# How can you tell if you're too big for your horse?



## RhiannaShea (Aug 8, 2016)

A woman on the yard commented to me about how she wouldn't have this size person on this size horse etc etc 
I always worry I'm too big but she seems perfectly content wheb I ride my mare, I'm on a diet now and I'm hoping to loose another 2-3 stone within the next year.
I'm roughly 5'6 and 12-12.5 stone, she's 13.2/13.3 and is about 350kg (very muscular) am I too big? Or would she let me know if I was too big?


----------



## DraftyAiresMum (Jun 1, 2011)

She would definitely tell you if you were too big.

My first horse was a 14.2hh Arab cross who weighed about 800lbs (362kg) when he was fat. I'm 5'7" and was about your same weight when I had him. He carried me just fine, along with a heavy 45lbs (20kg) western show saddle. 

Look at the amount of bone a horse has before commenting on if the rider is too big for the horse. I've ridden a 13.1hh fat pony over rough terrain in a western saddle and she carried me just fine. I've had thinner-built TBs have a bit of a hard time with me at the same size, though.


----------



## RhiannaShea (Aug 8, 2016)

DraftyAiresMum said:


> She would definitely tell you if you were too big.
> 
> My first horse was a 14.2hh Arab cross who weighed about 800lbs (362kg) when he was fat. I'm 5'7" and was about your same weight when I had him. He carried me just fine, along with a heavy 45lbs (20kg) western show saddle.
> 
> Look at the amount of bone a horse has before commenting on if the rider is too big for the horse. I've ridden a 13.1hh fat pony over rough terrain in a western saddle and she carried me just fine. I've had thinner-built TBs have a bit of a hard time with me at the same size, though.


She's amazing strong for her size and my saddle is just a saddle pad so doesn't weigh much at all. I've always been self conscious about this cause of my cousin but I over came out this year and now someone's said something about something else and I'm back to step one


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

A long an heated discussion, but it will give you a sample of the arguments pro and con:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/am-i-too-big-his-horse-605666/#post7779882


----------



## WhattaTroublemaker (Aug 13, 2013)

I'm two hundred pounds on a good day and my 14.2hh 800 pound appy packs my sorry **** around no problem. Now I had a friend on him who weight 350+ pounds and he was clearly not happy. He pinned his ears, swished his tail and threatened to buck. 

I can also pack around on our 11hh pony who was used for packing. He's used to comfortably carrying 200 pounds in the woods. He doesn't complain. 
They'll let you know if you're too heavy!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

5'8", 165 lbs (12 stone) on our 13.0 hand, roughly 700 chubby lbs BLM pony:








​ 
My daughter is on the Appy. I've done 3 hour rides on the pony. If the ground gets rough enough, he struggles with his balance. On level terrain, he handles me fine. He'll initiate trots even after 2-3 hours, so I don't think I'm too much.

I'd be too big for him for any sort of competition. For his size, he has thick legs, a short back, and thick, strong loins. A different horse might result in a different answer.


----------



## horselovinguy (Oct 1, 2013)

Please, please also take into consideration the kind of rider you are makes a big difference in what a horse is comfortable carrying....
If you are a quiet rider, not bouncing around or losing your balance will make a big difference in what the horse can carry well.
If you do not have good balance and move around, slipping and sliding, using your reins for balance will take a much larger horse to accept those weight shifts...
A "twig" of a rider can be a big hindrance if unbalanced where a heavier rider can be a great help to the horse if they sit quietly and balanced astride...
:runninghorse2:
_jmo..._


----------



## jgnmoose (May 27, 2015)

horselovinguy said:


> Please, please also take into consideration the kind of rider you are makes a big difference in what a horse is comfortable carrying....
> If you are a quiet rider, not bouncing around or losing your balance will make a big difference in what the horse can carry well.
> If you do not have good balance and move around, slipping and sliding, using your reins for balance will take a much larger horse to accept those weight shifts...
> A "twig" of a rider can be a big hindrance if unbalanced where a heavier rider can be a great help to the horse if they sit quietly and balanced astride...
> ...


This.

I personally know some big men (250lb+) that can ride anything with hair. Being in the correct position, and being able to get on and off the horse without torquing their back is very important.

A 100lb rider could probably make a horse a lot more sore by bouncing on their kidneys all day and hanging on their mouth.


----------



## RhiannaShea (Aug 8, 2016)

I've been out of riding for two years but I'm starting with lessons straight away cause I want to make sure I'm not doing anything you guys have mentioned but I've always been generally quite balanced, 
Considering my horse happily initiates trotting, cantering and even galloping she must be happy with me riding her, though I've been avoiding the faster paces until I'm ready or only doing it for a small length cause I'm relearning how to canter without annoying my mare, 
Thank you guys. You've made me feel abit more confident in the matter! X


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

That is 175 lbs according to the converter. You may look in the mirror and think that is a lot of weight, or maybe someone else looks at you and thinks that or whatever. But that is a personal thing. As far as your horse is concerned 175 is 175. It matters not to the horse about how tall you are and whether you are too heavy for your height or not. Most men weigh more than 175 lbs and horses carry them no problem. I hope that this lady wasn't pointing you out specifically. If she did it to me I would tell her off and to mind her own business. I would also point out a nice well built six foot man and tell her to talk to him about this issue she has because he probably far out weighs you. The general rule is horses can carry 20 percent of their body weight but then there are a lot more variables like how the horse is built, what condition they are in, and how the person rides so it's just a general starting point.

Just ride your horse and enjoy her. She would let you know if you were too heavy for her.

Honestly, I would rather be that person that is a little over weight than to be that person who is rude, nasty and enjoys pointing out peoples flaws. And, even so called flaws are just someone else's opinion.


----------



## RhiannaShea (Aug 8, 2016)

LoriF said:


> That is 175 lbs according to the converter. You may look in the mirror and think that is a lot of weight, or maybe someone else looks at you and thinks that or whatever. But that is a personal thing. As far as your horse is concerned 175 is 175. It matters not to the horse about how tall you are and whether you are too heavy for your height or not. Most men weigh more than 175 lbs and horses carry them no problem. I hope that this lady wasn't pointing you out specifically. If she did it to me I would tell her off and to mind her own business. I would also point out a nice well built six foot man and tell her to talk to him about this issue she has because he probably far out weighs you. The general rule is horses can carry 20 percent of their body weight but then there are a lot more variables like how the horse is built, what condition they are in, and how the person rides so it's just a general starting point.
> 
> Just ride your horse and enjoy her. She would let you know if you were too heavy for her.
> 
> Honestly, I would rather be that person that is a little over weight than to be that person who is rude, nasty and enjoys pointing out peoples flaws. And, even so called flaws are just someone else's opinion.


Thank you 
I have no idea if she was pointing out me when she was saying it,either way i've always been uncomfortable about my weight with riding so it didn't really help,
there's no men to point out on my yard, completely female dominated :grin:
you've made me feel a lot better as I honestly wouldn't know what to do without my horse


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

As you're in the UK I will say that the rider/weight ratio is heating up fast over there with the scales tipping against riders that are considered to be too heavy for their horses/ponies.
I would use the 20% ratio and include into that allowances for things like your saddle weight, your ability and the type of bone (leg) your pony has. Something with a big body on little stick legs isn't going to carry weight as well as a cob type with plenty of bone - same goes for conformation.
I've ridden plenty of 13.2's but I'm only 5ft 3ish and my weight was never much above 125lb in those days. Unless they've got plenty of neck in front of you and a decent depth of girth I'd honestly rather leave them to smaller kids from a feeling really comfortable perspective


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Seems to me folks ought to fight back against the inaccurate 20% rule. If that is allowed to take hold, a lot of men will be forced out of riding! I don't know if I have ever ridden a horse while under 20% of its weight! Bandit is about 15 hands and 800 lbs. Giving 35 lbs for saddle and other gear, the 20% rule says he shouldn't be ridden by anyone over 125 lbs - which is insane. The idea that Bandit should almost never again have a man on his back defies reality. We ride at 25% of his body weight, and Bandit is not struggling! 










These horses are related to Trooper, and weigh in around 850. They do 12+ hour days with grown men on their backs and don't break down:​







​


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The OP isn't in the US so what is considered 'normal' here in terms of larger men riding the smaller quarter horse type in the western riding world isn't seen over there
Besides you're comparing a 15 hand horse that could average between 800 and 900lb being ridden by someone that's maybe 170lb and she's talking about a 13.2 pony that she says weigh about 700lb - I would question that as her pony looks like a welsh arab cross so probably closer to 600lb and she says she weighs 175lb in a country where top shows are going to be asking people riding at that ratio to dismount and leave the ring


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Any horse bred or built in such a way that it can only carry 20% of its body weight should be shunned - just as most people here refuse to buy halter-bred quarter horses who are too heavy for their feet before anyone mounts.

I haven't seen her horse, so all I have to go on is "_she's 13.2/13.3 and is about 350kg (very muscular)_". 13.2 & a muscular 770 lbs should not be a problem. Bandit's weight was estimated to be 790 at his last vet check.

"_where top shows are going to be asking people riding at that ratio to dismount and leave the ring_"

And that is why I think people need to push back. Top shows in England are teaching everyone that I am abusive because I ride a slender Arabian/Mustang mix at 25%. The "top shows" are creating a perception that will filter down, and that perception has no science to back it and has nothing to do with reality. There are 1300 lb quarter horses who probably should not be ridden at all. There is 13.0 hand Cowboy, around 650 lbs or so, that I've ridden 3 hours and had him initiate trots near the end of the ride.

The ranch I visited in June probably doesn't own a horse over 900 lbs. The owner prefers Arab mixes because of the long distances they need to cover. Trooper, who is 850 lbs, is related to half the horses on the ranch. So 170-200 lb guys, using 30-45 lb roping saddles, riding 20-50 miles a day, daily. For decades.

I realize that is not the English norm. But if top shows in England ban riders who are over 20%, it will create the impression in the general public that the 20% rule is valid. I've already seen articles that say "_Since 20% is the maximum, shouldn't we limit riders to 15% - just to be safe?_" I remember a thread some time back where a lady was concerned because she weighed over 15%. If no one pushes back, that is the future 'common knowledge' - riding is for small women and girls.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The majority of showing people in the UK don't ride horses and ponies that are too small for their weight there aren't enough of those that are to make a difference 
I doubt very much that what goes on in the UK showing world will have any effect at all on US western riding or trail riders here so you have nothing to worry about.
Maybe it's because the UK has historically always had an abundance of cobs and larger horses like the Irish Draught its more unusual to see men on anything below 15.2 there unless it's a real cob type.


----------



## Mulefeather (Feb 22, 2014)

Pardon my passionate response, but the 20% rule applies to cavalry horses. It was never meant to apply to riding horses that fell outside it's parameters- horses of a certain weight, height, and fitness level, carrying riders of a certain fitness level, height and weight, and going at a 50-100 mile pace each DAY. At best, it' s a guideline to make people feel better. At worst, it's a dangerous dinosaur of misinformation that needs to just DIE already. 

The English also have a long tradition of preferring HUGE horses and being obsessed with height rather than bone and fitness. There are many breeds of horses that get no bigger than 14 hh and are fantastic weight carriers due to their conformation and heavy bone (Icelandics, Fell ponies, Fjords). Icelanders have a joke that English people look like birds in trees on their horses - meanwhile these sturdy little Icelandic horses are taking cross-country treks over rough terrain for days at a time, herding sheep and other horses, pulling plows, and racing. AFTER surviving a sub-arctic winter on no supplemental feed or hay, no less. 

Fitness counts for a lot. If your horse is fit, used to carrying weight, fed in such a way that they are able to meet the caloric demands of carrying a heavier rider, and they are accustomed to the terrain and time period? There's NO reason you cannot continue to ride your horse. 

Horses are like any other mammal, including people. Fitness must be built gradually and constantly. 

A fat, unfit horse is not going to be able to carry more rider simply because it weighs more. A fat, unfit person is not going to be able to work out or lift the level of weight that a fit one at a proper weight can. You also cannot introduce a wild upswing in weight (A 350 lb rider versus a 175 one) suddenly, and expect the horse to perform at the same level they did without conditioning to the new weight. 

If we look at current studies, these were usually done on horses that were NOT accustomed to carrying weight, and usually had no litmus test of physical fitness done before they were included in the study. 

The horses in the famed "10%" study had no appreciable physical activity for four MONTHS. It was like taking a bunch of people who do nothing but sit in front of the TV eating for 4 months and then asking them to run a 5k. OF COURSE the horses were uncomfortable, showing signs of distress, and had higher levels of cortisol. 

There has to be a line, absolutely. But you have not reached it. The biggest "rule" we should follow is what our horses tell us.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

I'm not sure if the OP is concerned only about her weight on the horse or also about getting negative comments
She is based in the UK and she has a very high chance of getting those negative comments there - if she doesn't care what people think then she should do whatever she feels comfortable doing.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Mulefeather said:


> Pardon my passionate response, but the 20% rule applies to cavalry horses...


The US Cavalry bought horses weighing (when they could find them) between 900 & 1100 lbs, so 1000 lbs average. The British Cavalry looked for slightly larger horses running 1000 - 1200 lbs, so 10% larger.

The standard field load of a US Cavalry horse was 250 lbs. The standard field load of a British mount was 21 stone (294 lbs). So the standard field ratio for the USA was 25%, and the standard for the British was a little higher at 27%. I think that provides a lot of food for thought: *The NORMAL field load was 250-300 lbs!*

I've never found the "20% rule" in an cavalry publication. Another guy took a much more thorough look, and he could not find it either. Given their standard field load, they would have needed horses of at least 1250 lbs - and they did not. I've read their publications on buying horses, and they wanted them around 1000 lbs.

This picture was of the British Cavalry in World War One. The rider was 1/2 of the standard load:








​ 
I realize the OP may well get negative comments in England. But I feel the same way about people who claim bits are cruel and shoes are cruel - if we don't fight back, they win by default.

BTW - just finished a 90 minute ride on Bandit in the desert bitless, and it was probably his best ride since I met him. But I also expect him to ride in a curb bit, without problems. I'm seriously thinking about buying him a $150 leather sidepull, but I'll make sure anyone who asks knows he's also been ridden in the Dreaded Tom Thumb Curb bit!


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Mulefeather said:


> The English also have a long tradition of preferring HUGE horses and being obsessed with height rather than bone and fitness.


Not entirely true, while they do favour bigger horses in many cases it is NOT at the expense of bone of fitness. Bone is certainly considered when it comes to weight carrying, always has been. If you look at the fantastic cobs we have in the UK, both registered and the great pool of wonderful 'cob types' you will see all the bone that you want. If you are talking about fitness as in level of fitness, how the heck can you say that English have no tradition of that, English Fox Hunting is about as traditional as it gets, and fittening for that is a long job.

Maybe you meant fit for purpose? there I do agree, they do tend to overlook the weight carrying abilities of a lot of those great native ponies, but at the same time, they are not all weight carriers.

Fact is there IS for whatever reason, a different view of weight in the UK, maybe because horses have largely been recreational for a long time, so that is what is being bred for. Horses here were bred, when the QH was king, to carry a full grown man and all his kit all day, but still be easy to step on and off. Over here Fergie and I do not seem to make any waves, I'm not sure that the same would be the case in the UK. I realize that I am way above the OP's height and weight, but you can't change the way things are....many things are different between North America and the UK, just the way it is. As @jaydee says it is the negative comments that would get to a person, it causes doubt even if you KNOW deep down your horse is fine with you


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> And that is why I think people need to push back. *Top shows in England are teaching everyone that I am abusive because I ride a slender Arabian/Mustang mix at 25%.* The "top shows" are creating a perception that will filter down, and that perception has no science to back it and has nothing to do with *reality*.


Reality is believing that there is no way "Top shows in England" teach "everyone" that you abuse your horses that live in Arizona. 

Bolding mine.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Well that is an interesting view that you quoted there @updownrider, I agree I simply can't see how what goes on in the warm up and collecting rings at British Horse Shows reflects in anyway on any rider in North America. As I have already said, the mindset is different over there, and I think few here actually understand what the issue is...and it for sure ISN'T big people riding Arab's. It is more about normal size people riding spindly legged, light framed kiddies ponies, and taking the fizz out of them to make them quieter for the kids to ride.

Relax people, this isn't going to make one drop of difference over here. If of course you are planning a show season over the pond, you may want to choose your mount with care.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

I disagree "the horse will tell you" by that point you have a pretty big problem.... I've dealt with back problems, acute and chronic, and I've dealt with back problems from heavy riders, and not so heavy riders (and of course with back issues unrelated to riders).

I think the OP is on the higher end definitely but it's very dependent. Aside from pure weight is the rider balanced and gentle? Is the horse built in a way that allows it to carry weight (this is conformational not "muscle")? Is the horse fit and what will the horse and rider be doing?

Honestly it's much easier to tell off a pic then just by numbers because it is dependent.

My mare was ridden by poor/heavy rider and what I'm currently working on is letting her know I'm NOT going to pound on her back, if she thinks I might she will throw her head up and go on the forehand and brace, and honestly it's hard NOT to hit the back when a horse does that. I've known several horses to come up back sore (inc my mare) after the same lady...not huge say 180 or so, rode them. She was heavy and unbalanced and while the horses were well built and strong they weren't big enough to not get tweaked by her throwing her weight around.

If the horse tells you the second you get on then you are WAAYYY over the top.

My Icelandic is 12.3, but very sturdy. I ride her no problem. My mother who is about 175/180 rides her no problem. My mother would never work her, but she is more then fine for a 30 minute trail ride w/t every now and then. However, most ponies that size would NOT be suitable for most adults.

It's all very dependent and the 20% rule IS a good general guideline....Let me put it this way. I've seen lots of people on lots of horses and all the ones I think "they look great" and all the ones "omg can I say something?" and all the back issues I've worked with when I punch the numbers work out to about that.

When you're bumming around for fun it's VASTLY different then working a horse regularly. It's also about proportions at the end of the day, not numbers.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

The 20% rule pretty much says no men should ride Arabians. Not sure how that can be a good general rule. Nor does it even make sense. After all, why should a fat horse be capable of carrying a heavier rider? How can a rule that ignores leg size make sense?

I'm at 25% with Bandit. When I was a bit heavier, I was at 25% with Mia. I have a very hard time believing I'm at the "_omg can I say something?_" size with either horse. The horses sure don't seem to think so...


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Well I do believe it was the Americans that state the 20% rule. I had never heard of it before going on the internet.

As for the Brits preferring big horses regardless of conformation or bone that is a load of tosh. Yes, there are tall horses but most are under 16.2 though on both sides of the pond these become 18+ hands. 

All the native ponies, from the Shetland to the Dales, Dartmoor, Exmoor and Welsh ponies were all worked on farms ridden by men over rough terrain and lived on air. Shetlands and Welsh were used to pull trucks laden with coal out of the mines. Admittedly on tracks but the weight they were pulling, often up steep inclines far exceeded their own weight. Highland were and are used to carry dead stags down from the mountains. 

As for British Shows there are many classes that do have weight restrictions. Hunter classes are divided into light, middle and heavyweigh. Cob classes also have light and heavyweight sections. The latter being under 15.1 and capable of carrying 200lb + 

To say that top British Shows would be against anyone riding a smaller lightweight horse is total crap. For a start top U.K. Shows have nothing to do with the rules of British showing the governing body The British Show Horse makes the rules and sees they are adhered to and quite honestly they have better things to do than worry about larger people riding smaller horses in other countries.


----------



## LoriF (Apr 3, 2015)

@bsms I think what some people are saying including myself, is that 20% is a good point to start from and only that. From there, you can consider other variables such as bone, conformation, and fitness level of the horse.

For a personal example. My mare has not been ridden much at all in the last three years due to an injury and then pregnancy and raising a baby. When I start her this fall, I at 5'6" and 120 lbs will not even be getting on her back in the beginning other than to walk around. The rest of the work will be started with me on the ground. This mare is 16 hands and should weigh about 12 to 13 hundred lbs. There are shorter and lighter horses on the property that are fit at this moment who can carry just about anyone. 

There really is room for common sense.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

My point is that 20% is irrelevant. It is not a good starting point. If people regularly have problems below it - and a number do - then it is invalid. If many people exceed it, significantly, for years, without problems, then it is invalid.

Biomechanically, it makes no sense - even as a starting point. The Tevis Cup study indicated total weight of horse and rider compared to leg diameter gives valid results, and that makes biomechanical sense: total weight applied to weight bearing structures. Ignoring total weight, and ignoring the weight bearing structures, makes no sense.

When an organization that used a hundred thousand horses determined it wanted horses averaging 1000 lbs to carry 250 lbs, that is pretty good support for a "25% Rule" - as a NORM, not an upper limit! The equally large British Cavalry assumed a slightly heavier weight ratio of around 27%. Average field loads, applied to horses in the hundred thousands.

As best I can tell, the "20% Rule" started with a former US Cavalry officer who taught jumping. For all I know, a 20% rule might make a good starting point - for jumping. But the Internet myth of a valid 20% Rule is spreading. I've seen it mentioned by researchers. It is being used in top UK shows now, I guess. There have been people on HF worrying if they can exceed 15% - because if 20% is the maximum, wouldn't 15% be a good starting point? And I read an article about a year ago saying 10% would be a good maximum for anyone who really cared about their horses!

So I'm doing my part to push back. I've broken the 20% rule every time I've ridden for the last 8.5 years. My wife violates it every time she rides Cowboy. Yet I've watched slender Bandit (800 lbs) trying to get the other horses to play with him - after a ride.

Folks can do and say what they want - with their own horses. But as more people try to tell me that a 160-165 lb guy like myself should not be allowed to toss a 30 lb saddle on Bandit and go ride...I'm pushing back. Because if no one pushes back, the invalid "20% Rule" will become set in stone. :angrily_smileys:

Tevis Cup studies:

"The results of this study confirm that rider weight, either independent of, or relative to the animal BW is not a critical factor in predicting performance during a 160-km endurance competition. BW was also not a factor in horses disqualified for metabolic failure, but did have an effect on lameness. CBC did not have a direct effect on performance, but the relatively narrow range of measurements obtained may be a contributing factor to lameness as BW increased. Condition score has a strong effect on completion rate."

http://www.taunusreiter.de/The1995-1996TevisWeightStudy.pdf

http://taunusreiter.de/TevisStudy1998.pdf


----------



## beau159 (Oct 4, 2010)

There are plenty of small rope horses (14 hands) out there that are carrying around 200+ pound cowboys all day. 

So long as your horse does not show any problems with it, I don't think you are too big at all.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

@bsms
The UK is no longer fighting in WW1 and it's cavalry horses are purely for show these days - and also selected for size and ability to carry the weight of a man and ceremonial gear. Back in the late 70's they had a lot of horses that were too fine for that job and they all ended up being shot after a few years of service because they had navicular and joint problems.
In wartime they had to make do with what they could get and the harsh reality is that most of those horses didn't survive long enough for it to matter how long they could stay sound under pressure - an estimated 8 million horses and not even a head count for the numbers of donkey's and mules died so do you really think that there was any option but to have whatever they could lay their hands on? My grt uncle started out in that war mounted on a 16.2 Irish bred hunter type, his last horse was an Arabian that he described as totally useless in the awful muddy conditions. He was a small man, about 5ft 4 and weighed about 140lb. On the short rations and hard physical slog very few of the men were likely to be even close to overweight
The horse world in the UK now is a leisure and competition scene - not wartime. 
You don't see many men in the UK riding Arabians in the show ring - those that do tend to be smaller, lighter weight and opt for the sturdier built animals because a horse doesn't perform as well when carrying someone that's under-horsed
To get some idea - try running around with a 20lb weight in a rucksack and then gradually increase that weight and see how your performance changes 
One article outlining the results some research results
How Much Weight Can a Horse Carry? - Horse Science News
And some info from 2005 
How Much Weight Can Your Horse Safely Carry? | EQUUS Magazine
There's no shortage of horses and ponies in the UK that are well up to carrying 175lb and will also be a better ride because of that so I see no point in overloading a pony 'just because'


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Of course weight plays a big part - look at what a difference a couple of pounds make with a racehorse. 

What I have noticed with horses that are ridden by heavier people and are not what the Brits would say 'up to the rider's weight' is not that they object to their rider but that their back begins to develop a sway and that they are often suffer muscle tension as well as joint problems even though they hadn't been ridden hard.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> Folks can do and say what they want - with their own horses. But as more people try to tell me that a 160-165 lb guy like myself should *not be allowed* to toss a 30 lb saddle on Bandit and go ride...I'm pushing back.


Where are these "more people" telling bsms that he should not be allowed to toss a 30 lb saddle on Bandit and go ride? It is certainly not on this forum. I know I'd like to see a link to the forum where educated horseman make statements like that.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

20% is a good a starting point, it gives a base to work from.

BUT.....lets remember that very very few horses ever stand on a scale, we either guess their weight, or we use weight tapes, or use calculations to try and estimate weight.

THEN, you simply can't go by 20% of the horses weight even if he is stood on a scale, is the horse in good weight, or thin, or obese? Is his conformation good, does he have any issues.

NOW, tack, what is he going to be wearing does it fit well, is he going to be ridden western or English? Think about the area that the riders weight is going to be spread over.

NEXT, think about the rider, tall, fit, muscular or short, round and out of shape, experienced rider or novice? Does the rider have issues either in their body or experience level that will make them harder to carry, are they a passenger or a rider.

LAST, what are you going to be doing, galloping for 6 hours cross country after hounds, popping over jumps and having to cope with a variety of footing? 15 minute walk down a perfectly flat well groomed trail?

I 100% agree that 20% is as good a starting point as any, and it has been around for so many years that it is part of riding folk lore, you will never change it, unless the fanatics manage to get the 10 - 15% amount brought in. I also 100% state it is NOT A RULE, it is a sensible enough kick off point. 

Anyone who has been around horses and riders for long enough should be capable of taking all factors into the equation, and should be able to make a common sense decision about their own horse, or horses that they would want to ride.

Bottom line, if your horse and you are a good team, then just get on with your life and ride your horse, I have great sympathy with the OP, when someone puts that doubt in your head then it is hard to shift it. I do have to wonder if those who shout most against the 20% rule, while being of good weight themselves, and mounted on appropriate horses, but still fight against this, actually are carrying doubts in their own minds about the match, or why would it be such an issue for them. In which case the answer is simple, just go by a draft cross.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> ...One article outlining the results some research results
> How Much Weight Can a Horse Carry? - Horse Science News
> And some info from 2005
> How Much Weight Can Your Horse Safely Carry? | EQUUS Magazine
> There's no shortage of horses and ponies in the UK that are well up to carrying 175lb and will also be a better ride because of that so I see no point in overloading a pony 'just because'


The first is the same badly flawed study everyone wants to quote. They used horses who were not ridden for 4 months, then ridden for 45 minutes twice a month - so they deliberately chose horses who were out of riding shape. You might as well take 10 adults, restrict them from any exercise for months, and then ask how far can they run before getting winded or tired! You could then set 1/4 mile as the longest distance a human can safely run...

They then biased their results. At 30%, the bloodwork indicated increased stress. So this study does show out of shape horses have increased stress when ridden at 30%.

At 25%, the blood work did NOT show increased stress, but there was an increase in pulse and equine massagers detected stress in the back muscles. IIRC, they also used English saddles, which distribute weight over a smaller area. But the levels of markers in the blood didn't show increased stress. Only humans taking part in the experiment were able to detect it - and given the design of the experiment, I suspect bias from the humans.

Based on this, they concluded it was cruel to ride a horse at above 20% - which is a conclusion not supported by the data. At best, it showed a very out of shape horse MAY feel the exercise at 25%. That is not a bad thing. I feel the exercise every time I run!

And at the end, they say, "_Interestingly, this research from the Ohio State University Agricultural Technical Institute has concluded with the same weight guideline as the US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management published in 1920._" I've spent hours searching for that manual and cannot find it. I once found a list of manuals published by the US Cavalry from 1800 on, and there was no such manual on the list. Another guy who was better versed on the cavalry was also unable to find it. I've read the cavalry equitation manuals for 1912 and the final one done in the 1940s, and they say no such thing. I have also read both their procurement manuals and their field loads, which show they wanted 1000 lbs horse to carry a standard load of 250 lbs.

Remember - the rider was only half of the weight for a cavalry horse. And what the British Cavalry DID establish is that saddle fit and length of time under saddle were critical. One British officer pointed out the French would leave their horses saddles 24 hours/day for days on end, and you could smell them coming from the sores on their horses! But he also noted the British Cavalry did not have those problems.

The second article is much better. How do horses adjust to heavier riders? By leaving their feet on the ground a longer time:

"Carrying a load caused the horses to leave their feet on the ground an average of 7.7 percent longer than they did while trotting unburdened. On the level, the addition of a load caused the swing phase of the stride to become 3 percent shorter, but going uphill this phase of stride lasted 6 percent longer.

In short, explains Wickler, carrying a load causes a horse to shorten his stride, leave his feet on the ground longer and increase the distance his body travels (the "step length") with each stride. All of these gait adjustments work together to reduce the forces placed on the legs with each step. "Forces are damaging," says Wickler, "so keeping the foot on the ground reduces peak forces and reduces that potential for injury."

That is a bad thing if you are racing. But it is fine if you are trail riding. The horse does what I do when carrying a pack - he slows down a little.

"The second Cavalry Endurance Ride was held in 1920. The U.S. Remount Service, representing the Army, became much more involved in the ride this year. The Army wanted to increase the weight carried to 245 pounds and the Arabian owners agreed. The horses traveled sixty miles a day for five days with a minimum time of nine hours each day. The highest average points of any breed entered went to Arabians, although a grade Thoroughbred entered by the Army won first.

According to Albert Harris (Arabian Horse Registry Director 1924-1949), the (Thoroughbred) Jockey Club gave the Army $50,000 in 1921 to purchase the best Thoroughbreds they could find for that year's endurance ride. Mr. Harris wrote: "With two endurance rides to the  credit of Arabian horses in 1919 and 1920, the U.S. Remount, and incidentally the Jockey Club, felt something had to be done to beat these little horses in the next ride..." The Army selected all Thoroughbreds or grade Thoroughbreds which were all ridden by Cavalry majors. The Army also wanted to lower the weight carried to 200 pounds, but the Arabian people, having proved their horses at 245 pounds, objected. A compromise was reached at 225 pounds.

In spite of the Army's efforts, the first prize in the 1921 Cavalry Endurance Ride went to W.R. Brown's purebred Arabian gelding *CRABBET #309. Mr. Brown won the trophy once again in 1923 with his Anglo-Arab gelding GOUYA."


https://www.arabianhorses.org/discover/arabian-horses/#Arabians in the U.S. Army

I guess for me the proof is in the pudding. I ride Bandit at 25%, and have watched him initiate play with his corral mates afterward. Trooper's sire was a 14.2 hand, 800 lb stallion who loved to go out for 50 mile days and loved to work rough cattle - with a 200 lb guy on his back, riding in a roping saddle with a day's gear. It was that sort of use that got the horse willing to be ridden! He was put down in his 20s for cancer, although they bred him to every mare they had available first.

I have known too many guys who make me look like a runt who ride their horses all day long for decades without problems. When a theory cannot explain what happens, it is time to abandon the theory - not reject the reality!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> ...I do have to wonder if those who shout most against the 20% rule, while being of good weight themselves, and mounted on appropriate horses, but still fight against this, actually are carrying doubts in their own minds about the match, or why would it be such an issue for them....


I fight against it because it is obviously wrong, and it causes a lot of people needless worry. I fight against it, as I explained earlier, because if no one fights it, it becomes 'common wisdom'. I fight against it because I'm a man, and I reject the idea that riding horses should be limited to small women and girls. I fight against it for the same reasons I fight against the idea that bits are cruel, or that curb bits are cruel. 

"_it has been around for so many years that it is part of riding folk lore_"

Maybe in England. Not in the western US. And I'm not willing to let it BECOME "part of riding folk lore" HERE without a fight. I also dislike pseudo-science.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> I fight against it because it is obviously wrong, and it causes a lot of people needless worry. I fight against it, as I explained earlier, because if no one fights it, it becomes 'common wisdom'. *I fight against it because I'm a man, and I reject the idea that riding horses should be limited to small women and girls. *I fight against it for the same reasons I fight against the idea that bits are cruel, or that curb bits are cruel.



*Where did you get the idea that riding should be restricted to small women and girls? * Not from this forum. Not from Littauer. Stop reading the junk you are reading. Stop misinterpreting what you are reading.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

updownrider said:


> *Where did you get the idea that riding should be restricted to small women and girls? * Not from this forum. Not from Littauer. Stop reading the junk you are reading. Stop misinterpreting what you are reading.


What an entirely weird thought, I wonder where on earth that came from, best tell all those male show jumpers, event riders, Fox Hunters that they can't ride, it is ludicrous beyond belief, seeing as can't read the source I have no idea how anyone arrives at that.

Again I can only believe that someone has some sort of body issues before a normal weigh person is making an issue of this, and to make it sexist is just laughable, people of both sexes come in all sizes, weights and abilities.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms
It doesn't matter how long those horses in that study had been ridden prior to it - what matters is that they all started from the same place. The study was to show how they dealt with increasing weight and even if they'd been super fit the results would have been the same pro-rata, they would have coped better with it if their muscles had been more conditioned but it would still have made a difference - though how many riding horses kept purely for leisure or rail classes are worked hard enough or correctly to even be in tip top shape?
Why do you think they handicap horses in races?
The 20% is a guideline
The rest is common sense


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

bsms said:


> The 20% rule pretty much says no men should ride Arabians. Not sure how that can be a good general rule. Nor does it even make sense. After all, why should a fat horse be capable of carrying a heavier rider? How can a rule that ignores leg size make sense?
> 
> I'm at 25% with Bandit. When I was a bit heavier, I was at 25% with Mia. I have a very hard time believing I'm at the "_omg can I say something?_" size with either horse. The horses sure don't seem to think so...


bsms, I've seen pictures of you ride and it's obviously not an issue. Maybe wouldn't be my first choice, but NOT AN ISSUE. First of all you aren't working the horses. Second of all your horses are 15hh and say 950/1000 from breeds known to be good weight carriers despite slender builds and neither of them have major conformation or health issues. So you + 30 would be 190, which is 20%, so you are are at that point anyways. _So what is the problem_?

As has come up in previous threads, you are WAAYYYY overthinking it. You are fine, your horses are fine, move on.

And since you felt the need to quote me- I just spelled out that you are fine on Bandit. This seems to be a personal issue for you, yet you're the only one making personal comments. This thread isn't about "is bsms allowed to ride his own horse?"

And yes, see the point where I mentioned the fitness of the horse and how it's all so dependent....

NO ONE said that an obese horse meeting some magic weight number is ok...but you.

"There really is room for common sense." AMEN

"My point is that 20% is irrelevant. It is not a good starting point. If people regularly have problems below it - and a number do - then it is invalid. If many people exceed it, significantly, for years, without problems, then it is invalid."

Can you post your personal experience on this please?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> ...Again I can only believe that someone has some sort of body issues before a normal weigh person is making an issue of this, and to make it sexist is just laughable, people of both sexes come in all sizes, weights and abilities.




The "20% rule" would leave a pretty typical male rider of 200 lbs using a western saddle needing a 1200+ lb horse. And with people seriously talking about bumping it down to 15%...that would leave the same rider needing to find a 1400-1500 lb horse - which is ridiculous.

This may shock some folks on this forum, but a LOT of guys are over 200 lbs. Maybe the majority in America now. At 160-165, I'm unusually light - yet with my western saddle, I'm already well above the limit that some here consider "_part of riding folk lore, you will never change it_". If I'm already above this imaginary limit, which is "part of riding folk lore", then what are larger men going to do?

Jaydee, the point on out of shape horses is very critical to the findings. Just as I ran 3-4 miles today, a horse can carry more further and easier if it is in shape than if it is not. If you test couch potato horses, you get couch potato results. If you test couch potato humans, you would learn it is abusive to expect a human to run ANY distance. 

And having just finished my run, I know I'm going to be sore from my sinuses down to my toes today. If you took blood samples tomorrow, you would find markers of stress. At 58, I am still stressing my body. Why?

*Because if Death wants to catch me, he'd better be able to run me down, or chase me down on a horse!* Mr Death isn't going to find me sprawled on a couch! Horses are no different. They need exercise and stimulation. You want to be cruel to a horse? Let it just stand around. I reject the idea that horses only care about eating. I agree with the cavalryman from the 1860s:
."...There is another thing to be considered with regard to the horse's character - it loves to exercise its powers, and it possesses a great spirit of emulation; it likes variety of scene and amusement; and under a rider that understands how to indulge it in all this without overtaxing its powers, will work willingly to the last gasp, which is what entitles it to the name of a noble and generous animal...

 ..Horses don't like to be ennuye, and will rather stick at home than go out to be bored ; they like amusement, variety, and society : give them their share of these, but never in a pedantic way, and avoid getting into a groove of any kind, either as to time or place, especially with young animals."​.
If you want to be kind to a horse, get them out and about! Give them exercise, for both body and mind and soul! Horses should no more live lazing in a pasture than humans should live sprawled on a couch. To have a goal to ride without ever increasing the horse's heart rate, per that experiment, is true abuse. Abuse of the horse's body, mind and soul. Just as sitting around the house would have abused MY body, mind and soul far more than my run did. Exercising a horse, making him stronger, is not harsh or unfair.

But then, I'm a runner. Not a sitter. And my horse went everywhere I asked him to go yesterday, with slack reins attached to a sidepull halter. Zip, zip, zip! Into washes, along them, out of them, uphill, downhill, past the dreaded garbage cans, past barking dogs...zip, zip, zip. At 25% of his body weight. Good thing he doesn't have an Internet connection in the corral...

​


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

"Ignoring total weight, and ignoring the weight bearing structures, makes no sense." Please let us know where anyone disagreed with this?

The cavalry is completely irrelevant. First those are horses used regularly and in some degree of fitness, secondly the focus of the cavalry hasn't exactly been the healthy longevity of the horses.... As jaydee said, the cavalry was sink or swim for the horses. So what they were FORCED to do is really irrelevant.

"What I have noticed with horses that are ridden by heavier people and are not what the Brits would say 'up to the rider's weight' is not that they object to their rider but that their back begins to develop a sway and that they are often suffer muscle tension as well as joint problems even though they hadn't been ridden hard." This absolutely. The results do NOT show overnight. They show when someone's been riding a horse for a week straight and their back is a little sore when you're currying. But I guess that's ok cause the horse isn't staggering? Think of how much weight it would take YOU to stagger, do you really want to carry slightly less then that long term just because you aren't staggering?


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

The big difference between the days when armies had cavalrys and were used in wars is that horses were considered dispensable. 

As for saddles the army saddles were/are very different to modern saddles. The 'new' design was brought into use just before WW1 










This had a much greater weight bearing area. 

There have been many times when I have got ob a snotty little pony that was being a brat with a small child, just tomsort it out. At around 140 lbs I would certainly been well over the 20% and I did not mess around at a walk but worked the crap out of them - it didn't do them any harm but I certainly would not want to ride them for any length of time. I believe that over a period it would be detrimental to them.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

updownrider said:


> *Where did you get the idea that riding should be restricted to small women and girls? * Not from this forum. Not from Littauer. Stop reading the junk you are reading. Stop misinterpreting what you are reading.



perhaps you didn't catch that he was saying he fights against the 'idea that riding shoudl be restricted to small women and girls". he is in no way promulgating that idea.

would never label someone else's reading as junk. one might encourage them to read books that represent the 'other' side, but calling their reading junk is really rude.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> perhaps you didn't catch that he was saying he fights against the 'idea that riding shoudl be restricted to small women and girls". he is in no way promulgating that idea.


But no one, anywhere, ever that I have seen has argued that, it is just a bee in a bonnet of a person who seems to believe that this is just another way of trying to stop men riding horses, same as correct equitation is against men, because they can't ride like women. We get that he is not promoting the idea, but seems to believe that the world is. Funny when you look around the world there are 1000's of successful horsemen riding with great equitation, in all disciplines and winning.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

ABSOLUTELY GH, as said STARTING point.... It's been PROVEN to be an accurate starting point (GENERAL) so..?



bsms said:


> The first is the same badly flawed study everyone wants to quote. They used horses who were not ridden for 4 months, then ridden for 45 minutes twice a month *That is probably how often most backyard horses are ridden...or less* - so they deliberately chose horses who were out of riding shape. You might as well take 10 adults, restrict them from any exercise for months, and then ask how far can they run before getting winded or tired! You could then set 1/4 mile as the longest distance a human can safely run...
> 
> They then biased their results. At 30%, the bloodwork indicated increased stress. So this study does show out of shape horses have increased stress when ridden at 30%.
> 
> ...


Reality is that things vary a lot and are dependent. Some horses are better at things then others. I see no reason to load a horse up to maximum capabilities to make a point, that seems a little cruel imo.

I'm also questioning your estimates on horses weights. They are a lot heavier then you seem to realize..

Quoting endurance rides is pretty pointless, we aren't talking about top shape endurances horses, we are talking generally..

20% has been common wisdom as a GENERAL guideline for a lot longer then you've been riding bsms..

And many people ride English. I would never use a 30 lb saddle. No thanks. I also don't see the point of putting something that heavy on a horses back for no reason.

"The "20% rule" would leave a pretty typical male rider of 200 lbs using a western saddle needing a 1200+ lb horse."

That is the average weight for a horse. Wait an average rider riding an average horse? Who would've thought..

As far as 15%, that has nothing to do with guidelines. That's human nature. Like selling a kitten at 4 weeks "because 6 weeks is ok" (and the 6 weeks started because 8 weeks is ok). So yes, do go argue with human nature and a lack of common sense. No one is arguing that.

My boyfriend is 6'2" with a naturally heavy build. At a good weight he is 220/230. So the average guy really doesn't need to be that heavy. If he is then go argue the obesity epidemic, not a rule for sake of the horses' welfare. So what Americans are obese so it's ok that they crush smaller then average horses because so many people are fat?


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

tinyliny said:


> perhaps you didn't catch that he was saying he fights against the 'idea that riding shoudl be restricted to small women and girls". he is in no way promulgating that idea.
> 
> would never label someone else's reading as junk. one might encourage them to read books that represent the 'other' side, but calling their reading junk is really rude.


There have been some pretty rude comments from bsms..

The problem is that bsms has admittedly VERY little "real world" experience (outside from his personal barn and horses) and quotes outdated sources that he misinterpretes.

He may be fighting a fight, but it's a pointless fight with nothing to back it up, so ends up with members being gone off on for stating something as a general guideline.

If bsms would take a step back he would see that people are only agreeing with the GENERAL idea of what he's saying.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

-Sorry, forum glitching-


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The other thing that's being overlooked her is the question of saddle size. Our 13.2 ponies were ridden in nothing bigger than a 16 inch and that was only when I rode them, the children rode in smaller saddles. That 16 inch was pushing it to the last rib rule on some of the shorter backed one's we had and put me too far back as well if I wanted to ride short enough to have any useful heel on the ponies. The OP is about 4 inches taller than me so could struggle to get a saddle to fit her and the pony


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Yogiwick said:


> ABSOLUTELY GH, as said STARTING point.... It's been PROVEN to be an accurate starting point (GENERAL) so..?
> 
> ...I'm also questioning your estimates on horses weights. They are a lot heavier then you seem to realize..
> 
> ...


Proven as a starting point? Where? One study, badly flawed. Other studies showed otherwise - as did that one study itself.

The estimates on my horses' weights come from the vet, not me. A vet, on the ground next to them, taking measurements, then estimating weight. Versus someone who had never, ever seen them, estimating their weight from a photo. Who to trust?

20% has NEVER been an accepted guideline in the west. It wasn't used by cavalries, who had experience with a lot more horses than anyone on this forum. Some here say they lived their lives in England and had not heard of it. The earliest reference to it I've been able to find was a guy whose objective was jumping, and someone who jumps probably ought to approach weight differently than a trail rider.

The Tevis Cup study did not set any limits. What it noted was that rider weight as a percentage of the horse's weight was a poor predictor, while total weight of both horse and rider compared to leg size was a good predictor. And the latter makes biomechanical sense, unlike the former.

In setting up a scientific test of a theory, you design the experiment for failure. What I mean is this: A single failure of a theory disproves it, or at least puts it into question. 1000 successes prove nothing.

So 1000 people riding horses at 20% prove nothing, unless they have problems too - and apparently some do, which by itself disproves the theory of the 20% rule. But a single successful use at well above 20% disproves the 20% rule - and I've cited many, including my own, every day.

However, nothing I cite counts. If I do it - well, I haven't done it long enough. I need to ride for another 50 years before I can form an opinion. The example of Trooper's sire, ridden very long miles by a 200 lb guy for decades? Doesn't count. Took place on a ranch. Irrelevant. The US and British Cavalries? Just a bunch of incompetents ruining their horses, unlike the caring people today who have a few horses they ride much lighter. Studies done on endurance horses? Athletes, with different biomechanics than regular horses.

The Arabians competing with the Army? Irrelevant too. Not sure why. But irrelevant.

One study done with a handful of out of shape horses? The Gold Standard! Irrefutable! :-?

There is NOTHING I can say, show or cite that counts because people already have the 20% rule as "_part of riding folk lore, you will never change it_" thinking. So I'll drop off this thread. There is no evidence I can give that will change a mind already made up.

BTW - jaydee's comment on saddle size WAS relevant and useful. THAT is an example of describing WHY something I have experienced might not be experienced by someone else. A valid point, worth remembering. An example of how discussion on HF should work.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

jaydee said:


> The other thing that's being overlooked her is the question of saddle size. Our 13.2 ponies were ridden in nothing bigger than a 16 inch and that was only when I rode them, the children rode in smaller saddles. That 16 inch was pushing it to the last rib rule on some of the shorter backed one's we had and put me too far back as well if I wanted to ride short enough to have any useful heel on the ponies. The OP is about 4 inches taller than me so could struggle to get a saddle to fit her and the pony


Excellent point jaydee. It's hard enough with my 14hh horses with my small saddles!

I do think I saw that the OP didn't use a saddle, just a pad, but now can't find it.

It's not a problem for my pony, but her saddle is more dressage type (Icelandic) and she's so round it's not a problem for my short legs lol, so hopefully not an issue for the OP. If the pony is slender it would be, but that would be more of an issue with the weight too.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Yogiwick said:


> ABSOLUTELY GH, as said STARTING point.... It's been PROVEN to be an accurate starting point (GENERAL) so..?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Just adding another like!


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

bsms said:


> Proven as a starting point? Where? One study, badly flawed. Other studies showed otherwise - as did that one study itself. *What are the flaws? That the horses were out of shape? Most horses are out of shape. I'm also not talking about the study, simple extensive personal experience, by myself and by the multitude of life long professionals I have worked with. *
> 
> The estimates on my horses' weights come from the vet, not me. A vet, on the ground next to them, taking measurements, then estimating weight. Versus someone who had never, ever seen them, estimating their weight from a photo. Who to trust? *You should obviously trust your vet. It's just interesting how different your horses weights are from the averages..*
> 
> ...


bsms, you need to decide if you're talking about a backyard grade horse, a top show mount, etc. A horse out of shape should not be asked to carry as much, but at the same time isn't working hard enough for weight to be a problem. A fit horse can carry more but is working harder too... Completely different situations.

NO ONE is saying that you absolutely cannot ride a horse about a certain number. YOU are the only one saying those things you are upset by, and no one really understands what you're upset about.

As I said above what is the point of loading a horse to capacity to prove a point? That is cruel. If the horse is fine for you go ride, if not then don't. Wouldn't ideally we all weigh 0 lbs so as to not put unnecessary stress on the horse? As said, even the lightest rider can stress a horse. So why is it a bad thing to try to be as easy as possible on the horses back? Yes, you must be realistic, but no one is arguing that..


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Yogiwick said:


> NO ONE is saying that you absolutely cannot ride a horse about a certain number. YOU are the only one saying those things you are upset by, and no one really understands what you're upset about.


Exactly, no one understands why he is upset, because no one is saying that this is a rule....it is a start point, nothing more nothing less.

My guess is that there are some horses that should carry less than 5%, more that could do between 5 and around say 15%. Then the majority would be kind of the 15 to 25%, then we get to the the 25 to 35% and a few outliers at the +35%, in fact a classic bell curve.









Again this is not scientific just my guess.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

Closed for moderators' review.


----------

