# What kind of bit for Hunter/Jumper



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

I have a thread at the top of this section that may help you; I can link to it when I'm on my laptop 
I would suggest a snaffle for sure as you're both learning, so you want a bit that isn't harsh in case you catch him at all.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dlljda (Sep 13, 2011)

I did see your guide, I'm just not sure which bit would be appropriate for him given what he's used to, and this "new job" any suggestions would be great! Thanks!


----------



## JustDressageIt (Oct 4, 2007)

I'd personally try a D-ring or Eggbutt french link.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

From what I see D-ring is really big in h/j world around here. Although personally I like look and feel of the eggbutt more (it's used too quite a bit).


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

JustDressageIt said:


> I'd personally try a D-ring or Eggbutt french link.


I have to agree with this and JDI's reasoning behind it.


Hunters and jumpers are two different things. What bit you use in jumpers does not matter very much (whatever works best for the horse). Hunters is judged so the appearance of your bit does matter.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Alwaysbehind said:


> Hunters is judged so the appearance of your bit does matter.


What do you mean? How shiny the bit is? Or loose rings are considered to be ugly? I know D-ring is preferred, but I always though it's a "fashion" at the moment.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

It means just what it says.

The appearance of the bit matters.

Traditional appearances. 

If you go in the hunter ring with a big elevator bit you are not going to place well.



My point really is that hunter and jumper are not interchangeable things. What goes for one frequently does not go for the other.

Call it fashion if you like, it is what it is.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

There's some rhyme and reason to it, just as there's rhyme and reason behind legal bits in dressage. 

Because of the expectation of a hunter's manners and way of going, the preferred bit is a snaffle. Pelhams are allowed, but should be ridden with the curb rein loose, and an appropriate light, passive, huntery contact. And some horsepeople (including me) will be sceptical of a horse showing on the flat in a pelham, under the logic that if your horse needs that much bit to show in a flat class, he probably doesn't truly have hunter manners and way of going. Much more acceptable to show in the pelham over fences.

No elevator or leverage bit is allowed other than the pelham. 

After that, fashion does come into play. The ginormous D-rings are a fad right now, because someone liked the look of them; however a full cheek or egg butt snaffle is still completely appropriate. You can ride in a loose ring; but it's just not as common as a D-ring or full cheek. Also, what makes a loose ring so good for dressage (the ability to move the bit in the horses mouth and encourage the horse to mouth and chew the bit) is not an advantage for a hunter, whose supposed to quietly accept passive contact without mouthing or chewing. 

Now, to the OP's question - a horse that doesn't like a loose ring and tosses their head and fusses may do better in a double jointed snaffle like a french link or Dr. Bristol that conforms to the shape of their palate better. Since he's not fussy in a ported bit, I'm guessing that this is the case. The type of cheekpiece on the bit doesn't really matter at the momemt, you want to find a mouthpiece he's comfortable with and will accept contact with.

Good luck, and please post some photos of your progress.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Alwaysbehind said:


> It means just what it says.
> 
> The appearance of the bit matters.
> 
> ...


Very weird I have to say! I always thought the horse's movement is what is judged in hunters. But whatever I guess - I'm not going to show hunters anyway.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

maura said:


> Because of the expectation of a hunter's manners and way of going, the preferred bit is a snaffle. Pelhams are allowed, but should be ridden with the curb rein loose, and an appropriate light, passive, huntery contact. And some horsepeople (including me) will be sceptical of a horse showing on the flat in a pelham, under the logic that if your horse needs that much bit to show in a flat class, he probably doesn't truly have hunter manners and way of going. Much more acceptable to show in the pelham over fences.


Maura, I understand that type of the bit may influence the score. I don't see the need for more advanced (or in some instances more harsh) bit in 1st place if it's not needed (and especially if it's just a shortcut). True in dressage as well. But will you be really placed lower if you use loose ring vs D-ring? That just doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Maura explained it very well. 

It is the horses movement and way of going. If it appears the horse can not go well enough to go around quietly in a simple bit it counts against them. It really is that simple.


ETA (you posted while I was typing). 
I am betting if you have a perfect round with a loose ring you will place well. If you have a perfect round in a loose ring and the horse has lots of mouth chomping, etc you will place lower and since a loose ring tends to encourage the horse to move their mouth you might be taking away points by your bit choice.


I have not been to a rate hunter show in a few years, but a pelham used to be 'the bit' in the EQ OF ring. Not that whatever bit was in the mouth mattered because the curb rein had almost no contact.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

As AB says. "Traditional" tack is what judges want to see. Hunters is about the horse, but tradition is what is required. Anything deemed "untraditional" like coat color, breeches color/style, bit, bridle, saddle pads can all have a detrimental effect to the judges. Sad, but true. For instance, standing martingales are needed for very few horses and are really corrective devices for bad bahavior. Horses who "need" one should be docked, in the real world. However, they have become accepted and are now a fashion statement. To be without one now looks "untraditional".

Things slowly change in the hunter ring all the time. Take helmets, for example. I never thought I would see anything but velvet helmets. Now, modern "untraditional" helmets are all the rage.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Thanks for explaining, folks! Although I have to say I'm appalled...


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Why are you appalled? I really do not get what there is to be appalled about.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

Alwaysbehind said:


> Why are you appalled? I really do not get what there is to be appalled about.


Because I do understand to judge horse/rider by how they move/ride (and I see your point about the horse _chomping _on loose rings). But I don't understand taking off points/judging just because "it's not a fashion" or "out of (at the moment) standard". Now, yes, certain things ARE traditional (don't know about hunters, but you don't use bright-colored pad in dressage show). But martingale example does sound strange to me. Or I was told couple times in my local hunter barn that D-rings is the only way to go (and no loose ring, or even eggbutt). Some horses just do better in those bits, so why to limit yourself? But then I don't do hunters (and never will probably).


----------



## notfartofall (Sep 8, 2011)

kitten_Val said:


> What do you mean? How shiny the bit is? Or loose rings are considered to be ugly? I know D-ring is preferred, but I always though it's a "fashion" at the moment.


If you do a hunter class at a show you must have a snaffle bit in for top marks, my judge said i would have placed first if i could ride my mare in a snaffle (shes a wee bit strong lol). so yes if you can ride him in a snaffle try to stick to it xx


----------



## notfartofall (Sep 8, 2011)

Rider turnout for Ridden Hunter,Intermediate show hunter type, Riding horse , Riding club horse and Show cob classes

Rider
• Beige, cream breeches, no white jods or breeches, long black boots with straight tops and garter straps.
• Shirt and tie and tie pin. Shirt colour should be cream or pale blue. No white shirts.
• Tweed jacket. Without velvet collar..
• Bowler or black hat for men, navy velvet for women ,no black hats for women. 
• Brown gloves, brown leather or malacca cane.
• Women should wear hair in a hairnet if long enough., a small bun is very neat and tidy for long hair. 
• Spurs should be worn, but dummy spurs are acceptable. No spurs in intermediates.

Horse turnout for Ridden Hunter, Riding Horse and Show cob classes

Hunters and Intermediate Show Hunter.
• A brown Double or pelham for open classes, snaffles for novices, although you will not see snaffles in novice class` at affiliated level. If a rugby pelham is used, then a sliphead improves the look a lot. Plain browband and noseband.
• A brown straight cut or working hunter saddle will show off the horse's shoulders and movement, so is preferable to a GP.Discreet numnah or none at all . Leather girth,.
• Quartermarks are allowed for hunters . The hunter should be plaited, tail pulled and banged, whiskers , facial hair , inside ears and heels trimmed.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

Some horses go better in a big fat elevator bit too. Should they not get marked differently?


Some people use a martingale because they find the neck strap makes a line that helps define the horse (or so that is what I have been told).

I see nothing wrong with a standing martingale that is set so long it truly does nothing if the horse is not about to hit you in the face with their head (and then it is doing what it should be doing). It is a no harm no foul item. 


It sounds like the trainer you are talking about has bee up their bonnet to an extreme. I showed (my appy even) in a full cheek for years, when Big Ds were coming and full cheeks were for sure on their way out and it never seemed to affect my placing. I placed where I deserved to.

I would guess a well fitted egg butt would do the same. 

Hunters are not the only people who have bit 'rules'. Shrug.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

AB, the trainer is very well known trainer in area with students showing quite big. And I'm selling for what I bought it for. No more, no less. As I already said I do NOT do hunters and don't plan to. If the points will depend on rings only we are talking about (and not mouthpiece itself or configuration of the bit), then I again find it to be strange. And while some horses may need martingale I don't see the point of using it on every horse whether it's long or short. If some people use something just because "it's fashion" without putting any thinking into it - I don't find it to be extremely bright in _any _discipline. But that's just me.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

These are among the reasons I don't show hunters. I have fundamental differences with their philosophy. For instance....they decide a line MUST be done in four strides. No matter what. If you have a cob with a short stride, you still MUST do it in four strides even though the horse would be perfect doing it in five. No, you have to all but gallop the line to get the four. If you have a 17.2 horse with a huge stride that could perfectly do the line in three strides...nope, you must haul him in and do four...no matter what. 

I believe the true evaluation of a hunter should be does the horse move well, with purpose,with regular tempo and get to the jump in stride (regardless of the number of strides) and jump well? THAT should be how to judge a hunter. 

That is why I have stayed with eventing and jumpers. You are allowed to do what you NEED to do to perform the jumps safely.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Hey, hey, hey! 

Everybody stop hatin' on the hunters!

Any discipline that's judged subjectively has the same sort of conventions. 

And I want to clarify - you don't get "marked down" for the wrong sort of bit; there's no box on the judge's card for inappropriate tack, any more than there is on the score sheet for a dressage test. 

Learning about what's expected and conventional in a discipline is about subjective impression. If you ride down the center line for your dressage test in hunter clothing and tack, including a D ring snaffle and a jumping length stirrup leather, you create the impression for the judge that you don't belong there, or aren't committed to the discipline or don't understand the conventions. There is absolutely no reason why you can't ride an excellent training level test in hunter tack; you can, but the judge's subjective impression of you will start out lower, and you'll have to bring it back up with an extraordinary test. 

Same with the hunter ring - go in in white breeches, a loose ring snaffle and a long stirrup, you create that impression in the judge's mind that you don't belong there and don't understand the requirements of the sport. You might redeem that impression with a spectacular trip, but it's hard. 

If it's *just* the matter of the bit, I can't imagine that will make enough of an impression to really detract from a good performance. 

However, if it was me competing, I would would everything going in my favor going into the ring before the judge got her first look.


----------



## Alwaysbehind (Jul 10, 2009)

GREAT post Maura!!!!!




Allison Finch said:


> These are among the reasons I don't show hunters. I have fundamental differences with their philosophy. For instance....they decide a line MUST be done in four strides. No matter what. If you have a cob with a short stride, you still MUST do it in four strides even though the horse would be perfect doing it in five. No, you have to all but gallop the line to get the four. If you have a 17.2 horse with a huge stride that could perfectly do the line in three strides...nope, you must haul him in and do four...no matter what.


I do not disagree with this thought pattern.

I believe the need to 'make the strides' has evolved. The need for a good ground covering stride that looks relaxed and comfortable has been turned into the need for all horses to have a 12' stride.
I think the number was assigned to make it a more known answer. The same way the QH world now describes exactly where the horse's head should be in relation to the withers, etc.
This gets rid of the question that might come up when someone thinks relaxed means it is OK for their horse to get seven strides in what is a four stride line.

PS, a horse running to get four strides will not place well. Running does not equal relaxed. A horse being yanked and pulled on to get four strides will not place well either. 
The horses in your example might not be well suited for the hunter ring.


----------



## kitten_Val (Apr 25, 2007)

maura, noone said about "hatin hunters" here. I totally agree that scores in any discipline ARE subjective. Always. Because the judge is a human. So if you ride a nice test, but your horse has a mud patch on its butt, there is a good possibility the judge still WILL find something to mark you down. And IMHO that will be well-deserved in this particular case. 

However again marking down even subjectively just because particular tack is "not in fashion at the moment" is not right. From what I remember reading while back eggbutt was a big thing in hunters, then changed by D-ring. They work exactly the same, so if subjectively you'll be marked down (as I was told by the trainer) it's plain wrong. And if brown saddle in dressage (which is "not in fashion anymore") will mark you down - that''s not right either.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Yup, but it is what it is. And I'm sure it's the same in any other subjectively judged discipline. So when you get to the point where it makes you crazy; that's when you move to a (more) objectively based discipline like jumpers, eventing or cutting or team penning. Complaining that it isn't fair or shouldn't be that way is silly; there's no way to remove human bias from the process. 

Please note that my avatar photo is from an event, and most of my other photos are from eventing or jumper shows. 

I've also noticed that there is a connection between obssessive attention to detail in turnout and obssessive attention to detail in training. Someone who doesn't bother to understand the conventions of the discipline or who has indifferent turnout is often the rider that fails to go completely into the corners or executes a late change.


----------



## maura (Nov 21, 2009)

Sorry for the double post. 

Allison, the cobs or the under 15.2s that have to gallop to get the distances don't bother me as much (I don't mind pinning a horse that has to gallop to get the distances if everything else is there) as the enormous warmbloods that crawl down the lines to fit the correct striding. 

The type of horse that shows in the hunters has changed dramatically over the years; but the length of stride used to calculate distance hasn't. A hunter should be* forward;* relaxed and forward would be ideal, but* forward* should be paramount. So when I see a 17H + warmblood crawling down the lines in a 4 beat canter and having to speed up in the corners to be able to change leads, I cringe. That's not what a hunter is supposed to look like. And when I see a sale ad for a horse that proudly proclaims "Can walk the lines!" I also cringe. 

The emphasis on distances has created a whole sub class of horses between 14.2 - 15.1 that can only do local shows; but I think the big horses cramping their natural stride is a bigger perversion of what a hunter is supposed to be. 

/end rant. Sorry.


----------

