# Short Back or Long?



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

.

Flaw?

Generally taller Horses have longer backs, he looks pretty tall.

Ride in a Western Saddle and his back won't look so long 

I think he looks nice :wink:


.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

His back really isn't that long. His croup is a wee bit short, so it makes it look long. Any horse looks long-backed under an English saddle, even my short-backed draft cross.

A long back is a weak back, therefore it is considered a flaw.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## GotaDunQH (Feb 13, 2011)

I see a long back, and what makes it long...is the long loin connection.


----------



## 40232 (Jan 10, 2013)

Long backs can be weak as opposed to short backs. In my horse judging class, we considered long backed horses "family horses" since it looks like the whole family could fit on one. From what I remember, short backs are desirable on the conformation level, but I like long backed horses, as long as their backs aren't weak. I couldn't see a huge horse have a short back.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I think the part of the long back being a "blessing" is that long backedx horses are often more comfy for the rider, and less of a challenge to fit to a saddle.

I think your horse has a long back, but more than that, I think his hind legs are camped out a bit. and the angle of hip is on the flat side. If you position his rear legs so that the canon is perfectly vertical, it will be behind the point of the buttocks, thus the camped out. And when he bring them under himself, he appears sickle hocked. This is really pretty minor.
But you can see that undersaddle, he stands a tiny bit camped out in back and there's a noticeable drop in his back. Since I am such a chunk that I weight half again what you do, I would not want to subject this horse to my weight on a daily basis.


----------



## ginofalltrades (Feb 18, 2012)

I agree that he stands under behind. I didn't like it at first, but now I like it because he tracks up really easily. In the photo's he has only been under saddle for a few months, he still has a lot of filling out to do 

Someone told me that as long as the horse wasn't too narrow through the loin with a long back, that it is easier on the horse to have a long back than having a short back because there is more surface area in which to carry the rider? Hmmm...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Elana (Jan 28, 2011)

Long coupling which is weak.


----------



## ginofalltrades (Feb 18, 2012)

Here is another photo that I just found. He has a long sloping sholder to a wither that is set back quite a bit. if you look at him from wither to loin, he isn't that long. So I am wondering, if a wither set back and long like that could be considered a flaw. 
What do ya think?
Thanks Everyone


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

ginofalltrades said:


> I agree that he stands under behind. I didn't like it at first, but now I like it because he tracks up really easily. In the photo's he has only been under saddle for a few months, he still has a lot of filling out to do
> 
> Someone told me that as long as the horse wasn't too narrow through the loin with a long back, that *it is easier on the horse to have a long back than having a short back because there is more surface area in which to* carry the rider? Hmmm...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
Nonsense. There must be as much surface area to carry the saddle on either a short or a long backed horse. The saddle must NOT extend past the ribs that are attached to the spine, into the area where the ribs "float" (help me out here, what number rib is that?)
So, the weight bearing area is exactly equal regardless of length of back.

The longer backed horses are perceived to be weaker because you are carrying the weight over a longer span, and engineering indicates that this puts more stress on the span because the middle is farther away from the supports (legs).


----------



## Saddlebag (Jan 17, 2011)

I'll bet he could run like the wind with that confo.


----------



## LeynaProof (Jan 3, 2013)

I do agree with Tiny. Although i have seen many horses with long backs never have a problem. My mare (Leyna) she was long backed, if there was one thing i could have changed about her it would have been to shorten her back. But she never came up sore on her back and we competed in one day 100 mile rides. But i did make her build up her back muscles. I always rode her with a martingale and would do some work with her with PJ reins. Kind of like draw reins. But long back tend to come up sore if you don't make the horse build muscle up there.


----------



## SouthernTrails (Dec 19, 2008)

'



tinyliny said:


> The saddle must NOT extend past the ribs that are attached to the spine, into the area where the ribs "float" (help me out here, what number rib is that?)
> So, the weight bearing area is exactly equal regardless of length of back.


Nothing past the 15th or 16th rib depending on breed, I think is the number

Or better yet no weight bearing on the last 2 Sets of Ribs :wink:

.


----------

