# How short are your stirrups and why?



## bsms

I ride with longer stirrups because it helped me develop my seat. When I rode with short stirrups, I relied on lifting my weight up in the stirrups to avoid learning balance. But that could have just been my problem. 

Current leg position:










Old time cowboy:










_An LS day herder watching the cattle in a valley. LS Ranch, Texas_, 1907

Website here...hundreds of pictures from the early 1900s:

Erwin E. Smith Collection Guide | Collection Guide


----------



## kevinshorses

Your stirrups are too short. You would have more balance and ride more on your pelvis instead of your back pockets if you lowered your stirrups.


----------



## Allison Finch

You seem to be riding with a more English length stirrup. What you say is more appropriate for the English disciplines than western, IMO. When I ride western, I have a much longer stirrup. I don't want to be too "Up and out" of that saddle.


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

I agree that they are too short. I tend to ride a bit long if anything. Riding western your stirrups should be short enough to keep them but long enough you aren't relying on them. I was tortured as a kid and had to ride with raw eggs under the balls of my feet in my stirrups and not break them. 

Riding with them short takes away your ability to truly balance and find your seat. 

Here's an (awful - when I was much heavier) pic when I first started Woodstock. I ride youngsters a bit shorter than my others but it's an example of length. 








and warming up Jana @ a benefit show








Forgot to add - Allison, I love seeing you in western gear!


----------



## SorrelHorse

I think your stirrups are too short, as others have said.

I used to ride short too so I know the feeling. Then one day my trainer yanked me off, lowered them three holes, and I felt like I'd had my entire world destroyed :lol: 

Yet I found my seat drastically improved. I used to suck at riding bareback because I relied on my stirrups. Now I can ride a reining pattern completely bareback, where I couldn't go faster than a walk before. And my stirrups aren't even all that long, but they fit me great. Generally I measure by about four fingers between my butt and the saddle when I stand up in my stirrups.


----------



## Endiku

Whoever told you that the higher the stirrup the more you have to learn to balance is incorrect. Take bareback riding for instance. Your legs are as long and low as they get, and it takes _tremendous_ amounts of balance and skill to be able to sit that correctly. 

Bringing your stirrups up makes you rely more on your legs than your seat, which is not a correct way or riding. I've always been taught to keep your butt firmly in the saddle, settled right on the back pockets of your jeans, while leaving your legs long and flexible anywhere below the thigh. This way you can use leg aids properly. If you're resting all of your weight on your feet, as soon as you go to kick or squeeze, your whole balance will be thrown off.

I adjust my sturrups to about an inch higher than where the balls of my feet lay when I'm sitting in the saddle, legs stretched out as long as they get. This gives me no false security, and forces me to maintain good contact with the saddle at ALL times. I must rely on my pelvic muscles to post, and on my core to absorb the horse's movement when cantering, not my feet. My feet maintain a light but firm contact with the stirrup so that they don't slide out, but I do not use them to balance myself. This way, I am free to send signal to my horse through my thigh and calves (a good working horse will not need a kick more than once or twice every so often.) 


















this second picture is about as high as I ever put my stirrups, and this was only because my jeans were a bit snug... XD any higher than this and my balance is completely changed.

I would suggest moving your stirrups down two or three notches, or even removing them completely in order to work on your coordination and balance. To work cattle you must be able to synchronize yourself with your horse, and absorb anything that they throw at you while maintaining a balanced, composed seat with loose legs that are able to send any direction needed.

Our trainer actually took our stirrups off for our first eight lessons in cutting cattle. And it did a world of good in my opinion.


----------



## Amber and Mac

I agree with the others that your stirrups are too short. For western pleasure I usually make mine lower. But when I do Gymkhana I tend to put them up a notch. Well sometimes.. it really just depends. 











^ This is my friend and it's kind of hard to see but this is what my legs look like when I ride in a western pleasure show. I was taught that you should see one STRAIGHT line when you look at your leg. Its kind of hard to explain xD 










^ This was my stirrup length when I did a day of Gymkhana. (excuse that I look like a man. No makeup + french braid = manliness..) My knee looks kind of weird. But maybe this is just because I was slouching. 

You just kind of look like you should be riding in an english saddle instead of a western one.. (With your legs like that)


----------



## NicoleS11

Keep in mind that im not being judged on my form when riding. Growing up (before I started riding cutters) I was in 4H and my mom always made me ride with a longer stirrup and I was supposed to draw a line from my shoulder to my hip to my heel and be sitting more on my crotch than my pockets of my jeans. 

Now I ride cutting horses and am getting into penning. If you take a look at some of the best cutting horse trainers...look how short their stirrups are...

Below are Matt Gaines and Tag Rice...


----------



## Endiku

We aren't trying to judge you, simply letting you know that what you heard was incorrect, and that to establish a good seat, you must be able to rely on your core for balance rather than your legs.

You should be sitting on your crotch, but your butt should be maintaining a contact with the saddle as well, which is where 'pockets of your jeans' comes in to play. There's about a 6" space on the horse's back where you will find balance and be able to ride correctly, and to be in that space, the best way is to be sitting right where the hem of your pockets will touch the saddle. Anywhere above the beginning of your zipper is too far forewards, anywhere past the hem of the pocket it too far back.

With your legs pushed up under you in what my trainer calls the 'duck squat,' you're forced further up towards your zipper, and your pelvis will tip forewards.

As for the trainers, I really don't find that to have any relivance. Just because you turn out good horses and you're well known doesn't make you a good rider, or an ideal for other people to copy. Take Linda Parelli for example. Plenty of people follow her, copy what she does, say 'oh well she does this...' but I honestly think that her riding is garbage. Now I'm sure she's fixed a few horses, she's _obviously_ got a lot of money and quite a pull in the equine world, but that doesnt make her any better of a rider than my trainer.

In that first picture, I actually think that his stirrups aren't as high as they appear. With the horse in that position, the perspective is messed with. They look fine to me, and if his horse were standing square I believe that his feet would sit right where they should be, high enough to touch the horse's girth, low enough to create good balance. The second picture is too small for me to see. Looking at other pictures of him though, almost all of them show him with nice, long stirrups. Not with his legs crooked behind his knee and pushed forewards at the ankle.

























( pictures from SWTcutting and SallyHarrison )


----------



## Saddlebag

I was taught that the bottom of the stirrup should crack you in the ankle bone. Because I dinged my knees in a car accident many moons ago I had to adjust about an inch and a half lower.


----------



## mls

whoops - double post!


----------



## mls

NicoleS11 said:


> Now I ride cutting horses and am getting into penning. If you take a look at some of the best cutting horse trainers...look how short their stirrups are...
> 
> Below are Matt Gaines and Tag Rice...


Not a comparison for everyone.

Cutting horses tend to be shorter and close coupled. The riders tend to be long legged. The rider has to keep their legs out of the way so the horse can sweep with their front end. If the rider were to have the "correct" length stirrups, they would be interferring with the movement.

Also cutters ride a size up in seat size so they can sit back in the saddle and stay off the front end of the horse. Stirrups up and a hand on the horn to help maintain balance so they don't go flying.


----------



## Allison Finch

Mls, I always noticed that cutting saddle had a longer, flatter seat than other western saddles. Now I understand it. Thanks for the info.


----------



## TwistedWire

I too feel that short stirrups help a rider be better to the horse-you can rise into two point, etc.

Your stirrups are in a pretty "jumper" length, I'd say, but they don't offend me terribly. 

Better to be more secure in your seat and less floppy in your leg, I say, so if you need shorter stirrups, so be it.

I've watched a lot of barrel racers with short stirrups that can fly around the barrels in a 14-15 second pattern, and many with long stirrups that nearly fall off around the barrel.


----------



## redape49

kevinshorses said:


> Your stirrups are too short. You would have more balance and ride more on your pelvis instead of your back pockets if you lowered your stirrups.


She rides western tho. Western riding is more about riding on your back pockets instead of your pelvis...


----------



## TwistedWire

Western riding shouldn't be on the pockets unless you're riding a bronc or sitting on a cutter...

No matter the discipline, weight should be on the seat bones. Tipping the pockets down shouldn't be a passive position-that should signal stop, rate, back up, etc. Sitting on the pockets also invites a chair seated position where the feet are in front of the line dropped from the shoulder through the hip.


----------



## redape49

The shortest I'll go









Longest I'll go


----------



## .Delete.

It really drives me nuts when people use top trainers as an excuse for what they do. " Well i saw Clark Bradley grabbing his horn so why cant i?" 

I dont care what the big name people do. They are amazing riders and i promise they can ride just the same with a straighter leg. Riding with your legs that far forward and that short creates a chair seat. Throws you off your center and pushes you against the cantle. I ride horsemanship alot, in a Running P roping saddle actually. The fenders are set back further because ropers stand up alot and need their legs further back under them. 

You want to ride in the saddle like you are standing up, only with a slight bend in your knee. You want your legs long and under you, not short and infront of you.


----------



## BornToRun

As short as they can go, I don't reach very high off the ground :S


----------



## Fort fireman

Just my humble opinion and that is all it is. I think they are to short. With them tht short it puts you back in the saddle and against the cantle of the saddle and your feet end up out in front of you. Throwing you back in the saddle and then out of balance.. It would be great for an english saddle but a western saddle is sat in alittle differently. It is true that a SLIGHTLY shorter sturrup is sometimes used in cutting to help with balance and often because of long legs on the riders part but not to that extreme. Long legs make it difficult to make contact with a spur sometimes when things speed up, I know I wear 36 length wranglers. I like my sturrups long enough that i can sit in the "pocket" of the saddle and slide my hand down between my butt and the cantle. If I'm right against the cantle of the saddle I kow my sturrups are to short because you end up pushing yourself back into it and your feet out in front. It's simple body mechanics. My suggestion would be to drop your sturrups about 2 holes on each side and give it a try. You may be surprised how it helps your leg cues and your balance. You may even need to go longer. 
just so you know i ride in a shorter sturrup than alot of people to but that came from the 7 years I worked at a hunter jumper barn. But my sturrups are still longer than yours.


----------



## kevinshorses

redape49 said:


> She rides western tho. Western riding is more about riding on your back pockets instead of your pelvis...


Only if you want to look like a sack of potatoes that someone threw on your saddle. Good equitation is good equitation regardless of what your saddle looks like.


----------



## redape49

kevinshorses said:


> Only if you want to look like a sack of potatoes that someone threw on your saddle. Good equitation is good equitation regardless of what your saddle looks like.


What's wrong with a sack of potatoes!? :lol:


----------



## kevinshorses

Nothing's wrong with potatoes, I just don't want to look like one! 

When you're back on your pockets it puts a brace in your body and that in turn puts a brace in your horse. A rider should be relaxed and sitting balanced on the pelvis in order to feel what the horse is offering and for the horse to feel what you're offering. If a horse can feel a fly land on its back in a windstorm then surely they can feel a 100lbs or more of rider shift on its back.


----------



## bsms

It might help to define "on your pockets".

There is an older style of riding that was used very heavily in the west in the 1800s and early 1900s. Here is a very typical example:










_Jack Woffard of the Shoe Bar outfit flanking the trail herd. Shoe Bar Ranch, Texas_, 1912

Notice the tall cantle (5-6" was the norm), and how the feet are braced out in front. His entire pocket is pressed against the cantle. That was normal in the 1800s. 

A similar approach was even used when riding English. Pictures and paintings of people jumping in the 1860s show the legs out front, weight back and in the saddle. The idea was that you could pull the horse's face up so he would land on all 4 feet, reducing the impact. It wasn't until the 1890s that jumpers started getting out of the saddle.

I've had an instructor tell me to 'get on my pockets', but that is in part because I lean forward when I ride - which everyone agrees is wrong. It is a matter of degree. One exercise was to do tight circles, some leaning a bit forward, and others rolling back onto the bottom seam of my pocket. When I rolled back, the horse became noticeably better balanced, bringing his rear legs under more and making a more comfortable circle.

Based on how things have felt with the horse when playing around with it, I think the 1940s Cavalry manual has it about right - roll back until the fleshy part of the buttocks hits the saddle, then roll your hips forward just enough to lose contact. I still roll back a little in tight turns, and my horses seem to perform better when I do.

Heel / hip / shoulder is a good ROT. There are cases where a chair seat can help. For example, I took up riding at 50. My legs and hips are very stiff, even now. When starting, I found I could not get my heel under my hip without A) putting a lot of tension in my legs, and B) raising my heel way up. Both bad.

With time, I'm getting looser. But even after 4 years, there are horses that my legs just will NOT hang down around. I can move my feet forward and relax my leg, or I can have tight legs. In that case, I move my feet forward some.

But that is a departure from the ideal. There may have been good reasons for the way cowboys rode in the 1800s - nearly unbroke horses, rough terrain, no medical help near, etc. I don't know. I do know I've tried riding like that, and it isn't as bad as one would think...but it also doesn't seem to work as well as the more modern style.


----------



## Gidget

I ride with short stirrups only because I am use to english now. I noticed that in videos my legs are in englishstyle so I lowered them a notch and so now I don't look so akward in a western saddle now,lol.


----------



## .Delete.

I only ride in short stirrups when I'm on an unbroke or one that I know is a little frisky.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## goodhrs

I think your stirrups are to short. I prefer mine so that I have just a slight bend in my knees. But everyone has their own comfort zone.


----------



## Joe4d

NicoleS11 said:


> Keep in mind that im not being judged on my form when riding. Growing up (before I started riding cutters) I was in 4H and my mom always made me ride with a longer stirrup and I was supposed to draw a line from my shoulder to my hip to my heel and be sitting more on my crotch than my pockets of my jeans.
> 
> Now I ride cutting horses and am getting into penning. If you take a look at some of the best cutting horse trainers...look how short their stirrups are...
> 
> Below are Matt Gaines and Tag Rice...


Their stirrups are short cause they are riding midget horses and their feet would drag the ground.

I ride Aussi, stirrups are properly adjusted when your upper thighs are parallel with the poley's Kinda takes out the guess work.


----------



## mls

TwistedWire said:


> Western riding shouldn't be on the pockets unless you're riding a bronc or sitting on a cutter...
> 
> No matter the discipline, weight should be on the seat bones. Tipping the pockets down shouldn't be a passive position-that should signal stop, rate, back up, etc. Sitting on the pockets also invites a chair seated position where the feet are in front of the line dropped from the shoulder through the hip.


My pockets are on my seat bones. No chair seat.


----------



## Tsaraph

Joe4d said:


> I ride Aussi, stirrups are properly adjusted when your upper thighs are parallel with the poley's Kinda takes out the guess work.


I was wondering if any one rode in an Australian Stock Saddle. Someone just recently gave me a cheap model (too big for me, so I don't use it since it's uncomfortable), and I've done some reading. It seems that in a stock saddle, you are sitting back a little more, aren't you? Your legs are a little more forward instead of under you. I'm completely new to this, so this is only based on what I've read, not from any instructor in stock saddle riding. Would love another person's thoughts on it.


----------



## smrobs

I tend to keep my stirrups a bit shorter than most folks but I agree that yours are a bit too short.

If my stirrups are either too short or too long, then I am using my legs too much and I tend to lose my seat. If they are too short then I can't seem to get my legs out of the way and I tend to bounce. If they are too long, then I feel like I am constantly reaching just to keep them on my feet and that makes my pelvis stiff and tense.

I ride a lot of colts so I keep mine a bit shorter as that makes it easier to keep them close to the horse's side without so much risk of losing them.

This is an old picture, but it is one of the better ones for showing my stirrup length.


----------



## .Delete.

I keep my left one shorter than my right. I broke my leg a long time ago and refused to get corrective surgery. Since then i walk with my toe pointed out, it hurts a great deal in my knee and hip to turn my toe in for extended periods of time. Along with, that leg is considerably weaker than the other so i like to have a little more support for it.


----------



## Joe4d

stock saddle wont work to well if it is too big. Basically with a proper sized saddle, you sit up straight, The stirrups are adjusted so your thighs are parallel to the poleys, and maybe 2 or 3 inches away,


----------



## dee

Smrobs - you are my hero! I am much more comfortable riding in a shorter stirrup because then my legs don't feel like they are pulling themselves out of my hip sockets. I want to be able to stand up in the saddle and see daylight - not a lot of daylight, but some. This means my leg will have a little more bend in it than most people, because I'm so dang short. I won't win any shows, that's for sure, but I generally don't fall off, either.

Because I'm comfortable with a somewhat shorter stirrup - I'm able to relax and go with the flow, and stay in the middle of my seat.


----------



## Britt

I keep my stirrups the same length as my arm. It's comfy and the right lenth for me.


----------



## kevinshorses

smrobs said:


> I tend to keep my stirrups a bit shorter than most folks but I agree that yours are a bit too short.
> 
> If my stirrups are either too short or too long, then I am using my legs too much and I tend to lose my seat. If they are too short then I can't seem to get my legs out of the way and I tend to bounce. If they are too long, then I feel like I am constantly reaching just to keep them on my feet and that makes my pelvis stiff and tense.
> 
> I ride a lot of colts so I keep mine a bit shorter as that makes it easier to keep them close to the horse's side without so much risk of losing them.
> 
> This is an old picture, but it is one of the better ones for showing my stirrup length.


It's also a great picture for showing what a relaxed horse at a lope should look like.


----------



## smrobs

LOL, why thank you Kevin. She was a really nice mare but her lope was a heck of a lot rougher than I really like.


----------



## Horselover165

I'm not sure , but i usually lke my stirrups pretty short..


----------



## jacyisneat

i like to ride my western arab with nice, stretched out stirrups. it keeps me balanced and gives me a more comfortable seat while riding.


----------



## xxGallopxx

WOAH your stirrups look WAAAAAY short!!! My stirrups look much like SorrelHorse's stirrups do...I think hers are a great example (;


----------

