Talk:Ring bit

use today

The article specifies use today in QH racing in New Mexico, but its use may be more extensive than that. --Una Smith (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Example

Here is a photo of one. It is a snaffle plus a mouth ring. It does not provide a pronounced lever effect. --Una Smith (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The image clearly gives it a leverage effect. Maybe not the same kind of leverage as a curb, but an artificial enhancement of a rider's hand--that's why they are legal on racehorses, where anything goes that can stop the critter, but are illegal in the show ring. Montanabw^(talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Montanabw, please explain exactly how this bit has a lever action. --Una Smith (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The bit pictured is known as a half Spoon Dexter (ring) lugging bit. See: [1] They are commonly used on racehorses that may "lug" in order that the mouth piece is not pulled through the mouth if the horse does so. There is also the seldom seen yearling "ring bit" which is a true ring bit in every sense of the word. It is only used for leading horses, often Tbs. Cgoodwin (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know it as one of several variants of ring bit (not to be confused with bit ring). But my request remains: please explain how the geometry provides a lever action. --Una Smith (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a "lever," I am not a physics expert. But it is not a "direct action" bit like a snaffle, it is a very powerful piece of equipment used on rank horses and should not be classes as a direct action bit. That's my point. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, your source material on western use is taken out of context, which is here: "More than merely an occasional man employed a metal ring which fastened at the top of the port or near the summit of the spade according as to which was present and passing through the horse's mouth surrounded the lower jaw. This ring more common in the Southwest than in the Northwest gradually tended to disappear from both these sections but remained in general use in Mexico The presence of this ring gave to the bit despite any other attachment the latter might have the generic name of ring bit."

That is hardly "widespread use." I have edited the article to reflect what the source actually said. Montanabw^(talk) 23:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I reject Montanabw's ad hominem accusation that I used the source out of context. The article before Montanabw's first edit had "widespread among cowboys in western North America". As this source says, the ring bit was known in the southwest and northwest; that is widespread in North America. Also, although widespread does not necessarily mean common, in my book "more than merely an occasional man" does mean common. --Una Smith (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Widespread" suggests common use, not broad geographical distribution. The fact that a few rusty ring bits got dug out of someone's barn in the Pacific Northwest doesn't mean that an essentially Mexican design was "widespread." This was NOT a common cowboy bit, it was a very cruel and harsh bit, and as such would pop up in various places, but would horrify any true vaquero or horseman worthy of the name. You have read far more into the source than was said. Stick to the source. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"Widespread although not common"; better? Where did you get "essentially Mexican"? Rollins (our source) does not say that. --Una Smith (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Read the quote. "...remained in general use in Mexico." And the reference only mentions the spade. I'm going to rework this to more precisely mirror what is said. It is an insult to the buckaroo tradition to imply that cowboys of the pacific northwest made routine use of such a device. Yes, it was there, it didn't stay. The spade stayed, it's still there, it is a precise and delicate tool that, in the hands of an expert on an already-well-trained horse, can deliver very refined commands. Have you ever seen a spade? Here is a spade bit. Add a ring to a spade, putting metal at the horse's jaw and the leverage that goes along with it. THAT was a very severe bit, read down the page of Rollins, he makes it clear these bits were intended to be harsh. (the modern ring bit with snaffle is not nearly as severe, and a non-ring spade is also not as severe, both are still used today for specialized purposes). The web site with the photo describes modern use, which is intended to be generally humane. Montanabw^(talk) 09:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Snaffle good, ring bit evil

The unstated theme of "snaffle good, other bits evil" needs examination. Snaffle devotees tend to forget that curb bits, unlike snaffles, are meant to be used with a draped rein. A "severe" bit may have a mechanical advantage of 2 or 3 or 4, but mechanical advantage is a multiple of whatever force (tension) the rider applies. 4 times 1 ounce is 4 ounces; 1 (mechanical advantage of a "direct action bit") times 4 pounds ("moderate contact") is 16 times more severe. And let's not forget the nutcracker effect of jointed snaffles, and the noseband set to hold the mouth closed. --Una Smith (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Any bit can be used in an abusive fashion. And there is no "unstated theme" here. The basic snaffle gives simpler commands that a green horse can more easily understand; a curb bit is a more nuanced and complex system, used properly, it is used to obtain more refined results. Trainers don't start young, green horses in curb bits. Simple as that. Montanabw^(talk) 02:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Trainers don't start horses in curb bits, but that does not prove curb bits are "harsher" than snaffle bits. In fact, in my experience the opposite is true, which is why most race horses are run in snaffle bits. Back to ring bits. Image:Galopprennen Guedingen.jpg shows two horses racing, one in a "mild" snaffle and one in a "cruel" ring bit. They have exactly the same grimmaces on their faces, mostly because the snaffle bit is pulling their lips back. See? If ring bits are cruel, snaffles are equally cruel. --Una Smith (talk) 08:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This is OR again. And I am not using the term "cruel" here. Facial expression is irrelevant and proves nothing. Ring bits are more severe than a plain snaffle. "Severe" can be cruel sometimes, other times "Severe" may be appropriate, it all depends on their use. A direct pressure bit is used on racehorses because the riders take a very strong hold on them -- a curb used in that fashion would cause excruciating pain; the horse would go straight up. But I am also tired of arguing about this. Montanabw^(talk) 09:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)