# Am I too big for his horse?



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

I have a 4 year old horse that I have broke out this past year. She is about 14.2, and at the most I think 800lbs. I am 5'4 and 125 lbs. I plan on keeping her, and I am going to start walking the barrel and pole pattern and then maybe work up to a trot one of these days. I am worried though that in the long term I am too big for her or putting too much strain on her since she is so small. It also doesn't help that she has tiny little feet and legs and a big stocky body. This is me on her could you tell me what you think?

I might add that "his" in the title is supposed to be "this". Whoops!


----------



## Saskia (Aug 26, 2009)

I think your weight is appropriate.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I don't think you are too big.


----------



## ChitChatChet (Sep 9, 2013)

We ride 800lb ponies/horses and weight 120<..... minus the tack we use.

I gauge how the horse appears to be feeling plus how much energy it has at the end of the day.... we havent worn our ponies out yet.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

What is with these threads of small sized people wondering if they are too big?

OP I would go so far as to say that size is ideal for you!

I do question if you are going to grow any more though?


----------



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

Thank you all, I was just a little worried in the long term and needed a few more opinions. I am still worried though if I gained any weight I would be a little too much for her, I guess that gives me a reason to stay thin though...


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

This is my 160 lbs with 35 lb saddle on a 15 hand horse who probably weighs around 800:








​ 
I realize riding has become about 90% female, but I'm bewildered at the idea that virtually no male is small enough to ride a horse. The standard cavalry field load for a horse varied, but was normally 230-300 lbs - rider, tack, feed, equipment, etc.

From another thread:



bsms said:


> ...I spent a good part of yesterday reading a book about chasing Villa in Mexico in 1916. The author, Col Frank Tompkins, includes this picture of him riding his stallion Kingfisher:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not every rider is a 100 lb girl...nor need all riders be that! BTW - my heaviest horse was 900 lbs, and I weighed 180+ most of the time I owned her. I've almost never ridden a horse at less than 25% of the horse's body weight. None have had any problems with me.


----------



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

bsms: thank you for taking the time to reply. I haven't ever noticed her getting tired or showing signs of slowing down during a ride. She is actually a pretty strong horse I just want to play it safe
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

My greater concern would be barrel racing on fine limbs and tiny hooves at least until fully mature at 5. Walk trotting the pattern periodically should be ok but not the full out hard turns.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Agree Saddlebag though sounds like she is taking it slow.

OP you have plenty of room to grow/change as long as it's nothing drastic and you are a healthy weight for your frame (assuming you're done growing? I don't know your age) you will be just fine for her.

As I said, I would go so far as to say you are ideal. I am a similar height/weight and that sized horse is perfect for me.


----------



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

Saddlebag said:


> My greater concern would be barrel racing on fine limbs and tiny hooves at least until fully mature at 5. Walk trotting the pattern periodically should be ok but not the full out hard turns.


Yes I am definitely taking it as slow as possible because of how fine her legs and hooves are.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

OP, you're nowhere near too big and won't be for a while.

This is me on my old gelding. He is 14.2hh on a good day and maybe 800-850lbs. I'm 5'7" and weighed about 165lbs in this pic (plus the 40lbs show saddle I'm riding in). He never once acted like I was too big for him.


This is my best friend's 3yo Arab/paint (we think) filly. She's 14.2hh and maybe 800lbs. My best friend rides her and she is 5'9" and 175lbs, plus 40lbs roping saddle. Toui barely even sweats up.


I think you'll be fine at 5'4" and 125lbs.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

turnandburn1 said:


> ... I am 5'4 and 125 lbs. ...



Oh my, I think this should be in the Plus Size Forum.

Bawhahahahahaha 




Just joking of course, that is where *I* belong. You can see my posts there.


----------



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

anndankev said:


> Oh my, I think this should be in the Plus Size Forum.
> 
> Bawhahahahahaha
> 
> ...


I actually have had trouble with my weight in the past, but for the most part I am very content now.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

turnandburn1 said:


> I actually have had trouble with my weight in the past, but for the most part I am very content now.


As you should be as that is a perfectly normal healthy weight. In fact from the picture you look thin (in a good healthy way).

Even if you were to gain weight you would still be fine for her as long as you were still in a healthy range for your height and you have plenty of lee way there


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

I'd be curious for a side shot of the mare.


----------



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

Yogiwick said:


> I'd be curious for a side shot of the mare.


Sorry about the pony, he felt the need to be included


----------



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

This shows how tiny her legs are compared to her body.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

There are measurements discussed here:

Heavier Riders' Guide

They might give you an idea if her legs are likely to limit her.


----------



## blondieinbreeches (Jul 23, 2015)

Horses can supposedly carry about 20 to 25% of their weight.

Which is 200 pounds on her.

Per say you have a 50lbs saddle, which you probably have a lighter saddle, you are still within that margin.

And the fact that she is 4 and still growing and filling out, she will most likely end up pushing 15hh and 900 once she has stopped growing.

By the look of it, you seem to fit on her just fine.

For barrels, when starting her let her determine how long she can run. She is still growing and while 4 is a great age to start them you still don't want to over run any horse.

Just be careful not to burn her out on barrel (friends of mine did that with their jumper and he now refuses to jump nicely) and you guys should be golden

Best of luck!


----------



## Roanwatch (Apr 1, 2014)

I am 130ish pounds and 5'7" and ride a 4 year old that is just under 14.2hh and she carries me just fine. In a heavy roping sa


----------



## Roanwatch (Apr 1, 2014)

I am 130ish pounds and 5'7" and ride a 4 year old that is just under 14.2hh and she carries me just fine. In a heavy roping saddle, too.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

OP agree with others, that you don't look obviously too big for her in the pic... from what can be told from that pic(not the clearest). It doesn't matter how tall the horse is compared to you, but a good rule of thumb IMO is that you don't go over around 20% or so of her bodyweight, including tack. **Before others assume I'm saying that's all that matters or a fast 'rule', it is but one factor. Other 'rules of thumb' are how stocky/strong or otherwise the horse is, how old it is, how sound or otherwise it is. 

But agree with Saddle & others, that I would be more concerned about fine legs & tiny feet, especially as you're riding her before maturity(wouldn't be doing anything heavy duty like barrels for some time), and especially if you're considering high impact competitive stuff like that.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_but a good rule of thumb IMO is that you don't go over around 20% or so of her bodyweight, including tack. **Before others assume I'm saying that's all that matters or a fast 'rule', it is but one factor._"

It is a rule, or factor, that almost all men break every time they get on a horse. It also explains why so many light riders worry needlessly - if 20% is a "Rule", then is 15% too close for comfort?

When a rule has no basis in history or in structural mechanics, and when it was successfully ignored by the majority of men who have ridden thru history, and when it causes 125 lb riders to worry about being too heavy for their horse, it is time to dump the rule. When the rule requires that virtually no man should ever mount up on Bandit, Trooper or Mia, what connection does it have with reality? The rule says that 125 lbs is the MAXIMUM weight for someone riding Bandit in a 35 lb western saddle. It is crazy!

This picture comes from around 1900. The horse in it (Sureshot) was reputed to be one of the fasted in the Arizona Territory, with unbeatable endurance. His rider was 6'4" Sheriff Ruffner...look at where the stirrups are hanging:








​ 
This subject obviously gets under my skin. At 160 lbs, I'm one of the smallest guys I know. The idea that I should be banned from riding Arabians, and that most men should be banned from riding ANY horse, ****es me off. If someone has EVIDENCE to support that theory, I'd love to see it. There are sure a lot of old ranch horses who defy it...and a lot of Arabians owned by men...

It is not as though we have no data. We have tons of data, all of which indicates horses can carry a lot more than 20% of their body weight and remain sound and healthy.

It also misses the point. I'd much rather see a 220 lb man in a 40 lb saddle riding his Arabian down the trail than see a 100 lb girl asking a 1300 lb QH to do spins and sliding stops. Yet the most commonly advised rule says the first is abuse and the second is fine. The 20% Myth persists only because so few men ride anymore, and even fewer write about riding...because the 20% Myth largely bans men from riding horses.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

bsms said:


> "_but a good rule of thumb IMO is that you don't go over around 20% or so of her bodyweight, including tack. **Before others assume I'm saying that's all that matters or a fast 'rule', it is but one factor._"
> 
> It is a rule, or factor, that almost all men break every time they get on a horse. It also explains why so many light riders worry needlessly - if 20% is a "Rule", then is 15% too close for comfort?
> 
> ...


You seem stuck on this "men can't ride horses" thing.

20% of a 1000lbs is 200lbs.

The average horse is more than that and most men with saddles (you included from the sounds of it) weigh that or less or slightly more.

I'm missing the issue... It's really has NOTHING to do with gender. Especially since the "normal" weight keeps climbing specifically with women. You seem to be taking offense when it has nothing to do with that nor does it exclude it. Used to be most riders were men!

160 would be fine on any of my horses including my 12.3hh Icelandic.

While I agree the work is relevant I definitely wouldn't be implying that reining is abusive or even "too much" (though it can be)... I do think 260 on an 800 lb horse is... I won't say abusive, but poor horsemanship and unfair to the horse.

It's a guideline not a fact but it's also not a myth.

You need to look at long term consequences too...

Also, while there is nothing wrong with walking on a smooth trail for a couple miles most riders typically do a lot more then that. You really want that 220lb man doing those spins and slides? Because people will.

160 is fine on most Arabs.. I don't know what the issue is.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

I love that picture of Sureshot.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

Yogiwick--Exactly! It's a /guideline/. Frankly, it's one I'd rather follow than end up with a sore horse down the road.

As far as OP--you do not look too big at all.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Look at all the videos of heavy people mounting horses and the horses are staggering.

Check out this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qylSkbq-QmA I don't even think the guy is that heavy but excellent example of how much body weight effects the horse.

Isn't it safer to say 20% is a good general rule then to say 30% and have this happening? People will break it.

Look at things like kittens and puppies (just a similar example) They shouldn't leave mom until they are 3 or 4 months. So people said 3. Then they said well 3 is ok so lets do 2 1/2.. then 2. Which is still ok. Then 6 weeks. Now people do 4? This is absurd (and actually illegal I believe) and cruel. 6 weeks is the new "normal" at this point even though it is way too young.

I don't think any sane horse person buys into the 10% and whatever but 20% has always been a standard (NOT a hard set rule) and in most situations has proven to be quite true.

I've seen what happens when riders are too heavy. I never sit there and calculate weight but can easily tell just by looking. That includes riders over 20% that are just fine and even riders that push that a little that make me take another look but see the horse happily plodding along (those sorts would never "work" a horse either as they know they are heavy for them) it also includes people under 20% with a horse that for whatever reason just can't handle it. I've dealt with the long term (and short sometimes) effects numerous times so is it really something to promote?

Just say 20% as a guideline and keep it simple and fair. If someone is over and it works then fine. However it helps keep from promoting the many many times it does NOT work.


----------



## greentree (Feb 27, 2013)

OP, you would need to put on 250 lbs to worry about that!

Pretty mare!


----------



## turnandburn1 (Nov 21, 2014)

Thank you for the replies! I think I was worrying a little much about my weight on her, but now I understand a little more of how much weight a horse can carry safely. I am most likely going to take it very slow with barrels and poles, maybe walk and trot them twice a week, just to get the pattern in her head. I am also working with a trainer so I would expect them to know how hard to push without overdoing it.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Yogiwick said:


> You seem stuck on this "men can't ride horses" thing.
> 
> 20% of a 1000lbs is 200lbs.
> 
> The average horse is more than that and most men with saddles (you included from the sounds of it) weigh that or less or slightly more...


I haven't met a 1000 lb Arabian. And at 160, I'm the lightest guy I know. I rarely meet any guys who weigh under 180, and lots are 200+. Add 35 lbs for a western saddle, and a 235 would "need" 1175 lb horse. Or bigger for men over 200 lbs.

The idea that an adult male is too heavy for an Arabian strikes me as breathtakingly ridiculous. If Col Thompkins could average 20 miles a day for a month riding an 800 lb horse with 230+ lbs of rider and gear thru the mountains and deserts of northern Mexico without "wasting flesh", then how does anyone argue for the validity of a 20% rule?

Worse, it focuses attention in exactly the wrong area. It makes it sound as if a 220 lb man (or women, since some women are heavy) should buy a big, thickly muscled QH to ride - and can count on being "humane" doing so. But a thick horse has to deal with his own weight, and body weight increases faster than bone cross-section as a horse gets bigger. So suggesting there is a 20% rule leads to the WRONG conclusion.

When people weighing 150 lbs and less are worried, there is something wrong with the accepted wisdom. And in this case, the accepted wisdom has no factual basis. It goes contrary to most of human/horse history.

The average American male over 20 weighs 195.5 lbs. It is 200 for those over 30 years old. (CDC data). That is why I used males as my example, and why I used 235 for my example weight.

"_Just say 20% as a guideline and keep it simple and fair." "Frankly, it's one I'd rather follow than end up with a sore horse down the road._"

It does keep it simple. Unfortunately, it also keeps it unrealistic. It harms both horses and riders by getting them to pay attention to something that is irrelevant. There is nothing "fair" about it, because there is no underlying reality that justifies it. Since it is not connected to reality, it does NOTHING to prevent a sore horse.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

BSMS, I can think of three Arabs off the top of my head who I know personally who are 1000+lbs. They are by no means the rule, but they're not that much of an exception, either. One of them is an easy 16hh and heavily Bask-bred. 

It feels like you're beating a dead horse with your vehemence about the validity of the 20% guideline. The OP is nowhere near too big/heavy for the horse in question. Simple question with a simple answer that doesn't need to be debated.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Just my opinion.

The 20% 'rule' comes up very frequently. I feel taking into consideration the size, bone, skill, conditioning, and so forth is much more valid and important.

Carry on bsms.


----------



## gingerscout (Jan 18, 2012)

I usually steer clear of everyone who stresses the 20% rule thing.. it was originally for horses in the calvary that were worked 8 hours+ a day.. 99% of horses are not worked that hard, and I have found that the ones who stress it the most are strictly english riders, seems to be a stigma that anyone over 200 pounds should only ride a couch, and not get out and ride or be active


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

turnandburn1 said:


> Thank you for the replies! I think I was worrying a little much about my weight on her, but now I understand a little more of how much weight a horse can carry safely. I am most likely going to take it very slow with barrels and poles, maybe walk and trot them twice a week, just to get the pattern in her head. I am also working with a trainer so I would expect them to know how hard to push without overdoing it.


Sounds good! We have gone a little O/T but none of this is directed towards you!

At your weight you could safely ride most ponies. Agree to be looking at your horse holding up long term (which you are) but your weight isn't a worrisome factor at all.

From the picture she doesn't look super fine boned.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

bsms said:


> I haven't met a 1000 lb Arabian. And at 160, I'm the lightest guy I know. I rarely meet any guys who weigh under 180, and lots are 200+. Add 35 lbs for a western saddle, and a 235 would "need" 1175 lb horse. Or bigger for men over 200 lbs.
> 
> The idea that an adult male is too heavy for an Arabian strikes me as breathtakingly ridiculous. If Col Thompkins could average 20 miles a day for a month riding an 800 lb horse with 230+ lbs of rider and gear thru the mountains and deserts of northern Mexico without "wasting flesh", then how does anyone argue for the validity of a 20% rule?
> 
> ...


I'm not talking about Arabians I'm talking about horses... there are many horses other than Arabians out there 

That said while as you know Arabians are smaller then "average" they are also known for being good weight carriers (for their size) so that point is a little moot imo.

I think (on average) a 200lb+ man should not be riding a 14hh Arab. Have worse things happened? Sure but on average there are many of a certain type of rider ("*******" comes to mind) who don't seem to care about that. Look at the stereotypical gaited horse. Scrawny 15hh horse carrying 250 lbs+ and having trouble. If you weigh over 200 lbs you should be looking at a larger horse. Now that's definitely not to say a huge horse but at least an average/stocky one.

180 is typically an average weight for a man... maybe different in your area? I know very very few men who would weigh more than 200 at a healthy weight. As we know there are obesity issues in the country.

Also "back in the day" as you like to bring up obesity was less common. Yeah you'd have guys such as my bf that at a healthy and fit weight would be more than 200 but even that was less common too as humans just didn't weigh as much. Then add the fact that people are getting bigger... AND obesity issues in this country (and the world). Maybe an issue where you are and I'm not saying it's not an issue here but I definitely would NOT say that most men weigh more than 200!! Especially at a healthy weight.

As I (and others) said repeatedly it's meant as a guideline too not a "rule".

I don't think anyone here feels the average adult male is too big for an Arabian... that is all you.

And again, there are also long term effects to worry about.

I agree for most horses a 150lb rider should be no problem. That said WHY are these riders concerned? If someone is just concerned because they are worried on their own and that is their nature then that has NOTHING to do with the topic at hand. I have never heard of anyone being worried because "I looked up this 20% rule and punched the numbers and I'm 20.2!! is this OK??!!".

Which leads me to being curious as to why the OP made this post.. I bet it's the first one and not "because I heard 20%".

"Unfortunately, it also keeps it unrealistic. It harms both horses and riders by getting them to pay attention to something that is irrelevant. There is nothing "fair" about it, because there is no underlying reality that justifies it. Since it is not connected to reality, it does NOTHING to prevent a sore horse" So the horse and rider focus the ride on how much they weigh?? There is nothing to pay attention to it is what it is. As I said I NEVER "punch the numbers" as I can tell by looking if it's suitable or not, however when I have for fun after the fact it always works out in a "suitable" manner. I'm just not understanding what I quoted. Is it a BAD thing for the horse to have a lighter rider??

I have to agree with Drafty. You are beating a dead horse and it seems odd to argue the fact that someone said 20% when NEITHER of those are an issue..

Again, it's for a general idea and not meant as a rule and there are also other factors involved.... It is NOT about numbers except as an idea.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_180 is typically an average weight for a man... maybe different in your area?_"

CDC numbers. Average weight of all males 30 years old and older is 200. Average weight all males 20 and older is 195.

"_I have never heard of anyone being worried because "I looked up this 20% rule and punched the numbers and I'm 20.2!! Is this OK??!!"_."

Really? With a 30 lb saddle, the OP is at 19.375%.

You don't think this common pushing of 20% plays a role in slender women who are worried?

"_I have to agree with Drafty. You are beating a dead horse and it seems odd to argue the fact that someone said 20% when NEITHER of those are an issue...Again, it's for a general idea and not meant as a rule and there are also other factors involved.... It is NOT about numbers except as an idea."_

That is bizarre. It is a good rule except no one is using it so why worry? It is a good rule except it isn't a rule, just "an idea"? If it is not meant as a rule, why mention it at all?

"_It's a guideline not a fact but it's also not a myth. / You need to look at long term consequences too..._"

What long term consequences? That is the point - there is no evidence. None. No evidence whatsoever of long term harm. I used the cavalry as an example because they used horses by the hundred thousand - the British Army, IIRC, took 100,000 horses in at the beginning of WW1. The American Army wanted a 900-1100 lb horse able to carry 250 lbs. The British wanted to be able to carry 21 stone (296 lbs).

Trooper was a ranch horse. The vet estimated him at 835. Bandit was a ranch horse, and he's built more slender than Trooper. Sureshot became famous for his endurance and speed carrying a guy who was 6'4". Kingfisher carried a load of 230-250 in the deserts and mountains on half rations for a month, averaging 20 miles a day - without suffering harm. A famous study, often used to support a 20% rule, found no physical signs of muscle stress until 30% - using horses who had not been ridden for 4 months.

If someone is going to say "_a good rule of thumb IMO is that you don't go over around 20% or so of her bodyweight, including tack_", or say, "_ it's one I'd rather follow than end up with a sore horse down the road_", or say, "_Isn't it safer to say 20% is a good general rule then to say 30% and have this happening?_", is it really too much to ask for evidence?

"_but 20% has always been a standard (NOT a hard set rule) and in most situations has proven to be quite true._"

Really? What ARE the "_most situations_" were it "_has proven to be quite true_"? I've provided evidence. Where is it on the other side?

"So where did that 10 percent figure come from? The researchers used numbers provided by "an industry practitioner” as the basis for their scale. According to that source, a 10 percent rider-to-horse bodyweight ratio is optimal and 15 percent is satisfactory. Once a rider’s weight hits 20 percent, it would be considered a welfare issue."

Too Heavy to Ride

Also see here for the study promoting 10-15% as a rule:

Many riders too heavy for their mounts - study - Horsetalk.co.nz

Again - at some point it is reasonable for a person to ask for evidence, particularly when what is suggested flies in the face of common experience and structural mechanics. If it has been proven true in most situations, why is it no one provides any...proof?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

BSMS, the question was is the OP too big for her horse. Not am I (at 230lbs) too big for her or are you (at 160lbs)too big for her, is the OP, at 125lbs, too big for the horse in question. Everyone's answer was a unanimous "Heck no!" Simple question, simple answer. No need to go into huge long explanations and arguments. The OP got her answer to her question.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

bsms said:


> The idea that an adult male is too heavy for an Arabian strikes me as breathtakingly ridiculous.... It makes it sound as if a 220 lb man (or women, since some women are heavy) should buy a big, thickly muscled QH to ride - and can count on being "humane" doing so. But a thick horse has to deal with his own weight, and body weight increases faster than bone cross-section as a horse gets bigger.


The idea that bodyweight of rider is not a relevant factor, and that just because some army sergeant did something with a horse means that it's a Good and Right thing strikes me as breathtaking ridiculous personally. 

And it seems that when you go on about this, you ignore all the rest of what's being said too... or not said - no one but you is assuming that 'guideline' means that a heavier or taller horse with light legs is going to be assumed as good for heavy riders just because of the '20% guideline'. No one said weight is a 'be all & end all' - I tried to head off that 'tunnel vision' bit by emphasising that I was generalising & there were other factors...



> Unfortunately, it also keeps it unrealistic. It harms both horses and riders by getting them to pay attention to something that is irrelevant.


Phooeyness! That's like getting up in arms about the *guideline* that horses be fed at least 2% bodyweight in forage as unreasonable & irrelevant because it doesn't take into account all factors & isn't right for all.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Again just my opinion.

bsms is just being himself, the nature of his posts has always been well studied, articulated, backed up by statistics, and fierce in nature. With great attention to meticulous detail.

I appreciate that in him, and especially appreciate that was his manner and method when he was flying fighter jets for the protection of all of us and our country.

I do think we should consider applying the 20% rule/guideline/suggestion/generality to him in this case, and get off his back.

Thanks for listening.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

Bsms--Again, guidelines. I feel like, at this point, you're being purposefully bullheaded.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

anndankev said:


> With great attention to meticulous detail.


I too reckon it's great to have that skill, but it can also cause us to have a hard time seeing the forest through the trees, to overanalyse or get too specific about some details. ;-) It also appears it causes missed other details of other's posts. For eg. in many 'arguments', I don't feel that myself or others have actually had all that much to disagree on(I personally mostly agree with what he writes - for eg on this subject, I agree that there are many factors & that a weight guideline like that is not IT)



> I do think we should consider applying the 20% rule/guideline/suggestion/generality to him in this case, and get off his back.


Very punny! IMHO it is he that is on other's backs about this, in a way I feel is rude and condescends to different opinions.


----------



## deliz1991 (Jul 27, 2015)

Don't think this is scientific but I've always heard the rule "A horse can carry approx 1 stone the every hh"


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

^ I'm afraid I don't know what that means.

As far as bsms goes I can appreciate that that's the way some people are and that there is a basis for his argument (and I am NOT disagreeing that there are horses that can carry more than 20% or that "men can ride Arabians" or anything silly like that). But when proof is some guy did this on this specific horse 150 years ago, etc, etc...

It's just frustrating to me as I DO agree with the general concept, just not the way it's represented or worded. And as a basic rule meant for novice's isn't it better to be on the safe side? Saying "20% is a good general rule (ahem "guideline")" better than having someone who's at 30% on an unfit and unsuitable horse working them hard because "hey 30% is ok" no it's the max and upper end, shouldn't the guideline be within a safe zone to allow a little wiggle room?

As I've said I know "over 20%s" that have been just fine and "unders" that have not.

It's a guideline not something to be taken to the extreme and be offended over "men can't ride Arabians". Pssshht. I remember my National level (and happily married) trainer complaining that 99% of people at the Arabian shows were very attractive men...that were all gay lol. Plenty of men ride Arabians. My Arab can carry that just fine and he's not particularly large. NO ONE (sane) is trying to say the things that bsms is trying to say "the rule doesn't allow". You can get angry at what's in your own head, but you can't blame something for it when it's not there.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

^A "stone" is, to my knowledge, about 14 pounds.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Yogiwick said:


> ...But when proof is some guy did this on this specific horse 150 years ago, etc, etc...
> 
> ...And as a basic rule meant for novice's isn't it better to be on the safe side? Saying "20% is a good general rule (ahem "guideline")" better than having someone who's at 30% on an unfit and unsuitable horse working them hard...


You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't that ONE man on ONE horse did it. It was that the US Cavalry did it as standard operations. Their standard horse was 1000 lbs - the norm for remounts being 900-1100 lbs. The standard load the horse was expected to carry was 250 lbs - roughly 150 for the rider and 100 lbs for gear. Those were standards - the norm - for horses who would be ridden 20-40 miles a day, 5 days a week.

Kingfisher wasn't the only horse operating in northern Mexico. Hundreds did, in similar conditions, carrying similar loads across terrain few on this forum have ever even contemplated covering - sea level to 9000+ feet, deserts, snow, etc. And being military, they kept close track of how many miles were ridden each day, what their horses weighed, what they were fed, etc.

How many "barns" in modern USA ride their horses 600 miles a month with loads of 250 lbs in terrain going from sea level to 9000', on half rations? Modern recreational riders call 30 miles an endurance event. It used to be going to the store...or a totally normal day's work for the cavalry, using hundreds and even thousands of horses on their marches.

One horse in an anecdote. A few hundred thousand horses used the same way is pretty good evidence.

The British Army in WW1 brought in 100,000 horses at the beginning of the war. They preferred a slightly heavier horse, but they assumed a standard load of 21 stone (10.5 rider, 10.5 gear). 294 lbs. That was the STANDARD, not the exception. Lots of folks now say no horse can safely carry over 200 to 250 lbs total - yet the British Army used nearly 300 lbs as their normal.

As for using 20% to be on the safe side - some now say 15% is on the safe side, and 20% qualifies as abuse. Why are they wrong? Should they be commended for keeping it simple? Or should they be challenged to provide evidence? What about those arguing for a 10% rule? Or those who argue no one should ride a horse?

"_I feel like, at this point, you're being purposefully bullheaded_."

I always heard it takes two to argue. But why should you be allowed to promote, unchallenged, a rule [guideline, something to consider when making a decision] you have no evidence for? Why is it considered "_purposefully bullheaded_" to ask WHY you think 20% makes sense, vs 15%, 25%? Why is it bullheaded of me to present evidence for what I believe, but reasonable for you to argue the other side without any?

My point is that ANY guideline based on percentage of horse bodyweight is worse than meaningless. It suggests a heavy rider ought to buy a halter bred QH who weighs in at 1500 lbs, when that would be one of the worst things a heavy person could do.

Perhaps a compromise: "Under 20%, don't worry. Above 20%, look at the horse's legs and how you are going to use him. Above 30%, be very careful." Although, as Yogiwick puts it "_As I've said I know "over 20%s" that have been just fine and "unders" that have not._" - in which case, in what sense is 20% meaningful for anything?


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

It's meaningful as a general statement...

Your example would be (approx.) <25%, not unrealistic.

Honestly your example simple makes me say is the focus of the army during the WW1 time period truly all about the longevity and long term health of the horse? You could even argue that the short term health was unimportant as well as long as the horse could do the work.

So horse can do work? Great. It can't? Bullet. Hey it's held up so far let's take it to Europe...where it won't come back.

Are there any long term studies on how well these horses were in their 20s?

I'm afraid that example just doesn't hold up for me.


----------



## anndankev (Aug 9, 2010)

Here are links to threads in very current times that support heavier rider to horse size ratio:

http://www.horseforum.com/western-riding/where-do-they-draw-line-590274/

http://www.horseforum.com/reining/what-do-you-think-about-taris-590706/

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-talk/14-hands-feels-really-small-funny-590138/


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

BSM, I accept that you have a different opinion to most here on this point. That's no problem, or are the reasons you've supplied for your beliefs. What I object to is you presenting it as unopposable fact & that other's opinions are wrong & stupid, and trying to ram yours down our throats.



bsms said:


> You seem to have missed the point. It wasn't that ONE man on ONE horse did it. It was that the US Cavalry did it as standard operations.


Since you keep bringing this up, I think it is you who is missing the point, that just because something was accepted at some point in time, just because horses can survive certain conditions, is no reason to believe it is necessarily Right or Best, or did no damage. Let alone that it means other's opinions are Wrong and worst & dangerous for someone to be silly enough to consider. Or that it means if people do accept the '20% rule', they will discount fitness, build of horse, yada yada. 



> But why should you be allowed to promote, unchallenged, a rule [guideline, something to consider when making a decision] you have no evidence for?


Who EVER said people aren't allowed to 'challenge' other's opinions & put forth their own?? That's exactly what these forums are for IMO, healthy, RESPECTFUL debate. And just because YOU have not seen evidence that you accepted, that contradicts your current view, and just because your army stuff is 'evidence' enough for you, doesn't mean there's nothing to the rest of it. 

As I explained in the other thread on the subject, I personally have studied anatomy(as in dissections, not just theory) & bodywork, seen and heard of the oh so common damage from horses being ridden, that it is enough for me to accept 20% is *one* reasonable *guideline*. I accept this is obviously not 'proof' enough to all, to hear me say this, perhaps also never having done dissections, seen the damage, etc. I'm not asking you to accept it as such. And I welcome debate - as far as I'm concerned, there are way too many 'answers' in life that are just blindly accepted. Just don't get all upset when your own beliefs & assumptions are challenged too, and if you feel so unfairly set upon, it might be helpful to consider the way you set upon others.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Zexious said:


> ^A "stone" is, to my knowledge, about 14 pounds.


OK great, I didn't know the exact conversion but knew it was a measurement. The part I was confused on was the "the every hh". I'm assuming the "the" was a typo (maybe "for"?) but what's "hh"?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_As I explained in the other thread on the subject, I personally have studied anatomy(as in dissections, not just theory) & bodywork, seen and heard of the oh so common damage from horses being ridden, that it is enough for me to accept 20% is *one* reasonable *guideline*._"​IOW, it is your personal opinion. And there are lots of personal opinions. And someone else can say that based on their studies, they think 10% is the max, or 15%, and since it is all personal opinion -based on unsharable experiences - they are just as correct as you are."_just because something was accepted at some point in time, just because horses can survive certain conditions, is no reason to believe it is necessarily Right or Best, or did no damage_."​Damage that cannot be seen or measured is rather questionable damage. The cavalry, based on their standard practices, felt 28% was a reasonable rule of thumb. That is their standard load carried by the smaller end of their standard weight horse.

But unlike your experience, their experience involved hundreds of thousands, and was tested by using those horses to travel 20-40 miles a day in severe country.

And they DID notice problems. They spoke of "wasting flesh" because they had seen it. It was fully understood that you could push a horse hard enough for it to drop 100 lbs in a few weeks, or break them down. Armies being armies, officers who did that lightly would face punishment. Horses were inspected by men who knew what to look for and whose careers required them to do a good job. During a retreat in WW1, when the horses and men were moving for several days with no breaks, the horses WERE getting sore backs - so the men were ordered to stop every two hours, remove the saddle and gear, and massage the muscles of the back for 10 minutes. Then reload, remount and continue. And it proved enough to stop the soring. When someone's life depends on their horse, they care...

You can use 20%. I've met people who use 0%. People can use any standard they choose. But if someone wants a standard based on evidence, collected using uncounted tens of thousands of horses working harder than most recreational horses in tough terrain by men who did it professionally...then they ought to consider the cavalry.

I will add this exception: folks who use their horses for competitive sports may well stress their horses in ways that have little to do with the weight on the back. If you want your horse to regularly carry most of his weight on his rear legs, or to turn very hard and fast again and again and again, or stop as fast as possible, then the cavalry standard has nothing to do with you. But for trail riding, regular ranch work, etc, the cavalry's experience is very relevant."_Are there any long term studies on how well these horses were in their 20s?_"​Nope. There are also no long term studies of ANY horses to determine long term weight limits. That is because there are too many variables, and common experience indicates rider weight is not a big one.

For example, Trooper has white spots on his withers. It took a few months at a ranch, working cattle with a saddle that didn't fit right to do that damage.

Although I liked riding in it, I eventually concluded my Bates Caprilli CC saddle was unacceptable for use on Mia. No, she did not break down. But her ears flicked back hard when I mounted, and sometimes when I dismounted. Taking it out with another saddle, and trotting her around while swapping between saddles, I noticed she was more eager and more willing to trot fast in a western saddle than the Bates. My own conclusion was it had less to do with weight than where the weight was being placed. It had a narrow channel down the middle. Viewing it by itself on Mia's A-frame back, I concluded even a 1/2" of sideways motion would press against the spine (or immediately next to it).

I could massage Mia's back afterward and see no sign of pain. But I'm convinced there was pain because I watched her while mounting, dismounting, trotting, etc. I could swap it out for another saddle and suddenly have a horse who wanted to trot FAST instead of doing a very gentle jog. So that saddle has been sold. As much as I liked riding in a CC saddle, I won't ever buy another unless I can test a bunch out for fit first - and that is unlikely where I live!

How do you devise a study to account for something like that while involving thousands of horses used for 20-30 years? You cannot. No one can. But then, the longest term study I've seen suggesting a 20% rule only ran a few months, and used horses ridden twice a month for 45 minutes each. I'd match the cavalry against that any day!

In the end, the best advice I've seen is to watch the horse. You don't have to be an expert horseman. Just ask yourself questions like:Does your horse tense up when you mount? Does he brace his back or pull his ears back?

Is he eager or "lazy"? Does he act like he has been rewarded when you dismount?

While riding, does he use his back or brace it?

When you rub his back after the ride - you DO rub his back after you ride, don't you newbie? - does he act tender?

If you borrow a different saddle, does the horse change behavior? How much?

Listen to your horse. Horses talk, but few people listen. Listen. Your horse will tell you if you are too heavy. 

If in doubt, get someone who has been around horses to come out and watch you. Heck, PAY a pro for a single lesson, and tell her before hand that one of the things you want to know is if your weight is too much.​With the wrong saddle, I could sore a horse's back in 30 minutes. With the right one, I could go all day. Given that range in a single variable, and how many variables exist, in what sense does something as simplistic as "20% of horse's weight" help anyone?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Yogiwick said:


> OK great, I didn't know the exact conversion but knew it was a measurement. The part I was confused on was the "the every hh". I'm assuming the "the" was a typo (maybe "for"?) but what's "hh"?


HH= hands high

So basically, 14lbs for every hand high the horse is. Which means my big draft cross at 17hh and 1600lbs can carry about 238lbs, which is roughly 20%.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Yogiwick said:


> OK great, I didn't know the exact conversion but knew it was a measurement. The part I was confused on was the "the every hh". I'm assuming the "the" was a typo (maybe "for"?) but what's "hh"?


Nevermind. I'm an idiot XD. I was thinking it was a distance measurement.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Here is another example. A custom saddle maker tells of a rider who needed a new saddle. He thought he knew what the problem was, so he put a pressure pad on, let the rider saddle her horse and ride a few minutes. He then showed her the pressure picture. It looked great...except at the very front. Because the saddle was too far forward, the horses shoulder were being jabbed HARD with every stride. They moved the saddle back a few inches, and suddenly the horse was moving eagerly and the "bad saddle" was distributing weight fine. The rider had been riding for years.

And while I like western saddles, I saw a study once (which I forgot to bookmark) that indicated half of the western saddles being used by competitors did not fit right and caused significant pressure points. The most common was pressure at the shoulders, and the second was bridging with pressure spikes front and rear.

When variables like that are involved, how does telling a new rider about a 20% rule make things "safe"?


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

BSMS--ANY guideline based on weight is meaningless? Even exceeding? 

"Given the right circumstances, and if you read enough books with text in your favor, it is acceptable to put 100% or more of a horse's weight on their back."

That is what you just said.


I think the key here is to realize that this 'guideline' is in place for riders who can't otherwise tell the difference. Not every rider is as aware of their mounts as you, or others on this thread. 
It is better, in my opinion, to err on the side of caution and say "exceeding 20% of a horse's weight is potentially unsafe" than it is to say "Use your brain" because that's taking way too much for granted.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"Given the right circumstances, and if you read enough books with text in your favor, it is acceptable to put 100% or more of a horse's weight on their back."

That is what you just said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, what I've said is that you will find your limit and it won't be based on some percentage of the horse's weight. I'm pretty sure that limit will come before 100%, or 200%, or 10,000% - but it will be based on the horse, the rider, the tack, how they ride, goals, etc.

15% can be unsafe for a horse. 10%, if the tack is wrong. Heck, if it is a 1500 lb super muscular QH with tiny legs, 0% might be the best maximum - not 150 and certainly not 300 lbs. Yet the 20% rule would suggest it is "safe" for a 250 lb rider to buy a 1500 QH and not worry!

In law, I was told once, the answer is almost always "It depends". It seems that is true of many things in life, including riding. If someone doesn't have the judgment to ask their horse - and I rode Mia in that Bates CC saddle perhaps 150-200 rides, so I know that happens - post pictures or video and ask. Think about the questions I listed. Accept that there are no easy answers, and search for the right one.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

I think most people can figure out that there are more variables involved...

if you can't you probably don't need to be around animals in the first place.

And yes, it DOES depend. No one ever said otherwise.


----------



## loosie (Jun 19, 2008)

*!!*



bsms said:


> IOW, it is your personal opinion. And there are lots of personal opinions.


OMG you are a stuck record aren't you??:dance-smiley05: You haven't bothered to actually THINK about what's been written, or perhaps you have only read certain bits of my post & hooked on to those as something to get argumentative about again. OF COURSE IT IS JUST MY OPINION!!(I just told you partly how I arrived at it because you went on about 'unfounded opinions'), but you don't seem to realise your harping on about your precious armies is JUST YOUR OPINION!!



> Damage that cannot be seen or measured is rather questionable damage. The cavalry,


Yes, I get that you believe if you can't see it, it doesn't exist & should be discounted & put down as a load of rot. But if you want people to sit up & listen to YOUR OPINION, perhaps you can give the info you have that shows that all these wonderous cavalry horses lived sound, healthy lives into their late 20's & 30's?? THEN perhaps there would be more than just your personal opinion and awe of the army to go on.


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

BSMS--So then let me ask, how would you speak to a novice rider considering their first horse? If they said 'What size horse would suit me? Can I safely ride xx horse or yy horse?' Are you going to attend each viewing and determine, based on the future tack that they buy and the conformation of the animal in question, whether or not they are suitable?

Guidelines are simplified so lots of people can follow them with relative ease.

EDIT--I thought I'd add that I feel like I even fall in this category. I have been a rider and competitor for 17 years, but am still relatively (5 ish years under my belt) new to horse ownership. There are still many things I don't know, particularly because, for the vast majority of those years, I boarded or rode at establishments were most things were done and scheduled for you.
I'd rather have some guideline to go off of 'Can I ride this pony? hmmm...' than just my best, random guess.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Zexious said:


> BSMS--ANY guideline based on weight is meaningless? Even exceeding?
> 
> "Given the right circumstances, and if you read enough books with text in your favor, it is acceptable to put 100% or more of a horse's weight on their back."
> 
> ...


 "It is better, in my opinion, to err on the side of caution and say "exceeding 20% of a horse's weight is potentially unsafe" than it is to say "Use your brain" *because that's taking way too much for granted.* "


LOVE IT!!! and it's so true too!!


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Zexious said:


> BSMS--So then let me ask, how would you speak to a novice rider considering their first horse? If they said 'What size horse would suit me? Can I safely ride xx horse or yy horse?' Are you going to attend each viewing and determine, based on the future tack that they buy and the conformation of the animal in question, whether or not they are suitable?
> 
> Guidelines are simplified so lots of people can follow them with relative ease.
> 
> ...


I was in this _exact_ situation. This is probably the ONLY time I have EVER consciously used OR recommended this rule!!!! Please take note of that.

At that time I also gave a general height and type range. I also said to get a good vet for a PPE and to get their opinion in person.

I do think that things like "if you take good care of the horse" should go without saying... (that includes saddle fit and health including physical health..)


----------



## Hoofpic (Aug 23, 2015)

blondieinbreeches said:


> Horses can supposedly carry about 20 to 25% of their weight.
> 
> Which is 200 pounds on her.
> 
> ...


Horses can carry 20-25% of their body weight on their back? I was told its 15-17%.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

Hoofpic said:


> Horses can carry 20-25% of their body weight on their back? I was told its 15-17%.


If that were true, only super skinny/small people could ride horses.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

Hoofpic--That question is a great way to start controversy on this thread xD

The saying is 20% (not 15-17), but many people would disagree with even that--or really any numbers at all.


----------



## rideprosperously (Nov 19, 2015)

turnandburn1 said:


> Thank you all, I was just a little worried in the long term and needed a few more opinions. I am still worried though if I gained any weight I would be a little too much for her, I guess that gives me a reason to stay thin though...


You're even lighter than me haha, you're not too big for the horse. It's good that you have a strong motive to stay light as a rider.


----------

