PDA

View Full Version : Waterford bit - why illegal?



Hampton Bay
Mar. 10, 2010, 03:44 PM
I am truly curious here. I know some people who like them for horses who lean. Why are they not allowed in competition?

CHT
Mar. 10, 2010, 05:46 PM
My understanding is that in dressage, they try to keep it simple, so they started with the basic bits, and only add new bits if they can be shown to be more humane and to have additional benfit for the HORSE, and not a quick fix for the rider. So it is not so much that certain bits were decided to be illegal, it is more that certain bits were selected as legal, with new ones added as the case is made for them.

shawneeAcres
Mar. 10, 2010, 05:53 PM
because a properly trained dressage hrose shouldn't be "leaning" but should be working off his hind end, submissively to a relatively mild bit.

lstevenson
Mar. 10, 2010, 07:54 PM
I am truly curious here. I know some people who like them for horses who lean. Why are they not allowed in competition?


Why should they be? We are supposed to use training to fix horses problems, not gadget bits.

Equibrit
Mar. 10, 2010, 08:29 PM
Because bits are aides, not weapons.

Hampton Bay
Mar. 10, 2010, 08:47 PM
Seriously, it was just a question. I've never used one on one of my own horses, nor would I because it's just too fat for them.

But it cannot be more inhumane than a Dr. Bristol, which has the sharp edge of the link digging into the tongue.

Timex
Mar. 10, 2010, 09:03 PM
And yet, double bridles are (or at least were, as of very recently, I seem to recall a rule change, but could be wrong) REQUIRED at the upper levels. Which, one could make the arguement, the horses should be SO well trained that only the simplest of snaffles should be needed. And yes, I know, finesse, refinement, etc, just playing a little bit of devils advocate here. ;)

midnightride
Mar. 10, 2010, 09:26 PM
And yet, double bridles are (or at least were, as of very recently, I seem to recall a rule change, but could be wrong) REQUIRED at the upper levels. Which, one could make the arguement, the horses should be SO well trained that only the simplest of snaffles should be needed. And yes, I know, finesse, refinement, etc, just playing a little bit of devils advocate here. ;)

YES!!! I see you devils advocate and add a few glasses of wine;)

why is it that the highly trained horses need 2 bits?
hummm maybe the lower levels should show without bits (this is good for me since one of mine hates the bit:lol::lol::lol:)

Rescue_Rider9
Mar. 10, 2010, 11:47 PM
What about rollers? I have a d-ring with copper rollers and my horse likes the bit, but its illegal. What do the rollers do for the horse? I really have no clue and it only ended up on my horse because I needed something to ride him in when my other bridle was at school. Turns out, he rides better with the rollers

Meredith Clark
Mar. 10, 2010, 11:56 PM
I had a customer at a tack store argue with me forEVER that bits with copper were illegal.

I didn't think this was true but since I'm not a "dressage person" I didn't really have a dog in the fight.

However in the attempt to better serve our customers we DID keep the complete FEI rule book behind the counter and I couldn't find anything in there about it.

Whether they are or not I couldn't understand why they would be :confused:

Rescue_Rider9
Mar. 11, 2010, 12:03 AM
its the mouth piece, not the copper. At least in eventing dressage! The bit cannot have rollers on it, but it could be made of copper

raff
Mar. 11, 2010, 06:19 AM
The Waterford is a chain bit, it discourages contact, so not what dressage is about. The mixed metals, and reactions occuring between the two metals is the problem with a bit containing copper I think. Copper is too soft to make entire bits out of, but I don't think there is a problem if the mouth and the rings are made of different materials.

meupatdoes
Mar. 11, 2010, 07:57 AM
Because bits are aides, not weapons.

Oh for Christ's sake HB is asking (politely!) about a waterford. That is one of the friendliest bits out there, which discourages leaning because it is hard for the horse to get a grip on it and the balls encourage a light, playful feel in the mouth.

If we are going to lecture about bits being aides, not weapons, let's discuss the "double bridle with the crank as tight as possible and the curb shank cranked horizontal to the ground" phenomenon, which is apparently how the warmup is supposed to happen in international competition. But hey, I guess that's "relatively mild."

AnotherRound
Mar. 11, 2010, 08:06 AM
My understanding, as uneducated as I am about it, is that if the bit, harsh or kind, is used to encourage the kind of response in the horse which dressage is supposed to demonstrate as the result of the horse's training and condition and response to the rider's seat, hands, balance, and his own willingness, then the purpose of dressage is somewhat circumvented, so the bit would not get approved.

In otherwords, if the specific response of the horse, say forward, with contact and lightness up front, is obtained because of the bit, the riding and training isn't being demonstrated, the bit is.

Might that describe the concerns?

mvp
Mar. 11, 2010, 08:21 AM
Legal or not ain't it-- the relevant thing about the Waterford is how you use it to help with a leaning horse, and what the German Dressage Philosophers want. I think these are opposed.

The Waterford works only if you plan on letting go most of the time. It's the instability that makes the bit effective/

The dressager who wants the horse pushing into the bridle can't use the Waterford this way.

Rollers, many bits, no bits, bits with snuck in (and disagreed about leverage) like bauchers? Whatever.

I think these bits' status reflect a bunch of people trying to rationalize the equipment they need (or don't) and making up whole metaphysical systems and justifications after the fact.

Sandy M
Mar. 11, 2010, 10:48 AM
The dressager who wants the horse pushing into the bridle can't use the Waterford this way.

Rollers, many bits, no bits, bits with snuck in (and disagreed about leverage) like bauchers? Whatever.

I think these bits' status reflect a bunch of people trying to rationalize the equipment they need (or don't) and making up whole metaphysical systems and justifications after the fact.

(a) the Baucher does not have leverage/poll pressure; there is no leverage point, no gag effect; no curb strap/chain.
(b) the only horse upon which I've used a Baucher could be halted by a word, bu your seat, by removing any leg pressure to move forward; he was soft and light in any snaffle...but he he had a shallow mouth and a big tongue, and was more comfortable with the stability and less tongue/bar pressure afforded by the Baucher. The same effect could be gained by using a plain or french mouth full cheek with the stabilizing keepers, but that seems such a "hunter" turnout that I found the Baucher more suitable.

P.S. Rode a borrowed horse in a Waterford - it was what the owner put on her. She pulled like a train, though I kept trying to soften her and release; it may be loose and little balls, but the bit I saw also had hard little projections on those balls (was this some variation?). Any any event it looked brutal, and when the mare tried to cart me and I had to circle her to regain control she cheerfully leaned into it and kept right on going. I eventually got her undercontrol and noticed then (she was given to me already saddle and bridled and I had only checked the girth, not the bridle), that she had calluses on the corners of her mouth. Made me wonder what her tongue looked like. Dunno...wouldn't WANT to use one as a dressage bit, but I do wonder if this mare (re-training issues aside), might not have been a safer and more comfortable (for the horse) ride in some sort of pelham, rather than that rather nasty looking Waterford.

TrotTrotPumpkn
Mar. 11, 2010, 12:06 PM
P.S. Rode a borrowed horse in a Waterford - it was what the owner put on her. She pulled like a train, though I kept trying to soften her and release; it may be loose and little balls, but the bit I saw also had hard little projections on those balls (was this some variation?). Any any event it looked brutal, and when the mare tried to cart me and I had to circle her to regain control she cheerfully leaned into it and kept right on going. I eventually got her undercontrol and noticed then (she was given to me already saddle and bridled and I had only checked the girth, not the bridle), that she had calluses on the corners of her mouth. Made me wonder what her tongue looked like. Dunno...wouldn't WANT to use one as a dressage bit, but I do wonder if this mare (re-training issues aside), might not have been a safer and more comfortable (for the horse) ride in some sort of pelham, rather than that rather nasty looking Waterford.

I have a Waterford that I used as a transition bit on an OTTB that had been overbitted and overjumped (thus fried) and would grab the bit and take off or lean depending on his anxiety level. Poor guy--rushed and never really flat-trained because he was so talented over fences.

He was coming out of a Milkmar combo (you know the one with the nose twine) and we were working our way down to the snaffle (which he eventually did go into successfully). My waterford is just smooth balls (no spikes, etc). I also used a happy mouth pelham on that horse with two reins (not the connector) and a curb chain for jumping before we got to the snaffle. Stop-wise the pelham offered more control. But the waterford was a good bit to use for about a month as we played with how to get him to relax under saddle. He couldn't accept the snaffle and contact until he learned to relax.

So it is one bit I haven't sold on a swap--just in case. I thought it was useful.

Equibrit
Mar. 11, 2010, 01:06 PM
But it cannot be more inhumane than a Dr. Bristol, which has the sharp edge of the link digging into the tongue.

That just is not so. http://s784.photobucket.com/albums/yy121/Equibrit/Tack/

Mallard
Mar. 11, 2010, 07:21 PM
Dr B is not dressage legal.
And Bauchers have no curb action. At all.

Equibrit
Mar. 11, 2010, 08:21 PM
Yes it is. I've used one for 10 years.
http://www.usef.org//documents/ruleBook/2009/08-DR.pdf
PAGE 22.

midnightride
Mar. 11, 2010, 09:17 PM
i see the confusion..... the center "plate" in your photos and the center "plate" in the drawing on the rule book are at different angels.... the bit in the rule book would be whicked!!!! a real Dr B lays well in the mouth and lots of horses go very soft in it.

but really stop and think... dont most horses go well when given soft and kind hands (and bits)??? ya never see a rider given high praise for having hard hands.....

Equibrit
Mar. 11, 2010, 09:34 PM
If you check out the patent application made by Dr Bristol (with the photos) you will see exactly how he designed the genuine bit to lay in the mouth, and it is very kind. I don't know what all those other strange bits that folks think are Dr Bristols actually are, but a Dr Bristol they certainly are not.

EqTrainer
Mar. 11, 2010, 09:36 PM
In regards to dressage training, a waterford would be considered a corrective bit. One that you would use to help fix a problem, not one that you would plan to keep a horse in indefinately. I would think that when you are in the fixing stage, showing isn't really on the agenda.

In regards to contact, the expectation is not the same for hunters as it is in dressage and I have ridden many hunters in a waterford that went beautifully in them and it was their main bit. Not the same objective so it was the perfect bit for them.

lorilu
Mar. 12, 2010, 10:47 AM
When a baucher is pulled by reins, the top ring is rotated forward slightly, resulting in poll pressure.

EqTrainer
Mar. 12, 2010, 10:54 AM
Actually no, bauchers don't have poll pressure, the way they are set up they stay suspended in the horses mouth.

Cielo Azure
Mar. 12, 2010, 11:51 AM
Actually no, bauchers don't have poll pressure, the way they are set up they stay suspended in the horses mouth.

We have used bauchers a lot and my experience is what you write. People (selling bits) do always write they they produce poll pressure but...I agree with you. If there is any movement, it is so light, it would be almost unoticable to the horse. The upper ring is fixed to the upper shank -it doesn't move.

Also, not all bauchers are the same. If you check out images and look at jointed bauchers and then do the search of beachers and mullen. You can see that a mullen mouth (or straight bar) baucher very much would be suspended in the mouth. It would be hard to get any torque on the upper ring at all.

Sandy M
Mar. 12, 2010, 03:02 PM
When a baucher is pulled by reins, the top ring is rotated forward slightly, resulting in poll pressure.

Nope. There is no fulcrum. There would not be poll pressure unless you put a curb chain/strap on it. The cheekpiece of the bridle bows out and you have rein pressure backwards, but no poll pressure. Believe me, my old horse was very sensitive and the first time I rode him in a double (poll pressure), he went behind the bit. He never went behind in a Baucher.

midnightride
Mar. 12, 2010, 08:57 PM
So was in the local "highend" tack store today... and NO the Dr. B bits on the rack are not real Dr. B's!!!!! the center plate is 90 degrees from the real deal..... how is this so???? Honestly i would not put this bit (one is store) in a horses mouth...

Anyone know how the Dr.B has been taken to a different level under the same name? I used a Dr.B on a horse years ago and it was like in the photos- the plate layed flat on the tounge and the horse was soft yet i had some play (twist of the wrist that could be used for jumping) this currently sold verson is just plain mean!! there is no way a horse can avoid the pressure and it seems very odd that is it legal.....

lorilu
Mar. 12, 2010, 08:59 PM
Well, I believe you all, but would have to actually play with one to convince myself.

I always learn things here.

L

Glorybee
Mar. 13, 2010, 07:37 PM
Waterfords and "chain bits" are at opposite ends of the spectrum imo. The waterford rolls in your hand - no sharp edges. Everything moves. a bicycle chain??? twisted wire? not so much.

EqTrainer
Mar. 13, 2010, 09:48 PM
IME the bit w/the flat plate is simply referred to as a french mouth or french link and only the flipped link is called a dr. bristol.

Equibrit
Mar. 14, 2010, 09:48 AM
IME the bit w/the flat plate is simply referred to as a french mouth or french link and only the flipped link is called a dr. bristol.


http://s784.photobucket.com/albums/yy121/Equibrit/Tack/

Something not clear here ??

enjoytheride
Mar. 14, 2010, 09:58 AM
I don't understand the hostility in this thread.

It is my understanding that the Dr. Bristol is the most severe dressage bit you can use and is more severe then the french link or a single joint bit.

Since it's pretty easy for me to tell the difference between a french link and a Dr. Bristol in a tack store please explain what the difference is for you.

Here are pictures of Dr. Bristols
http://www.equisearch.com/horses_riding_training/tack_apparel/bit_gallery/drbristol/

http://www.vtosaddlery.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=VTO&Product_Code=DBEFCB&Category_Code=BITS

http://www.equusnow.com/prodview.asp?idProduct=1118

The waterford is not a chain bit or a weapon, I found it useful for jumping and my horse went well in it but although it helped against grabbing and leaning it didn't have any stopping power in it.

Equibrit
Mar. 14, 2010, 10:45 AM
Since it's pretty easy for me to tell the difference between a french link and a Dr. Bristol in a tack store please explain what the difference is for you.


Apparently that is not the case. The point being made is this; those are NOT Dr Bristols.

This IS;http://s784.photobucket.com/albums/yy121/Equibrit/Tack/ evidenced by a copy of Dr Bristols patent application dated Aug 1908. This is not opinion - but fact.

enjoytheride
Mar. 14, 2010, 01:22 PM
Ok you keep showing that silly patent thing made in 1908. It doesn't mean squat if not a single bit I have shown you that is labeled and sold as a dr. bristol is actually a dr. bristol.

So how on earth is someone supposed to tell the difference if every single dr. bristol sold in any tack store ever is wrong? What makes your dr. bristol the only correct one and how do you buy one if everything else out there is wrong. All of those bits I pictured are Dr. Bistols. They are legal dressage bits.

Equibrit
Mar. 14, 2010, 04:26 PM
If the bit does not comply with the patent it is NOT a Dr Bristol bit. It really is not that difficult. I could call you Einstein, but it wouldn't make you a Nobel Prize winning scientist.

enjoytheride
Mar. 14, 2010, 05:30 PM
So then how is the bit checker at a show, and every tack store which seems to be wrong, and the owner supposed to tell the difference between a fake dr. bristol labelled as such and the real only dr. bristol without carrying a copy of a 1908 patent stuffed up their sleeve?

Equibrit
Mar. 14, 2010, 08:46 PM
Not my brief. You could ask yourself why a bit manufacturer would manufacture a bit and then incorrectly name it. It probably isn't a problem for USEF though, as like you, and apparently a large majority of others, they can't tell the difference (ref the picture and description listed in the rules). Dr Bristol, having created and patented a very sympathetic bit, should get credit for that, and not the more severe counterfeits to which people have attached his name.

Cielo Azure
Mar. 14, 2010, 09:03 PM
If the bit does not comply with the patent it is NOT a Dr Bristol bit. It really is not that difficult. I could call you Einstein, but it wouldn't make you a Nobel Prize winning scientist.

If something was patented in 1908, the patent would have expired in 1928. If a patented bit was named Dr. Bristol in 1908, it doesn't necessarily make that the same bit now. If the word Dr. Bristol has come to mean something else in the common horse world, it wouldn't make the usage of that word now right or wrong. Just what it is now.

Equibrit
Mar. 14, 2010, 09:29 PM
The genuine bits are still available. They are the same.

Hampton Bay
Mar. 14, 2010, 09:56 PM
The Dr.Bristol bit pictured under the USEF list of dressage-legal bits is the kind where the center plate presses into the tongue. I think for the sake of what is allowed in dressage competition, that is the only thing relevant. Old patents don't mean much when the drawing of the legal bit matches what is commonly known TODAY as a Dr.Bristol.

I guess I just find some of the rulings on what is "allowed" and what is not to be pretty arbitrary, hence why I started this thread. I genuinely wanted to know why a waterford was not legal in competition. The horses I have ridden in them (GP-level schoolmasters) have all rounded up and accepted contact just fine, so it doesn't make much sense to me.

midnightride
Mar. 14, 2010, 09:59 PM
Not my brief. You could ask yourself why a bit manufacturer would manufacture a bit and then incorrectly name it. It probably isn't a problem for USEF though, as like you, and apparently a large majority of others, they can't tell the difference (ref the picture and description listed in the rules). Dr Bristol, having created and patented a very sympathetic bit, should get credit for that, and not the more severe counterfeits to which people have attached his name.

YES..... i rode in a real Dr.B a number of years ago and this thread got me to thinking that this might be the bit answer for my stud...... i will keep searching for the real Dr B bit but I WILLNOT buy one that is not the real deal..... there is a 90* differance in the plate angle and that is HUGE!!!!! how the modern version gets by i will never know.....:confused::confused::confused::confused:: confused:

mayfieldk
Mar. 15, 2010, 01:56 AM
I don't post often (but am a long-time lurker), and have a curious question.

I use a waterford on my very sensitive TB. He has always been a hot, nervous, run-if-you-let-go-of-the-reins kind of horse--he didn't exactly have 'stellar' training when he was young, and add that with a nervous attitude... He was a fun ride. Honest. ;)

I've tried many bits with him, because I've always equated bits to be a little like shoes--I like New Balances, but my mom likes Nikes. Same goal, but different shapes for different feet. Snaffle, no. French link, no. Tom Thumb, hell no. Rope halter? Buh-bye! Mylar bits, mullen mouth--everything. He has his teeth done regularly, and even when I got him calm and riding like a respectable gentleman, he never seemed to 'take' to the bit. And I have soft hands.

I bought the waterford because it seemed almost 'rope-like', and there wouldn't be any sharp points poking at the roof, or on the bars like a snaffle or whatnot. It just seemed soft--but something that also could go to hell in a handbasket with a rider with bad hands.

I tried him in it and have NEVER looked back. This horse reaches into and on contact, loves long and low, loves following the reins, doesn't fuss with his head anymore... it hasn't given me anymore 'power'--it's just given me a happy horse.

But all the posts here seem to generally think it is a 'correction bit'. Can it be used the way that I am using it now? Is it possible to have a horse that is genuinely pleased and prefers this kind of bit?

Just curious... and don't mean to hijack!

Pookah
Mar. 15, 2010, 05:35 AM
mayfieldk, I truly believe my signature line--that the only thing two horsepeople ever agree on is that the third one is wrong, so I'm sure you'll get responses that think I'm completely wrong, but some of my horses and I love Waterfords. I have one horse who went in one for a year and then transitioned to a fat french-link snaffle, and another one who is a "long-term user." He is doing lower level dressage and hacking out, and he adores this bit. He belongs to my parents, who were told by a tack shop owner that it is a severe bit--so they keep trying to change him to something else. Every time they do, the horse is not happy, does not go as well, etc. Put the Waterford back on, and his ears are up, he goes beautifully, etc. I hate that he can't show in it, but he's not showing at the moment anyway, so it's not really relevant.

I think the point that we tend to forget with bits is that with the exception of some torture devices, BITS are not harsh, HANDS are harsh. A snaffle being yanked is a lot more severe to the horse than a corkscrew being used softly. Nothing drives me more insane than seeing someone bragging that their horse goes in a plain snaffle, then yanking its face off to stop.

For me, I want each of my horses happy in the bridle, going forward, reaching for the bit, and responsive to aids. I get that from the Waterford with most of the horses I try it on, and that's good enough for me.

pluvinel
Mar. 15, 2010, 06:17 AM
The belief that some people have that the waterford is a harsh bit seems to be like one of those old wives tales that keeps getting perpetuated, told and retold, by people who have never actually used one on a horse.

Based on the responses here on this thread, the horses are saying that they like the waterford. And the horses' opinions are the only opinion that count.

My experience has been the same as pookah and mayfieldk. The horse likes the waterford. Put in another mouthpiece and he sucks back. Put the waterford on and he is willing to take contact.

Pookah
Mar. 15, 2010, 07:13 AM
Oops, I just realized that I don't have a signature line anymore :-). But I still think it's true--the only thing two horsepeople will ever agree on is that the third is wrong (especially on COTH :-)).

Sandy M
Mar. 15, 2010, 10:56 AM
Well, there must be a variety of Waterfords, because I can understand that one that is just "smooth balls" would be no worse than a roller bit, but the one that was put on the horse loaned to me for a trail ride had little pointy projections - it was NOT just smooth balls. So like the discussion of a Dr. Bristol, there must be more than one type of bit out there referred to as a "Waterford."

My understanding of a Dr. Bristol by the way, is that a French link (usually figure-eightish in shape) lies in the same plane as the cannons, of the bit, but in a Dr. Bristol, the plate is rectangular and at a very slight angle, so that when pressure is put on, it does push more into the tongue. However, most Dr. Bristols I've seen, the plate has rounded edges and while it is obviously "stronger" than the varieties of French mouth snaffles, I would hardly say that it "cuts into" a horse's tongue the way a twisted wire, double twisted wire or those triangular snaffles do.

Haven't used a Dr. Bristol for ages. Used one for a while on a huge, strong-minded event horse for cross-country only, and a french snaffle for dressage and stadium, but he ended up going cross-country in the same bit I used for dressage once he realized I wasn't going to try to throttle him down the way his previous, timid rider had.

Thoroughbred1201
Mar. 16, 2010, 03:23 PM
BITS are not harsh, HANDS are harsh. A snaffle being yanked is a lot more severe to the horse than a corkscrew being used softly. Nothing drives me more insane than seeing someone bragging that their horse goes in a plain snaffle, then yanking its face off to stop.

You said it. The hardest mouthed horses that I've ever ridden have been the animals that ONLY went in the fattest snaffle known to man. A dressage horse need not have 50 pounds in the hand to be on the bit. Bits are tools only in the hands that ride.

The first time I rode with a double bridle? I was scared to death to even touch the reins!

TrotTrotPumpkn
Mar. 16, 2010, 03:36 PM
I can understand why the dressage gods don't want a waterford as a legal bit because they are looking for a different type of contact. But I don't think it is because the bit is "harsh." I could be wrong.

I'm not sure that I'm convinced there is more than one type of Waterford, (per the Bristol sidebar) at least for the mouthpiece part. Yes there are different cheek pieces. Sandy, I think they just called the bit they gave you a waterford because it sounds better than evil razor ball bit ;)

Kind of a fun article. And fyi, the horse I was talking about that I used the waterford on as a transition bit WAS a strong horse. From Horse and Hound:

Why use a Waterford bit?
H&H explains the benefits of using a Waterford bit, which is a popular choice in eventing, hunting and show jumping

What is a Waterford?

The Waterford snaffle looks like a line of ball-and-chain link. It usually comes with plain loose snaffle rings although you can also buy Waterfords with full cheeks or gag-type rings.

It is a flexible bit that moulds round the horse's mouth, creating an even pressure. It is moveable in all directions and horses find it difficult to lean or take hold of it, giving the rider good levels of control.

Martyn Welsh, bitting expert at Equiport, adds: "Strong horses seem to accept the Waterford rather than a Pelham or curb-type bit as its action is broken when the horse goes to set its jaw. The bit is very loose in the horse's mouth so they seem to mouth more with this bit."

Who uses it?

Fiona Jonason, who is based with leading eventer Polly Stockton in Cheshire, is currently using a Waterford on her advanced ride Zinzan Tiger. Fiona initially rode Zinzan Tiger in a Waterford when he was a seven-year-old, before switching to a snaffle with a lozenge last year, but has now returned to using a Waterford.

"I did ride Zinzan Tiger in the Waterford last year, but only for schooling at home, as he can get quite strong," explains Fiona. "Through the winter, I've been riding him in a Waterford and because he's been jumping so well in it, I decided to leave it in for competition.

"The Waterford suits him because he's prone to cocking his jaw, but this bit stops him latching on to it."

Anyone else?

Other riders who have been spotted using a Waterford include show jumpers Liz Edgar and Nick Skelton.

Where can I buy one?

At any leading saddlers — prices start from as low as £12. Equiport has a range of Waterfords and they cost from £55-£90. Contact (tel: 01606 351685) www.equiport.co.uk
This feature was first published in Horse & Hound (5 April, '06)

Sandy M
Mar. 17, 2010, 02:21 PM
Not for use as a dressage bit, but another bit that seems to help stop/overcome horses that brace their jaws and/ opr pull (thinking jumpers, eventers, etc.) is the McGennis (McGuinness?). I knew of one horse that was quite a puller that relaxed in this bit for cross-country. It has smooth edges, but is squareish with rollers set not AROUND the cannons, but crossways within them. If the horse sets its jaw or "grabs" the bit, a sideways pull makes it difficult for him to continue to grab/set because of the rollers.

Ibex
Mar. 17, 2010, 02:53 PM
The genuine bits are still available. They are the same.

I find it weird that they're legal in the states. They're specifically called out as ILlegal in the Canadian rules.

http://www.equinecanada.ca/images/stories/2010_Rules/English/18jan10/section_e_2010_changes_18jan10-e.pdf

Page 29.

pluvinel
Mar. 17, 2010, 09:36 PM
I find it weird that they're legal in the states. They're specifically called out as ILlegal in the Canadian rules.

http://www.equinecanada.ca/images/stories/2010_Rules/English/18jan10/section_e_2010_changes_18jan10-e.pdf

Page 29.
Waterford mouthpieces (regardless of whether they are loose ring, full cheek, D, or egg-butt) are NOT legal for competition in the US.

Hampton Bay
Mar. 17, 2010, 10:26 PM
Waterford mouthpieces (regardless of whether they are loose ring, full cheek, D, or egg-butt) are NOT legal for competition in the US.

The poster was saying that Dr.Bristol's are not legal for competition in Canada. The whole point of this thread was that Waterfords are not legal in the US.

ESG
Mar. 18, 2010, 11:31 AM
The Waterford is a chain bit

Inaccurate. The Waterford is made up of linked "beads" or "balls", not chain.


it discourages contact, so not what dressage is about.

It does not discourage contact; it does not allow legitimate contact, since the bit is constantly moving because of all the links. You are quite correct, however, in that contact is a large part of what dressage is about.



The mixed metals, and reactions occuring between the two metals is the problem with a bit containing copper I think. Copper is too soft to make entire bits out of, but I don't think there is a problem if the mouth and the rings are made of different materials.

Mixed metals used to be illegal for bits used in USDF competitions. That rule has been repealed. As long as the transition from metal to metal is smooth, the bit is legal if its shape meets the standards of those bits photographed on the relevant USEF pages.

raff
Mar. 18, 2010, 02:11 PM
THIS says it is a chain. Linked 'beads' or 'balls'=a chain

a series of things depending on each other as if linked together; "the chain of command"; "a complicated concatenation of circumstances"
(chemistry) a series of linked atoms (generally in an organic molecule)
a series of (usually metal) rings or links fitted into one another to make a flexible ligament
(business) a number of similar establishments (stores or restaurants or banks or hotels or theaters) under one ownership
anything that acts as a restraint
a unit of length
British biochemist (born in Germany) who isolated and purified penicillin, which had been discovered in 1928 by Sir Alexander Fleming (1906-1979)
range: a series of hills or mountains; "the valley was between two ranges of hills"; "the plains lay just beyond the mountain range"
connect or arrange into a chain by linking
a linked or connected series of objects; "a chain of daisies"
fasten or secure with chains; "Chain the chairs together"
a necklace made by a stringing objects together; "a string of beads"; "a strand of pearls";

ESG
Mar. 18, 2010, 06:09 PM
Fine - it's a chain of balls. Or beads. But it isn't a chain in the sense of a bicycle or pulling chain.

Still not dressage legal (or useful, for that matter), no matter what you call it. :D

thatsnotme
Mar. 18, 2010, 06:23 PM
I have a waterford and use it when my dressage horse is doing her 2nd job-mounted patrol. I want all her tack completely different. There is never a request to be on the bit. There are times when we need to move quickly, stop quickly and do things with a quick reaction while my hands are somewhat busy and this is a great bit. It's big and she plays with it, but she's quick to respond and I can do things with 1 hand when needed without pinching her mouth. Its a great loose rein bit. I also used to use it xcountry on 2 different horses-again, longer reins, not constant contact, but quick response.

kinnip
Mar. 18, 2010, 06:46 PM
Quite a few folks use the Waterford bit for dressage and like it. There was a very lengthy discussion about it on the Classical Dressage Discussion Forum on Yahoo. J.P. Giacomini claimed that Nuno Oliviera used them frequently.
There are two mouthpieces available, one that is cheap with sharp edges and one that is smooth.

Gry2Yng
Mar. 18, 2010, 10:20 PM
If you have never used a waterford bit, you probably don't have any business commenting on how harsh they are.

A well made waterford is a lovely bit and it can be quite expensive to find one that doesn't have any sharp edges or has a unique cheek piece. Poorly made bits are razors regardless of type. I have d-ring, loose ring and several types of gags with a waterford mouth piece.

I have had several horses that jump well in the waterford. It corrected one that liked to curl and run, as well. It is also a nice transition bit for horses that have had their mouth abused. They can learn to trust again and hopefully start to accept a contact. Again, I have found it useful on horses that drop behind the contact or take a "false" frame but won't touch the bit.

I don't think it should be legal for dressage. The contact you achieve doesn't really result in throughness, IMHO. But it starts you on the path to acceptance. Of course I have no idea why the USEF does anything, so I can't comment as to why it is an illegal bit.

ESG
Mar. 19, 2010, 10:56 AM
Quite a few folks use the Waterford bit for dressage and like it.

They must not know much about dressage, then. Dressage requires contact, and the Waterford discourages it.


There was a very lengthy discussion about it on the Classical Dressage Discussion Forum on Yahoo. J.P. Giacomini claimed that Nuno Oliviera used them frequently.

J.P. Giacomini has made many claims that don't have any basis in truth, and IMO, this is probably one of them.


There are two mouthpieces available, one that is cheap with sharp edges and one that is smooth.

I've never seen a Waterford with sharp edges. Will someone please post a picture?

ESG
Mar. 19, 2010, 10:58 AM
If you have never used a waterford bit, you probably don't have any business commenting on how harsh they are.

A well made waterford is a lovely bit and it can be quite expensive to find one that doesn't have any sharp edges or has a unique cheek piece. Poorly made bits are razors regardless of type. I have d-ring, loose ring and several types of gags with a waterford mouth piece.

I have had several horses that jump well in the waterford. It corrected one that liked to curl and run, as well. It is also a nice transition bit for horses that have had their mouth abused. They can learn to trust again and hopefully start to accept a contact. Again, I have found it useful on horses that drop behind the contact or take a "false" frame but won't touch the bit.

I don't think it should be legal for dressage. The contact you achieve doesn't really result in throughness, IMHO. But it starts you on the path to acceptance. Of course I have no idea why the USEF does anything, so I can't comment as to why it is an illegal bit.

This, exactly, in its entirety. :yes:

I have several Waterfords, and think they're wonderful bits. But their design and function makes them dressage-unfriendly. Not a criticism of the bit at all, since they perform a much-needed function. But their place is not in the dressage ring, or in the hands of a dressage trainer who thinks they're an appropriate everyday training bit.

JMO. :cool:

Sandy M
Mar. 19, 2010, 03:53 PM
I've never seen a Waterford with sharp edges. Will someone please post a picture?


Since it's not a bit I own, just one that was already on a horse I was given to ride, I don't have any pictures. The "waterford" definitely had sharp edges (man, it looked like a miniature of some sort of medieval weapon you might have on a ax-haft or the end of a chain). I didn't realize this, of course, until later in the ride, since the horse was given to me already bridled and saddled. I just checked the girth and got on. The woman who owned the horse had money to burn, and all her tack was of excellent quality. I doubt this was a "cheap" bit and therefore roughly finished. It was used purposely (she was scared of the horse - so nice she gave it to me to ride!!!).

So, I may be wrong in CALLING in a Waterford, but that's what she called it when I asked her about it after the ride. Whatever, it would seem that there is a "nasty" type of waterford (or whatever that particular bit may be) out there, even if that's not what most people are using. The horse tried to cowkick me when I was giving her an after-ride shower, too. Not an occasion I remember fondly, but it's one reason I do remember that bizarre bit.

ESG
Mar. 19, 2010, 08:39 PM
Sharp edges, where? NOT trying to snipe or anything, just genuinely curious. I've never seen a ball/bead with sharp edges, so am intrigued.

If you don't mind, what sort of cheeks did this bit have? And did the mouthpiece look something like this one?

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/1409155282075084772HswviY

Sandy M
Mar. 20, 2010, 01:10 AM
Sharp edges, where? NOT trying to snipe or anything, just genuinely curious. I've never seen a ball/bead with sharp edges, so am intrigued.

If you don't mind, what sort of cheeks did this bit have? And did the mouthpiece look something like this one?

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/photo/1409155282075084772HswviY

I'm trying to remember the cheeks. As best I can remember, I think it was a full cheek of some kind. (This was at least 7 years ago). The mouth piece looked like the one in the picture EXCEPT there were two little "wings" on each ball. WHile the edges were smooth, not sharp, they were definitely "pointy."

ESG
Mar. 20, 2010, 10:22 AM
Ugh - you're right; sounds more like a medieval torture device than a bit. Probably feels like one to the poor horse, too. :dead:

Well, if anyone can locate a photo of this killer bit, I'd love to see it.

Gry2Yng
Mar. 20, 2010, 10:35 AM
I wonder if it was custom. 10 years ago a waterford three ring was pretty much a custom order. You can find them off the shelf now. I have never seen anything like what PP is describing.

ESG
Mar. 20, 2010, 10:41 AM
I'll bet you're right. I can't imagine that being an "off the shelf" bit. I can tell you I've never seen one, and I've been in tack shops all over the country, and several outside it. :yes:

Sandy M
Mar. 20, 2010, 08:13 PM
Lemme tell, you when I unbridled that horse, noticed the calluses on the corners of her mouth, and then saw the mouthpiece, I was horrified. Talk about evidence that horses "pull against pain." Yikes! I think the speculation that it might have been custom is probably accurate.

SonnysMom
Apr. 3, 2010, 11:20 PM
Here is one labeled as a waterford that is not the smooth balls I am used to seeing. Sandy M is this similar to what was in that horses mouth?
http://www.horse-directory.co.uk/bitstore.htm

Sandy M
Apr. 4, 2010, 01:35 AM
Here is one labeled as a waterford that is not the smooth balls I am used to seeing. Sandy M is this similar to what was in that horses mouth?
http://www.neueschulebits.com/cgi-bin/sh000001.pl?REFPAGE=http://www.neueschulebits.com/acatalog/search.html&WD=waterford&PN=Full_Cheek.html%23a8029FC#a8029FC


Sorry. That link wouldn't open for me.

SonnysMom
Apr. 4, 2010, 02:08 PM
Try this page you will need to scroll down.
http://www.horse-directory.co.uk/bitstore.htm

Sandy M
Apr. 4, 2010, 07:12 PM
Try this page you will need to scroll down.
http://www.horse-directory.co.uk/bitstore.htm

Hard to tell from those pics, but I don't think so. It was more of the close-linked chain of balls as in a standard Waterford, but each ball had little "wings" on it, it didn't have the non-ball links between like the bits picture on that site.

pluvinel
Apr. 4, 2010, 08:14 PM
Hard to tell from those pics, but I don't think so. It was more of the close-linked chain of balls as in a standard Waterford, but each ball had little "wings" on it, it didn't have the non-ball links between like the bits picture on that site.

Although called a waterford, the bit on that link:
(http://www.horse-directory.co.uk/bitstore.htm)
is different than the bit on this web site:
http://www.bitofbritain.com/Full_Cheek_Waterford_Bit_p/764.htm

Perhaps people are using the term waterford rather "loosely"????

Gry2Yng
Apr. 5, 2010, 09:41 AM
I agree, I would probably pass on the bits on bitstore, but I would need to hold them. They look like they may be good quality, just a different "shape". The BofB waterford is what I think of.

Bronte
Apr. 5, 2010, 12:03 PM
Yes it is. I've used one for 10 years.
http://www.usef.org//documents/ruleBook/2009/08-DR.pdf
PAGE 22.

There is no Dr B in those illustrations. :no: