What does everyone think bout spurs? - Page 6
   

       The Horse Forum > Riding Horses > Western Riding > Barrel Racing

What does everyone think bout spurs?

This is a discussion on What does everyone think bout spurs? within the Barrel Racing forums, part of the Western Riding category
  • Why do spurs spin
  • Barrel horse spinning spurs

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
    09-01-2010, 05:47 PM
  #51
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrhareiner    
I agree that a spur is not an end all be all of cuing. However spurs do not make a horse dead sided any more then a bit makes a horse hard mouthed. That comes from the rider and their hands and leg. You can make a horse hard mouthed with a side pull or snaffle just like you can make them dead sided with your bare foot.
nrhareiner, I'm still new to the world of spurs; so I apologize for my error.

On that same token, I can spin a horse and sidepass them without spurs just as my instructor can do it in spurs. And a well trained horse should respond to bare feet AND spurs. A good rider shouldn't have to use spurs on a well trained horse to get their desired movement.

And for the last paragraph, I was implying an incompetent rider would sour a horse...so I should have put it in there.
     
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
    09-01-2010, 06:17 PM
  #52
Trained
Quote:
Originally Posted by A knack for horses    
nrhareiner, I'm still new to the world of spurs; so I apologize for my error.

On that same token, I can spin a horse and sidepass them without spurs just as my instructor can do it in spurs. And a well trained horse should respond to bare feet AND spurs. A good rider shouldn't have to use spurs on a well trained horse to get their desired movement.

If this is true then why do riders like Shawn Flarada (NRHA $3.5 Million rider) use spurs on all his finished horses. As does every other reiner I know. It is not about getting the desired movement alone. It is about getting it with very very little effort. You should never see the cue.

And for the last paragraph, I was implying an incompetent rider would sour a horse...so I should have put it in there.
There are a lot of things an Incompetent rider should not do. Also no rider should remain an incompetent rider either. Yet I know there are some who do.
     
    09-01-2010, 06:22 PM
  #53
Banned
Nrhareiner:
If this is true then why do riders like Shawn Flarada (NRHA $3.5 Million rider) use spurs on all his finished horses. As does every other reiner I know. It is not about getting the desired movement alone. It is about getting it with very very little effort. You should never see the cue.

You answered your question. He doesn't need the spurs, but he uses them as an aid to get more fluid movement with less cuing. They are the icing on the cake.

And I garuntee you he can do it without spurs.
     
    09-01-2010, 06:45 PM
  #54
Trained
There are not many people who understand the TRUE purpose of spurs - It shows in this thread.

Spurs are NOT for forward.

No horse should respond ONLY to spurs.

Every horse ridden in spurs should be able to do everything without them also.

It's really very simple. Spurs are for refinement.

There is NO way you can give a cue as precise with your bare heel vs. a spur, simply because of the size. Your heel is large and blunt, but a spur is small and precise.

Spurs also encourage lifting of the ribcage much clearer than your heel. You can give an 'upward' cue with a rowel spur which you can't emulate with your bare heel.

Quote:
if I were a top competitor and trainer, I would probably use them more for fine tuning, but I'm not, nor will I likely ever be, so I will just enjoy horses that are taught to respond to voice (for gaits) and light application of the leg for other movements.
That's the key - If you are happy with your horse where it is, then great! Stick with it and don't use spurs.

However myself, and most who compete, are after as close to perfection as they can get. I want my horse as light and responsive as I can manage, and I want to cue with the smallest aid possible. Spurs allow me to chase that goal with more success.

My competition horse is ridden without spurs 80% of the time. I only put spurs on when I am training or showing.

My breaker? She has never felt spurs and won't until she has everything down pat without them - Then I will progress to lightening it up even more with spurs.

I CAN do everything I need to do with spurs. I CAN'T do it as subtle, as refined, as sharp as I can with spurs, and THAT is the reason I use them.

I never kick with spurs. Most of the time they never touch my horses sides.
     
    09-01-2010, 07:02 PM
  #55
Weanling
Quote:
Originally Posted by A knack for horses    
nrhareiner:
If this is true then why do riders like Shawn Flarada (NRHA $3.5 Million rider) use spurs on all his finished horses. As does every other reiner I know. It is not about getting the desired movement alone. It is about getting it with very very little effort. You should never see the cue.

You answered your question. He doesn't need the spurs, but he uses them as an aid to get more fluid movement with less cuing. They are the icing on the cake.

And I garuntee you he can do it without spurs.

I actually have to agree with both of you kind of, but more so with nrhareiner. While Shawn Flarada can do those same maneuvers without spurs, they would probably be a little sloppy, because the horse was trained with the very precise queue of spurs. It's like someone else pointed out on here, it's like the difference between me placing my hand on your ribs and asking you to yield vs me placing a finger on your ribs and asking you to yield. You will yield more easily and quickly from the finger than the hand. This is actually how spurs are supposed to be used as a queue, not a get up and go.

For example, I used to have a barrel horse that I rode in reining on occasion. He would do the spins with out the spurs, but he traveled on them ever so slightly, but with the spurs he would plant his foot and spin like he was supposed to. The difference? He was trained with a really precise queue, so when asked with a different queue, he would still perform the same maneuver, just a little sloppy.
     
    09-01-2010, 07:08 PM
  #56
Banned
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaintedFury    
I actually have to agree with both of you kind of, but more so with nrhareiner. While Shawn Flarada can do those same maneuvers without spurs, they would probably be a little sloppy, because the horse was trained with the very precise queue of spurs. It's like someone else pointed out on here, it's like the difference between me placing my hand on your ribs and asking you to yield vs me placing a finger on your ribs and asking you to yield. You will yield more easily and quickly from the finger than the hand. This is actually how spurs are supposed to be used as a queue, not a get up and go.

For example, I used to have a barrel horse that I rode in reining on occasion. He would do the spins with out the spurs, but he traveled on them ever so slightly, but with the spurs he would plant his foot and spin like he was supposed to. The difference? He was trained with a really precise queue, so when asked with a different queue, he would still perform the same maneuver, just a little sloppy.
Hence why reiners use spurs. As I said it, '...to get more fluid movement with less cuing." I'm not saying that you can get the same results with spurs as you can get with your bare heel.
     

Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can someone tell me bout drafts? TheRoughrider21 Draft Horses 22 04-12-2010 03:46 AM
I don't know bout ya'll..... CecilliaB Horse Talk 15 02-14-2010 09:12 PM
*Rant* bout old Barn BarnBum444 Barn Maintenance 3 12-13-2009 01:50 PM
What do you think bout 'em buddy09 Western Riding 85 11-30-2009 08:38 PM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0