Real numbers!!!

["Dot Wiggins" <dotwgns@ruralnetwork.net>]

I have been entranced by the info on RC the last few days.  This is why I
wade thru scads of "been there----don't care"  stuff.

While for many and varied reasons I have mostly ridden pretty
conservatively,  all the HR figures still fit and make sense.   I can see
very useful points in all the info that can be applied to both the "racers"
and "riders".  (I like this distinction, it gives us all a place in the
game, and without the "riders" nobody could put on a ride for the "racers"
:) )

When talking about size of horses for HWTs etc.  it seems weight is as
important as height.    I have watched a lot of horses work hard in tough
country carrying heavy riders.   Tall leggy, light bodied horses are at as
much,  or more, of a handicap as short ones without substance.    A well put
together 14:2 horse at  1025-1050 lbs  will handle a 250 lb rider  better
than 15:2  1000 lb horse can.   The 15:2   1100-1150 lb horse will hold up
better yet in day after day work under the heavy rider.   (The 14:2   1050
lb horse with a 200 lb rider will be right there with the best.    It is my
observation that on less demanding terrain  size becomes less important.   I
would of course expect equally correct conformation all around.

As to survey info possibility,  we used weight tapes and scales on a number
of horses , and the same horses at different times of year, and found them
to be pretty close, within 15 lbs, mostly.  (Purina's tapes were inclined to
show heavier than scales by 20+ lbs often.)