# What type of western saddle puts you in a decent "classical" position?



## Honeysuga

The thing is, western saddles are made for you to sit on your pockets in a deep seat. Your stirrups will be longer and you will have more of a "chair seat". Gotta remember that western and english are completely different riding styles, down to the way you sit in a saddle. The more you relax and sit on your pockets, the easier you will find it to find a proper position.


----------



## DraftyAiresMum

I've ridden in a Circle A barrel saddle that put me in almost the same position that my Aussie saddle does, which is more of a "classical" position.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SnowCowgirl

of course, but I feel like there must be saddles which don't throw your legs forward quite so far. You still should only be able to maybe see just the tips of your toes if you look down. 

I rode in a hand made saddle years ago (a friend made it) and it put me in SUCH a great position with my legs properly underneath me. Whereas my saddle makes me have to fight and constantly reposition to keep them under me.


----------



## SnowCowgirl

thanks Drafty! might have to try a few more barrel saddles then. Like I said, I love how they look but the two I've ridden in sure did put my legs forward... which I've read they're supposed to do generally


----------



## QHriderKE

Your core puts you in the best classical position.


----------



## waresbear

An equitation saddle is probably what you are after.


----------



## Wallaby

waresbear said:


> An equitation saddle is probably what you are after.


I agree with this! I used to own an equitation saddle that was made in the '70s and it put me in the BEST position! I adored it. But unfortunately it didn't fit my mare and I did't have the fund to hold on to it and get my girl a new saddle. So I sold it. 

But it was a BigHorn, I think it's manufacture date was like 1969, and it was just great.


----------



## COWCHICK77

Something that has been brought to my attention lately, look how the fenders are hung. 
If they are flung forward like I notice some western saddles you will always battle getting your leg underneath you.


----------



## Muppetgirl

COWCHICK77 said:


> Something that has been brought to my attention lately, look how the fenders are hung.
> If they are flung forward like I notice some western saddles you will always battle getting your leg underneath you.


Yes for sure! That was my thoughts too. A lot of reining saddles are designed with the fenders sitting further back and they're designed to swing forward if you need you legs forward to brace.


----------



## tinyliny

the position of the stirrup bar, (the place where the fender wraps around a bar that is a part of the actual tree) has everything to do with how long a leg, and how well under you you can keep it. Too far forward, and you cannot avoid a chair seat, and will find posting really hard to do.

I have found that Crates saddles seem to have good balance, that allows for pretty effortless posting. 
Also, Dave Genadak makes saddles that are designed to keep the rider with their leg straight downunder them. In fact, many people who are used to typical western saddles, will find his saddles too "vertical". but once you get used to it, stop bracing into the stirrup and use your core and your seat, they are really wonderful saddles.


----------



## deserthorsewoman

I found Big Horn saddles quite nice, they have that flat seat I prefer over a build up, and I never had trouble keeping my feet under me. Even their cordura saddles are built like that. Let me see if I'll find a pic of mine....


----------



## deserthorsewoman

http://www.culturedcowboy.com/saddles/bighorn/pages/bh_1640.htm


----------



## ropinbiker

You should also keep in mind that a "classical" western position is with the feet forward...so, you are not looking for the "normal" for western saddles. Cowpokes needed to ride one handed, for many hours through rough country---so they didn't post the trot-, they also needed to sit "deeper" in the saddle so that when cutting/chasing cows there was less tendency to get too far forward and out of postion(could get dangerous quick); therefore, to do that the feet forward position was/is the "classical" western position.


----------



## bsms

The Circle Y "equitation" Arabian saddle we have puts my thighs out in front. It isn't so much where the fenders hang as it is how the seat is shaped. There is a groove in the saddle seat that forces my thighs horizontal. I end up with the same leg position as my daughter...she loves the saddle, I hate it:










But if I had a picture of it sitting on the stand, you would be able to see the groove of the saddle where your thighs must go. The fenders are hung back, but the groove drives your leg position.


----------



## SnowCowgirl

Thank you everyone! Wasn't expecting so many great replies I'll read through more thoroughly later 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## smrobs

For what it's worth, my ranch saddle (modified Association tree) put me into the best position of any saddles I've ever ridden.


----------



## ropinbiker

as far as what type of saddle I find most comfortable, without being too far forward, I would have to say it's one of my associations....you do sit down in that seat--but it is very comfortable in my opinion--


----------



## boots

I get saddles that allow me to move my legs where I need them to be at any given moment for different things. The straight down equitation seat isn't always appropriate. But, I also agree with CowChick that it is our core that has the greatest impact on position.

Ropinbiker -- I respectfully differ with your assertion that cowboys didn't (and don't post). Always have, at times, and always will.


----------



## ropinbiker

i meant they didn't post for hours while checking fence, bringing in the cows, etc...around here we post for maybe a half mile or so, then it's either sit the trot(if the horse has a good one) or push up to a slow lope..so, yes everyone will post some, but posting wasn't done much, and still isn't...


----------



## aztrailrider

I am looking to buy some bell stirrups to replace my EZ Ride trail stirrups (like them, but am tired of hearing how UGLY they are, and they are pretty beat up). I have large feet, so am leaning towards 5" stirrups and am wondering about the heel blocks. I have searched everywhere looking for "how" they work and can't find anything. Anybody??
Thanks for any input on this purchase.
Jan


----------



## SnowCowgirl

aztrailrider said:


> I am looking to buy some bell stirrups to replace my EZ Ride trail stirrups (like them, but am tired of hearing how UGLY they are, and they are pretty beat up). I have large feet, so am leaning towards 5" stirrups and am wondering about the heel blocks. I have searched everywhere looking for "how" they work and can't find anything. Anybody??
> Thanks for any input on this purchase.
> Jan


I'm curious to know too 

re: Association trees... thats what I currently have, and I DO love it! But, it is really hard to keep my feet back. I agree that your core is a huge part of it but I struggle more in this saddle than I do in my english saddle, or in that saddle of my friend's that will always stand out in my mind (the one that put me in such a great position). My association is old though (pre-1940's according to a friend who repairs saddles), maybe that has something to do with it.

I found a Billy Cook barrel saddle which doesn't SEEM to have the stirrups too forward. Definitely not as far as my saddle I don't think. I wish I had a pic to compare because I don't have my saddle here with me. What do you all think? (the saddle looks basically brand new)

Billy Cook Barrel Saddle - Prince Albert Livestock For Sale - Kijiji Prince Albert

I was also sort of looking at this one... but isn't Western Rawhide sort of a "cheaper" brand?

14" Western Rawhide saddle

or...

Saddle- penning, reining, trail riding Billy Cook - Saskatoon Pet Accessories - Kijiji Saskatoon Canada. 

all of those seem to me to have the fenders falling decently far back but I just don't know. 

((I know I would need to ride any saddle before purchasing and would be sure it fit my horse, but I do have to drive a distance to see any of these so want to have an idea beforehand))


----------



## QHriderKE

I have an RS custom barrel saddle and the stirrups are hung farther back than other barrel saddles. Its something to consider!


----------



## nikelodeon79

I'm confused. Don't you put yourself in the proper position rather than relying on your saddle to do so? My trainer starts everyone in Western saddles but you can bet your life she still expects (and demands!) the proper position. 

With that being said, adult riders at her barn use Big Horn synthetic saddles. I like the freedom of movement in the stirrups.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

Ideally, gravity should be your friend. I'm not sure there is a "proper" position...depends on your build, the horse's build, how the saddle is constructed and what you are doing with the horse. But in many saddles, when you sit in them, there is a position that gravity and the shape of the saddle tends to put your leg. If that position is the one you like, then the saddle fits you. If it is one you don't like, then you can shove your leg somewhere else - but now you are putting tension in you leg, and fighting gravity and your saddle. It is possible, but why would you want that? And I am convinced that in most cases, riding with a relaxed leg is better than riding with any given leg position.

Our Circle Y will put your thigh at a forward angle. The shape of the seat has a groove for your thigh. I like a more vertical thigh, and the Circle Y drives me nuts. Our Abetta doesn't seem to have that groove. Add in cloth fenders, and it is much more forgiving for different leg positions. I normally ride my Australian-style saddle with 1" stirrup straps, but there is still a 'sweet spot' where my legs tend to hang relaxed. For that saddle, the sweet spot has my heels closer to my hips than I like. Oh well. Since I believe a relaxed leg is better than a leg 'position', I accept it and ride the saddle. If I could afford a custom made saddle, I'd have the stirrup bars placed further forward.










My daughter's leg is in the groove of our Circle Y Mojave saddle. I prefer a more vertical thigh, but I would feel more comfortable with my heel further forward. But that is pretty much where my leg hangs on my saddle, and it is close enough.


----------



## smrobs

nikelodeon79 said:


> I'm confused. Don't you put yourself in the proper position rather than relying on your saddle to do so? My trainer starts everyone in Western saddles but you can bet your life she still expects (and demands!) the proper position.


It greatly depends on the person and the saddle. Some saddles (particularly roping saddles) tend to really sling your feet out in a horrible chair seat. It's no different than an ill fitting English saddle. You can _get_ "proper" alignment, but it's a losing battle if you're fighting the saddle every step of the way. It also has to do with how the saddle and the seat are balanced. My old roping saddle, I would try to keep my legs back where they should have been and not only were the fenders constantly pulling my legs back forward (did get a nice butt workout though LOL), but it threw off my balance in that saddle. I can ride with my legs back bareback without issue, I can ride with them back in my Association, but in _that_ saddle, if I tried to keep my legs back, I had no balance whatsoever.


----------



## SnowCowgirl

QHrider I meant to ask you what kind of saddle you had! I saw pics in another thread where your position was great, but you were in a barrel saddle. I'll have to see if I can find any for sale and try them out.

I know the proper effective position is up to YOU, but some western saddles make it SO darn hard
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SnowCowgirl

Ah, just noticed '"custom", QHrider 
I've always wanted to have one custom made  but am definitely not in a spot to afford one at this point in my life!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## paintedpastures

Agree an equitation/pleasure saddle is going to be the best for putting you correct position.
Besides Kijji,try northernhorse.com or FB. There is always some good FB sites to look for tack like this one https://www.facebook.com/groups/136514316557/


----------



## QHriderKE

SnowCowgirl said:


> Ah, just noticed '"custom", QHrider
> I've always wanted to have one custom made  but am definitely not in a spot to afford one at this point in my life!
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Its not actually custom. I bought it used for $750 lol. "Custom" is just part of the brand name. Just google "RS Custom Saddles". 

I was used to riding in a rope saddle and I felt real barrel saddles made my knees hurt (tore my acl and have a lot of knee damage) so this rs saddle works perfectly for me and balances me well without forcing me into a position.


----------



## cpr saves

For excellent positioning, I would encourage you to take a look at the saddles made by Bob Beecher in Pagosa Springs, CO. Here is a link to their business. Terri Beecher is an absolute gem to answer all your questions.


----------



## cpr saves

Sorry, forgot the link. Here it is - Out West Saddlery: Welcome!
Bob Beecher is the saddle maker.


----------



## SnowCowgirl

thanks cpr!

has anyone ridden a Rocking R barrel saddle?


----------



## nrhareiner

There is really no such thing. Saddles in western are made to fit the needs of a given discipline. If you are reining you need a saddle that will put you into the correct position to cue and ride the maneuvers. Same with Cutting and Ropeing and so on. Although some times at lower levels you can use a saddle from on discipline to show in anouther but it is not the best.

So what you want to look for if you are not looking for a saddle for a given discipline then you just need to find one that you are compy riding in.


----------



## Fort fireman

I have a rocking r roping saddle. I like it alot and have had it for years. The problem is its semi quarter horse bars and doesn't fit my horses well. Quality wise it is really nice. I also have a wade tree saddle that I love. Very comfortable It's a ranch saddle so I figure I can pretty much do alittle of everything in that saddle.


----------



## Fort fireman

cpr saves said:


> For excellent positioning, I would encourage you to take a look at the saddles made by Bob Beecher in Pagosa Springs, CO. Here is a link to their business. Terri Beecher is an absolute gem to answer all your questions.


I've seen this site before. I really like the old timey look of these saddles. I'm not sure I can talk my wife into another saddle though.


----------



## cpr saves

I'm sort of in the same boat. My eyes are bigger than my budget. BUT, I figure I will be reselling when I'm done riding. Bob's saddles hold their value and are made of such a high quality, that if they are well cared for, they last for years and years. 

In my rationalization (highly tuned skills in this area), I can justify the initial expense knowing that the resale value will leave me with the real "cost" of riding in such a well made saddle, to be hardly anything more than had I purchased a lesser quality saddle initially that has virtually no resale value used.

Also, my strategy is to first, do the fitting part to identify which tree would be best suited to my horse (and me). Then if I can find the appropirately sized used saddle, that would be fantastic!

Good luck in your quest. If you ever need any rationalization ideas, just let me know. I can almost always come up with something plausible!


----------



## Fort fireman

It may be pretty tough to come up with something for me. I have a 3 year old wade tree saddle, a roper and oh ya a 2 year old daughter and one on the way in July. Spending right now is pretty much nonexistent for awhile. :lol:
I do however like how you think. I am big on buying quality. In the long run a little more up front is worth it to me.


----------



## paintedpastures

here is a site that explains the various western saddle styles that might help:wink:
Different Western Saddle Types


----------



## cpr saves

Ok, Fort, you're going to like this. . . (maybe)

You start socking away a little bit here and there in a jar somewhere in your closet or a corner in the barn. Before you know it, you've got a nice chunk to put towards a high quality saddle. If you have a frequent flyer miles earning credit card, you might decide to use that for the balance. 

Not now, mind you, but a year or two down the road. You have to have a chance to save up the bulk of the price tag.

Keep in mind that the saddle will not only serve you, but TWO children coming up behind you as well!! It will become a way to teach them to take care of something so it is still in pristine condition to be handed down. It can be considered an honor to be the recipient of the family heirloom and you can even have a Passing of the Saddle Ceremony to mark the occasion.

Whatever you do, don't raid the piggy bank!


----------



## GotaDunQH

Honeysuga said:


> The thing is, western saddles are made for you to sit on your pockets in a deep seat. Your stirrups will be longer and you will have more of a "chair seat". Gotta remember that western and english are completely different riding styles, down to the way you sit in a saddle. The more you relax and sit on your pockets, the easier you will find it to find a proper position.


Actually....western saddles USED to be made to force you into a position that puts you behind the motion. But that is definitely not true today (and the past 10 years), with the flatter WP seat etc. Also if you are sitting on your back pockets....you are not riding balanced and centered no matter what the discipline. Western postion is more like a dressage position that anything else. That's the way I ride WP and HMS.


----------



## bsms

The traditional western position WAS on the pockets, and with feet in front. And having tried it, there is nothing wrong with riding like that, so long as you move with your horse and don't brace against the stirrups. A dressage seat is also well behind the motion, unless the horse is moving in a collected gait - and since that is the goal of dressage, that is what the dressage position is intended for.

The traditional western position is behind the horse because that is a really good place to be if the horse is moving fast, then unexpectedly puts on the brakes. It also works well for a horse that changes direction rapidly...cutters still use a position very similar to the traditional western seat. I use that position every ride, for part of the ride, using my Aussie-style saddle. My horses now consider it to be a cue to relax and move freely as opposed to go fast.

A chair seat is when your thighs are like they are in a chair - thighs horizontal, or close to it. Horizontal thighs are NOT traditional western riding:










_John Jackson, Matador range boss, looking out over a herd of 5,000 cattle at a roundup. Matador Ranch, Texas._, 1906

Ain't nothing horizontal about that thigh. The only real difference in how I ride when I want my horses to relax is my leg is vertical from the knee down. That, and I don't have the handlebar mustache...










If you don't have flexible hips, and most men do not, then it works pretty good. Rather than do some belly-dancer moves to absorb the motion, you open and close your body & legs at the hip. Most men are much better at that than at belly-dancing. Particularly if they share in the 'prosperity' John Jackson and I have!










Anyone who doesn't want to ride like that doesn't have to. Part of the attraction of western riding for me is that it is very functional - if it works, it is OK. Put my heels under my hip at a trot or canter, and my body will hammer the horse's back like a jackhammer! I have a belly, but it don't dance! Jiggle some, perhaps, but it doesn't dance! Slide my heels forward about 8 inches, and let the motion get absorbed by the V between my legs and torso, and suddenly I can sit the trot or canter without my horses getting angry.

I have no objection to those who ride with heels under hip. If it works for you and your horse, and it feels comfortable for you, go for it! FWIW, my Aussie-style Master Campdraft saddle naturally puts the back of my heel about in line with my belt buckle, and that is with my feet deep in the stirrup. It has a narrower twist that most western saddles I've used, so it is easier for my heels to slide back than it is in my Circle Y. I consider that a fault ( :wink: ), but more classical riders might consider that a big bonus.


----------



## SnowCowgirl

bsms and others - I appreciate all your input into this thread, especially because I have (and do) spend 10+ hours in the saddle at a time. I do rope (actually more snare because I suck at roping hahaha), dally up, ride colts and other unpredictable horses, etc. I do understand that feet forward CAN be an effective position. But, having your feet under you IS a more *effective* way to ride for many different reasons.

I want a saddle that allows me to move my legs, but also doesn't make it hard to keep my feet under me which my old association DOES do. I think it's a roping saddle, so it makes sense that it does push my feet forward. I love that saddle and will keep it for the bush, for riding colts, etc but I want something different for more in depth arena work. Regardless of what peoples interpretation of "Classical" Western seat is, I want something that will allow me to ride in an effective _classical_ seat. Maybe cowboys used to ride with their feet way forward, but I think it's fairly well accepted nowadays that it is more correct to have a straight line from your head to your heels regardless of western or english riding.

Anyway, lots of great input in this thread for sure. I'm going to try out a few saddles in the next week and we'll see what happens.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

Visually if the fenders aren't too far infront and more where your leg would be, then you'll be able to turn the stirrups and be fine.


----------



## bsms

SnowCowgirl said:


> ...But, having your feet under you IS a more *effective* way to ride for many different reasons...I think it's fairly well accepted nowadays that it is more correct to have a straight line from your head to your heels regardless of western or english riding...


1 - WHY is it "more effective"?

2 - That is why I often post the dissenting view, which may be driven in part by my being a man. The view you are pushing became prominent about the time riding horses became something women do, to the point of totally dominating recreational riding.

I think it highly unlikely that millions of cavalry riders and cowboys all did it wrong because none of them ever thought of seeing what happened when they brought their feet back. If someone has tight hips, *and most men do*, then getting the heel back under the hip requires tension in the leg and prevents the leg from draping the horse.

Remember - I have no objection to you riding however you feel most comfortable. My objection is to claiming that way is superior to how almost everyone rode horses prior to 1960.


----------



## deserthorsewoman

Look at the vaqueros for the classical seat. After all, they were the first cowboys.


----------



## deserthorsewoman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rpulN91qgQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player

This is a pretty neat video because it shows the classical/Spanish seat and the classical western seat. Same rider. Never mind the German narration


----------



## GotaDunQH

I can appreciate the way the cowboys rode eons ago, it worked for them and what they do. However, I''m not a cowboy and horses have become SO TECHNICAL over that past decades, that training them to use their bodies and carry themselves effectively with balance from tail to nose....the rider needs a balanced and centered seat. There is NO way I can use my leg effectually with it shot out in front of me because ALL of my cues come from my lower leg and balanced/centered seat bones. For cowboys, who are chasing cows and want to use a "driving seat", it would be right. For what I do and many many like me, it is wrong.

Here's a pic of me in a WP class (please ignore the crabby look on my horse, we had someone on our 6 big time).









I could have my lower leg back a smidge more in this pic, but my seat is exactly where it needs to be. My seat bones are a form of communication as well as my lower leg, no matter if I''m riding Hunt Seat, Dressage or Western. It's not about "sitting pretty" at all....as someone else said earlier. It's about being an effective rider.


----------



## bsms

GotaDunQH said:


> I can appreciate the way the cowboys rode eons ago, it worked for them and what they do. However, I''m not a cowboy and horses have become SO TECHNICAL over that past decades, that training them to use their bodies and carry themselves effectively with balance from tail to nose....the rider needs a balanced and centered seat. There is NO way I can use my leg effectually with it shot out in front of me because ALL of my cues come from my lower leg and balanced/centered seat bones. For cowboys, who are chasing cows and want to use a "driving seat", it would be right...It's not about "sitting pretty" at all....as someone else said earlier. It's about being an effective rider.


Actually, I agree with you. For certain demanding sorts of riding, such as dressage and WP and probably a number of other horse sports, you are right. One half of my signature is "b) does your seat enable you to control your horse efficiently?"

So if you need your heel under your hip to give effective control of your horse for your riding, then that IS the right place for your heel!

And if someone can drape a relaxed leg around their horse in such a manner that their heel is under their hip, and if their spine can absorb the motion of the horse while their body is in a straight line shoulder - hip - heel, that is fine too. 

From my perspective as a somewhat beginning rider (5 years), watching the others in my family learn to ride, I consider that position an advanced refinement in riding. I do not doubt it is right for dressage, WP, or that some find it a more comfortable way to ride and control their horse. I'm glad they are making saddles that work with that position.

I have a shelf full of books saying it is the ONLY right riding position. I have books for beginners that say that is how everyone needs to ride. Yet with time, I've noticed that almost no one rode that way prior to 1960. I've probably seen over a thousand historical pictures of riding, and no more than 5% of them involve riders with a vertical alignment.

That motivated me to experiment, and I've found good reasons why many men at least might want to avoid that position when learning to ride. In fact, the number of posts on HF about how difficult it is to sit the trot or canter indicates to me that maybe a lot of women should avoid it as well, at least until they have a LOT of experience and are starting to ride well-trained horses in demanding situations.

Here are some advantages of that position, from the perspective of someone who is not highly experienced and does not ride ten hours a day.

Notice this Internet picture of a bareback rider:








​ 
Look at the leg position. That is pretty common with bareback riders, although some learn to ride bareback with heels back. Why is it common?

My guess is that it is an easy way to drape your leg around the shape of the horse. When I try it, it puts my knee in the right spot so that my knee bends a little and my legs follow the barrel of the horse easily. In experimenting this last week, I've realized WHY I like my stirrup leathers a certain length. In that saddle, on Mia, that length puts my knee where it can follow the curve of her sides. Raise it, and it pulls my thigh slightly away from her. Lower it, and I have to straighten my leg to keep contact with the stirrup, and it drives my lower leg away from her. I don't ride around squeezing Mia, but she has spooked a lot (but is getting MUCH better) and I don't like having my lower leg too far from her body.

If I were bowlegged, it might be different. If I had more flexible hips, it might be different. But most beginning riders are not bowlegged, and many have to struggle with tension in their hips causing them to pinch with their knee. At least in my experience, it is very hard to grip with the knee in this position. It is very easy to keep a relaxed leg draped around the body of my horse, heels down, not gripping anywhere. And from my experience and reading HF, I think that is a common problem with inexperienced riders.

BTW - I will probably always be an inexperienced rider. One of the points Littauer makes is that for a non-genius, it may take 4-6 hours a day of riding to become truly good, and many people do not have the desire or time to invest. Therefor, he argued that some simplification of good riding was needed for those who liked riding, but liked riding 3-4 hours/week - and that describes me. He believed a more dedicated rider could learn greater refinement and thus get better results, but only if they had the time and inclination to spend lots of hours in the saddle.

Another advantage for the less experienced/dedicated rider is one I've tried to illustrate in the photo below:








​ 
I hurt my back riding Mia shortly after I got her, and had to give up jogging for 4 years because it hurt my back too much. I finally have succeeded in jogging again last March...up to about 20-22 minutes 4 times a week now! Well below 40 minutes/day, but I'm improving.

However, there are a lot of posts on HF about how sitting the trot or canter requires a strong core. Folks recommend Pilates. Some say it may take months or years for you to get strong enough and flexible enough to do so. And if you are trying to absorb or move with the horse's vertical motion using a vertical position with a spine that does not compress vertically, that may well be true.

However, what I've discovered is that I can also follow my horse's motion by using the flexibiity God has given almost everyone who gets on a horse - the ability to bend at the waist. With your legs as above, your body is bent slightly at the waist. As the horse's back moves up and forward, you can straighten at the waist and follow the horse's back. And then follow it down again. Once again, this position allows someone who lacks a very flexible back or a very strong core to go with their horse's motion in the trot and canter.

I rode Mia in my Bates Caprilli CC saddle yesterday for the first time in over a year. I mostly rode it with a forward seat, which is how the saddle was designed to be used. But when we cantered, I thought I'd try feet forward, rump in the saddle, moving with her by straightening and bending at my hip. I expected her to flick her ears back in annoyance because I assumed the smaller and narrower support at the rear of the English saddle would dig into her loins. 

I was wrong. Her ears stayed full forward. She cantered eagerly, although not as forward in her balance as she sometimes is. She is an expressive mare, but she seemed totally content. And my seat stayed in my saddle, although one of my complaints about Bates & CAIR has been how bouncy the saddle can be.

There is a *LOT* of advice in books, the Internet and given by experienced trainers saying bsms is *bs*ms. I haven't seen a single book explaining the results I get when I ride like this. I am totally in the minority in the modern world of riding, although almost everyone used this approach 50 years ago. However, I think a lot of riders and a lot of horses are ill-served by the emphasis on a vertical line from shoulder to hip to heel.

I am not in any way questioning how an experienced rider competing in a sport or simply riding in the way easiest for her might want to ride. I do object to the assumption that the Great Vertical Line is the best way for everyone to ride, or a more effective approach for all riders. Many experienced riders ignore that rule (jumpers, polo, cutters, etc). But many inexperienced riders - and I think anyone who doesn't ride more than 3-4 hours/week in some ways qualifies, as I always will - might want to think about using the joints of their body in a way that makes it easy to drape around their horse and move with their horse.

The riders who spend 6+ hours/day can ride any way they want. I'm not qualified to tell them anything about how they ride. But as a beginner, and as someone who doesn't ride more than 4 hours/week, I *am* in a position to tell them their students may need a different approach than what works for someone who was born on a horse or who makes a living with horses.

Sorry for the long post. Given how many new riders have problems with sitting a trot or canter, I think what I've learned the hard way is worth thinking about. And just because I like her, here is a picture of Mia at the end of yesterday's ride  :


----------



## SnowCowgirl

I'm wondering when and why a thread where I was merely asking a question had to turn into a debate *shrugs*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SnowCowgirl

Everyone may ride as they wish, I was looking for input for people who understand the basics of the classical seat  thanks all
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## katieandscooby

Snow- I have a rocking R Reiner, love the saddle. I ride with my legs back pretty far, got told I rode like a dressage rider, which whatever. I rope, ride colts, and show too. I find my reiner nice for arena work and showing. I own a Garrouette barrel saddle, and it does throw my legs forward, but not as much as a lot do. I own a couple older tex tan rope saddles and i ride in them most often. They don't throw my legs foraward like a Western Rawhide, I have nothing much good to say about the new Western Rawhides, old ones were good, anything built form the 90's and up is junk imo.


----------



## Fort fireman

I am a big fan of wade tree saddles. They do usually have a deeper pocket to sit in but the stirrups tend to be in a better position to keep you heels underneath you. Some are built up a bit more in the front than I like but not all. That is generally speaking mind you.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

If your saddle is built to set you back further (fenders more infront) then it won't be possible or comfortable to be in a classical position.

If, as I said before, the fenders are more set back then you will find classical position most comfortable and effective.


----------



## GotaDunQH

SnowCowgirl said:


> I'm wondering when and why a thread where I was merely asking a question had to turn into a debate *shrugs*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's a GOOD debate though, because as you can see....people have offered some valuable insight. Your question was not as cut and dried and basic as you thought, although I still hold that a classical seat is and always will be proper alignment when it comes to basic riding. When you go off into the specialities, such as cutting, timed event, cross country in eventing as examples...that is when things change a little because the horse is performing something other than trail riding or general riding.


----------



## ropinbiker

I agree with GotaDunQh on the fact that in your original question you wanted a "classic" western seat with your legs under you. In my opinion, in most of the images that come up when you google - cowboys and vaqueros -- if you look at the older images, and observing most working "cowboys" ride, it is with your legs slightly forward. I don't think what has happened in the last 10 or even 20 years can be considered "classic", therefore that is why I felt the "need" to explain what my thoughts on the classic western seat looks like.
Now, if you would have said classic western pleasure seat, etc, then there would have been no "debate" started...well, there may have been debate still, since it is what we do....lol


----------



## SnowCowgirl

GotaDunQH said:


> It's a GOOD debate though, because as you can see....people have offered some valuable insight. Your question was not as cut and dried and basic as you thought, although I still hold that a classical seat is and always will be proper alignment when it comes to basic riding. When you go off into the specialities, such as cutting, timed event, cross country in eventing as examples...that is when things change a little because the horse is performing something other than trail riding or general riding.



this is very true. And I shouldnt have posted what I did earlier - I was on my phone and was being lazy. It IS a good debate. I guess what I meant to say is that I know what *I* am looking for in a saddle.. not what old cowboys were looking for, or men who don't find it comfortable to keep their lower leg back, or whoever else  I knew there were many different types of western saddles with different leg positions... I guess I should have specified that in my original post. I am looking for the type or the specific make/model of saddle that will help me ride without my legs being thrown forward.


----------



## SnowCowgirl

ropinbiker said:


> I agree with GotaDunQh on the fact that in your original question you wanted a "classic" western seat with your legs under you. In my opinion, in most of the images that come up when you google - cowboys and vaqueros -- if you look at the older images, and observing most working "cowboys" ride, it is with your legs slightly forward. I don't think what has happened in the last 10 or even 20 years can be considered "classic", therefore that is why I felt the "need" to explain what my thoughts on the classic western seat looks like.
> Now, if you would have said classic western pleasure seat, etc, then there would have been no "debate" started...well, there may have been debate still, since it is what we do....lol


ah! is this where the confusion came from? I didn't mean to ask about the classical WESTERN position... when I said _classical seat_ I was referring to THE classical seat, which most people would probably associate mostly with dressage

anyway, I didnt mean to sound irritated earlier about the debate because it IS a good debate!


----------



## COWCHICK77

I agree that it depends on what kind of riding your doing determines your seat/equitation. As lately I have been on a quest to better my seat but I am not going to run out and buy a Dressage saddle as it is impractical for what I do. I have found certain saddles _within_ my discipline(if that's what you want to call it) are more accommodating to a classical seat than others hence the reason for my first post in this thread reffering to how and where the stirrup hangs in relation to the seat.
My saddles have been great for arena use and showing(mainly lower level ranch horse shows and ranch rodeos) along with long hours outside working and roping. I have barrel raced in them as well although I find the big stirrups a pain and the foot easy to slide out. 

One of my saddles is the first pictured and is one of my favorites. It has been very versatile as far as saddles because it seems that saddles are mainly built to serve one event or discipline. (I think nrha mentioned this earlier)

The second is a pic from a catalog from a well known saddle builder and you can see a big difference in how the stirrups are hung. And this isn't the most extreme I have seen as far as flung forward stirrups on a wade style saddle.(And not all of this builders saddles are that extreme) I have seen others that you would question as a saddle bronc rig because the stirrups are well out in front much like the position of legs in the pictures bsms posted. 
For those who think that just a strong core is needed in order to maintain position, I certainly would not enjoy fighting the hang of these stirrups in order to maintain a classic position.


----------



## tinyliny

OP, don't worry about this becoming a "debate". That's not a bad thing. this is a subject we at HF have rolled around , over and over again. it's very interesting to hear each person's thought, their learning from books and their personal experiences. I appreciate the Bsms wants to ask the question "why" when things long accepted in "classical" teaching are raised as correct.

We probably should ask why. We can assume, with some degree of security, that something that has been taught for centuries as the correct position has a long trial period to it, so likely to be correct. But, still, one can ask, "why?"
an excellent question.

I do have to disagree with bsms's comment:

A* dressage seat is also well behind the motion, unless the horse is moving in a collected gait - and since that is the goal of dressage, that is what the dressage position is intended for.*

I don't know why he would think that. behind the motion? h m m ,.... not if the rider is riding correctly, be it walk, trot or canter. if the saddle is designed and balanced correctly to the hrose, and the rider sits up correctly, they should never be behind the motion, whether it is collected or extended.


----------



## bsms

How do you define "behind the motion"? I define it as having your center of gravity behind the horse's center of gravity. Is that a wrong definition?


----------



## Muppetgirl

bsms said:


> How do you define "behind the motion"? I define it as having your center of gravity behind the horse's center of gravity. Is that a wrong definition?


Well there's 'behind the movement' in riding and then there is having the horse 'in front of your leg' the latter is more preferable to me. In an ideal setting you'd want to have your seat well centred over the horse and have more horse in front of your leg - this relates to forward movement and impulsion, if you are behind the movement or motion it means you are not 'riding' the horse and there is probably a lack of impulsion or a jammed up horse. JMO.


----------



## COWCHICK77

The closest I have come to dressage is a single lesson and a Sally Swift book, so if I am wrong please someone correct me!
I believe that riding behind the motion of the horse is incorrect although we are told to ride back to front. I think folks get that confused. Riding back to front means being centered, teaching the horse to use his hindquarters for impulsion, capturing the energy in the bridle and recycling it back rather than setting the head and hoping the rest follows which usually comes from riding behind. It is like trying to steer a runaway train from the caboose.


----------



## deserthorsewoman

This is the type of saddle the gentleman I posted the video of recommends for a classical seat as the OP is talking about


----------



## deserthorsewoman

This is a Spanish working/dressage saddle


----------



## deserthorsewoman

This one also, as close to perfect as possible, IMO


----------



## deserthorsewoman

also this one, lesser known here, a saddle from southern France, used on Carmargue horses for cattle work.


----------



## COWCHICK77

Interesting pics DHW! 
Some of those saddles I have never seen before. I agree that the third saddle would be pretty ideal. I have to admit those cantles on the Spanish and French saddles make me cringe. I do not like a lot of "dish" to the cantle as it causes to bite my outside thigh or hips. On my saddles if you were to stick a ruler across the seat from corner to corner on the cantle where it ties into the skirt than measured the distance from the ruler to the deepest part of the cantle, it would maybe measure one inch. And if you are not riding correctly and your butt hits the cantle you hear it because of how flat they are, sounds like you got smacked with a paddle! LOL!)
Perhaps the way those styles are built it is not an issue?


----------



## deserthorsewoman

They are made to measure. And are super comfy, put you in the perfect position. If you watch the video, the Spanish saddle is what he rides the grey with. 
The Carmargue in France is all flat, Swampland, so this saddle keeps you seated. They also don't rope, just drive cattle. 

The third one is actually a Charro saddle;-). I've been seriously looking at those


----------



## bsms

Here are some comments by VS Littauer:



















Sorry about the picture quality.

He distinguishes between the forward balance of a horse (meant for going fast, or jumping) and a central balance used in collected gaits. Balance is never static in a moving horse. A horse trying to cover ground efficiently will have a more forward balance, and a horse moving in a collected gait will, by definition, shift his balance toward the rear and be lighter on the front end. Neither is wrong, unless used for the wrong purpose - you don't use collected gaits to cover a lot of ground, but they are fun and comfortable and useful for certain functions.

A dressage seat - a "classical seat" - is meant for a central balanced horse moving with a collected gait. If you use the same seat with a forward moving horse, your center of gravity will be behind the horse's center of gravity. And that isn't all bad, because a horse putting on the brakes shifts his weight to the rear (if he is good) and being FORWARD of the horse's motion is a good way to do a face plant!

A forward seat is optimized for a forward balanced horse - one moving efficiently over the ground. If you want to remain in balance with your horse's balance, you need to be prepared to shift YOUR balance while the horse shifts his balance. In a tight turn around a pylon, the horse needs to be balanced to the rear, and you need to help him by doing it with him. If you need to haul butt to the far end of a field, then a forward seat will help.

Thus I disagree with TL's statement: "_If the saddle is designed and balanced correctly to the horse, and the rider sits up correctly, they should never be behind the motion, whether it is collected or extended._" If you maintain a straight vertical line from heel to hip to shoulder to ear, you cannot have your weight forward enough to have your center of gravity match a fast moving horse. And that is why I agree with Littauer that "position" isn't important when compared to "_fluid balance and rhythm_" - and that should constantly change.

That is part of why I like forward hung stirrups. I can shift my balance forward just by leaning forward and carrying my weight more on my thighs. That puts me in balance with my horse, and gets my butt almost out of the saddle so the saddle can pivot and not interfere with the horse's back. But I can also move my shoulders back, tuck my heels under me, and shift my balance to the rear (usually just before the horse does, if I do it right) to set the horse up for a more collected turn.

Of course, I also like Australian and English saddles with 1" stirrup leathers, and a design that doesn't force you on the cantle...:evil:

If the saddle puts you in the "classical seat", then you will need to fight it to get balanced with a fast moving, forward balanced horse.

Or, if you are really good, you can compromise by moving your hips and lower back enough to free up his back, in which case he will probably forgive your aft balance and move pretty good even though your weight is behind his balance. And if you aren't really good, you can adopt a position like the old cowboys, carry some weight on your thighs, move at the waist, and also end up with a reasonably content horse - although still behind the horse's center of gravity.

BTW - while I admire dedicated dressage riders, I tend to agree with Littauer that most recreational riders trying to imitate good dressage riders do a lot of harm to their horse. Of course, he also argues that most recreational riders need a simplified method for a forward seat, because we also lack the strength, balance and feel needed to ride like a top level jumper! I think instructors who try to teach position based off of experienced competitive riders do both riders and horses a grave disservice!


----------



## tinyliny

COWCHICK77 said:


> Interesting pics DHW!
> Some of those saddles I have never seen before. I agree that the third saddle would be pretty ideal. I have to admit those cantles on the Spanish and French saddles make me cringe. I do not like a lot of "dish" to the cantle as it causes to bite my outside thigh or hips. On my saddles if you were to stick a ruler across the seat from corner to corner on the cantle where it ties into the skirt than measured the distance from the ruler to the deepest part of the cantle, it would maybe measure one inch. And if you are not riding correctly and your butt hits the cantle you hear it because of how flat they are, sounds like you got smacked with a paddle! LOL!)
> Perhaps the way those styles are built it is not an issue?


 
built for men , got no thigh pillows and hardly any butt.


----------



## tinyliny

As for "behind the motion" . . this , to me, means that the wave of your motion, if described by a syne wave, is offset from that of the horse, lagging behind by some minute amount. The more it lags, the more you will be going "down" when the horse is going up, so that you are disunited from his motion and thus causeing an irriattion to him and a suppression of his forward energy.


----------



## bsms

^^ Interesting! By that definition, almost ANY seat could be behind the motion, or not! That focuses on "rhythm" while I was paying attention to "balance"...


----------



## tinyliny

correct. But it's harder to stay in sync with your horse if you are not over your own legs and close to his center of gravity, and your upper body lagging behind your lower body.


----------



## tinyliny

the horse's movement can be seen as a wave. if you ride the backside of the wave you will always be struggling to "climb" up it, and eventually fall behind it, as a surfer cannot stay with a wave once he has crested it and is on the backside of it. The very best dressage riders will actually be riding on the front edge of the horse's movement, like a surfer. instead of climbing or hanging on the back edge of the horse's movement, they allow themselves to be "pushed" forward, ever so slightly leading the horse, or shall I say the horse's syne wave.


----------



## bsms

tinyliny said:


> correct. But it's harder to stay in sync with your horse if you are not over your own legs and close to his center of gravity, and your upper body lagging behind your lower body.


Well, if you look like this, I agree  :










However, if you are using any standard approach to riding, then I have to disagree. Riding in an English jump saddle with a position close to a 1900 cowboy (although a relaxed leg), it was EASIER to stay in synch with the horse's motion. Very few people have the flexibility in their back and strength in their tummy to absorb that motion completely with their back.

And if I lean forward, light in the seat and my weight centered over the stirrup bars/withers, then I am centered over the part of the horse that moves the least, and I have very little motion to match at all! The dressage seat, IMHO, is the hardest seat to ride well.

And if the horse is moving fast, the "classical seat" has your center of gravity farther from the horse's than the 'classical western seat', since moving your legs forward moves your center of gravity forward too! The dressage seat is designed for dressage, which values collected gaits. Collection moves the horse's center of gravity back, and that makes it somewhat easier - but you are still trying to absorb the motion of the horse with a part of your body not designed to compress vertically: your spine.

Any rider should lead his horse's motion. If you want him to shift his balance to the rear, then you ought to do so first and give him a reason to shift too. If you want your horse to slow, lagging the motion with your rump gives him incentive to slow. That has nothing to do with what seat you prefer. That is Riding 102.


----------



## GotaDunQH

A pic of "behind the motion"...notice where the legs are in relation to the upper body.


----------



## greentree

I searched high and low for a western sadddle that let me have my legs under me. I had never ridden western before, for more than a 1/2 hour. I found a Billy Cook Classic, in a strange place (just driving down the road, on the way to a show, saw a BUNCH of saddles outside a pawn shop) sat in it, and bought it. Still really like it for position. I still don't like a horn!!

Nancy


----------



## bsms

GotaDunQH said:


> A pic of "behind the motion"...notice where the legs are in relation to the upper body.


In what sense does that either prevent a rider from moving with the horse, or cause the center of gravity to be too far back?

Is this guy "behind the motion"?










Having seen the video the picture below was taken from, I know the woman WAS behind the motion. And this is what I consider a "chair seat" and is a position that I'm pretty certain prevents anyone from moving with their horse:










If your thigh is near horizontal, as it is when sitting in a chair, and your upper body is not folded over it in the way a jumper would be, then I do not see how it would be possible to do anything other than bounce up and down on the rear of the saddle. That position also puts almost all of the rider's weight equal to or higher than the horse's back. That works for jockeys because their weight is in the stirrups. If your weight is on your butt, then you are a fall waiting to happen. But the problem with this style is where the weight is carried, not just feet in front of the belt buckle.

One of the reasons I dislike our Circle Y saddle is that the shape of the saddle forces my thighs into that position. The stirrups are actually hung back closer to my hip, but the darn saddle is shaped in such a way that I cannot get my thighs any lower than the lady above has hers. I have never been able to move "in fluid balance and rhythm" with my horse in that saddle. I just bounce and look at my mare's pinned ears...:evil:

Unhappily, the shape of the saddle is very hard to see in pictures. I'll try to see if I can get a picture of ours that shows the thigh groove later today.

GotaDunQH, I will say that if you combine the position of the lady in the picture you posted with what sure looks like a braced back and tension on the reins...I'd bet money she is neither balanced nor in synch with her horse.


----------



## deserthorsewoman

GotaDunQH said:


> A pic of "behind the motion"...notice where the legs are in relation to the upper body.


And she would have such a nice long leg......
I've seen even more extreme, lower leg extremely back and up towards the flank, and the instructor not saying anything.....


----------



## deserthorsewoman

This is the girl on the pretty chestnut. Hollow back.


----------



## deserthorsewoman

This is the classical seat. Upper body remains straight, pelvis tilted back, center of gravity moves back also. 
This is not sitting on your pockets, rather sitting towards your pockets, but gives security and enables the rider to follow the movement of the horse.


----------



## bsms

Maybe it is just me and my old male backbone, but my backbone is largely what it will always be. This was posted the other day on this link:

http://www.equineinspired.info/uplo...le-fitting_guide_for_equine_professionals.pdf posted on:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-tack-equipment/deeper-understanding-english-saddles-193778/

Pages 20-22 discuss backbones, heredity and concludes:

"A trainer asking a student with a lordotic frame to "ride like me‟, is asking for the impossible. If you walk, run, dance or do any aerobic exercise in a lordotic frame, why wouldn't you also want that same abdominal, back muscle interaction while riding a horse? Besides, by forcing a lordotic spine into an unnatural position is exposing the lumbar vertebra into possible herniated or ruptured discs. *You are what you are*..." Emphasis mine.

My back is compromised more by an injury riding Mia (OK, suddenly NOT riding Mia) in Jan 2009. It is better, but still causes the right side of my lower back to sometimes swell up when jogging or riding. I've concluded that while I will improve my flexibility slowly, my best flexibility will still be just a small fraction of my daughter-in-law's, who seems to have bones made of cooked spaghetti!

Thus I need a compromise. I will never, ever ride like a good dressage rider. I started at 50, have done more weightlifting than dancing, and my spine and limited natural athletic ability means I cannot absorb the motion of the horse's back with my vertical spine. And I believe a LOT of recreational riders are in the same spot - we don't have money or time for intensive lessons, we don't have the athletic ability of a top rider in dressage OR any other equine sport, we like riding and being with horses but will rarely exceed 3 -4 hours a week...so what about us?

Most of my riding books are by dressage folks, and most tell me I must use a dressage seat. But dressage is hard. Really hard. Really hard for horses, and really hard for riders. It requires skill, ability, and a lot of practice.

The beauty of the classical western seat, historically speaking, is that it is an easy way to ride. Judging from Mia's reaction, it is easy for her, too! Just finished a ride with her using my Bates Caprilli AP saddle. Tried it today instead of my jump saddle because it has a wider channel underneath it. But it also has CAIR. Bouncy. But today, I'd ask for a canter in a forward seat, then transition to the classic western seat - feet in front, legs draped around my horse but not pinching, heels low, moving my hips up & forward with her motion...and the CAIR wasn't nearly as bouncy as I remember it.

And instead of getting heavy on the front end and cantering around our little arena as if the Hound of the Baskervilles was after her, she attempted some collection. She did not achieve it. She didn't have enough thrusties coming from the hind legs and her back was still to tight, but she shifted some of her weight to the rear and relaxed more than normal for her.

I've never heard of anyone trying the old western seat in an English saddle. I wish I had a video, so I could post it in the critique section and drive everyone nuts! Curb bit, slack reins, one hand, stiff old guy trying to look like a cowboy in an English saddle with a Navajo blanket and 4-bar Australian stirrups.

If I tried bringing my heels back under me, two things happened: my knees started to grip, and I started to bounce.

I'm not telling any experienced rider how to ride. If you are comfortable with heels under hip, go for it. But I bounce, and I fall into my old nemesis of gripping with my knees. If you have a husband who wants to take up riding, or who rides once a month tops, it might be something to think about.

Dressage ridden right is a thing of beauty. Ridden on the cheap, by people who aren't built for it or fit for it, it becomes a stiff rider bouncing on the horse's back while pulling on the mouth and creating a frustrated & confused horse. I think Littauer was right. Some of us need to examine our limitations and figure out how to ride within those limitations. FWIW, I think the 'classic western seat' is worth consideration, particularly for men or those with limited riding time. Easy to learn while still allowing a horse to move underneath you:










Western riding pictures from a great collection of them here:

Erwin E. Smith Collection Guide | Collection Guide​


----------



## deserthorsewoman

Bsms, from what I see in pictures of yourself on Mia, although a little hard, since you mostly ride away from the camera, your seat is not so far from the last drawing I posted. Key for this seat is the tilted pelvis. The gentleman in the video I posted earlier, also the author of the book the drawings are from, was paralyzed for some time and came up with this seat for that reason...a bad back. 
I can't tell from your pics if you do it, since you're riding away from the camera( I said that already lol), but I'm willing to bet you do it. If not, try. 
I also want to clarify, this is NOT the modern dressage seat, rather the classical seat, and the heels ARE slightly in front of the hip.


----------



## GotaDunQH

bsms said:


> In what sense does that either prevent a rider from moving with the horse, or cause the center of gravity to be too far back?
> 
> Is this guy "behind the motion"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having seen the video the picture below was taken from, I know the woman WAS behind the motion. And this is what I consider a "chair seat" and is a position that I'm pretty certain prevents anyone from moving with their horse:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If your thigh is near horizontal, as it is when sitting in a chair, and your upper body is not folded over it in the way a jumper would be, then I do not see how it would be possible to do anything other than bounce up and down on the rear of the saddle. That position also puts almost all of the rider's weight equal to or higher than the horse's back. That works for jockeys because their weight is in the stirrups. If your weight is on your butt, then you are a fall waiting to happen. But the problem with this style is where the weight is carried, not just feet in front of the belt buckle.
> 
> One of the reasons I dislike our Circle Y saddle is that the shape of the saddle forces my thighs into that position. The stirrups are actually hung back closer to my hip, but the darn saddle is shaped in such a way that I cannot get my thighs any lower than the lady above has hers. I have never been able to move "in fluid balance and rhythm" with my horse in that saddle. I just bounce and look at my mare's pinned ears...:evil:
> 
> Unhappily, the shape of the saddle is very hard to see in pictures. I'll try to see if I can get a picture of ours that shows the thigh groove later today.
> 
> GotaDunQH, I will say that if you combine the position of the lady in the picture you posted with what sure looks like a braced back and tension on the reins...I'd bet money she is neither balanced nor in synch with her horse.


The first pic....yes, is behind the motion. You need to look at the position of the person seat...first and foremost. The first pic, she might as well be in a "recliner". She sitting PAST her seat bones, collapsed in the waist, shoulders way back past the center of balance, and leg forward. This means she will be "chasing" the motion, and not CENTERED over the horse back. 

The second pic...the guy's seat is not totally in the saddle, however he is NOT behind the motion, but forward of it.

The 3rd pic...well CA in this pic is WAY behind the motion...he might as well have his legs up on a ottaman!!!! Terribe. The woman, while not perfect...I would take her position over CA's anyday!!! How is her going to cue that horse anyway? At the horse's elbow??????

ETA: the first pic is not showing up here...it was the one I posted earlier.


----------



## LoriF

deserthorsewoman said:


> This one also, as close to perfect as possible, IMO


I would love to find a saddle like this, anyone know where to find one?


----------



## Captain Evil

I was reading this old thread too: quite interesting: I believe that saddle is called a "Charro" saddle.


----------



## deserthorsewoman

Yes, it is a Charro saddle. Dime a dozen in California 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## boots

I'm getting a Mexican saddle. Having it brought up from Guadalajara. 

I'm fascinated by the assembly process. I've ridden a couple and liked them. They won't work for the type of roping I do. I do not use a maguey rope or run 80 feet of dally!

But it will be fun to have. 

There are some good videos on youtube, of course, showing the traditional method of assembly.


----------

