# Overcheck bit



## Mominis (May 6, 2011)

I am looking for suggestions for a super mild bit for Shake's first overcheck bit. Does anyone have any thoughts? I thought the leather one in the Ozark Mtn catalog looked really mild, but a friend of mine told the that those leather bits are not worth a lick. Would love to hear your opinions.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (May 6, 2011)

*makes icky puckered face like she tasted something sour*

Overchecks. Eww!










Seriously, I have no experience with the PROPER use of them, as I know you'll be doing, since the only time I see them in play seems to be with horses who aren't at all built to be able to hold that sort of frame. I'll be interested in the educated replies.

Leia


----------



## Molly's Run Minis (May 6, 2011)

....do you need the overcheck?

honestly, dont mean to nag or be annoying, but i am hugely against overchecks for many reasons, a few being they can create back problems and force the horse to hold its head uncomftorably and the horse can really hurt its mouth and it gives the horse a tense, uncomftorable, 'i'm being gagged' look. you can acheive just as nice a headset with a sidecheck, the sidecheck has more give and wont gag the horse. my stepdad has a buddy whos draft horse was ruined by an overcheck. that poor horse is so stiff in the neck and back its sad. he walkes like he's cripple. when he saw a chiropractor the guy said the muscles in his back were really sore and his neck muscles were in horrible shape. once he was done that horse was so relaxed and happy he looked like he was drugged





IMO, an overcheck is a cruelty that isnt needed.


----------



## Mominis (May 6, 2011)

The rule book says that I must have a separate overcheck bit. Were I just driving for pleasure, no, I wouldn't use one, but since I must....I want the gentlest bit I can find.


----------



## Molly's Run Minis (May 6, 2011)

Mominis said:


> The rule book says that I must have a separate overcheck bit. Were I just driving for pleasure, no, I wouldn't use one, but since I must....I want the gentlest bit I can find.



i'm not talking about the over check BIT, i'm talking about the overcheck itself.

if you must use an overcheck i would go with Ozarks leather one, i hear leather is real easy on a horse's mouth.

ETA: if you decide to go with a metal one, make absolute sure it is straight across, the ones that are jointed on the sides are very harsh on the mouth.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (May 6, 2011)

Mominis said:


> The rule book says that I must have a separate overcheck bit. Were I just driving for pleasure, no, I wouldn't use one, but since I must....I want the gentlest bit I can find.


Are you competing him under ASPC rules or as a B mini? I don't believe AMHR rules require a separate overcheck bit, or for that matter an overcheck at all even in Single Pleasure.





Taken from Pg. 258 of the AMHR rulebook, Pleasure Driving division for miniature horses:



> 4. Harness in the pleasure division must be of thelight type with breastcollars. No full hames
> 
> allowed. Round or square blinders are permissible
> 
> ...


Just checking! I'd answer your question directly but honestly I have no idea what the kindest overcheck bit would be. I'd think the leather ones would be best but if you're hearing otherwise...



Maybe a soft rubber one?

Leia


----------



## Sue_C. (May 6, 2011)

> . Side or over-checks are required.


Why not just use a side-check? You do not use a check bit with a side check...only with an over check.

I agree, if you really are determined to use an over check...the leather bit is best. I have seen some folks us just a thick shoestring...just enough to make it LOOK like the over check was "doing" something.

Personally, I cut ALL my over checks off, and threw them out...if I have to use a check, it is a side check only.


----------



## Sandee (May 6, 2011)

AMHR (unless rules have changed) doesn't require an over check bit but does require either an over or side check. Last year however rather than confuse my mare with attaching the overcheck to the bit I used a soft 1/2" (didn't measure maybe it was smaller) rope (more like clothesline -that type of soft) between two rings and attached that to the overcheck. She was much happier that way. Plus it fit in her mouth better because it doesn't take up a lot of room like another hard bit would.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (May 7, 2011)

Sandee said:


> Last year however rather than confuse my mare with attaching the overcheck to the bit I used a soft 1/2" (didn't measure maybe it was smaller) rope (more like clothesline -that type of soft) between two rings and attached that to the overcheck. She was much happier that way. Plus it fit in her mouth better because it doesn't take up a lot of room like another hard bit would.


Hmm, that gives me an idea. Could you make your own out of surgical tubing??

Leia


----------



## Mominis (May 7, 2011)

*7. Check bits may be used but are not required.*

* *

* *

I am so happy to read that!! I must have been reading the wron section of the rulebook, thanks so much for pointing that out! I am really surprised, I've never heard of an association that allowed the use of an overcheck bridle without a separate overcheck bit. Glad to know.



I may still go with the separate overcheck bit, it depends on how his training progresses. I will keep an open mind to the leather, since you seem to have a good opinion of it, Sue.

I have brought him along really slowly in the overcheck (attached to his regular snaffle). He has been wearing it for a while now and he's perfectly comfortable with it. He was first bitted in long loose side reins and, once he learned to yield to that, the overcheck was added--also long and loose. It has been taken up slowly, I do not over-do it. I don't like to see a horse leaning on their check. They should bounce off of it. IMHO

As far as my decision to use an overcheck on him v a side check, I feel, comformationally, that the overcheck is the better choice for Shake than the side check. Shake has an extremely long neck and is very talented through the poll. Eli, once we start him, will be a side check horse, without a doubt. He is shorter through the neck than Shake and doesn't have the potential for as much elevation in his bridle before his breakover as Shake has. I guess this goes back to the Saddlebred barns that I spent so many years with, but I was taught proper selection of the type of check is dictated by the conformation of the horse.

I love learning new things and if you have a differeing opinion on the selection of the type of check, I'd sure love to hear it.


----------



## hobbyhorse23 (May 7, 2011)

I agree with you Mimi, and as I've said before I think if anyone can pull off an overcheck it's Shake. Turbo could as well and would likely do very well in one, but my reason for choosing a sidecheck anyway is because I've noticed swan-necked horses taught in that sort of check have a real tendency to curl up and go behind the bit when it's taken off even when it isn't tight. They've learned to look for that bounce, that support, and when it's gone they keep right on flexing in search of it until they're all curled up.



Since I'm training CDE horses it's really important to me that they be honestly on the bit and depending only on my hands for that so I avoid an overcheck even though it would work very well for breed-show purposes.

My other reason for not liking them is that for many minis, not built to flex properly in the first place, adding an overcheck to that mix makes for a horse who has NO idea how to use their necks. A really fancy horse like Shake has his own kind of beauty which I can admire, checked or not, but many of the smaller horses aren't elegant enough to pull off the checked look and yet you've (IMO) robbed them of any natural beauty by making them stiff as a board and getting them to suck that neck in. It's just not my thing. There are definitely some minis who pull it off and manage to come up into their polls quite nicely in an overcheck and I think that's fine, but as a blanket statement that is rare in our breed. That and a $1.50 will buy you a bad cup of coffee!





I wince a little because Turbo would have done very well if started in an overcheck and of course doing it my way we've got to go through that ugly stage where he looks very plain and boring, but I think in the end it'll be worth it as he'll have a lot more neck muscle to show off and a much more "hooky" looking throatlatch when in the bridle than he would have otherwise and he needs that with his conformation. I've just got to wait a couple of years until he really comes into himself!

Leia


----------



## rabbitsfizz (May 7, 2011)

Would not, will not, shall not EVER use a check rein.

EVER!!





Seriously, there is NOTHING in AMHA or AMHR that says the check has to be attached to the _bit_ let alone to a separate bit, so, if I ever do get around to driving under AMHA rules, apart from having a rein so loose it will never actually make contact with the horse, I shall affix it to the noseband.

The real problem I have, once we get past all the rubbish about it being a safety issue (apparently only in America, the rest of the entire world manages just fine) is the fact that it alters the horses action, and not in a good way, either- why would you want to do that?

Then there is the problem of it ripping your horses mouth out if it stumbles- why would you want to risk that?

So:

If I were still active in the AMHA I would campaign to make it's use discretionary rather than the ludicrous mandatory rule - we removed that from our AMHA classes over here, I do not think it would get past the RSPCA!




OK, sorry about that, you knew it had to happen sooner or later, and I am sorry Mo for involving you in my rant, I assure you none of the comments made here are meant to be against you personally. This just happens to be something about which I am passionate.

If Shake goes well on a slack rein, why not just leave him on a slack rein?

Lead the field as opposed to following the trend??


----------



## Molly's Run Minis (May 7, 2011)

rabbitsfizz said:


> Would not, will not, shall not EVER use a check rein.
> 
> EVER!!
> 
> ...



the only reason i use a checkrein is to keep my horse's head out of the grass. its slack enough that she has plenty of 'neck room' but its not slack enough that she can just decide to quit working and throw down her head to eat. plus, it looks nice, and if it doesnt hurt her or get in her way why not?


----------



## RhineStone (May 7, 2011)

If you are going to crossover into ADS, that rulebook only allows sidechecks. So that might be less confusing for your horse.

Myrna


----------



## Mominis (May 8, 2011)

Actually, Myrna, Eli will be the one who will actually do the crossing over into (my husband hopes) CDEs. I was merely looking into what's involved with the Carriage and Driving Society shows as there is one very close that also offers ridden classes and I plan to take a couple of students over to ride there. I figured, as long as I was going anyway, it may e a nice, cheap way to get show ring miles under Shake's belt without having to fork out for more rated shows.

Leia, you are absolutely right about there being a tendancy to 'overbridle' with a high set horse. It is something that I keep well in mind when working Shake. It is my personal challenge to develop elasticity in the high frame, something seen most successfully with a good Saddlebred. (should I run for cover now?



)

I intend to develop, for my husband, our two year old gelding more like I would develop a young horse intended for the dressage ring. I appreciate a horse that goes well on the bit and is correct in a dressage frame. However, that's not what blows *my* skirt up. I really like a more (uh-oh,.,..,here it goes...stepping into my flame-suit for sure now...hang on...k there we go) "English-y" mover that sets high up in the bridle and has a big motor. Shake is put together to set right up in his bridle, it's what attracted me to him in the first place, his conformational aptitude for getting into the type of frame that I enjoy working in and the "want" to go in that way. My husband rathers the long, low mover with a more 'reach-y' stride and is much more into having fun in his own way rather than getting into the show ring with Eli. You should see the length of stride on that critter



!!!  Though we will be showing him some, likely in the roadster division, next season just so we are doing something together with our very different horses. To each their own, right?





We just started back with our old farrier from about 10 years ago. The second he laid eyes on Shake, he said he was a miniature spotted version of my old English Pleasure horse. Eli is the very image of the first horse my husband ever rode, my old mare, Butterball. We just like two very different type horses.

I'm not trying to be a trend setter or a trend follower. What I am doing is developing a horse that I selected specifically for myself based on his conformation and way of going that is tailor-made (or should I say "Taylor-made?" lol) just for me. I didn't get into the minis as a business, it is just a hobby. So, I have no intent of having any kind of impact on an industry. I just want to have fun.





...and by the way, Rabbit, I certainly expected the check rein rant. Absolutely no hard feelings.


----------



## disneyhorse (May 8, 2011)

I've not used a separate overcheck bit on a mini. Their mouths are just too small and I don't usually check them up super high either.

I have used clothesline to make an overcheck bit though, I know some people use shoelace as well but clothesline is a bit thicker and you can use a match to finish the edges off if you buy a synthetic one.

As to conformation determining side versus over... I do agree but sometimes horses themselves have a preference, too. I usually work my horses both ways from the get-go, they go in both side and over checks.

Andrea


----------

