still riding, no matter what the saddle, or not, after all
these years
Ken Brown
> Been out of town for a couple of days!
Was it fun? I am out for a few myself, so my posts will taper and die and
I will miss a lot of the followup fun. No, I won't go searching google.
>> >> No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct?
>> >> Sure?
>> >
>> > This seems to be the overwhelming "majority" position!<g>
>>
>> Grin. Depends on how you define shank, doesn't it? See a hole in
>> there counselor?
>
> Folks talk about the "shank" as the defining characteristic; actually
> "leverage" is the defining characteristic. The "curb" gives the
> leveraged bit something to work against.
> By this definition there really are just two kinds of bits, "leveraged"
> and "unleveraged." Popular synonyms being "curb" and "snaffle."
>
> Or do we really need to try and define "is?"<GGG>
We can skip "is" for now <g>.
Thanks. Now we can talk bit stuff! The mere fact there is something
dangling beneath the mouthpiece/bar/cannon attachment to the cheek/ring
doesn't mean it is a curb. Or that a curb bit is a curb bit or s anffle a
snaffle. All the time. I think of full-cheek snaffles and nice
attachments - curb. Not a snaffle anymore! But it could be a snaffle,
just depends on how it is used.
The defining moment is the actual action of the bit - leverage vs. non-
leverage. Lawyers being lawyers, they look for zebras - exceptions. So I
take my "training shanked snaffle" (a curb with rings at the mouthpiece and
part of the shank) and attach reins. Voila - no leverage action and a curb
is now a snaffle.
To be fair, the extra-ordinary/unusual use of a bit really shouldn't shift
a bit over to a snaffle/curb.
I am all for describing "this bit has curb action" or "this bit has snaffle
action". To be more precise "this bit leverages and this one doesn't". To
put it another way - the reins attach even/damn-close-to-even in proximity
with the mouthpiece or they don't - snaffle vs. curb.
> You brought out an important item to consider, and that is mouthpiece.
> Whether the subject is "curb" or "snaffle" the characteristics of the
> mouthpiece (size, shape, action, etc.) at AT LEAST as important as the
> presence of absence of leverage.
I try to place it all in a soup, so to speak: action (leverage or not),
add in mouthpiece and how it relates to action, add in weights, angles,
purchase and so forth; add in horse physical characteristics (tongue
thickness, palate height, bar width); add in rider skill.
Stir well. Taste. Modify as needed, preferably by increasing the skill of
the rider and decreasing the bit "severity". Less is more.
Blind adherence to any one factor will definitely ruin the soup. Focusing
on the terminology of "is it 'salt' or is it 'real salt'" will also tend to
muck up the ability to give a recipe for the soup - describe the
ingredients and how they fit together to make a good soup is the goal, yes?
Function over form, with cleaning up form left for academic exercises and
later moments with your contented soup sipper.
> The "Walking Horse Bit" (up to 9 1/2 inches of shank and often found
> with a very thin, single or double twisted wire mouthpiece) is "de
> riguer" in our little corner of the world if you have a Walker. One of
I have seen such and actually captured a close specimen (larger mouthpiece
but very long shanks). Ugh. Can be nasty.
> the most satisfying "training evolutions" is to watch the change in
> horse AND rider when a properly fitted snaffle (or even a Pelham) with
> an easy mouthpiece is substituted for that monstrosity. The biggest
<grin>
> thrill is usually finding out that the horse has no conception of
> "whoa." (It was always the bit, before, that did the stopping.) After
I think a lot of riders fear the lack of "whoa" and go so far as to
compensate for that fear with the use of a curb bit, thinking that it will
end the lack-of/fear-of-lack-of-whoa problem. It doesn't, but it can help
I guess. You see this factor a lot with low-level barrel racers in this
neck of the woods.
Ever seen a "whoa maker" bit? Looks rough, but common in some roping
circles. Also known as a "roping bit".
> a bit of ground work you find a "resigned" horse becomes a "willing"
> horse. Owners are shocked by this change (and then "double shocked" to
> find out that they must now learn to ride, not just be a passenger).
<grin> I like it when that happens. Tends to make for a better horse as
well as a better rider, doesnt it?
Ignatzmom
>
>
No. There is no place to attach a functional rein on a full cheek
snaffle except at the mouthpiece, ring. Now , those odd, pre- signal
things with little loopy places on them sold by a certain famous name
horseperson might be said to have a shank, but not a particularly
functional one because (drum roll, please) no curb strap/chain to
provide the good old fulcrum with is what is necessary if the thing is
going to work as a shanked curb bit.
By the same token, if you take the curb strap/chain off a solid
mouthed shanked bit, you have no leverage, and the bit becomes,
functionally, a sort of odd snaffle -- if you take it off a "cowboy
snaffle" it becomes a sort of odd functional snaffle .. Awkward in
both cases, but no leverage, either.
Then there is the gag leverage category, which is another beast
altogether ..
Lee Z still riding after all these years
Ken Brown
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 20:12:13 GMT, Ken Brown
> <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>>Never said the mouthpiece defines the bit. Never said a solid
>>mouthpiece wasn't a snaffle bit. You're wrong. Evidently, you are
>>reading into posts something that isn't there or are exposing a pre-set
>>bias on your part regarding what I may, or may not, hold as correct.
>
> Sigh. Once again, Ken, you're redefining what you actually said. And
> you wrote the below items just yesterday, in response to me
> upthread....
OK .. let's clear this up!
> You wrote:
>
>>>None <grin>. A "curb" around these parts has a fixed mouthpiece.
>>>Otherwise we call them "short shank snaffles" or "shanked snaffles" or
>>>"correction mouthpiece", etc. A curb, by common definition, would
>>>indicate an unbroken mouthpiece. Curb with cricket/roller - obvious
>>>description.
I was describing common use *around these parts*, not my own personal
definitions. This is also in the context of "speak to be understood, then
educate" as I stated. The vernacular used in an area where I live is not
my own definition, but definitions I must know and understand (be they
right or wrong) to speak and be understood. And if I were to live in
France, I would learn to speak French, too. I doubt they call a curb a
curb there ..probably has a whole different spelling and pronunciation and
everything <smile>.
You are mistaken as to what I believe and state as "knowledge" on my part.
> Further down, you wrote (yesterday):
>
> (actually, I wrote:)
>>>> Additionally, there *are* one piece snaffles...such as the mullen
>>>> mouth snaffle, which is a straight bar mouthpiece with a slight
>>>> curve.
>
> You wrote:
>>>Naww.. that would be a mullen mouth bit. A snaffle is a snaffle.
>>><grin> In fact, a snaffle (as in broken mouthpiece) operates
>>>differently than a mullen. A mullen is a hybrid. Like those pesky
>>>shanked snaffles.
First off, I was "jesting" about a mullen. A mullen is a type of snaffle,
but it is not what is commonly called a "snaffle" in these parts by folks I
deal with .. again, going to context and popular usage. I never stated a
mullen is not, by *my* definition, not a snaffle. I did say a snaffle with
a broken mouthpiece operates differently than a mullen. A mullen is a
solid mouthpiece type of snaffle and operates differently than a typical
snaffle; it is a hybrid of the curb's common solid mouth and the snaffle
action.
Can you describe how the two differ in action? What action is going on
when using a typical snaffle vs. a mullen mouth? Or a broken mouth curb
vs. an unbroken mouth curb? What factors dictate the use of one over the
other? I am sure the answers are easily found if they are not committed to
your memory.
Seems to me you have a grand idea of nomenclature and how "important" it is
to be oh-so-precise in naming conventions, but haven't said a word about
the specifics of how the bits *work* - the most important part!
> Now, it seems pretty clear that yesterday, at least, you were defining
> "curbs" and "snaffles" by mouthpieces.
Clear to your own pre-conceived notions and editing, perhaps. But, naww...
there were have been at least 500 plus-plus lines scribbled. Read for
comprehension and *in* context. Context is critical you know.
> Care to rethink what you wrote? Or are you once again going to
> squiggle and play the lawyer word game thing again?
Not word games. Contextual facts.
> snip further duck and weave games.
Actually, you seem to be snipping explanations and clarifications.
Conveninetly so, I might add.
Is it your goal to "win" something here? Some perceived argument or word
contest? Or is it your goal to communicate and convey knowledge? I prefer
the latter. I fear you prefer the former.
Did you get that Mylar/Myler and Sliester bit confusion cleared up?
Sliester, BTW, makes some pretty darn good bits for the money. I still
agree with you that the Mylers aren't all they are cracked up to be. I
need to really play with a few to see what they do - I suspect it has more
to do with rider error compensation than anything.
mag...@rahul.net
Smthr...@msn.com (Ignatzmom) created:
>
>By the same token, if you take the curb strap/chain off a solid
>mouthed shanked bit, you have no leverage, and the bit becomes,
>functionally, a sort of odd snaffle -- if you take it off a "cowboy
>snaffle" it becomes a sort of odd functional snaffle .. Awkward in
>both cases, but no leverage, either.
There is still leverage if the cheek pieces connect to a shank
above the mouth piece. There isn't AS MUCH leverage as when you
use a curb, but it's still a leverage bit. That's what elevator
bits do. When you pull on the reins attached to the lower shank,
the lever action of the reins and bit and cheekpieces causes the
bit to raise up in the mouth, up to 2x the distance between the
bit and the attachment of the cheek piece to the bit. So if the
cheekpiece is 1 inch above the bit, you can lever this bit 2
inches up the mouth along the gums/lips by pulling on the reins.
There will also be a tightening of the crownpiece that is roughly
equal to the pressure being put on the horse's mouth.
jc
Ken Brown
> Ken Brown <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns91967E6DF6BCFkr...@198.252.32.180>...
>> schmd...@aol.com (Schmdthaus) posted this verbage:
>>
>> BTW .. does that full cheek have a shank? Hmm....
>>
> No. There is no place to attach a functional rein on a full cheek
> snaffle except at the mouthpiece, ring. Now , those odd, pre- signal
Ya could if ya really tried! <grin>.
> things with little loopy places on them sold by a certain famous name
> horseperson might be said to have a shank, but not a particularly
> functional one because (drum roll, please) no curb strap/chain to
> provide the good old fulcrum with is what is necessary if the thing is
> going to work as a shanked curb bit.
Curb strap = the beast that does the squishing on the curb groove <grin>.
Hmm... see a definition trend coming here? Curb bit, curb strap, curb
groove. Without a curb strap effecting the curb groove (or potentially
doing same) there can be no curb bit - no leverage. I keep thinking
teeter-totters and fulcrum and leverage.. and shank and purchase and curb
strap.
BTW, did you notice in Dr. Deb's "severity calculator" she left out
purchase as a factor? I found that odd. Very, very odd. It is just as
important as the shank length and is in direct relation to same to gauge
"severity of action".
> By the same token, if you take the curb strap/chain off a solid
> mouthed shanked bit, you have no leverage, and the bit becomes,
> functionally, a sort of odd snaffle -- if you take it off a "cowboy
> snaffle" it becomes a sort of odd functional snaffle .. Awkward in
> both cases, but no leverage, either.
Well.. I agree with that in bit action for the most part. The fact the
reins are connected below the mouthpiece means it is a "not snaffle" by
many writers. It has some leverage, but not the same as a curb with the
strap in place.
I do agree it is awkward at best and not effective as a tool.
This leads us back to the deficiency in the definition of bit classes -
snaffle vs. curb, leverage vs. not leverage, etc. There is always an
exception when defining a bit by its appearance rather its action - and
that is even more confounded by using a bit contrary to its originally
designed action (the curb as a "snaffle" above, for example).
> Then there is the gag leverage category, which is another beast
> altogether ..
Yeah.. all these damn sub-sets of this and that .. makes it confusing for
some, difficult for a lot, annoying for the rest <grin>.
Needless to say, bits and bitting is not some "black and white" science.
It is, as I have said a few times, pure art in the application of science,
IMO.
Ken Brown
> On 14 Jan 2002 15:21:02 -0800, in rec.equestrian,
> Smthr...@msn.com (Ignatzmom) created:
>
>>
>>By the same token, if you take the curb strap/chain off a solid
>>mouthed shanked bit, you have no leverage, and the bit becomes,
>>functionally, a sort of odd snaffle -- if you take it off a "cowboy
>>snaffle" it becomes a sort of odd functional snaffle .. Awkward in both
>>cases, but no leverage, either.
>
> There is still leverage if the cheek pieces connect to a shank
> above the mouth piece. There isn't AS MUCH leverage as when you
> use a curb, but it's still a leverage bit. That's what elevator
Consider then a "D" ring snaffle. Bridle attached. Other goodies
attached. Reins at the bottom. Getting tight in there, isn't it? Now
pull on the reins. Reins go up the ring, bridle slides down along the rind
and .. voila - it hits a point where one is leveraging against the other
and we get some minor leverage there. Not a lot, but some. Crown piece is
pulling down, isn't it? So here we have a pure D-ring snaffle applying
*some* amount of leverage on the crown. A curb/leverage bit is designed to
primarily apply pressure to the curb groove for that aspect of the bit.
> bits do. When you pull on the reins attached to the lower shank,
> the lever action of the reins and bit and cheekpieces causes the
> bit to raise up in the mouth, up to 2x the distance between the
> bit and the attachment of the cheek piece to the bit. So if the
> cheekpiece is 1 inch above the bit, you can lever this bit 2
> inches up the mouth along the gums/lips by pulling on the reins.
Are you describing a gag bit? Sounds like it. Perhaps they are called
"elevator bits" in your neck of the woods? Sure sounds better than "gag
bit" doesn't it?
> There will also be a tightening of the crownpiece that is roughly
> equal to the pressure being put on the horse's mouth.
Uhh.. something has to give there. I reckon it is going to be soft tissue
over hard head. There is going to be some pressure applied to the crown,
but nothing like what you have going to the mouth.
Ken Brown
> Ken Brown <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote in message
> news:<Xns919675D138793kr...@198.252.32.180>...
>> Smthr...@msn.com (Ignatzmom) posted this verbage:
>>>
>> Common sense has nothing to do with physics. Physics has everything
>> to do with applying "common sense".
>
> Excuse me???
LOL. Let me clear this up: Common sense has nothing to do with physics.
Physics = immutable law. Common sense is not immutable law and cannot
change the laws of physics. The application of "common sense" is subject
to the laws of physics - ask anyone who has tried to apply their common
sense and failed when meeting the immutable laws of physics. As in "gee..
that didn't fit there. I thought it could." See also, the emergency room
records of any large hospital.
Jody Z Miller
>
> Define wrong, within specific contexts please.
>
> A. You took my remark out of context.
> B. You are being humor-impaired.
I remarked to the sentence as written, you meant or you did not mean it, I
cannot determine your intent from your written word. Did you mean it, or
not?
When it comes to some people, yes, I am humor impaired. Though, I really
love to watch Letterman.
>
> Want to see a pic of my "short shanked snaffle", Jody? It really is pretty
> decent work. Sweet iron with copper inlay, 5" mouth, approx. 2.5"
> purchase, 3" shanks with a 1.5" sweep back off from the shanks, 6" total
> cheek length. Silver inlay. Cactus flower just behind the
> mouthpiece/cheek connector. Hinged at the front, not center, of the cheek.
> Nice chasing.
I do not care what it looks like, in fact I am a purest, I would not want
chasing or inlays, or whatever flowers on a bit. I'm interested in using a
bit, not having the populace *look at it*.
Your bit is still a curb bit with a broken mouthpiece. Does everyone in the
universe use a vernacular of broken mouthpieces as "snaffle" ? Not the
entire world, but far too many sling it around without knowledge of what the
word means. It means a direct action bit, it can be broken or mullen, or in
many sections. Direct action is how the bit is used. If you put a chain, or
a leather band around the chin it is a `curb`, pure and simple, because you
are directing pressure to fold the bit over in the mouth. Leverage is a
curb.
>
> It *has* two slots for reins at dead center whereupon I could attach reins
> and make it a damn-long-full-cheek-snaffle <grin>, but the cactus flower
> goes over that so it is a dead issue.
Slots are used for leverage too, and it results in a bit that turns over in
the mouth, leverage principle. A long full cheek snaffle with the cheek
pieces in place is a curb action and the resulting bit is not a snaffle
anymore it is what you refer to as a hybrid. (curb again) The best of both
world's and the hero of none? Sometimes making these 'improvements' in bits
results in little less than a dulling of the horse's mouth. MHO
>
> It rated an 8 on the "severity" scale of Dr. Deb. 1-5 being mild and 6-19
> being moderate.
8 is pretty severe in my book. Most of my bits are down at 2 or less. I
will use a full cheek on a youngster for ease of teaching turning, the
cheeks will float, and the bit is direct action.
Jody Z.
~DuPaty de Clam:1777
"Each individual has a certain tempo in which he can sustain himself. Below
or above it, he is ill at ease, and displeases the human who is riding him.
It is up to us to feel and appraise nature."
Ken Brown
>> So where does the term "curb" come from? Historically speaking, of
>> course.
> Good question -- in the "real world" the term is bit, as in "bit and
> bridoon" -- and I suppose curb has to do with stronger ability to
> "curb" an impulsive horse. Anyone own an Oxford English Dictionary?
IIRC, it is related to checking an unruly horse. French in origin?
>> No shank = snaffle, therefore IF shank at all = curb. Correct? Sure?
>
> Yes, if there is a leverage possibility and the bit does not rise in
> the mouth (gag) if shank -- if curb strap, curb ...
Does the bit have to rise in the mouth to be classified a curb?
English vs. Western - I was poking at ya <grin>. Good natured, of course.
>> Maybe in your part of the planet. Down here a TT is a TT. It
>> describes a particular bit nobody seems to like very much. The
>> uneducated seem to like them, though; probably being unaware that good
>> alternatives abound.
>
> NO, anywhere -- I have lots of old catalogues for ENGLISH bits where
> the thing is called a Tom Thumb if it has a really really short shank
> -- this little term osmosed over into the western world about the time
> the broken mouth shanked horror began to be inflicted on the western
> horses of the world ... in the mistaken idea that is was "kinder and
> gentler" than a solid mouthed bit. Sigh
I think that is correct .. the history of the TT is not my interest. It
makes sense then that the TT knowledge of the English world would be
different than that of the Western world. It has been bastardized as far
as nomenclature from the original, I am sure.
> If you think you can educate a Tom Thumberite by defending a broken
> mouth shanked curb as a snaffle, you are on the wrong path.. but more
> power to you.
I am not defending it as a snaffle. Why do you folks keep thinking I am
doing that? I am stating I use the term because I can be understood by
others when I use the term, not the *I* think it is correct or that the use
is correct. When in Rome, learn that pasta means pasta or you are going to
get something else for dinner. Just because I can speak the tongue doesn't
mean I believe the words define the object precisely. But I can
communicate, and that is a good thing. A start.
>> Is that just another way to denigrate "cowboy" to those of the English
>> Riding Style persuasion? What has the English folk so against
> Nope. I ride cowboy, have ridden that way all my life, I talk
> cowboy, I have cowboy genes (and jeans) and have moved my share of
> cows, steers, heifers, bulls etc. I have also had the good fortune to
I was corrected in another post - not a cowboy dig. I made the erroneous
conclusion that to call a Tom Thumb (which most everyone with any sense
down here hates and calls a Tom Thumb) a "cowboy snaffle" was a dig. It
might be if you said it around here <grin>.
> dreaded warm up stuff Terry is so het up about. What I don't talk is
> ignerrant -- as in " if it has a broken mouthpiece it is a snaffle"
> ... that sort of thinking is what gets people in trouble with horses
> because they put their mounts mouths in nutcrackers, having heard
> that snaffles are mild, and if that bit is called a snaffle, it must
> be mild, right?
That is a danger and a real one. So what can be done to educate riders to
avoid the same? Probably the same thing that can be done period -
encourage them to read, spend time with trainers, etc.
A curb is just as nasty as a snaffle in the wrong hands. A twisted wire
snaffle can be really nasty in the wrong hands.
> Ignorance is a good thing to crusade against, at least in my book.
Always. As long as it is ignorance that is being crusaded against. I
reckon some of that depends on how you wish to define ignorance and the
parameters you establish.
FWIW, I really try to push "shanked bits of any kind are potentially more
harsh than an unshanked bit, try to avoid shanked bits" to folks wondering
which bit to use. My first recommendation, all things being equal, is a
simple O-ring or offset-D snaffle. And the next sentence is "and go get
some good lessons from a trainer and have some fun". Please note the
context of the statements.
My current crusade is to get more of the local cow-horse folk *out* of
Santa Barbara cheeks and more into something that sweeps back - a Nevada at
the least and preferably more along the lines of a Sonoma. Frankly
speaking, there isn't a horse broke well enough to carry a SB well, and
most riders just aren't skillful enough to handle a SB. So far, I have
converted over 7 SB users in the past two months. Progress. I am sure the
ranks will grow as I have also recruited one of the more popular local tack
people that attends the shows to carry some of the bits that are less
"harsh" than a SB cheek. My project for the show this weekend is to
display as many types of half-breed bits (not all are, they are generically
lumped as such by most people, so I call them that to be able to
communicate and not lose the audience) so folks can learn there is an
alternative. I will loan the bits for use for this one show if I have to
and get that point across. I will also have some info on why the bit works
as it works and where it originated. The best testimonials just may be the
people riding in the "newly discovered" bits and how well the horses seem
to be responding. One can hope.
Ken Brown
> 1/14/02 5:40 PMKen Brown
>>
>> Define wrong, within specific contexts please.
>>
>> A. You took my remark out of context.
>> B. You are being humor-impaired.
>
> I remarked to the sentence as written, you meant or you did not mean
> it, I cannot determine your intent from your written word. Did you
> mean it, or not?
Soem things *really* need to be read in context, Jody. Come on .. you know
that! A single sentence from a parapgraph, or a few sentences within a few
paragrpahs and all on the same train of thought is not "in context". I
meant the sentence in the context I explained to you, that you deleted in
this post, in my prior post. Next topic.
> When it comes to some people, yes, I am humor impaired. Though, I
> really love to watch Letterman.
Letterman is OK, but what's with that Conan guy? I don't find him too
amusing.
>> Want to see a pic of my "short shanked snaffle", Jody? It really is
>> pretty decent work. Sweet iron with copper inlay, 5" mouth, approx.
>> 2.5" purchase, 3" shanks with a 1.5" sweep back off from the shanks,
>> 6" total cheek length. Silver inlay. Cactus flower just behind the
>> mouthpiece/cheek connector. Hinged at the front, not center, of the
>> cheek. Nice chasing.
>
> I do not care what it looks like, in fact I am a purest, I would not
> want chasing or inlays, or whatever flowers on a bit. I'm interested in
> using a bit, not having the populace *look at it*.
LOL. OK, Ms. Purist. It is for my appeal more than anyone. I happen to
enjoy it as art. And it is art.
> Your bit is still a curb bit with a broken mouthpiece. Does everyone in
> the universe use a vernacular of broken mouthpieces as "snaffle" ? Not
Did you read my prior post?? I said it was a curb with a broken
mouthpiece. I put "short shanked snaffle" in quotes for a reason. Did the
entire point escape you?
<snip beating the dead snaffle definition>
> Slots are used for leverage too, and it results in a bit that turns
> over in the mouth, leverage principle. A long full cheek snaffle with
Not those kind of slots. But you won't ever know because you don't want to
see the bit <grin>.
> the cheek pieces in place is a curb action and the resulting bit is not
> a snaffle anymore it is what you refer to as a hybrid. (curb again)
No.. it is a curb bit if it has leverage and a curb strap.
>> It rated an 8 on the "severity" scale of Dr. Deb. 1-5 being mild and
>> 6-19 being moderate.
>
> 8 is pretty severe in my book. Most of my bits are down at 2 or less.
> I will use a full cheek on a youngster for ease of teaching turning,
> the cheeks will float, and the bit is direct action.
I was doing that tongue-in-cheek. You actually rated all of your bits
according to that severity scale? The scale is flawed.
The cactus flower bit isn't used on a youngster and won't be, but is
appropriate for the horse being ridden. Youngsters get simple snaffles; an
O or an offset-D. They stay in them until something more is needed, if
ever.
And what do you do with your horse(s) again? Perhaps all of that has
something to do with bits and bit education? For most assuredly if there
was nothing ever needed beyond a simple snaffle, there would be only simple
snaffles.
Joyce Reynolds-Ward
<nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
snip
>> You wrote:
>>>>None <grin>. A "curb" around these parts has a fixed mouthpiece.
>>>>Otherwise we call them "short shank snaffles" or "shanked snaffles" or
>>>>"correction mouthpiece", etc. A curb, by common definition, would
>>>>indicate an unbroken mouthpiece. Curb with cricket/roller - obvious
>>>>description.
>I was describing common use *around these parts*, not my own personal
>definitions. This is also in the context of "speak to be understood, then
>educate" as I stated. The vernacular used in an area where I live is not
>my own definition, but definitions I must know and understand (be they
>right or wrong) to speak and be understood.
And you're not including yourself in the "we" part of the definition,
Ken?
Yet another talented avoidance.
snip
>> You wrote:
>>>>Naww.. that would be a mullen mouth bit. A snaffle is a snaffle.
>>>><grin> In fact, a snaffle (as in broken mouthpiece) operates
>>>>differently than a mullen. A mullen is a hybrid. Like those pesky
>>>>shanked snaffles.
>First off, I was "jesting" about a mullen. A mullen is a type of snaffle,
Convienent backfilling and reinterpretation here. Above you specify a
snaffle as having a "broken mouthpiece" and go on to call a mullen
mouth snaffle a hybrid.
>but it is not what is commonly called a "snaffle" in these parts by folks I
>deal with .. again, going to context and popular usage. I never stated a
>mullen is not, by *my* definition, not a snaffle.
Um, looks like you just did above. You were calling it a "hybrid," as
I recall.
> I did say a snaffle with
>a broken mouthpiece operates differently than a mullen. A mullen is a
>solid mouthpiece type of snaffle and operates differently than a typical
>snaffle; it is a hybrid of the curb's common solid mouth and the snaffle
>action.
And here you get back to defining action and function based on the
mouthpiece, not the presence or absence of leverage.
Certainly single-jointed snaffles operate differently from unjointed
snaffles, just as French links operate differently from Dr. Bristols
even though they are both double-jointed snaffles.
Ever seen solid mouthpiece driving snaffles? Actually a fairly common
item at one time, or so I'm told.
>Can you describe how the two differ in action? What action is going on
>when using a typical snaffle vs. a mullen mouth? Or a broken mouth curb
>vs. an unbroken mouth curb? What factors dictate the use of one over the
>other? I am sure the answers are easily found if they are not committed to
>your memory.
Can you describe the difference in action between a French link and a
Dr. Bristol? While they're both double-jointed snaffles, one is very
mild, the other is quite severe. I'll give you a hint: the answer is
very similar to that which you pose with regard to a single-jointed
snaffle vs. a mullen mouth snaffle in one major regard.
When would *you* opt for a mullen mouth snaffle over a single-jointed
snaffle? For myself, I'd try one out on a thick-tongued, low-palated
horse bothered by the single-jointed snaffle.
As for the broken-mouth curb, I really don't see the value in them
which can't be found in less harsh alternative bits. I don't see the
so-called "magic" in keeping a horse in a jointed bit when
transitioning to a curb, if handled properly. If the horse needs the
extra lateral kick, it probably isn't ready for the curb.
jrw
Bethe Blasienz
>Snaffles have rings or d's on the mouthedge,
>curbs have leverage devices. Snaffles NEVER have leverage, regardless of how
>you think they should be named snaffles, the rule is Leverage = curb; Direct
>action = snaffle.
Finally! :-) You posted what I was just thinking! Took those words right
outta my mouth! Very very good!
Bethe Blasienz
Bryan, Texas
Schmdthaus
<<Show rules ought to have specific descriptions (and pictures when
necessary) of allowed bits, etc. Wouldn't hurt to have a clinic for the
same purpose - legal/illegal show gear. But then ... the trainer, if there
is one, is supposed to relay that info, right?>>
These people were newcomers, no trainer -- actually very nice people, once they
got over their anger. The rule book spelled out the allowable bits, stating
that two hands could only be used with a bosal and a ring snaffle, but they
didn't understand. . . to them, "snaffle" meant "snaffle."
Laurie
Kris Carroll
For my part, I apologize for hasty and thoughtless fingers.
sue.m...@clear.net.nz (Sue from Auckland) wrote:
> Yes, but everyone knows you North Americans can't spell :-) (and your
> geography is shocking too - I'm a Kiwi, not an Aussie :-) )
> We say kim-ble-wick cos that is how it is spelled. Just checked "The
sorry to be stupid but is ble said like bell or bull?
> Country Life Book of Saddlery and Equipment" edited by Elwyn
> Hartley-Edwards which shows on page 128 a photo of "the Kimblewick,
> sometimes known as the Spanish jumping bit, although employing a
Have heard Aussies call it a Spanish snaffle
> single rein, is still a member of the Pelham group". Picture shows a
> d-ringed bit, ported one pice mouthpiece. The reins attach to the d
> rings and there is a slot slightly higher up the cheekpiece to which
> the bridle headpiece would attach and near where the curb chain is
> attached. Very similar photo in our NZ Pony Club manual page 179.
> In looking through the UK book and the groupings it places, it would
> "seem" that the conventional English/European definition of a snaffle
> would be any bit where the reins and the cheekpieces attach to the bit
> ring (ie non-leverage), and a curb would be one where the reins do not
> attach to the same ring as the cheekpieces (ie leverage) and it is not
> dependent on the mouthpiece (which can be straight or jointed in a
> snaffle).
that's my understanding and even so-called hybrids can be sorted accordingly :)
K
Ken Brown
> On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 23:22:18 GMT, Ken Brown
> <nospam...@positrakinc.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
>>> You wrote:
>
>>>>>None <grin>. A "curb" around these parts has a fixed mouthpiece.
>>>>>Otherwise we call them "short shank snaffles" or "shanked snaffles"
>>>>>or "correction mouthpiece", etc. A curb, by common definition, would
>>>>>indicate an unbroken mouthpiece. Curb with cricket/roller - obvious
>>>>>description.
>
>>I was describing common use *around these parts*, not my own personal
>>definitions. This is also in the context of "speak to be understood,
>>then educate" as I stated. The vernacular used in an area where I live
>>is not my own definition, but definitions I must know and understand
>>(be they right or wrong) to speak and be understood.
>
> And you're not including yourself in the "we" part of the definition,
> Ken?
Editorial "we" to include the general ppopulation, not just me in
paricular. Please also read my rather specific and precise paragraph
explaining the use of the words cited. Are you really so dense, Joyce?
What ax do you have to grind now that is hidden somewhere? You have gotten
to the point of being beligerant and down right idiotic in your ranting at
my posts.
> Yet another talented avoidance.
Whatever. Perceive it as you wish. At this point, I am going to cease
explaining things to you - you refuse to take a single word at face value
and put your own twists on things. Now, go over to your corner and gloat
and think to yourself "AHA! I bested that little twirp today! Little
smartass whippersnapper!" Feel better now?
>> You wrote:
>>>>>Naww.. that would be a mullen mouth bit. A snaffle is a snaffle.
>>>>><grin> In fact, a snaffle (as in broken mouthpiece) operates
>>>>>differently than a mullen. A mullen is a hybrid. Like those pesky
>>>>>shanked snaffles.
>
>>First off, I was "jesting" about a mullen. A mullen is a type of
>>snaffle,
>
> Convienent backfilling and reinterpretation here. Above you specify a
> snaffle as having a "broken mouthpiece" and go on to call a mullen
> mouth snaffle a hybrid.
Sigh. See above. Also, note carefully the <grin> reference in there.
Evidently the slight humor was lost on you and, you having taken this out
of context to have some great "debate" on the subject so you might feel
superior, you may now go call yourself a weiner.. err.. winner .. and go
gloat somewhere. This isn't worth the time and trouble and is getting
nowhere.
I will gladly talk bits and how they work and exchange ideas and theory all
day, but I am not going to go back and re-explain my explanations. I have
made myself quite clear - I know what the difference between a leverage bit
and a non-leverage bit, as well as a mullen vs. a broken mouthpiece, etc.
And a signal bit is still a signal bit, not just some generic curb bit.
Remember that? It is from some of this arises.
>>but it is not what is commonly called a "snaffle" in these parts by
>>folks I deal with .. again, going to context and popular usage. I
>>never stated a mullen is not, by *my* definition, not a snaffle.
>
> Um, looks like you just did above. You were calling it a "hybrid," as
> I recall.
It is a hybrid in a way - part "typical" curb's straight mouth with snaffle
direct action. *As defined popularly in this neck of the woods*. How many
times do I have to say that? A mullen is a snaffle, but it operates
differently than a "normal" snaffle; that is, a typical broken mouth
snaffle bit.
If you wish to digress and talk merely ;everage vs. non-leverage, the
discussion is over. I was actually getting into the specific actions of
specific bits .. you seem stuck on making sure things are classed into A or
Not A and then can't get out of that rut. The rut is pretty damn deep at
this point, even though explanations and clarifications have been given.
Repeatedly.
>> I did say a snaffle with
>>a broken mouthpiece operates differently than a mullen. A mullen is a
>>solid mouthpiece type of snaffle and operates differently than a
>>typical snaffle; it is a hybrid of the curb's common solid mouth and
>>the snaffle action.
>
> And here you get back to defining action and function based on the
> mouthpiece, not the presence or absence of leverage.
One does not operate in a vacuum from the other - the moouthpiece action
determines, partially, the total action of the bit - be it leverage or not.
I am *not* defining a bit based on its mouthpiece alone. I said a mullen
mouth operates differently than a broken mouth and is a combination of the
curb's commonly found unbroken mouth with the direct action of the snaffle.
**Now how is that saying a mullen is not a snaffle?**
You sure do try a person's patience.
> Certainly single-jointed snaffles operate differently from unjointed
> snaffles, just as French links operate differently from Dr. Bristols
> even though they are both double-jointed snaffles.
How? Add some substance here, joyce. Rather than revel in your delight
over your self-proclaimed correction of whatever wrong you have perceived,
add some *MEAT* to the overall discussion. Be constructive, not so damn
critical and negative.
> Ever seen solid mouthpiece driving snaffles? Actually a fairly common
> item at one time, or so I'm told.
Want one? Why would they be used?
>>Can you describe how the two differ in action? What action is going on
>>when using a typical snaffle vs. a mullen mouth? Or a broken mouth
>>curb vs. an unbroken mouth curb? What factors dictate the use of one
>>over the other? I am sure the answers are easily found if they are not
>>committed to your memory.
>
> Can you describe the difference in action between a French link and a
> Dr. Bristol? While they're both double-jointed snaffles, one is very
> mild, the other is quite severe. I'll give you a hint: the answer is
> very similar to that which you pose with regard to a single-jointed
> snaffle vs. a mullen mouth snaffle in one major regard.
I asked first, quiz-queen <smile>. A common dodge is to ask a question
when asked a question, as you oncepointed out.
However .. since you asked and because I *did* do the homework when someone
posted the info a while ago:
The Dr. Bristol (DrB) is the harsher of the two due primarily to the fact
of the link itself. The French Link (FL) link is smaller, has smoother and
rounder edges and lies on a vertical plane to the sides of the mouthpiece.
The DrB link is longer and has an oblong and blunt plate. Squared edges,
too. Moreover, the angle of the link to the mouthpiece lies at an angle
and is the hallmark of this bit, IMO. Ugh.
The FL is gentler on the tongue, whereas the DrB is more harsh, exerting
specific pressure to the tongue (the size and angle of the link). Both
bits rest on the bars. Both bits are supposed to make limited use of
corner pressures, preferring to use bars and, in the case of DrB, a lot of
tongue pressure.
The Dr. B is designed such that when a rider raises his/her hands, the
mouthpiece will tilt forward, causing the link/plate to form a nice "pay
attention" pressure on the tongue - essentially digging into the tongue
<grin> by creating a damn near 90 degree angle in relation to the
mouthpiece. Lower the hands and the pressure is released, of course. I
imagine the action of the bit will change depending on the cheek used - D
versus just an O-Ring.
Look at a "whoa maker" and see the similarities. Also look at the various
broken mouth bits in use in the Western world and see if the "mouthsaver"
doo-dads look familiar in theory to the FL.
And the Dr. Bristol isn't a leverage bit?? Uh huh. Leverage in the mouth
exerted by the reins by lowering and raising the hands vs. leverage on the
curb groove when pulling on the reins. OK. Definitions can be so damn
difficult sometimes. Here we have a snaffle that uses some pretty decent
leverage action on the tongue, but by "definition" is a snaffle and not a
leverage bit?
I personally consider the DrB a hybrid bit - neither total fish nor total
fowl. It is not purely direct pressure without the use of leverage, nor is
it a "curb". I think the old terminology dichotomy of leverage/curb vs.
direct/snaffle needs some fine tuning.
English bits are not my "thing", but I do try to understand how they work.
And I am still waiting to hear how a broken mouth vs. an unbroken mouth
works. In your opinion, of course.
> When would *you* opt for a mullen mouth snaffle over a single-jointed
> snaffle? For myself, I'd try one out on a thick-tongued, low-palated
> horse bothered by the single-jointed snaffle.
I would do it for the same reason. How would you change your riding habits
to accomodate the new bit? When would you *not* use a mullen? Why?
Hey.. this is getting kinda fun now!
> As for the broken-mouth curb, I really don't see the value in them
> which can't be found in less harsh alternative bits. I don't see the
I do see the value. A bit is as harsh as the hands behind it; a bit isn't
harsh per se until put to use in a harsh manner. Some exceptions. The DrB
might be one of them <grin>.
> so-called "magic" in keeping a horse in a jointed bit when
> transitioning to a curb, if handled properly. If the horse needs the
> extra lateral kick, it probably isn't ready for the curb.
There is no "magic" there. It really depends on the horse, the work being
performed and the problems encountered. There are no easy, pat answers
that work every time on every horse.
Let's go back, then. How does the broken mouth work as compared to the
solid mouthpiece? Why would the broken mouth be retained and adding a
shank to move to an unbroken curb?
For myself, I show working cow horses. I need to use a half-breed type of
bit at a minimum. I prefer a Salinas mouth over a "true half-breed"
because I can get some tongue relief in there and my port is usually wider.
There are variations on a Salinas mouth - some have a mild port before the
cricket, some don't. I have had some success following a transition of:
snaffle (choose according to factors stated before re: palate, tongue,
etc.) - stay in it until giving nicely, breaking at the poll, off the bit
and so forth; argentine "snaffle" (very short shank swept back curb with
broken mouth and little purchase) that retains some of the snaffle bit
"feel" re: mouthpiece - small degree of leverage and introduces the curb
pressures slowly; then to a longer swept back shanks broken mouth (again,
to retain the broken mouth "feel" for the horse as best as possible) and
some increase in curb pressure (horse is very much off the bit at this
juncture and doing well); then to a Billy Allen style mouthpiece on a shank
length/sweep same as the prior bit - introduction of the "unbroken feel"
somewhat and off the palate about all the way; then finally to a Salinas
mouth (reintroduces palate pressures if gets that far, otherwise on the
tongue, bars, corners and curb pressures) with some tongue relief (or none,
depends on the horse's tongue thickness) on a legal show bit - port minimum
is 1" and max width is 3", with a roller/cricket required. Shank max
length is 8" and I prefer to use a shorter shank and a swept back action -
like a Sonoma or Nevada cheek style.
All of the above, of course, is a substitute for proper training in a bosal
where the steps would be: snaffle, 3/4" bosal, 5/8" bosal, 1/2" bosal,
introduce spade/half-breed and two rein in 3/8" pencil bosal and romals,
and finally spade alone.
If you have a better ideas, I am open to hearing them. FWIW, a horse over
5 years old cannot be shown in the hackamore classes.