Double bridle. Why?

Sure, it's tradition... but so is bullfighting - does that make it "right?"
I'm just saying some things could stand to change - right now people are completely abusing the bits they are "made" to use. I see absolutely NO reason there is a need for double bridles other than tradition. In my personal, very humble opinion, if you can do all this in a snaffle, why not do it? The idea behind the double bridle in the first place is just to use the curb when you need it, but that doesn't seem to happen much, it gets ridden on a lot.

I do have to giggle at ridergirl23's response - it's probably a little true ;)

If you don't know maybe some research would help, especially with rules and rule admendments.

I would point out that in the hunter ring a standing martingale is mandatory to show in. By the reasoning expressed in this thread one must assume it is poor training and needed to hold the head in place for some for I have seen hunters go just fine without it.

dont worry, i ride dressage, if i really wanted to know i would ask the barn owner tomorrow. but it doesnt really matter to me until i get to those levels

Quote:

In my personal, very humble opinion, if you can do all this in a snaffle, why not do it?

While yet, you use a Waterford?

I am pretty sure it is not. It's a fashion, for sure, but I am mostly certain that it is not a rule.

I have yet to see a single horse showing at the Royal without one. If it isn't mandatory (as I was told by a person that only did hunters that it is) then obviously it is a MUST be needed to hold the head in place.


A double properly use is a refining bridle but until you have actually ridden and competed at the higher levels those that have not, should not be so quick to judge that which they know nothing about.

You are misinformed. Actually I've never used a Waterford - on Denny or any of my previous horses. I am simply not against an educated hand using one.


It is not required, it is not mandatory. You were misinformed. It is a fad in the hunter ring, and it is actually dying out just a tad this coming season. Why would it be used to hold a horse's head in place?

Exhibit A, Cunningham:
Holsteiner : Cunningham - Regular Conformation Working Hunter

I'm not arguing the "properness" of using a double bridle in upper level dressage, all I'm saying is that it is definitely not necessary, and I for one do not completely understand the need for it to be a rule if it is not necessary.
Does it refine signals? Absolutely. Is it 100% necessary to have a double bridle to do the upper level movements? No.

I checked the rules as I know little about hunters and you are right ...it is not mandatory but used anyways and quite a bit at the higher levels.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JustDressageIt I'm not arguing the "properness" of using a double bridle in upper level dressage, all I'm saying is that it is definitely not necessary, and I for one do not completely understand the need for it to be a rule if it is not necessary.

Until you have competed at this level you really can't understand. I for one will go with those that have set out the rules.

Certainly you can do all the movements but compare a PROPERLY ridden horse in a double and a PROPERLY ridden horse in a single and there is a huge difference.

Oh absolutely there is a difference for most horses, I won't argue that for a moment - but saying that every horse needs to be ridden in a double is jumping to conclusions... if a horse can do the movements and compete at that level in a snaffle, why not allow them to? Or bridleless for that matter?
Besides tradition... if a horse/rider pair CAN execute the movements properly and are harmonious in doing so in a snaffle or less, why should they not be allowed to show that way? Sure, you may find that adding the weymouth will give you a better feel and more precise bit control, but what if another rider find that their horse does equally well in a snaffle? There is no absolute need for a double.
I'm just throwing these out here for argument sake :)
Dressage itself has taken a less than desirable turn; horses with "flash" rather than proper movement are being rewarded. Rollkur (though it's being investigated now) is being rewarded in an indirect way. Questionable techniques are being rewarded in an indirect way.

I would just like to elaborate on my thought:
While a horse might be able to execute the techniques in a snaffle, generally speaking since the horse must be shown in a double they will be schooled in the higher movements in a double. Since the movements aren't refined in a snaffle, of course they will seem sloppier than in a double.
So - if it was 'legal' to ride in a snaffle in the upper levels, and people wanted to stick with a snaffle, would it be possible to see a horse/rider pair win at the upper levels? I think it would. If someone had a horse with enough talent and they wanted to stick with a snaffle, I really see no reason why they couldn't do the movements in a snaffle, more to the point.
If all you schooled with is a snaffle and your horse was responsive enough in that bit... do you need a double? No. Therefore it is not 100% necessary at the upper levels.
Did that make sense? Just trying to sort out my thought pattern here, bear with me please :) Again, all in friendly debate.