Check it Out!
Re: RC: Horse Height Ads
In a message dated Sat, 4 Aug 2001 9:27:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, "Carolyn Burgess" <email@example.com> writes:
> When you are 6'3" tall and weigh 325 lbs, you need to know that the horse is
> big enough to carry you (this is my husband). To go look at a 14.2H horse
> would be stupid. I'm 5'10" tall and I have a 36" inseam. On most horses
> that are less than 15H, my leg is practically dragging on the ground. I have
> two girl friends who are around 5' tall and they have trouble on horses over
Actually, though, Carolyn, when big people simply ask about height, they are asking the wrong question. What they NEED to ask is, "Does the horse have sufficient SUBSTANCE to carry me?" While height plays some role in the equation for large riders (no, it is not likely you will find a horse that is 13.3H that has sufficient substance unless it is something so cumbersome and musclebound it can't do this sport anyway) it is not nearly as important as balance, depth, sufficient bone, etc. I have a 14.3 stallion who tipped the scales at close to 1000# in running shape and who has 9" cannons--he would have carried your husband quite nicely in his riding days. And he has been ridden by riders up to 6' tall and well into HW range, and their feet did NOT drag the ground--because he has a broad back and that extra "spread" gives you another couple of inches off the ground. By the same token, I've seen a great number of horses that truly were tall, but who had insufficient bone for!
their size, too much leg and no
t enough body, were not balanced to carry weight, etc.
And speaking of bone--I've meant to chime in on the bone thread, and have been too busy haying... But once again, there has been a long discussion of bone without ANY mention of relating cannon circumference to the size of the horse! Deb Bennett was actually the one who did the original studies on bone, as far as I know, and her recommendation is a minimum of 8" cannon circumference PER 1000 LB OF HORSE! A fair number of our endurance horses do NOT weigh 1000#, and hence something less than 8" is quite adequate for them. By the same token, when a horse is truly 15.3H, weighs 1175, and his owner is BRAGGING about 8" bone, I want to gag. (This is a great example of the sort of horse that someone might try to sell your large husband, but that may well NOT do the job for him!) If one horse is 15H, 975#, and has 8" bone, and another horse is 16H, weighs 1175, and has 8" bone, they do NOT have equal bone! I don't know if Deb has ever come up with a formula to determine adequa!
te bone for horses over or under
1000# (it would not quite be a linear relationship, I'm quite sure) but a little common sense can steer one to something close.
Check it Out!
Back to TOC