[Wellspotted]

No disrespect intended, but the whole discipline rationalizes building rules around the most common denominator, rather than correctness or tradition. Makes for big classes, but that's a pretty sad goal.

I think you've just made a pretty profound point. Seriously. Maybe riders think that because that's what democracy does, dressage should be the same. Well, it isn't necessarily working well in government, or running a country, so why should it work well in dressage? You've got to have some standards.

[longride1]

It's the USA . That's the way dressage got started in the late 50's early 60's and it's still true that many many Intro and Training level riders don't have much real knowledge of dressage when they start showing. They take lessons to get better at showing, and only later discover that the show is not the thing. Being a beginner isn't abusing the rules.

The western dressage organizations are just dealing with a reality that dressage didn't have to cope with. How to win over people who have been taught that a horse must go straight into the bridle on a looped rein or go in a totally downhill frame and most of all have to have their horses in a curb by the time the animal is 5 years old. We don't want any of those things for western dressage horses, but if we insist that riders have to retrain before they can enter the ring, they'll never make the effort.

The standards are there. It's up to the judges. When I started out it was unusual for a beginner to make over 55% on a test. Now that same ride gets a 65% - 70%. If the judges are even more lenient for WD, which some seem to be, it's going to be hard for newbies to see what those standards are. But I think this is true across the board. Inflated scores aren't just for WD folks.

[Wellspotted]

I love the idea of western dressage and I think lots of good western trainers are already doing western dressage, but they just call it good horsemanship. For example, the guy who trained my current riding mule is a reining guy, but he did everything a good dressage trainer would have done with the same ultimate goal in mind - an equine that is light, flexible, capable of extending and collecting himself as required, and responsive.

Also, I am old. :-) I showed western pleasure back in the '60's. My mare was light, balanced, and worked off her hindquarters - "back-to-front" you might say if you were a dressage type. I switched to H/J and dabbled in dressage after that, so I never experienced the "peanut roller" phenomenon that so many people now associate with the WP horse. Thus, I don't see the concepts of western dressage as being new and radical so much as they represent a tentative return to an earlier era.

But, I don't love the idea of simply holding western dressage classes alongside regular dressage classes at regular dressage competitions. I don't believe western dressage ought to be just regular dressage with a western saddle. I think in order for it to be a viable discipline over the long term, it has to retain a sense of being unique and distinct from regular dressage.

I confess, though, that I don't have an good alternative suggestion to holding western dressage classes at regular dressage competitions, especially since western dressage is still in it's infancy and cannot yet sustain itself as a stand-alone entity.

You sound like you may be around my age. I grew up in the SE too and learned to ride what was then called "forward seat" but loved being a spectator at shows of any discipline because I just loved the horses, and my mother loved watching the shows. There were no peanut rollers in WP in the shows I saw in the 60s either, and when I saw my first peanut-rolling WP class 40-odd years later, I had NO IDEA what those horses were doing, or why!

I like what you say here about western dressage.

[NoSuchPerson]

Thanks, Wellspotted.

I had the same reaction you did the first time I ever saw a western pleasure class with horses' noses down around their knees as they troped along. In fact, I think I said, "What the ^%$# is wrong with those horses? :-)

[aktill]

The western dressage organizations are just dealing with a reality that dressage didn't have to cope with. How to win over people who have been taught that a horse must go straight into the bridle on a looped rein or go in a totally downhill frame and most of all have to have their horses in a curb by the time the animal is 5 years old. We don't want any of those things for western dressage horses, but if we insist that riders have to retrain before they can enter the ring, they'll never make the effort.

Blimey, I don't mean to pick, but you feel people shouldn't need to retrain themselves properly to the standards being evaluated before they go into the ring?

How fair is it then to the people who actually follow a training progression and have properly schooled horses?

I know we live in the age of "don't mess with anyone's self esteem", but showing isn't really just something to do in some people's minds. There are those who actually want to have their good work rewarded.

I have just as little sympathy as you on the age vs headgear issue, though. I think it's ridiculous that most western events limit what bitting you can use based on how old the horse is. Rather then earning the right to move from say a snaffle to a curb through training, the horse and rider simply have to successfully avoid dying to do so instead.

Go team.

In the vaquero traditions particularly, there's no shame in "stepping down" the equipment based on holes that are discovered, or even merely based on the job being done. Lots of guys I know talk about moving a bridle horses back into the two rein when they know the work will get quicker, or even back into one of the hackamores if the country they're working over is more likely to snag reins etc.

Likewise, if you move from one stage to the next (say bosal to bosalita) and the horse or rider struggle, there's no "shame" in revisiting earlier stages.

[longride1]

I do feel they must retrain to be successful. And please note I called for tighter judging. That means you can go in the ring, but your scores will reflect the weak spots in your training. I'm not saying give 70's to bad rides. I'm saying the opposite. Give 2s and 3s when deserved and 8s when deserved and let people figure out that there's something missing when they get 50's and correctly trained horses get 70s. I am disturbed by seeing rides with no positioning, much less bend, get over 70% at Primary 3. If someone wants to go in the ring and try a test by all means let them do it. But they should see serious deductions if using a curb two handed causes their horse to raise it's head and go hollow even for a stride. They should be able to figure out from the comments that two handed for bend with a shank bit isn't really working for them.

[Melelio]

No one is talking about teaching lateral flexion on a curb. Most western trainers start with a snaffle and work to the horse wearing a curb. There are plenty of curb type bits with rotating mouthpieces (the Myler type bits) that allow one side of the mouth to be affected.

All my shanked bits are flexible in the middle and easily can be used two handed. Of course, they are no longer 'curb' bits at that, even though my favorite does have a medium port. It's just hinged IN that port. Still, I don't consider it a true curb.

I haven't looked yet, but aren't there bitting rules for this as in any other sport?