 |
Re: [RC] height of horses - heidiHowever, if one is prefering tall because they have long legs, they'd be better served looking for a *substantial* horse than a tall one. Height will not take up your leg, only body substance will do that. And in some breeds -- particuarly Arabians -- where the traditional animal is not tall, making them tall often means just making the legs longer, while the rest of the body does not gain in size and substance to match. So true, Nicole, on both counts. I can't begin to count the number of times I've had people tell me that a horse's back is "too short" causing him to be difficult to fit to a saddle and to interfere. Invariably, it isn't because his back is too short--it is because his shoulder and hip are too short and his legs are too long. Tubes on stilts are NOT biomechanically athletic, no matter how you dress them up... Balance is the key, and length of leg is a part of that balance. One of the most distressing breed faults in the Arabian today is LOOONG cannon bones--and then people wonder why they aren't smooth to ride, or why they go lame.... Heidi =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|