Check it Out!    
RideCamp@endurance.net
[Date Prev]  [Date Next]   [Thread Prev]  [Thread Next]  [Date Index]  [Thread Index]  [Author Index]  [Subject Index]

Re: horse size



Its actually worse than that. There is more weight and it is located higher.
That lever arm magnifies the lateral stresses on the bones and ligaments and
tendons from that added weight. Perhaps a more interesting question is what
is the relative size of the various ligaments.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net

-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>


>This is just food for thought, but we were collecting data for my thesis
>project at the '95 and '96 Tevis, one of the parameters we measured was
>cannon bone circumference.  It was surprising that although there was a
>fairly wide range of heights (from around 14 hands to 16.2), the cannon
>bone circumference measurements were pretty similar---the average
>measurement was 7.41 inches (measured midway between the knee and the
>fetlock joint) and 2/3 of the horses were within about a quarter inch
>plus or minus, regardless of the height of the horse.
>
>It seems to me that as a horse's height increases, so does the body
>weight, simply because he's usually bigger all over, not just in
>height.  So that means maybe several hundred more pounds being supported
>by pretty much the same size bone---and therefore the stress exerted per
>square inch of bone is considerably higher in a bigger horse than a
>horse even an inch or two smaller.  So just maybe...even though a bigger
>horse has a bigger stride, maybe on average he's also more likely to
>have more leg problems simply because the concussion per square inch is
>higher.  Seems to be one of those things that you'd have to find a happy
>medium of big enough to get a good stride, but small enough to carry his
>weight without too much stress.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Susan Garlinghouse
>
>
>
>Ann Hatfield wrote:
>>
>> In my on-going friendly arguements with a long-distance trail riding
friend
>> the subject of the 'best height for trail horses" comes up frequently.
He
>> (and me too when I'm back up there visiting-God's country-the Canadian
>> rockies) rides trails that often have logs across them,  steep banks, mud
>> holes, bogs, deep creeks, rivers, and other hazards.  His contention is
>> that a large (15:3-17 hand) horse is faster at a walk and trot and much
>> better over this type of terrain.  Sadly, I have to agree when it comes
to
>> logs across the trail and some of the banks his French Trotter/Saddlebred
>> 16:2 gelding breezes over.  But, am I likely to encounter much of this in
>> endurance races as such?
>>
>> The one and only I have ridden in was in rough country (the Rockies) and
>> had several deep fords and a truly horse-eating mud hole-thank goodness I
>> was early to it, before it got really churned up -so soft that a couple
of
>> horses nearly were very nearly mired and one unwise rider who dismounted
in
>> the middle of it darn near disappeared!
>>
>> I have a green 14:3 gelding who will be hard pressed to keep up to
Daniel's
>> gelding in the blowdown but whom I think will blow the socks off the
>> bigger, bulkier horse over a long ride and is neat and nippy under the
>> branches that nearly decapitate riders way up there!
>>
>> Do many (any) rides have hazards like the above and so is a leggier horse
>> an advantage in this way?
>>
>> Ann
>



Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff

Back to TOC