# Weight Distribution Percentage: Legs Vs. Seat - Cantering



## Inexperienced Rider (Sep 14, 2015)

It's little hard to phrase this question. But it is about how much weight you support/put in your legs vs in your sit during walk , trout & Canter. Just for the discussion purpose, for example, while waling , you would put very little 15-20 percent of your weight in your heels ( enough to keep heels down) and rest ( 80 % approximately ) is in your seat. I need to know how these number dynamics changes with the change in the gate: so

1) During walk:Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

2)During trot:-Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

3) During cantering: Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

I hope it's not a confusing question. Also what are some tips to keep weight in your heels?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

While I totally understand what you are asking, I have no way of answering in those terms, to me horse riding is not a science where I could even begin to break down my position in terms like that.

To me riding is more than a science where you can break down what you are doing in those terms, it is about feel and dynamic responses to what is happening, or more properly what is about to happen...my new mantra

Do a lot more a lot earlier and a lot quieter, than a lot less, harder and too late.

Anyway, I sit with my lower body kind of melting into the horse, varying the pressure of legs and seat as needed.

The weight just sinks into the heels, not pushing them down, but just letting the feeling of weights hanging on them draw them down, should not be forced, just let them fall.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

You ride from your seat, your legs only have enough weight to be an "anchor" if you will.

While this will naturally change with the different gaits the feel should be the same.


----------



## ApuetsoT (Aug 22, 2014)

Also depending on the discipline. When I ride my hunter I keep my seat out of the saddle 100% at the canter and have a very light post at the trot. My dressage horse is sit! sit! sit!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Gosh you are way overthinking this OP - no way would anyone put definite calculations into something like that and expect it to not cause tension in the way they ride
Quite apart from anything else you aren't actually putting X amount of weight on your heels anyway - what you need to be doing is thinking that your weight is sinking down through your calves and into your heels but in a relaxed non forceful way and not going down on to the ball of your foot and pushing down against your stirrups 
Even when you are lifting your backside up out of the saddle you shouldn't be doing it by pushing up from your feet or you'll destabilize your lower leg position


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

It depends. The forward seat, at least as originally taught, DID put a lot of weight into the stirrups. It does not destabilize your lower leg because your center of gravity is also over the stirrups. Paul Cronin described it as "based on the stirrup rather than the seat". VS Littauer wrote "the stirrups will come directly under the body and the rider can at will stand in them as he would on the floor". Harry Chamberlin, describing the American military seat, used the phrase "standing in the stirrups". By keeping the ankle relaxed, the bounce is absorbed by the "hinges" of the ankle, knee and hip.

Others styles of riding do not. Western riders often carry all their weight in the seat AND THIGHS, and just have enough pressure on the stirrups to keep the stirrups from sliding off.

And, of course, one can ride without stirrups at all, which means zero percent goes into them.

BTW - "heels down" is, IMHO, very over-rated. Even "toes up" doesn't capture the right idea. "Ankles relaxed" would be a much better description.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The forward seat is no longer taught like that. We've moved on from the days of the Military rider
The destabilizing of the lower leg not about centre of gravity, it's all about how effective that leg is on the horse when in forward seat/2 point because when jumping that is extremely important - you cannot use your legs correctly if you're standing up on your stirrups
Riders are now taught to use rise from their knees using thigh strength - much less risk of being hurled up over the horses neck and/or getting ahead of the action too
Try jumping a course of obstacles using both methods and then come back and tell me which feels the most effective, safest and the most secure


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

It's really more of a dynamic relationship between seat, legs, and trunk (the position of which affects both of the prior). It does depend on what you are asking or doing.

I would not be able to effectively communicate with a horse if the percentages were kept at a constant.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I have read several people who ride English here saying that their instructors will have them post a trot without stirrups. That to me says actual weight in the stirrups is not a desired thing at least at the posted trot. 

Personally, from a western riding perspective, I keep just enough tension (not weight) through the leg and ankle to keep my feet in the stirrups at all gaits which naturally, with a relaxed ankle pushes my heels down. 

I always know when I have been relying on my stirrups for balance instead of balancing in the saddle, because my toes go numb and my ankles are stiff. Different kind of riding than English though.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> The forward seat is no longer taught like that. We've moved on from the days of the Military rider...
> 
> ...Try jumping a course of obstacles using both methods and then come back and tell me which feels the most effective, safest and the most secure


Maybe you have "moved on". Littauer discusses your approach at length is his last book, "The Development of Modern Riding". It was a former moderator on HF, maura, who introduced me to Littauer's thinking, and she still taught the forward seat that way. In the 90s, George Morris wrote about 'the American Jumping Style', which was based almost completely on the American 'Military Seat'. 

The problem, as Littauer viewed it:

"_But then there occurred in riding what has often happened before in other human activities - man's ambition to attain the barely attainable took over jumping; it forced many international horsemen to drop Caprilli's method and to search for other, more forcible means of making horses negotiate almost impossible combinations of obstacles. Today many of these horsemen will rightly tell you that Caprilli's basic tenet, that "there is little in common between ring riding and cross-country riding" could be altered to - "there is little in common between cross-country riding and international show jumping.' *Show jumping has become a narrow specialty...Artificial jumping problems, and the corresponding artificial means of solving them*, have placed such jumping just around the corner from the tanbark of the circus. Just as in former days our ancestors admired the particularly artificial feats of High School, so today many of us enjoy a new type of circus - unnaturally high obstacles assembled in tricky combinations..._" - The Development of Modern Riding, VS Littauer, pg 252

He also adds:

"_Seunig also fails to recognize the fact that the Forward Seat and the Dressage Seat (he calls the latter the Normal Seat) have little in common, because the balance of the first is primarily based in the stirrups and that of the latter in the saddle. Obviously not realizing this, he believes that the 'forward seat is developed organically from the normal seat'. *He also believes that it is impossible to maintain the Forward Seat "by balance alone" - which is precisely what beginners learning the Forward Seat are required to do by many American riding teachers. The Germans, who have apparently never discovered how easy this is when properly taught*, make a strong point of the fixed knee, and teach that the rider should raise himself above the saddle not from the stirrups but "from the knees". Although I know a few excellent riders who ride with pinched knees, such a seat used by the majority would be quite disastrous, both from the view of security and that of softness. 

One error leads to another, and Seunig wrongly claims the fixed knee become 'a shock absorber'. *The shocks of locomotion cannot be effectively absorbed if the knees are fixed*, and this is why: [a detailed discussion then follows]...

... It is a law of nautre that we can deliver a spring only from our feet. When in the saddle the stirrups are the substitute for the ground...

...True enough, one can post a trot without the stirrups, from gripping knees, but this opening and closing angles of the knee should not be confused with spring..._" - page 279

But just to be precise, I specifically wrote: "The forward seat, *at least as originally taught, DID put a lot of weight into the stirrups*. It does not destabilize your lower leg because your center of gravity is also over the stirrups."

And having learned from Littauer (and Chamberlin, and Morris), that is how I rode 'Australian' - and it did NOT destabilize the lower leg at all. Even now, in a western saddle, I often ride using a forward seat as taught by Caprilli, the US Cavalry, and Littauer - and it does not destabilize my lower leg. It is based on letting the weight flow uninterrupted past the knees and into the heels, and the relaxed heels add a spring to the leg as the weight is supported by the stirrups. It is using balance to...well, balance on the horse, versus using grip to avoid balance. When I post, that is the basis for it. That is the basis when I ride two point, which I spend some time doing every ride. It is both stable and secure, and proved itself to me in many sideways jumps and countless spins, all of which were unplanned.

At a bare minimum, it is obvious that at least one approach to a forward seat did and does emphasize weight flowing uninterrupted into the stirrups, and some of us still use it - without our leg flopping around. And thus my point remains totally valid - *a rider can ride with a very large percentage of weight in the stirrups, or almost none, and be riding well at either extreme*. This remains true at a walk, gallop, or anywhere in between.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

boots said:


> It's really more of a dynamic relationship between seat, legs, and trunk (the position of which affects both of the prior). It does depend on what you are asking or doing.
> 
> I would not be able to effectively communicate with a horse if the percentages were kept at a constant.



Exactly it is a fluid and changing number, depending on the dance you are doing :wink:


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - I will repeat - go and jump a course of show jumps using your old method and the new one (well hardly new any more) and then come back and tell me which one you found the most effective


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms you read Littauer, which sometimes I believe you do not always interpret correctly. I was lucky enough to observe Littauer, Gordon Wright, Steinkraus and other masters in real life often while they were still alive since they lived in my area. 

Weight goes into the heels. I hear it daily. Sometimes more than once a day. To hear "weight in your heels" to me and most English riders is very common. 

From a revised edition of Commonsense Horsemanship by Vladimar Littauer:


> While insisting upon pulling the heels down, I should have added *that all the weight going into the stirrups should go into the heels*, which of course is a physical impossibility but is very descriptive of the feeling that the rider should have.


Bolding mine.



bsms said:


> In the 90s, George Morris wrote about 'the American Jumping Style', which was based almost completely on the American 'Military Seat'.


Someone who had the same exact exposure to riding as I did growing up is one of the riders George uses as an example in that book. Believe me, she puts her weight in her heels, not her stirrups.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

It might be worth considering just sometimes, I have been watching videos of old dressage masters, and the type of horse and the movement that they had are a far cry from the dressage horses of today, I'm guessing that in most disciplines riders are adapting to this new movement. While one must have respect and remember the lessons taught by the masters of the past, their tack, equipment and horses were different.

The OP's question about weight distribution, my answer "It depends" and to be honest the whole sport of "equestrianism" is a fluid and dynamic thing, or we would all still be riding in stiff johds, with elephant ears, in flat leather only saddles, with a limited choice of bits.

Those of us who have had instruction in many different disciplines, realise that the fundamentals actually remain the same, Stand on your horse, don't sit, let the weight fall through your heels, weight over the centre of balance, feet forward, etc etc, sure the finesse of each becomes different, but you look at the instruction in my barn, hunters, jumpers, English dressage, western dressage, reining, trail riders, pleasure riders, and weekend riders, the horses are different, the tack is different, but the instruction is fairly universal.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> At a bare minimum, it is obvious that at least one approach to a forward seat did and does emphasize weight flowing uninterrupted into the stirrups, and some of us still use it - without our leg flopping around. And thus my point remains totally valid - *a rider can ride with a very large percentage of weight in the stirrups, or almost none, and be riding well at either extreme*. This remains true at a walk, gallop, or anywhere in between.



The OP asked a question about weight in heels, something she has been taught. I do not understand why you, an inexperienced rider that does not take lessons, tells her she should do something different and incorrect such as putting her weight in her stirrups.


----------



## coffinbone (Aug 2, 2013)

Balance and weightlessness for riding are best explained by Sally Swift in her book, "Centered Riding." Amazing drawings and photos, plus mental images to be balanced at any gait, in any saddle. 

She says stirrups are there "to rest on, not to push on." Pushing into stirrups stiffens your entire leg and body. I've also heard: Toes softly up, NOT heels pushing down.

Swift says: "Let the ice cream in your body melt and dribble down and out through your feet."

One idea is that if the horse was instantly pulled from beneath you (not literally, imaginatively) you would be left in an athletic stance as if playing tennis or baseball. If your invisible horse were trotting or cantering, you'd be on the ground running lightly, perfectly balanced, as in jogging or skiing - eyes forward, weight balanced.

In posting, forward movement from the horse moves you forward, not upward. An instinctual rider who is connected with her horse can post beautifully with neither saddle nor stirrups - and without "leaning/pulling" on the reins.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Forcing stirrup position/weight also forces an unnatural and stiff position all the way up.

It is incorrect in ANY type of riding to not ride from the seat. Yes, in jumping discipline's that is different but the same concept is modified. Some discipline's use the leg more than others, so on a cowhorse you may use your leg to balance as opposed to dressage you would use it to cue. I can put different types of saddles on the same horse and be riding completely differently.

I say again my concept of the leg is to have it as an anchor, and that alone is a good example, imo, that is across the disciplines. Whether it's the "ice cream dribbling" or an in the moment (and only in the moment) brace to help balance. Other than in the moment bracing is always wrong. Whether that is bracing your seat up in the air, or simply bracing your leg into a certain position. (And you can definitely see the negative effect of "toes up heels down" when taught incorrectly).

It's always interesting to see how equitation classes are often so different from proper riding. *Proper riding is proper riding regardless of discipline*

I agree the bareback is your best friend!


----------



## coffinbone (Aug 2, 2013)

Search: "no saddle, no bridle just a horse" for Alysia Burton jumping her paint with nothing but a loose neck rope. NOT little, low schooling jumps, either. 
No weight in stirrups here...

No Saddle, no bridle just a horse - TV News Video | TVNZ


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> weight over the centre of balance, feet forward, etc etc,


When I say feet forward I don't mean feet forward :icon_rolleyes:

What I meant was TOES forward, a lot of the stability of the lower leg comes from toes forward..

LOL, going back to greats of the past, I remember reading the late great Pat Smythes autobiography as a teenager, she spoke of the collective horror of her foot position, and the realisation that it was ballet that was doing it. The ballet was dropped and she learned to ride with her feet correctly facing forward and not stuck out at 90* as though she was in first position:rofl::rofl:


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

> I was lucky enough to observe Littauer, Gordon Wright, Steinkraus and other masters in real life often while they were still *alive* since they lived in my area.


Bolding mine. 

I have to correct myself as I should have written "active or alive". Without proofreading what I wrote before posting I made an error, one I know not to be true. William Steinkraus is alive and I apologize for writing otherwise.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

You killed Bill Steinkraus :shock:

I am actually shocked that he is still with us, that is a name from so long ago, great horseman.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Golden Horse said:


> You killed Bill Steinkraus :shock:
> 
> I am actually shocked that he is still with us, that is a name from so long ago, great horseman.


:rofl::rofl:

My first thought too.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> bsms - I will repeat - go and jump a course of show jumps using your old method and the new one (well hardly new any more) and then come back and tell me which one you found the most effective


A forward seat is not a "jump seat". To think of it as a way to jump is to misunderstand why and how it was used, and still can be used. It is a way to ride, not a way to get over an obstacle. Thus I can honestly say I've ridden most of the last 8 years using a forward seat - because I have.

Weight must go someplace. The options on a horse are limited to butt, thighs, knees and stirrups. Although one can allow the weight to flow into the heels, it is actually supported, of course, by the stirrups.

If your rump is out of the saddle, the weight must go into thighs or stirrups. To prevent it from flowing into the stirrups, one MUST squeeze with the thighs and knees. Unless one squeezes, it will flow into the heel and be supported by the stirrup.

Letting it flow into the stirrup, uninterrupted by the knee's squeezing, is not, in any way, bad riding. Nor does it destabilize the lower leg. Not if you are balanced on the horse. One might as well say a person standing on the ground has an unstable lower leg!

The picture below comes from a book by Jane Savoie:








​ 
E & F are balanced positions. Notice what Jane Savoie says (and I echo): *In order to sit in balance, your feet need to be under your center of gravity.* Both have the rider's center of gravity directly above the stirrups. In either one, the rider can unfold a little, not gripping with the knee, and end up standing in the stirrups - balanced! There will then be a lot of weight in the stirrups, but the rider will remain balanced and the lower leg will stay in place. When posting in those positions, one can unfold the body, and raise it and lower it without pivoting forward around the knee.

That is one of the traits of a balanced seat - one CAN raise oneself's to the top of the posting position without needing the horse to push you (creating more work for the horse) and without leaning forward, or gripping with the knee and then pivoting around it.

Picture g has the rider "behind the horse", which is fine as a defensive posture. Many western saddles are designed to put you in that position because it IS a good defensive posture, although it is more work for the horse. Littauer borrowed the following from Chamberlin & the US Cavalry, but that is OK:

"_To see whether he is really in balance with the horse, the rider should try the following experiment; without increase in inclination in his torso and without any lurching up or forward he rises slightly in his stirrups and stays up while the horse walks, without toppling forward or collapsing backwards. The rider's weight is then supported by the stirrups, and this attitude is given stability by the tension in the three springs...This incidentally, is also the rider's position during the upward beat of the posting trot and at the gallop.._." - Common Sense Horsemanship

No one is saying you should "brace" in the stirrups. If you brace, you lose two of the the "hinges" that allow you to absorb shock and stay out of the way of the horse - the ankle and knee are gone, and all you have left is the hip. Bracing is bad. Bracing is bad if you are standing at attention on a parade ground, too - you're likely to pass out and fall. Watched it many times.

But putting weight in the stirrups is no more bracing than walking or jogging is bracing.

Now, does anyone NEED to ride this way?

Nope. There are a lot of ways to ride a horse, including gripping with the knee. 

But a few things ARE true:

1 - Allowing weight to flow into the stirrups, and even "standing in the stirrups", does NOT destabilize the lower leg. It does not destabilize mine, and I am neither a great athlete nor God's Gift to Horses. So if I can be stable, balanced and secure doing it - it CAN be done. If I could ride out many spooks that way, then it is also secure.

2 - If allowing weight to go into the stirrup destabilizes you, in any way, you are not riding balanced. You are either in front of or behind the horse - which is fine by me if you have a reason, but it is not balanced. You are substituting grip for balance.

3 - If you need to move forward to feel stable at the top of a post, then you started behind the horse - unbalanced, although that is OK if you have a good reason to start there.

4 - Just because a top athlete, riding many hours a day, can successfully do something, it doesn't mean the average rider can imitate it. It is a serious mistake to try to imitate top riders without actually BEING a top rider!

And here is something odd:

Folks are glad to read a paragraph by an anonymous Internet blogger, or listen to a few sentences said by their local instructor, and carry those around for life as if they are written in stone. But QUOTE a great rider like Chamberlin (4 Olympics, twice as team captain), or quote an instructor who taught thousands of students (and who felt he could safely teach someone who had never been on a horse before to jump 2 1/2 feet in 15 lessons)...and well, who cares about them! Imbeciles and morons! The only people who knew or know how to ride are those who lived in the 1600s (Dressage Masters) or those born...well, since we were, be that 1950 or 1990.

If "standing in the stirrups" unbalances you, you were not balanced to begin with. The fault is your unbalanced position, not the weight in the stirrups.










​


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Sir what you post is rarely FACT it is your opinion, and that is fine, but why cannot you state your opinion, and I DO mean YOURS, and move on...WHY do you have to return again and again to threads and post to try and disprove all others as being wrong?


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> A forward seat is not a "jump seat". To think of it as a way to jump is to misunderstand why and how it was used, and still can be used. It is a way to ride, not a way to get over an obstacle. Thus I can honestly say I've ridden most of the last 8 years using a forward seat - because I have.


To say the forward *seat* is not a jump seat is ignorant. Caprilli revolutionized the jumping seat position which became the forward seat position. You might want to watch this video and figure out what the difference is between riding, seat, position, and system. The words are not interchangeable. A system is what Wright, Littauer and even Parelli has/had. It is a method.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Golden Horse said:


> Sir what you post is rarely FACT it is your opinion, and that is fine, but why cannot you state your opinion, and I DO mean YOURS, and move on...WHY do you have to return again and again to threads and post to try and disprove all others as being wrong?


:cheers:

Well said.


----------



## Cordillera Cowboy (Jun 6, 2014)

Inexperienced Rider said:


> It's little hard to phrase this question. But it is about how much weight you support/put in your legs vs in your sit during walk , trout & Canter. Just for the discussion purpose, for example, while waling , you would put very little 15-20 percent of your weight in your heels ( enough to keep heels down) and rest ( 80 % approximately ) is in your seat. I need to know how these number dynamics changes with the change in the gate: so
> 
> 1) During walk:Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %
> 
> ...


This is the reason I can't dance. I have to count 1 - 2 -3- up, 1 - 2- 3 back, 1 - 2 - 3 turn..... I can't enjoy the music. I can't appreciate my partner. Counting and measuring turns it into work. I'm retired. I don't have to do that anymore.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Those who can do; those who can't quote other's words.

Since ther person you were slamming does, and you don't, I will listen to their advice over yours.

I shall end this here, because I am about to critique your riding. And this is not the place for that.


----------



## Skyseternalangel (Jul 23, 2011)

OP, when you try and "force" one part of your body to have more "weight" than another... that is when things go wrong.

Riding is work, but it should be relaxing at the same time. Meaning you aren't forcing yourself to keep X amount of weight in Y place... you are allowing your butt to be in the saddle (or out if in half-seat) and your legs to shape around the horse but hanging down so your foot rests in the stirrup not curled up under you to where you lose your stirrup or pressing against the stirrup and creating tension all down your leg. Regardless of the discipline you ride.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I jump Oliver on trails in a western saddle.mg: 

Not a lot, but on a two hour ride maybe twice or three times every time we go out. The boy loves to jump when there is a reason for it (hates artificial jumps). Sometimes it is 18” some jumps are 3-4’. 

Having no formal jump training, I am left to my own observations as to what works and what does not. What does not (besides ending up with a horn to the solo-plexus), is entirely based on feel, since I am a kinesthetic learner, even without training, it is possible to feel when you nailed timing and position in a jump beautifully and when it was awkward because you did not.

What I have found is this: successful tension, weight distribution and muscle release is not stagnant, it flows. You don’t “assume the position” and freeze there. It is an interplay.

Where my weight/tension may be on my stirrups at one point, it flows away from there and into my ankles, knees or seat in order to stay in balance with the movement of the horse from the ground, to the air, to the ground again. At some points it might flow the other way but it always has to stay with the horse. I have found that the jumps where I did not allow for the interplay of adjustments and became ridged in holding a set amount of tension throughout, were bad feeling jumps. 

I’m sure that those of you for whom jumping is your sport, will have another viewpoint, but this is what I have observed in the differences between the jumps where I thought “well that was ugly” and the ones that I thought “that was amazing! We moved as one entity.”.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> What I have found is this: successful tension, weight distribution and muscle release is not stagnant, it flows. You don’t “assume the position” and freeze there. It is an interplay.


Exactly, dynamic and fluid
Save​


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - Please will you stop dwelling on things from the past - English/European riding has moved on, things have changed and you either change with them and improve or you get left behind
Jane Savoie thinks that tapping a horse on the legs will train it to do a piaffe so you'll have to forgive me for not being impressed with anything she says


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

I have learned over many years that the most stable and secure way to ride is to keep the majority of your weight OFF your feet. If you are sitting the gait, then your weight should be on your seat. If you are rising a trot or riding in 2 point, your inner thigh and knee. Ideally, there shouldn't be more weight on your feet than required to keep your stirrups on your feet. There is no way to calculate exact percentages as it all depends on feel and what you are doing.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> bsms - Please will you stop dwelling on things from the past - English/European riding has moved on, things have changed and you either change with them and improve or you get left behind
> Jane Savoie thinks that tapping a horse on the legs will train it to do a piaffe so you'll have to forgive me for not being impressed with anything she says


What has changed in riding horses? Folks have done it for thousands of years. Mongols and Native Americans were famous for their riding long before international show jumping or dressage caught on! Show Jumping may change its courses, but riding around arenas in front of judges is no test of genuine riding. If it were, rollkur would have been rejected immediately, and WP would not have tolerated peanut rollers for years, nor would WP continue to encourage horses to be bred to move with their noses way down.

The seat I learned from the US Cavalry and Chamberlin and Littauer kept me on a horse who bolted many times, and spooked, leaped sideways and spun madly around far more times than I could count. My one fall came when my horse spooked during a dismount, which isn't a bad record. It has also worked for teaching Bandit to trot with confidence instead of bracing his back. It seems to work well for helping Cowboy stay balanced when I'm riding him at 30% of his body weight. It simply has worked, and worked very well for me and my horses.

If you choose to ride otherwise...fine. If you and your horses are happy, I'm happy for you. There IS more than one way to ride effectively. 

And at an absolute minimum: I have very often ridden my horse "standing in the stirrups", yet with a very stable lower leg - in English, Australian and western saddles. Thus my original statement remains indisputably correct - weight in the stirrups does NOT destabilize the lower leg.

But if someone wants to ride well, they might want to ask themselves who they should trust. Should they take the sentences written by Internet bloggers as authoritative? Or should they trust world champion riders describing how a novice can ride well? Is there anyone on this thread who has won at high levels of polo, or been chosen to be the team captain of an Olympic equestrian team? Has anyone on this thread graduated from Samur? Anyone graduated from the Italian cavalry course? Anyone here who has won Olympic gold?

Do you or does anyone else on this thread have the record of equine accomplishment that Harry Chamberlin had? So why should a new rider take YOUR advice, and ignore HIS? Why does it bother you or others to read his advice to new riders?

_"Because of the widespread preconception that you can only learn, in a sort of intuitive way, by doing, and that reading or even thinking seriously about riding is rather pointless, too many young riders are doomed to groping too long in a forest of problems solved long ago. I can recall my astonishment, when I first began to collect books on the techniques of riding, at finding, in books written two or three centuries ago, minute descriptions of "discoveries" that I had made for myself only after a long period of trial and error...*Once we become interested in learning about riding, and are not content to repeat interminably the same errors, there is much that we can learn*."_ - William Steinkraus, Riding and Jumping, 1961.

If William Steinkraus could learn by reading old books, why is anyone on this thread above it? Why should riders rejoice in ignorance of the past?

"_OP, when you try and "force" one part of your body to have more "weight" than another... that is when things go wrong_." - Skyseternalangel

Agreed. Forcing, bracing, tensing - those are enemies of good riding. Riding should be like walking - not without muscle tension, but not forced.

"_What I have found is this: successful tension, weight distribution and muscle release is not stagnant, it flows. You don’t “assume the position” and freeze there. It is an interplay._" - Reiningcatsanddogs

Common Sense Horsemanship was recommended to me by maura, a former moderator who taught jumping. I waded thru the section on riding philosophy, resenting it and not understanding, then, how important it can be to understand one's own riding philosophy. But when he started discussing position, he said there wasn't one. He pointed out that he could put a rider on a standing horse and adjust the rider to have "perfect position" - and the moment the horse moved, it would be all over.

He said the test of riding was this: *Do you move in fluid balance with your horse?* Can you give your horse the cues you want and he understands? If so, you are fine. And for the new rider, or the very imperfect "sometimes" rider like me, the real test is largely this: *Do you move in fluid balance with your horse? *As Cordillera Cowboy implies, it's a dance, not a drill. 

And one of the reasons I ride in two-point every ride, regardless of saddle, is that I know of no better way to feel the balance of your horse. If you are ahead or behind your horse, or fail to match your balance to his during a turn, acceleration or slowing, it will become immediately apparent - IF you do not substitute grip for balance. When I get back in the saddle, my goal is to replicate the balance I needed in two point while sitting - to move with my horse. If I pay too much attention to position, or weight, or where my feet are, the dance ends.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Moderating:

Hello all. Several posts have been edited or removed in this thread. 

Please try really hard to be polite in your disagreements and as hard as it is, attempt to relate responses back to have some relevance to the subject of the Original Poster's query.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

You ride in two point every ride bsms?

Every ride for how long?

Could you show a picture of you riding in two point? Or even a random picture from the internet of two point? Or what you think two point is?

As for random internet bloggers, well, there internet is full of the famous people under anonymous names.

Just a thought.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

What has changed in the riding world?
Its constantly changing 
Modern day competition riders have little to nothing in common with the Mongolians or the native American Indians or the cavalry in full gallop into battle and their needs are very different.
If what you do suits what you do then by all means carry on that way but its not right to try to push your methods on to people who are riding in the world of 'today' and need a style that's going to work for that world
We evolve our styles because it works better for us 'now' and not because we're bored and feel like doing something a bit different


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Leg position/ weight has nothing to do with the stirrups. Maybe that sounds odd, but it really doesn't. The whole "weight" thing it really just a mental concept to allow the rider to utilize their body properly. When I took voice lessons my teacher had me do various warm up exercises, one in particular was the "you have a line running up to the ceiling, stretch to it, let your legs become roots and go into the ground" (my poor paraphrase!). That sort of concept it obviously not meant to be taken literally but it really does have a dramatic effect when done differently, as in the energy (or icecream) flowing down your heels to the ground, the purpose of the stirrup (in this sense) is simply to support the toe and allow the leg to fall into that proper position. I ride exactly the same whether I have a saddle or am bareback, and no I don't hold my toes up when I'm bareback, it's silly and extra work and there's no point, but the concept is exactly the same, hence my use of the term "anchor".

"That is one of the traits of a balanced seat - one CAN raise oneself's to the top of the posting position without needing the horse to push you (creating more work for the horse) and without leaning forward, or gripping with the knee and then pivoting around it."

I don't understand that, aren't ALL seat's supposed to be balanced and able to do that? Nor is the horse "pushing you" more work I'm really not understanding that concept, it's not like the horse uses it's back like a trampoline to help you! Again, proper riding has nothing to do with discipline. When it truly comes down to it I feel there are ultimately 2 types of riding. Sitting back (reining/dressage) and jumping style, both which simply suit a purpose and nothing more.

""To see whether he is really in balance with the horse, the rider should try the following experiment; without increase in inclination in his torso and without any lurching up or forward he rises slightly in his stirrups and stays up while the horse walks, without toppling forward or collapsing backwards. The rider's weight is then supported by the stirrups, and this attitude is given stability by the tension in the three springs...This incidentally, is also the rider's position during the upward beat of the posting trot and at the gallop..." - Common Sense Horsemanship"

Something else cross-discipline (and VERY VERY common) (though I don't know anyone who gallops like that!!). I don't know what the "three springs" though.

Anyone who has, or has seen someone advanced drop a stirrup and continue to rides understands that really the only weight in the stirrups is to keep them on! Obviously there is literally some weight but that's the whole point that you're going for a concept (stretching) and not numbers as the OP said (and who can accurately keep those numbers anyways?) A beginner may drop a stirrup and become unbalanced, showing they USE the stirrup, an advanced rider will just keep on going, often posting, so what then is the purpose of the stirrup? A good rider CAN stand in the saddle, or bareback without it. A picture is worth, in this case, 10,000 words. Maybe I should just delete all the text?










Regarding modern riding. Does anyone here really think ANYTHING about horses is the same as it was however many hundreds (or more) years ago? Heck are the HORSES even the same?

Yes there are different ways to learn but there is no replacement for experienced and earned knowledge. I am glad someone can apply teachings to help them in their personal life with things that maybe someone more experienced wouldn't need help with but that does not make them an expert or even someone who should necessarily advise others. I think it's great to promote ways of learning, but they should be applicable.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

I also wanted to say that while I have read and own tons of older books I don't look to them to tell me how to ride, ever.

OP I was curious if you had a specific question, are you having trouble at the canter?


----------



## Zexious (Aug 2, 2013)

OP -- I personally think of stirrups as foot rests. 
Your seat should absolutely be responsible for the bulk of your weight. 
EDIT--As a Hunter/Jumper rider! This isn't accurate advice for all disciplines. 

We all know my opinion of reading vs doing x.x At least in the horse world...

@bsms -- You obviously have a system that works for you and your horse.
As you have said in this thread (and as I have said before) there is more than one way to skin a cat. 
I'm wondering why you seem to take issue with anything that contradicts 'old' writings or your way of riding or your perception of 'good' riding?

And, for what it's worth, I'd like you to tell any equitation judge that "Heels down" is overrated xD


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> Show Jumping may change its courses, but riding around arenas in front of judges is no test of genuine riding.
> 
> 
> Is there anyone on this thread who has won at high levels of polo, or been chosen to be the team captain of an Olympic equestrian team? Has anyone on this thread graduated from Samur? Anyone graduated from the Italian cavalry course? Anyone here who has won Olympic gold?


If show jumping is no test of genuine riding, why the emphasis on who might have been captain of an equestrian Olympic team or if anyone won an Olympic Gold? I'd think it would be irrelevant if it isn't a test of genuine riding. :think:


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Zexious said:


> OP -- I personally think of stirrups as foot rests.
> Your seat should absolutely be responsible for the bulk of your weight.
> EDIT--As a Hunter/Jumper rider! This isn't accurate advice for all disciplines.
> 
> ...


I find it very interesting that you say that as a H/J! I'd say by far that is the discipline(s?) that show the "seat weight" the LEAST! So what does that say for the others? COMPLETELY agree with your post.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> _"Because of the widespread preconception that you can only learn, in a sort of intuitive way, by doing, and that reading or even thinking seriously about riding is rather pointless, too many young riders are doomed to groping too long in a forest of problems solved long ago. I can recall my astonishment, when I first began to collect books on the techniques of riding, at finding, in books written two or three centuries ago, minute descriptions of "discoveries" that I had made for myself only after a long period of trial and error...*Once we become interested in learning about riding, and are not content to repeat interminably the same errors, there is much that we can learn*." - William Steinkraus, Riding and Jumping, *1961.*
> 
> If William Steinkraus could learn by reading old books, why is anyone on this thread above it? Why should riders rejoice in ignorance of the past?
> 
> _


_

We have had this argument before, William Steinkraus had the best instruction possible his whole riding life, even winning the Maclay finals as a junior in 1941. He did not learn to ride by only reading books as you are implying. Bill was a person that encouraged riders to take instruction, ride, and read. He never encouraged learning to ride by reading only._


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

How did I miss this lovely topic? 

OP, I think I understand your question, and although I can't give you percentages, I will just say that the amount of weight in your stirrups at each gait is "more." Trot is more than walk, canter is more than trot. It is an interesting question, and one I've pondered as well. I think for an individual rider on an individual horse, you probably could break it down into percentages. But those percentages would change even with a different terrain or doing a different discipline.

Now after reading through this thread, I will say I disagree with many of the ideas about riding. Based on my experiences needing less of a beautiful seat and more of a functional one, I first learned how to ride on the principles of Sally Swift and dressage, and found that they didn't help me in out in the real world riding unpredictable horses over unpredictable terrain at unpredictable speeds.

Yes, people can ride and jump bareback and with no weight in their stirrups. The horses that do these things are well trained and you will notice the lovely pinto who is jumped over those huge jumps tackless goes straight as an arrow. IF that horse were to behave as many I've ridden and dive to the right after the jump, throw in a buck or twist unexpectedly, the rider would be SOL.

If you think having your weight in the seat and not the stirrups is the most secure way to ride, I recommend taking a horse out that has choppy gaits and trotting him through a lumpy field or through deep, shifty sand. You will discover as I did that this will make you bounce around very insecurely and that no amount of balance will keep you on the horse if he flips around suddenly. Another thing you can do to test your balance is take a horse that leaps high and throws flying lead changes every stride or two when excited. Again, can be doable if the horse stays straight as an arrow, but any twisting or turning will fling the rider off balance _unless_ they know how to keep weight in the stirrups. 

To learn to ride securely, I studied cross country riders. To say they don't put their weight in the stirrups is absolutely laughable. I have tried galloping horses for a distance in a western saddle, and that is one way it is possible to ride with your weight in the seat if the horse has smooth enough gaits. Take a horse out with a rough, huge gallop and you will wear out sitting after a quarter mile. It is quite necessary when galloping strong or rough horses over distances to get out of the saddle and stand in the stirrups. Those who ride the most tricky and difficult horses at speed know this is the most secure way to ride. 









A person would be insecure if they tried to think of the stirrup as some sort of independent platform unrelated to the rest of their leg. But if the leg stays on the horse and the weight is distributed down the inside of the inner thigh and upper calf into the stirrup (more weight as the horse goes faster), the leg moves up and down but that motion is regulated by the effect of the joints absorbing some of the force. Hip, knee and ankle act as springs (as others have said) to absorb the motion. If you were to brace those springs, it would make the stirrup push you insecurely off the horse. If you use those springs, your motion goes with the horse. 

I can jump bareback, but I am secure at speed when jumping if I have my weight in my stirrups. I can post without stirrups, but I can two point or post the trot for an hour without tiring my muscles if I use the stirrups. The stirrups are one of the most valuable tools we have for riding. They are not for looks, but to assist us in using our proprioceptors for balance. We have not moved "beyond" using stirrups in our riding. I've found that the riders I go out with that ride the most complicated horses are the ones using their stirrups the most. For the others who believe you don't need stirrups, it is only theory because they haven't proven or disproven that it works.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I've read this whole thread, and I still don't get why it feels like an argument. to me, it seems like you are all saying about the same thing, more or less. 

has any of this helped the OP?

I think a lot of the time people phrase their answers without really taking into account the level of the person who has asked for advice. if we really have that much experience, we should know that you can't take it all in at once. cut off a reasonable chunk for her to chew on. don't choke her.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

gottatrot said:


> How did I miss this lovely topic?
> 
> OP, I think I understand your question, and although I can't give you percentages, I will just say that the amount of weight in your stirrups at each gait is "more." Trot is more than walk, canter is more than trot. It is an interesting question, and one I've pondered as well. I think for an individual rider on an individual horse, you probably could break it down into percentages. But those percentages would change even with a different terrain or doing a different discipline.
> 
> ...


Please retread the OP. The OP never asked about weight in stirrups. The OP said heel. Not once in the OP does the word stirrup appear.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

gottatrot said:


> How did I miss this lovely topic?
> 
> OP, I think I understand your question, and although I can't give you percentages, I will just say that the amount of weight in your stirrups at each gait is "more." Trot is more than walk, canter is more than trot. It is an interesting question, and one I've pondered as well. I think for an individual rider on an individual horse, you probably could break it down into percentages. But those percentages would change even with a different terrain or doing a different discipline.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone was saying you don't need stirrups, (OK well, I'll say it, you don't "NEED" stirrups, lol but I do get what you are saying!!) simply that the focus of weight on them, for GENERAL riding, should not be a focus on the weight but rather on the proper positioning of your leg (which yes, ends up being the same, but is a different mindset).

I did stay on my gelding bareback when we went from a fast canter to stopped with his head down and butt up in one stride. BUT stirrups sure would have saved my nearly dislocated thumb! There is a purpose, of course, but for general riding "weight in stirrups" is definitely overanalyzed in this sense, and I think in a way an incorrect phrase..or concept.

If someone is riding the sort of horse where they will need to be braced, or constantly intentionally out of the saddle they are usually at the point where they understand proper leg function and don't need to worry about that.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

gottatrot said:


> To learn to ride securely, I studied cross country riders. To say they don't put their weight in the stirrups is absolutely laughable.


Did you read the thread? The authors and riders mentioned are show jumping riders. 

It is no big reveal that eventing riders ride with their foot in the home position on cross country for security, but we are not discussing eventing riders on this thread. Eventing is a completely different discipline with a different position. :shrug:


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

updownrider said:


> Did you read the thread? The authors and riders mentioned are show jumping riders.
> 
> It is no big reveal that eventing riders ride with their foot in the home position on cross country for security, but we are not discussing eventing riders on this thread.


The OP did not mention a discipline, so I'm not sure why the thread would be about show jumping. 


> _BSMS_
> Weight must go someplace. The options on a horse are limited to butt, thighs, knees and stirrups. Although one can allow the weight to flow into the heels, it is actually supported, of course, by the stirrups.


The weight can't go into the heels without the stirrups, as mentioned above. I could see one differentiating putting more weight in the heels vs the ball of the foot or the toes, but that is different. 
One can either put the weight elsewhere and hold the leg so it appears as though the heel is down, or else one can put the weight down through the stirrup which if the ankle is flexed means the stretch is felt through the back of the calf and the heel. But the weight itself is going to the stirrup. 

It's like if you were to stand with your foot on a stair and flex your ankle. You might say your weight is going down through your heel, but actually it is the part of your foot standing on the stair that is supporting your body weight. The type of imagery brought up by words such as "weight in the heels" can lead to questions such as the one the OP has. In reality, as the force of the horse increases with more movement, a higher percentage of weight will go into the stirrup. But that actual percentage depends on many things per physics principles. 

If you were to sit on your saddle with no stirrups, the only weight going down into your heels would be the weight of your legs where they leave the saddle. 

These are some of the statements I was responding to:


> _Yogiwick:_ the purpose of the stirrup (in this sense) is simply to support the toe and allow the leg to fall into that proper position. I ride exactly the same whether I have a saddle or am bareback,
> 
> Anyone who has, or has seen someone advanced drop a stirrup and continue to rides understands that really the only weight in the stirrups is to keep them on!





> _Updownrider:_
> Someone who had the same exact exposure to riding as I did growing up is one of the riders George uses as an example in that book. Believe me, she puts her _weight in her heels, not her stirrups_.





> _Smrobs:_
> I have learned over many years that the most stable and secure way to ride is to keep the majority of your weight OFF your feet. If you are sitting the gait, then your weight should be on your seat. If you are rising a trot or riding in 2 point, your inner thigh and knee. Ideally, there shouldn't be more weight on your feet than required to keep your stirrups on your feet.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> ...I think a lot of the time people phrase their answers without really taking into account the level of the person who has asked for advice. if we really have that much experience, we should know that you can't take it all in at once. cut off a reasonable chunk for her to chew on. don't choke her.


Good advice. I'll try to take it.

FWIW...one can ride without stirrups. Most find they ride better with them, at least as an option. I have ridden with my stirrups deliberately set at a length where I can barely keep them on, but find I ride better when things get dicey if they are shorter and I have the option of putting all my weight into them (at least, all that I can, since the thighs always support some of the weight, at least with my saddles). If I ride all day with a lot of weight in the stirrups, my knees hurt. But my horse had a ton of energy last night after a few days cooped up with 100+ degree temps, and I did 30 minutes trotting, cantering and riding out an early bucking spell. About the only time my butt touched the saddle was during the bucking fit.

But if I"m riding steady, sensible Cowboy, I often ditch the stirrups, and only get out of the saddle on rougher spots along the trail.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

general question, by OP, and not discipline or event related , so I won't go into jumping versus anything else,but just state that it depends
You learn that distribution not by googling masters, ect, but by experience-riding 

for instance, if I am long trotting, trying to make time, back to camp, before dark or a storm, in sections of trail that allow it, I will stand in my stirrups at times, and alternate with posting
Just because one can practice, develop muscle strength riding without stirrups and posting, does not mean no weight is desired in those stirrups when they are used
You can even use weight as a pre signal, to slow ahorse, without rein pickup
Yes, this is discipline specific, but only meant to show when you might wish to use additional weight in those stirrups
You hav eto be able to rate awestern pl horse in the show ring, without picking up on the reins. Various techniques are used while training
JUST ONE, is to add weight in the stirrups, when a horse starts to speed up, and then stop and back him, then let him go on aloose rein again. A horse thus learns to slow, when they feel that added weight in the stirrups,avoiding the backup, and slow on that pre signal alone,, so that you can rate them without picking up on the reins
If you are turning a cow on the fence, at speed, you are going to have more weight on that inside stirrup
Riding, it just soon becomes natural to ride with heels down and some weight in those stirrups, but I'm not about to try and analyize as to % , as it will vary, depending on where and how I am riding.
Going down a steep hill, I might have quite abit of weight in my stirrups.
More important is having your legs correctly under you, and your legs just not 'floating ' in those stirrups. This allows a deep secure seat, where you can stay with ahorse when he makes sudden quick moves


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

There's a huge difference between standing in your stirrups when galloping for a long distance in a straight line to take weight of your horses back (and stretch your own knees/legs a bit) and riding in 2 point around a complicated jumping course - or when jumping a cross country fence
And I'm speaking from experience of eventing and hunting not just looking at photos of someone doing it
When riding Cross country, hunting, Team Chasing, Hunter Trials etc having your foot deeper into the stirrup for added security against loss of said stirrup doesn't = putting all of your weight on to that stirrup.
Watch the first video from around 0:20 and in the second one Mark Todd had lost one stirrup by about 0:50 but it didn't affect his balance or position


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Still waiting for your two point picture, or a picture from the internet depicting you view of two point.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

sarahfromsc said:


> Still waiting for your two point picture, or a picture from the internet depicting you view of two point.


Badgering the witness.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

We have all been badgered. I was just reminding without name calling or using rude language.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

sarahfromsc said:


> We have all been badgered. I was just reminding without name calling or using rude language.



this isn't a critique thread on bsms's riding, though, and you know that. 

oh where oh where IS the op?


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Sorry, sarah, but you are on my ignore list. I only see your posts if someone else quotes one.








​ 







​ 







​ 
Please notice I use a long-legged version, with my goal being to have my seat out of the saddle but my jeans touching it. I post the same way. My horses are not looking at me, and do not know the difference between having 1" of clearance or 6" of clearance. Clear of the saddle is clear of the saddle.



jaydee said:


> There's a huge difference between standing in your stirrups when galloping for a long distance in a straight line to take weight of your horses back (and stretch your own knees/legs a bit) and riding in 2 point around a complicated jumping course...


My little arena doesn't allow galloping for a long distance in a straight line. So we do figure 8s, or work turns in a triangle of cones, while trotting & "standing in the stirrups". If you want to learn the feel for how a horse balances in a turn, then doing turns of various sizes while standing in the stirrups is a great way to do it. You'll know you've done it wrong if you lose your balance in the stirrups during the turn.

But then, as has been pointed out, the long forgotten OP did not ask about show jumping. And 90% of my riding is out of the arena.

If some wish to grip with their knee and create a pivot point with it, that is their business. I long ago learned to pry my knees away from my horse, so the weight WOULD flow uninterrupted into the stirrups. And it works for me, as it worked for the cavalry before me and for Littauer and Chamberlin and a great many others.

What puzzles me is why so many insist it is impossible to do what so many have done and continue to do. It is a COMMON approach. It is clearly taught in the US Cavalry equitation manual, so it was obviously done by many thousands.








​ 
* "distributing weight down thighs and in stirrups"
*​
Perhaps those who haven't tried it could buy a copy of Littauer's book, and learn how. Frankly, stirrups were not invented as a place to rest one's toes.

But I'm not saying anyone HAS to ride this way. I am saying it is both possible and effective, including when a horse spins, bolts or jumps sideways. I don't know about jumping forward. Mia didn't jump forward. She only did it sideways. But Chamberlin, who taught it, IS in the Show Jumping Hall of Fame (George H. Morris - President):

http://www.showjumpinghalloffame.net/sjhof_inductees.html

http://www.showjumpinghalloffame.net/pdf/1990 Harry D Chamberlain.pdf


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> this isn't a critique thread on bsms's riding, though, and you know that.
> 
> oh where oh where IS the op?



It may well NOT have been but I would argue he made it so, and I don't see him as a witness in this case somehow.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

The question was asked I think, because its unusual to find anyone choosing to ride in 2 Point out on a hack/trail ride for long periods unless travelling in extended canter or gallop.
I personally wouldn't describe the position that bsms is in as 2 point but just a slightly forward 'light' seat - body leaning forwards but the backside is still in contact with the saddle
While doing your own version of something might be OK for you its not the type of thing that you teach to others


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> Sorry, sarah, but you are on my ignore list. I only see your posts if someone else quotes one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Two point means two point of contact. There is no "long legged" version. Either you are in a two point or you are not. Jeans is not one of points of contact. You can't redefine what a two-point is. You can say you ride in a light seat, but not two-point. 

No one needs to but Littauer's book. It is online.
https://archive.org/stream/commonsensehorse010454mbp/commonsensehorse010454mbp_djvu.txt

So is Chamberlin's.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89052499506;view=1up;seq=1

And if you want to understand what you have misinterpreted all along by Chamberlin, here is Jim Wofford, A MULTIPLE OLYMPIC MEDALIST, translated into simple terms.
The Evolution of the Lower-Leg Position | Practical Horseman Magazine


From the article:


> If one accepted the Italian system, then a lower leg that supplied stability was sufficient. However, as competitive riding became more sophisticated, the lower-leg position underwent a gradual transformation beginning in the mid-1930s. At this time another genius on horseback stepped onto the world stage: Gen. Harry D. Chamberlin, the greatest theorist the U.S. has ever produced, began to move the stirrup farther forward.
> Under Chamberlin’s influence, the foot was no longer home in the stirrup; instead, the *stirrup rested beneath the arch of the rider’s foot*. Some textbooks of that period still require the foot to be home, but the photos of the same era show that the most successful riders have developed a more supple and sensitive lower leg, changing to a foot position that now brings the stirrup closer to the toes. The advantages gained in flexibility and communication by this small adjustment are obvious to the modern student.


So if Chamberlin's and Littauer's books are online, we never need to be subjected to out of context quotes again. You can link the book and copy text from the books.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

jaydee said:


> The question was asked I think, because its unusual to find anyone choosing to ride in 2 Point out on a hack/trail ride for long periods unless travelling in extended canter or gallop.
> I personally wouldn't describe the position that bsms is in as 2 point but just a slightly forward 'light' seat - body leaning forwards but the backside is still in contact with the saddle
> While doing your own version of something might be OK for you its not the type of thing that you teach to others


Thank you. That was my point.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_but the backside is still in contact with the saddle_"

Sorry, but it was MY butt in question and it was NOT in contact. I have no desire to get it very far above the saddle, because I'm NOT trying to jump. All I need for my purposes, as I said, was an inch out of the saddle. My stated goal has been for years to have my rump out but my jeans still touching. If my sometimes too talkative horse then decides to buck or spin, it gives me the best of both worlds. I think. YMMV.

Point being, though: This thread asks about weight in the stirrups. At an irreducible minimum, if my seat is "light" then the weight has to be elsewhere. In my case, the stirrups.

"_While doing your own version of something might be OK for you its not the type of thing that you teach to others_"

I don't teach others. I do state what has worked for me.

Harry Chamberlin DID teach it. He spent a year at Samur on the US Cavalry's dime, and then a year at Tor di Quinto with the Italian Cavalry, for the express purpose of learning what to teach the US cavalry. His book was written with a novice rider in mind. Each chapter was sent to a novice rider, and if she could not put its advice into practice by reading it, the chapter was rewritten.

I fully understand that not everyone wants to ride that way. Most people where I live consider me very eccentric. That is OK. I've tried a number of things, and kept what seemed to work best for me and my horses. But I am not telling anyone they need to ride like me, and have frequently pointed out, including on this thread, my shortfalls as a rider.

But since it HAS worked for me, my point - that it is OK to put weight in the stirrup and that the amount will vary depending on what you try to do, is valid. What is also true is that riding like this does not destabilize my lower leg. It is also certain that at least some very good riders taught putting weight into the stirrup - lots of it.

Bernie Traurig wrote (The American Hunter/Jumper Forward Riding System):

"The Forward system is different, as it is based more on the rider’s balance in his stirrups rather than his seat. This is a more simplistic schooling technique that suits horses that are galloping and jumping in forward balance, as opposed to the dressage based system, which is based on the rider’s seat and fundamentally suited for horses in central, not forward balance. Dressage riders also compete in small, flat arenas in collected gaits.

That said, of course, the forward system incorporates in more advanced stages some of the collected or, as I say, semi-collected exercises we feel necessary to expand the horse’s education. I think the goal of every rider with high ambitions should be to have knowledge of both systems, both in theory and execution. A top rider should be able to adapt to the horse and be flexible with his/her techniques. A hot blood horse may hate the German system and a colder type warmblood may demand the German system. I was fortunate to learn from some of the best teachers the system of dressage and that I consider a gift!"

He also said:

"Q: What inspired you to become a professional?

A: I loved riding and wanted nothing more than to make this my lifelong profession. My Dad, however, really wanted me to go to college. It was over dinner one evening with Vladimir S. Littauer, my coach of 4 years, William Steinkraus, the captain of the United States Equestrian Show Jumping Team, and my Dad, that Steinkraus informed us that there was a spot open at Gladstone, New Jersey with the 3-day team. Gladstone was the USET training headquarters and I would be under the tutelage of Stephan Von Vischy, the coach. This made my Dad comfortable with my decision not to go to college and instead , pursue my passion. Knowing that my education would continue at the highest level, my Dad gave me his blessings."

About Bernie | Equestrian Coach

Taking a forward system approach, or having VS Littauer as your favorite author, is pretty weird for a western rider. Littauer might have fainted if he saw me tossing my 30 lb roping saddle onto my 800 lb horse! Yet at a time when I was desperate for help, maura "introduced" me to Littauer, and what he wrote has influenced me ever since. But it is no more "THE Single Way of Riding" than anything else is. It just has worked well for me and my horses.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

tinyliny said:


> this isn't a critique thread on bsms's riding, and you know that.
> 
> oh where oh where IS the op?


I wasn't trying to critique his riding. He brought up he rode in two point on every trail ride.

I am guessing he does not know what two point is. He MIGHT be riding in a forward light seat, but not two point.

I also told him he could pick a random picture off the Internet to use as an example of what he THOUGHT was two point. So no critiquing was at All intended.

Anyone can ride anyway they wish. My big beef is when people try to preach it as the gospel after a handful, or less, of lessons.

Now, who is badgering whom?


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

bsms - What you are doing is not 2 Point. 
You might not think that your butt isn't in contact with the saddle but it most definitely looks as if it is in that photo - so apologies for it not being clear in it and me not seeing what is supposed to be visual but even if their is some air between you and that saddle it isn't enough to make your position anything more than a very very light half seat
You might not be teaching your own methods here but you most certainly are going to great length to push them on this thread
People that are learning to ride NOW and maybe are in some training program, 4H or Pony Club need to do what is correct for today - they don't need to do what was correct several decades ago and they don't need to do what bsms suggests they do because it works for him, it just creates confusion


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

bsms said:


> Sorry, sarah, but you are on my ignore list. I only see your posts if someone else quotes one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OH heck bsaz...I mean bsms, you aren't the first man to ignore me for my strong uppity opinions, nor you you be the last I am sure.

Just life rolling on.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> Point being, though: *This thread asks about weight in the stirrups.*


It is? Let's reread the OP. 




Inexperienced Rider said:


> It's little hard to phrase this question. But it is about how much weight you support/put in your legs vs in your sit during walk , trout & Canter. Just for the discussion purpose, for example, while waling , you would put very little 15-20 percent of your weight in your heels ( enough to keep heels down) and rest ( 80 % approximately ) is in your seat. I need to know how these number dynamics changes with the change in the gate: so
> 
> 1) During walk:Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %
> 
> ...


Yep, as I thought and have already pointed out in this thread. OP never asked about weight in stirrups. 






bsms said:


> Bernie Traurig wrote (The American Hunter/Jumper Forward Riding System):
> 
> The Forward system is different, as it is based more on the rider’s balance in his stirrups rather than his seat.


As for Bernie Traurig, let's watch one of his videos called Balance in the Stirrups and see what he really means when he says that. 
Free Video - Balance in the Stirrups: The Half-Seat | Equestrian Coach

He mentions weight in heels, not stirrups. I've said it before, and I will say it again, as an inexperienced rider you misinterpret what is written often. 

------Note-----
I have mentioned before that Bernie used to use half seat and two point interchangeably but no longer does to avoid confusion.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

"_You might not think that your butt isn't in contact with the saddle but it most definitely looks as if it is in that photo - so apologies for it not being clear in it and me not seeing what is supposed to be visual but even if their is some air between you and that saddle it isn't enough to make your position anything more than a very very light half seat.._."

No. Sorry. MY BUTT. NOT YOURS. I know.

And if there is no contact, then there is no weight transfer. And if there is no weight transfer - or even if you magically know more about my butt than I do and there is "very very light" contact - then the weight MUST go somewhere else. And it goes into the stirrups. And it does so without my losing control of my lower leg, or gripping with my knee - which would interrupt the flow of weight.

"_you most certainly are going to great length to push them on this thread_"

Nope. False statement. I have repeatedly said others are welcome to ride any way they want. All I've done is say that how I ride IS an acceptable, recognized approach - as Morris, Littauer, Chamberlin, Taurig and others TAUGHT. As the US Cavalry taught.

And frankly, what give you or anyone else on this thread the right to say multiple Olympians and inductees to the Show Jumping Hall of Fame are wrong? Who are you to define "right", and tell Hall of Famers they were wrong? If you are going to reject them, then please lay out YOUR credentials compared to theirs.

Look again at what Bernie Traurig wrote: ""The Forward system is different, as it is based more on the rider’s balance in his stirrups rather than his seat. *This is a more simplistic schooling technique that suits horses that are galloping and jumping in forward balance*, as opposed to the dressage based system, which is based on the rider’s seat and fundamentally suited for horses in central, not forward balance."

It also works well for sitting out spooks and bolts. At least, it worked for me. So, again - who are you to say the Hall of Famers are wrong, and to suggest I haven't experienced what I have experienced? It IS, as Bernie Traurig described, "The American...Forward Riding System".

Ride however you wish. But as for me, I'll stick with folks like Chamberlin, Littauer and the US Cavalry. My horse, my choice. It is a free country. And maybe some of those learning to ride now should do what I did, and listen to their horse first and foremost. As I pointed out:



bsms said:


> ...Taking a forward system approach, or having VS Littauer as your favorite author, is pretty weird for a western rider. Littauer might have fainted if he saw me tossing my 30 lb roping saddle onto my 800 lb horse! Yet at a time when I was desperate for help, maura "introduced" me to Littauer, and what he wrote has influenced me ever since. *But it is no more "THE Single Way of Riding" than anything else is. It just has worked well for me and my horses.*


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> And frankly, what give you or anyone else on this thread the right to say multiple Olympians and inductees to the Show Jumping Hall of Fame are wrong? Who are you to define "right", and tell Hall of Famers they were wrong? If you are going to reject them, then please lay out YOUR credentials compared to theirs.




I am obviously on ignore but bsms, don't you get it yet? I have never said the Olympians are wrong. I am saying you are wrong because you misinterpret their teaching, training and writing.


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> I think a lot of the time people phrase their answers without really taking into account the level of the person who has asked for advice. if we really have that much experience, we should know that you can't take it all in at once. cut off a reasonable chunk for her to chew on. don't choke her.


This is good advice. Will add some posts choke me with the wordiness. IMO a link is an option for the reader if they are interested in further exploration. A video is also a choice to watch or not. 

I have never completely read an entire post by BSMS because they are just too wordy and full of quotes that honestly don't seem to even be relevant. My eyes glaze over and I just can't even continue to read them. Don't mean to single him/her out here, but I don't notice anyone else doing that. 

Since the OP has not responded to all these posts, it may be possible that the OP can't figure out what everyone is talking about.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

jaydee said:


> When riding Cross country, hunting, Team Chasing, Hunter Trials etc having your foot deeper into the stirrup for added security against loss of said stirrup doesn't = putting all of your weight on to that stirrup.
> 
> The question was asked I think, because its unusual to find anyone choosing to ride in 2 Point out on a hack/trail ride for long periods unless travelling in extended canter or gallop.


I think if we'd ask those riders completing their courses with one stirrup if they'd rather have their stirrup back, they'd say they did. You can see their position becomes defensive and less secure once they lose a stirrup. 

I will agree that (almost) no one should ride with all their weight on the stirrups (jockeys do). The only way to do that, honestly, would be to remove your leg from the side of the horse OR to shorten your stirrups above the horse's barrel like a jockey. Otherwise your weight is distributed down the inner thigh and calf even if you are standing in the stirrups well above the horse's back. 

This is why when I was galloping one day completely in two point (which does not mean your legs are "off" the horse) and my stirrup buckle snapped, I did not fall off but kept riding. When my stirrup fell off, my weight was transferred down into my inner legs and I dropped slightly lower onto the horse while remaining in two point. Since my position was less secure and I did not have a competition to win, I slowed my horse, went back to retrieve my stirrup and rode home at a slower pace. 

In endurance riding it is very common for people to two point for miles at the trot. We often ride hugely extended trots that you just can't sit to comfortably for long periods of time.
Some stand high, some low.
















Racing under saddle is another competition where the riders often stay in two point at the trot:









I've read many articles and asked many professionals about the difference between the terms half seat and two point. There is very little agreement. Many people use the two terms interchangeably. To me, it sounds like half seat would mean your butt is touching the saddle, but lightly. But Google or Youtube searches will show you many people demonstrating half seat completely out of the saddle and people in "two point" touching lightly.

It might not be common for trail riders to go along in two point, but we often do 90% of our rides in two point if we are covering a lot of ground whether in trot, canter or gallop. I personally call it two point if your weight is off the horse's back to where you are not bumping it with your seat. 

The effect is the same for the horse and rider whether you are a half inch above the horse or a foot, and whether your stirrup is long or short. See how eventers two point versus jumpers. Recently I made a video where if you looked at my shadow you'd think I was hitting the saddle with my butt at every canter stride but in reality I was not touching down at all. It might be more accurate to say "off the horse's back."


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

> I've read many articles and asked many professionals about the difference between the terms half seat and two point. There is very little agreement. Many people use the two terms interchangeably.


If bsms is going to quote Bernie Traurig and use him as an example, then I am going to clarify what means when he says two-point and half seat. And since bsms has made it very clear he thinks the people that post on this have no worth, we might as well use what Bernie says.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The OP is most likely gone, as that OP just wanted some basic riding info, and not a critique on jumping, two point, cross country, ect


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

perhaps a mote point in this detrailed thread, but when someone asks about amount of weigh in heels, it kinda implies stirrups to me!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The Op is asking a bout weight distribution, between seat and stirrups-yes, I take heels to mean stirrups, or how else would you weight heels?' Basic gaits, walk trot canter-not racing mode, not jumping, not extended trot.
Thus, my answer remains-it depends!


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

FWIW I believe there is half seat/2 point (same thing) and then a "light seat" commonly found in jumping or for wanting to get off the horses back but no need for 2 point. All have a correct and incorrect way.

The OP asked how much weight in the leg. Upon answering that question I will argue that (yes stirrups ARE "not NEEDED" in a literal sense) and that in GENERAL riding (a point I made again and again) one does not intentionally force weight into the stirrup and that is always incorrect (again, aside from the few times where you do actually need to brace and those aren't things a beginner would need to worry about). Does anyone ACTUALLY disagree with that? This is going around and around and gottatrot even quoted me (WITH my disclaimer!) so I feel like I'm missing something. I do see what gottatrot is saying and agree with that, hence my disclaimer. And yes, even when standing in the stirrups a good rider does not do that by intentionally forcing weight into the stirrups, correct? Yes a lost stirrup WILL effect your balance and it would probably be easier to ride minus 2 minus 1, but the point is that those people are CLEARLY capable of riding without so this whole "stirrup" thing is not only irrelevant to the OP but also a moot point as "necessary". I don't lose stirrups much these days, but I will also stop and fix it, and not least because of those bruises the poor horse and rider must have gotten in that first video!! OUCH! We do ride with stirrups for a reason but the focus should not _at all_ be about the stirrups, and this discussion came about due to the argument that forcing weight into the stirrups is correct as GENERAL riding.

Heck I lost stirrups far more as a beginner (who will rely on them) then I do these days and even then I don't think I ever fell off due to losing a stirrup, because I knew not to rely on it. Riding without stirrups is something everyone should learn, esp in the English disciplines, because eventually you WILL loose one, and also, your posture and riding will be better for not focusing solely on your stirrup!


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

*minus 2 stirrups would be easier to ride because you are more balanced instead of lopsided as with minus 1 (like carrying two full buckets of water and barely managing 1!)*

Sorry if that didn't make sense! It's simply yes OBVIOUSLY some weight goes into the stirrups and it's hard for the body to be "uneven" (here I have a stirrup here I don't) but that's not the same as forcing weight into the stirrups, or even focusing weight into them.

And a point on the above to me the weight in stirrups is like saying "when I take a step how much weight should I put on the ground?" "don't worry about it just take the step!"


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Inexperienced Rider said:


> It's little hard to phrase this question. But it is about how much weight you support/put in your legs vs in your sit during walk , trout & Canter. Just for the discussion purpose, for example, while waling , you would put very little 15-20 percent of your weight in your heels ( enough to keep heels down) and rest ( 80 % approximately ) is in your seat. I need to know how these number dynamics changes with the change in the gate: so
> 
> 1) During walk:Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %
> 
> ...


 This is the OP
Her question *is* confusing because you can't 'keep' weight in your heels, your weight sinks downwards through your calves - *Coffinbone* already gave a perfect description quoted from Sally Swift of how it feels
_Swift says: "Let the ice cream in your body melt and dribble down and out through your feet."_
The discussion about weight on stirrups is mostly centred around the fact that some members don't know or understand the difference between riding in 2 point and 'standing in your stirrups' when riding


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

It is also true that many beginning riders, let their feet float in those stirrups, often tipping toe down.
Yes, that weight flows down, but none the less, you need some weight in the stirrups in order to stay with a horse when he makes sudden quick moves, and if you ride with your legs under you, heels down, it becomes more of less automatic-that flow.
One way I was taught to check my position, purely talking equitation on the flat, and not adaptation to event/speed, was to stand in my stirrups, no holding on mane or saddle horn, and then sit down. That is useful for a beginner, as many ride with their legs too far foreward, or, western they sit on the cantle of their saddle as in a rocking chair, and in that position, their legs are just floating, with weight mostly in the seat of the saddle, if not all of it


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

riding western, I do ride with weight in my stirrups, riding perhaps with a longer leg then most English riders.
From the following link:

eat Bones and Balance
As you learn to actively maintain your balance, you’ll begin to develop a more solid and useful connection between your seat bones and the saddle. To find your seat bones, take your feet out of the stirrups and lift your legs up to the pommel with your knees bent; this position puts you in contact with the saddle via your seat bones. You can do this at either a halt or a walk. Move your legs back into position slowly so that you don’t startle your horse. Then, train yourself to feel when you’ve lost seat bone contact, and how to get it back, by experiencing the extremes of bad balance through the following exercises.

While at a halt or at the walk, sit up tall. Take you feet out of the stirrups. With your heels pushed down, extend your legs as far forward toward your horse’s shoulders as you can. Hold the position for as long as possible, and then rest. Next, bring your legs as far back behind you as possible (avoid hitting your horse in the flanks). Point your toes downward for an added stretch. Alternating between having your legs too far ahead and too far behind may feel awkward, but it will help you find your balance. As an added benefit, these stretches strengthen your stomach muscles and create a stronger and longer leg.

Riding correctly with a long leg and minimal bend at the knee will allow you to carry the maximum amount of weight in your stirrups. That means your horse will have less weight on his spine. You’ll also have a lower center of gravity, which will add to your stability in the saddle, allowing your horse to move more freely and helping you keep up with him during quick stops and turns. 
Standing in the saddle and posting the trot are great ways to build your muscle strength and endurance. These exercises also improve your leg position and help you transfer more weight into your stirrups. Start by standing at the walk or extended jog. Bring your legs as far back as you can, and push your hips forward and out of the saddle. Try to keep your heels slightly below or at least level with your toes. Hold this position until you can’t stand any longer, and slowly lower yourself into the middle of the saddle with your pelvis tilted forward so that you sit on your seat bones.

To post the extended jog or the trot—gaits that need more active riding—push your hips up and slightly forward out of the saddle by pressing the balls of your feet into your stirrups. Allow your knees to straighten and your heels to stretch down as you rise up. Pull your shoulders back and lift your chest.

So, again, i repeat-it depends. Yes, I know the OP used the term canter, but many novice riders do interchange canter and lope-so, still need to hear from the OP and have the OP clarify the question, as it pertains to what she is trying to do, far as riding


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

here is thelink

A Balanced Approach to Western Equitation


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

None of what you've posted actually answers the OP's questions Smilie


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

jaydee said:


> None of what you've posted actually answers the OP's questions Smilie


:rofl::rofl::rofl:


That's because.like so many threads, we have moved to "this is my opinion, or my cut and pasted bit from someone elses opinion about something that MIGHT be related to the subject at hand.

Of course there is going to be a lot of opinions on this one, because the question is kind of vague, maybe we should just cut everything out and leave this from @Yogiwick

the weight in stirrups is like saying "when I take a step how much weight should I put on the ground?" "don't worry about it just take the step!"


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Yes that was a great comment from Yogiwick and totally covers the question


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

And with that the thread closes (elaborate bow)

:rofl::rofl:

I am glad that made sense though, I am worried I'm a little too abstract at times! Thanks for the compliments!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The flow happens , of course, going down, as everything is connected, including your seat and heels
I think instead of just abstract thinking, pasting riding treatises by past 'masters', what helps is actually giving advise a person can apply, and that person also needs to ride, while someone knowledgeable is watching
Yes, you can ride without stirrups, but you either have stronger leg contact when your legs should be in more neutral, or you have more weight on the spine
It is semantics to say you ride with no weight in your stirrups. 
If you can come up with a better term, go for it, but at many clinics I have taken, the concept of riding with weight in your stirrups was used, whether the actual physics defined that process, which becomes automatic the more horses you ride, in various events, both in arenas and outside of them.
There are some pretty dam good cowhands, that use horses in a practical way, for aliving, and who would be hard pressed to actually describe as to what they are doing, but they can stay with that cow, making fast moves, ride out anywhere and are what is often talked as being 'sitting tall in the saddle
I posted some advise on correct equation, and not about to argue irrelevant semantics, as to lbs or pressure, ect. If you ride correctly, that distribution automatically falls into place
In fact, one of the great advances in military history, and which helped shape the World at the time, was the invention of the stirrup


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Smilie said:


> It is also true that many beginning riders, let their feet float in those stirrups, often tipping toe down.
> Yes, that weight flows down, but none the less, you need some weight in the stirrups _in order to stay with a horse when he makes sudden quick moves_, and if you ride with your legs under you, heels down, it becomes more of less automatic-that flow.


I think this advice could be very helpful for some...although Smilie thinks "semantics" or "riding treatises from past riding masters" may be unhelpful, both of those things have either prevented me or assisted me in learning better riding. 

Semantics and word images from some such as Swift had me rather floating in the saddle. Semantics and word images from others such as Morris (not that I'm a true fan) gave me the idea that you don't float anywhere but rather "your security is in your lower leg." I have seen many, many times the beautiful floaty riders floating right off their horse when sudden moves happen. I used to win equitation classes before learning to not just pose on a horse but to securely put my weight down into the stirrups or heels, whatever you want to say but I believe thinking of the stirrups rather than the heels is more easily understood. 

Telling the new rider not to brace but let the weight flow uninterrupted through the leg, to feel how the joints are shock absorbers and to let them move, and that if they lose the stirrups there is not enough weight in them, all of this can be very helpful. What Jaydee and Smilie say about needing "enough" weight is true, but how to translate that into the real world means if you lose your stirrup you did not have "enough." The amount you need can be significant or not very much, depending on what the horse is doing. 

Without the element of tack failure, a very good rider will be concerned if they lose a stirrup because it means something very abnormal happened with the horse's movement. To lose a stirrup often means the rider comes off, just because whatever got that stirrup off was some extreme movement. That is how much weight you need to have on an everyday basis to ride securely and well.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Yogiwick said:


> And with that the thread closes (elaborate bow)
> 
> :rofl::rofl:


It should of been maybe....
Save
Save​


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I like the remark about standing, and how much weight and all. it brings up another thought;

you can stand on the ground, passively, and a certain amount of force is exerted against the ground, and an equal and opposite amount is exerted by the ground up against your feet (otherwise you'd fall through the ground, like water).

but, you can just stand, and you can 'push' against the ground, such as standing up on the balls of your feet. if the ground weren't so big, it would try to move away from the increased pressure, instead, YOU move up.

putting weight into/through the stirrup is standing on it. it stays equal with you. but, if you push against it, what happens , since it cannot got very much farther away from you, YOU go up. your heel goes up, your seatbones go up, tension goes up.

so having correct 'weight' into your stirrups/heels but not bracing into your stirrups is like the difference in feel is of just standing on the ground, verses trying to push the ground away from you and ending up standing up on the balls of your feet.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> putting weight into/through the stirrup is standing on it. it stays equal with you. but, if you push against it, what happens , since it cannot got very much farther away from you, YOU go up. your heel goes up, your seatbones go up, tension goes up.
> QUOTE]
> 
> But WHY does your heel go up? If it does
> ...


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Golden Horse said:


> tinyliny said:
> 
> 
> > putting weight into/through the stirrup is standing on it. it stays equal with you. but, if you push against it, what happens , since it cannot got very much farther away from you, YOU go up. your heel goes up, your seatbones go up, tension goes up.
> ...


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

tinyliny said:


> the flexibility of your ankle allows the heel to fall past the stirrup.


I think your descriptors are quite helpful. I agree with your description of pushing the stirrup away versus having a lengthened calf muscle and shortened shin muscle. 

Our legs are actually odd to think about, because there is a rule with muscles that flexors are always stronger than extensors. So on your upper leg, the strong flexors are on the top of your thigh, and these lift or flex the leg. But on your lower leg it is the opposite; the flexors/stronger muscles are on the back of the leg, and the weaker muscles on the front. So when we are riding, we are actually doing a strange thing, which is trying to lengthen our stronger calf muscles and shorten our weaker muscles on the front of the shin. That's probably why it is at first more natural to push the stirrup away with our stronger muscle of the calf than it is to lengthen that calf and sink the weight through it.

And _this_ is exactly why even when threads go around and round they can often be so helpful, when we approach a topic from many angles and trains of thought something can come up in a new way you haven't thought of before. What Tinyliny said made me understand this concept of leg muscles and suddenly I have a new way to think about why beginner riders want to brace against the stirrups. Now I have a new way to approach educating new riders about how it may feel strange or counter-intuitive to lengthen their stronger muscle, and shorten their weaker one.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

It is all to do with balance. 

Many years ago I taught a girl to ride. She had been paralysed with polio a few years before (she was about 8 when she started) once her calipers were flexed there was no way she could take any weight in her stirrups or on her thighs yet she could rise to the trot, had a well balanced seat and hands like silk. 
Once she had the movements learned she rarely ever lost a stirrup iron and if you saw her ride you would never know she was paralysed from the waist down.


----------



## QtrBel (May 31, 2012)

subbing


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

This is what you see in a lot of riders who use actual weight on their stirrups to force their heels down instead of helping them understand the notion of weight sinking down in a sort of fluid like way - you get a braced leg that's too far forward
If you've got too much weight on your stirrup when posting you end up standing on your toes with your heels up rather than heels sinking down plus a rider that's forcing themselves too far out of the saddle and then losing the rhythm created by the horse's diagonal action that you should be rising and falling with


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

Smilie said:


> The flow happens , of course, going down, as everything is connected, including your seat and heels
> I think instead of just abstract thinking, pasting riding treatises by past 'masters', what helps is actually giving advise a person can apply, and that person also needs to ride, while someone knowledgeable is watching
> Yes, you can ride without stirrups, but you either have stronger leg contact when your legs should be in more neutral, or you have more weight on the spine
> It is semantics to say you ride with no weight in your stirrups.
> ...


I completely agree but the problem is that the OP was asking for a specific percentage which is what sparked the debate, because of course there is no simple answer for that. My advice is also the same.


----------



## Yogiwick (Sep 30, 2013)

tinyliny said:


> putting weight into/through the stirrup is standing on it. it stays equal with you. but, if you push against it, what happens , since it cannot got very much farther away from you, YOU go up. your heel goes up, your seatbones go up, tension goes up.
> 
> 
> Golden Horse said:
> ...


Well that's sort of the difference in "weight on the stirrup" and this thread has become about, and proper riding as initially about. Proper riding would mean your heel would stretch down but in a literal sense to push on the stirrup would mean bracing and pushing your body up (yes tippy toes) which is usually incorrect riding, hence the argument. OR shoving your heel down (and forward) and posted above.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

I think we basically agree, and perhaps the exact words are just not adequate.
Yes, it is a flow, as the entire seat, legs and heels are connected, and not  weight in the stirrups per say
I find in much easier doing, then ever really thinking as to what I really do, as many here know, those reactions, riding balance, ect, all become so automatic, that when asked to put it into words, versus just demonstrating by riding, you really have to think, and even then, fall short
I find some gaited horse riders look braced, with legs right off the horse,but perhaps that is my ignorance in those disciplines
I included correct equitation, in the first place, to clear up between natural flow, stretching down, which just becomes automatic, ntr forced, and beginning riders bracing, to try and achieve a heels down look


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

jaydee said:


> This is what you see in a lot of riders who use actual weight on their stirrups to force their heels down instead of helping them understand the notion of weight sinking down in a sort of fluid like way - you get a braced leg that's too far forward
> If you've got too much weight on your stirrup when posting you end up standing on your toes with your heels up rather than heels sinking down plus a rider that's forcing themselves too far out of the saddle and then losing the rhythm created by the horse's diagonal action that you should be rising and falling with


I think the rider is pushing too strongly with her leg muscles, without the weight distribution going down through the leg. You can have lots of weight in the stirrups, much of your body weight in fact, as long as it is distributed properly down your legs and it will not push your stirrup forward. It tends to do the opposite, in fact. It's not weight that is causing the problem, but pushing forward with the calf muscles along with not allowing the weight to go down toward the ground through properly flexed joints.

I would say the difference between these two riders is not that one has more weight in the stirrups, but that the balance of the body and weight distribution and joint flexion creates the issue. So to me it's not the amount of weight in the stirrups that creates the problem, but how the weight got there.








This is not a weight problem, it's a physics problem:


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

if you've ever taken Karate or other martial arts training, there is a stance called "the horse". 
this is because you stand with your legs apart, knees slightly bent, aligned over your feet, and you literally put as much weight down into the earth as possible. by pushing outward (down the WHOLE leg, along the OUTSIDE), you put a bit of active tension down into the earth. this makes you feel like you have a lower center of gravity, and makes it very hard to push or pull you off balance. (note: in martial arts this stance is can become muchh more exaggerated than the stance of real riders)

standing in the stirrups, even for the milisecond of posting, is a bit like that stance. the whole weight goes down from the hip, along the outside of the leg, through the heel, with a slightly outward push. this helps to keep the knee facing forward, instead of cranking so that it is facing out sideways.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Gottotrot - that picture I posted is actually snipped from one taken of me about 28 years ago demonstrating (I wasn't involved in the rally as a student or an instructor btw I was there with some of our livery owners and grabbed by the person doing the training session) to a group of Pony Club members what happens if you lower your heels by pushing down against the stirrups - I wasn't using my calf muscles at all to do it just putting my weight against the stirrups rather than allowing my weight to sink down through my heels
To actually ride like that would pull on your calf muscles though, make it hard to post the trot and would also throw your whole body position out and yet its a very common fault in newbie riders
This is a quote from this link
Horsemanship How-to: Post the Trot
_Just remember that posting is not popping up and down in your stirrups like you’re on a pogo stick. In fact, ideally you should be able to post without your stirrups._


----------



## smrobs (Jul 30, 2008)

jaydee said:


> This is what you see in a lot of riders who use actual weight on their stirrups to force their heels down instead of helping them understand the notion of weight sinking down in a sort of fluid like way - you get a braced leg that's too far forward
> If you've got too much weight on your stirrup when posting you end up standing on your toes with your heels up rather than heels sinking down plus a rider that's forcing themselves too far out of the saddle and then losing the rhythm created by the horse's diagonal action that you should be rising and falling with



You see a lot of this in western riding too. People trying to push the heels down instead of just allowing them to drop on their own. All it really accomplishes is to make you tense and rigid in your hips and legs. You end up with a nasty chair seat with your feet and legs pushed out away from the horse and your balance is jacked because it makes your feet your center of gravity instead of your seat.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

smrobs said:


> You see a lot of this in western riding too. People trying to push the heels down instead of just allowing them to drop on their own. All it really accomplishes is to make you tense and rigid in your hips and legs. You end up with a nasty chair seat with your feet and legs pushed out away from the horse and your balance is jacked because it makes your feet your center of gravity instead of your seat.


while I understand what you are trying to say, it's not physically possible for you to make your feet your center of gravity, as a whole, just by putting them forward. your center of gravity is dependent on your mass, and thay level of a shift would not affect it so much .

however, what you do create is a 'pivot point' that is farther away from your body, (farther than your hip or knee) where in, should the horse stop suddenly, and you keep a hard brace in your leg, you may find yourself projected, like from a catapult whose pivot point is your foot, so it will have quite a lot of force by the time it's your body going up and over the horse's neck. 

if you don't brace your leg, then the catapult wont' work, though.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

gottatrot said:


> I think the rider is pushing too strongly with her leg muscles, without the weight distribution going down through the leg. You can have lots of weight in the stirrups, much of your body weight in fact, as long as it is distributed properly down your legs and it will not push your stirrup forward. It tends to do the opposite, in fact. It's not weight that is causing the problem, but pushing forward with the calf muscles along with not allowing the weight to go down toward the ground through properly flexed joints.
> 
> I would say the difference between these two riders is not that one has more weight in the stirrups, but that the balance of the body and weight distribution and joint flexion creates the issue. So to me it's not the amount of weight in the stirrups that creates the problem, but how the weight got there.
> 
> ...


The horse knows, regardless of human analysis!
Look how strung out that bottom horse is, no tracking up, back hollow


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> while I understand what you are trying to say, it's not physically possible for you to make your feet your center of gravity, as a whole, just by putting them forward. your center of gravity is dependent on your mass, and thay level of a shift would not affect it so much .
> 
> however, what you do create is a 'pivot point' that is farther away from your body, (farther than your hip or knee) where in, should the horse stop suddenly, and you keep a hard brace in your leg, you may find yourself projected, like from a catapult whose pivot point is your foot, so it will have quite a lot of force by the time it's your body going up and over the horse's neck.
> 
> if you don't brace your leg, then the catapult wont' work, though.


That is why correct equitation is more meaningful then all this focus on how much weight , where.
If your legs are not under you, you simply do not have secure seat
Thus, I repeat, a more meaningful simple advise for a beginning rider, is to
practice correct equitation, which then becomes automatic, and all that weight distribution falling into place, regarding what you are doing
Thus, stand in your stirrups, without holding on to anything, then sit down=that is where your legs need to be, . It is so natural for me to ride with my heels down, that it happens just as automatically as breathing
Do you read some advise on which diaphragmatic muscles to tense, and force of muscle needed, to breathe, or do you just breathe enough that it becomes automatic?
While reading what various masters expounded as gossiple, ,' expertise' thus gained, never approaches actual hands on, where you learn what works
Soon as you modify basic riding on the flat, you have to adapt weight distribution and body position accordingly , to stay with the horse.
Jumping alone calls for shorter stirrups, as does racing
You are not going to sit a sliding stop, sitting in basic on the flat equitation position


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

IME western and English have different ways of going and different saddles and thus a different feel. I wonder how much those two things effect what is “correct”. 

This is a video done by a woman semi-local to me where she talks about proper positioning and use of seat and leg from the western perspective. 

She has been teaching for 37 years and “Our riders compete throughout the country in team penning and ranch sorting. We’re proud to share that many have won world championships!” So she seems to be quite successful as a teacher.

Among some of the things that she mentions in the video is that between the hip and knee becomes “a little bit part of the seat” and “we should never rely on this part of our leg [calf, ankle, foot] for any kind of security or support”. She also teaches very light pressure in the stirrups and on the balls of the feet.

This jibes with everything I was always taught in that your security in sudden moves comes from having a solid seat and that legs (calf, ankle foot) are reserved for cues alone. 

I rode English for one summer three decades ago so the memory is a bit rusty, but I think I remember being taught to sort of wrap my calf and tuck the foot in close to the horse, wrapping the barrel in my legs. Of course that is much more easily done in an English saddle, without all the leather between your leg and the horse. 

I was just wondering from those of you who primarily do English riding, are the principles in the video very different from how you have been taught?


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> IME western and English have different ways of going and different saddles and thus a different feel. I wonder how much those two things effect what is “correct”.


Most of my competition years were spent in the Dressage ring, however my early years were spent competing in western pleasure, western events and then switched to jumpers. 

IMO the different saddles do effect what is "correct" but only slightly. In the video I notice that although the instructor states the shoulders hips and heels are in alignment, once in the saddle the rider's heels are slightly forward due to the stirrup placement of a western saddle. On a Dressage saddle, the riders heels would be further back by a couple of inches +/-



Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I was just wondering from those of you who primarily do English riding, are the principles in the video very different from how you have been taught?


IMO the principles are very similar. Instructors that have successful students in high levels of competition (as you state this one has) are the best to start a beginning rider on the right path. 

I would recommend this instructor for beginners', even though I ride primarily Dressage. She would start any rider well IMO.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

AnitaAnne said:


> IMO the different seats do effect what is "correct" but only slightly. In the video I notice that although the instructor states the shoulders hips and heels are in alignment, once in the saddle the rider's heels are slightly forward due to the stirrup placement of a western saddle. On a Dressage saddle, the riders heels would be further back by a couple of inches +/-.


I noticed the same thing. The solution would be to have the rider slide a bit further forward in the saddle (IMO she's too far back), but a "properly" fitting western saddle "should" have at least a fist length of space between the pommel and the rider's crotch (some ride looser or tighter). 

If the stirrups are at a forward placement on the saddle, then it seems to me in order to reach the proper leg placement, you would have to pull against the stirrups to align them which would bring the toes down harder onto the stirrups. I suppose that would be something to look for when properly fitting a saddle to the rider.

One of her barns also does hunter/jumper....


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I noticed the same thing. The solution would be to have the rider slide a bit further forward in the saddle, but a "properly" fitting western saddle "should" have at least a fist length of space between the pommel and the rider's crotch (some ride looser or tighter).
> 
> If the stirrups are at a forward placement on the saddle, then it seems to me in order to reach the proper leg placement, you would have to pull against the stirrups to align them which would bring the toes down harder onto the stirrups. I suppose that would be something to look for when properly fitting a saddle to the rider.
> 
> One of her barns also does hunter/jumper....


To sit further forward might work, but I thing altering the position slightly would be easier on the rider. Not easy to continually have to struggle against the build of the saddle. 

I looked at a horse once for Dressage, but it was at an eventer barn. Only saddles they had were forward seats and I couldn't get in a comfortable position and posting was hard. Couldn't figure out what was wrong until I saw the video and the very forward stirrup bars put me in a chair seat position. 

Unfortunately I rejected the horse before I saw the video, so lost out on a good deal. Wish now I had just thought to ride without stirrups, but didn't even occur to me at the time :icon_rolleyes:

Still want the horse, but he was sold the next day. Lost a good prospect because of stirrups or maybe better described as forward stirrup bar placement...


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

That's a bummer.

I think that is one of the things that gets overlooked in saddle fitting.

I have one saddle I bought because it fits a hard to fit horse, but I had to compromise in that the position of the stirrups pulls my legs slightly forward.

Since I don’t show, rarely post and because I was taught not to rely on my stirrups to balance in the seat, it doesn’t really make much of a difference to me so is an equitable compromise in our case.

Hmmm….wonder how much of “bad equitation” can be attributed to a saddle that does not properly fit the rider.


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> That's a bummer.
> 
> I think that is one of the things that gets overlooked in saddle fitting.
> 
> ...


Saddle fitting is such a pain! I finally had to turn to treeless to fit my very hard to fit Rocky Mountain gelding. Would have been easier if I was a smaller person :wink: 

After many trials, finally have a Barefoot Tahoe that fits both of us, and puts me in a Dressage position. By changing out the pads, the saddle also fits my 15 hand medium tree Paint/Arab cross gelding and my medium wide tree 14.1 hand Quarter horse mare. 

Finally, success! However I don't believe I can show in that saddle, but had to give up showing anyway, so all is good 

Gotta run now, have to take my DD shopping for bathing suits...I hate shopping :sad:


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

A snip of that western seat from the video posted and one of a GP/AP English seat (better comparison perhaps than using a jumping or 'mid to upper level' dressage seat)
Not a lot of difference in them


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

What I think I see though is that in the English pic, it appears that both the calf and the ankle are touching the horse where as in the Western vid, it was emphasized that the leg not touch the horse until using it as a cue, but it could be an optical illusion.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

When I was taught we had to perfect the sitting trot before we were allowed ao post and when posting if you didn't get it right in the way of using the stirrups to push up then you were taken on a trotting ride and after an hour you were not using the stirrups to push up!


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Your legs should hang/drape against the horse's sides without gripping or squeezing - it would be very hard to sit on a horse and have an inch of air between it and your legs - I can imagine that creating a lot of tension just to hold them away from the sides.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

In a western saddle, it is very easy to have an inch between the lower leg and horse (completely at rest, walking in my western saddle):








​
That is a function of this:








​ 
That is why Trooper tends to get quite animated when I ride him. He was a ranch horse and now has been my daughter's horse for 8 years, and that inch of distance tells him he can relax. Because I learned riding on Mia, I like contact - not squeezing, but light contact - and Trooper assumes that means I want to run. Bandit and Mia both quickly got used to how I choose to ride, and relax with contact:








​
From Littauer:

"...if the rider's position depended primarily on firmly fixed knees then he was greatly hampered in the use of his legs. For, as long as a strong use of the legs releases the wedging of the knees, it would seem that the rider's position would be weakened every time he had to control the horse forcibly. Of course, on perfectly schooled horses, such moments may occur very rarely and don't have to be considered seriously; but a perfectly schooled horse is far from being a general case in this world, at least today.

I am also against gripping strongly with knees alone because as a result of abrupt movements of the horse which the rider has not been able to follow rhythmically he often loses his position by pivoting on the knees, usually landing on the horse's neck or beyond...Obviously, gripping with the lower thighs, knees and upper calves is stronger than with the knees alone.

Furthermore, a strongly fixed knee interferes with the flow of the weight into the stirrups and stiffens the knee joints, thus greatly diminishing the amount of spring in the rider's body. This spring, which is rarely mentioned by other schools of forward riding is to me a very important element in a good, effortless forward seat. And last, but not least, I am certain that a hard grip stiffens a beginner and, once in the habit of being stiff, some never relax in their lives..." - page 57

It seems to me a rider needs to have the option of coming out of the seat, even if it is only an inch in my case. When standing in the stirrups, much of my weight will remain in my thighs because of the width of my saddle, but the rest needs to flow into my stirrups. What Littauer called "spring" seems very important to me - as an option, not as a constant requirement. If my rump is not going to be solidly in the saddle, then I want any weight not in the saddle to FLOW into my stirrups.

Walking along a trail - not needed. Trotting? I need spring even if my horse doesn't care, otherwise an old back injury quickly hurts. For a canter, it depends. My saddle is a slick seat, with hard, polished leather - and it is as least an inch too big for my rump. By itself, I'll simply slide across the surface like a skater on ice when sitting, so a half-seat is the best I can do. But with sheepskin to prevent uncontrolled sliding, sitting and moving with the horse is much more comfortable to me. We are not racing - at least, I am not, although Bandit sometimes thinks we are - and maximum performance is not a requirement. With the sheepskin, staying in the saddle gives m a better feel and more options for control if Bandit decides to RACE.

But it all leaves everything very fluid, in terms of weight in the stirrups. It can vary from none (feet out of the stirrups) to as much as possible, and change back again, all within a minute of time. It just depends on what we are doing at any given moment. It has less to do with gait or speed and more to do with what my horse is thinking.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I agree with you about gripping with the knees, it would just stiffen the whole leg and hip. We were taught 'knees in' but that didn't mean to grip tight with them. 










Looking at your leg position is not correct, the stirrup is way to far back on your foot amd your toe pointed out which leads to you using the back of the calf of your leg rather than the inside.

Your thigh doesn't look to bad but your knee is away from the saddle. Try, when you get on putting your hand under the back of your thigh and pulling the muscle to the back, this lays the thigh flat, the knee and toe will then be forward and it is a much more secure position.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Jaydee, I have to agree with BSMS' point regarding the extra bulk on the western saddles naturally making your lower leg hang away from the horse, I also think they are on a bit wider tree than English which makes your legs drape wider too. You don't actually hold them away, you let them go natural, but with the added bulk under the upper leg, it holds you away, if that makes sense. 

I know when I get into my trainer's saddle (orig. Wade tree), it feels like I am straddling a water tower and have to work just to make contact with my heels (he rides in spurs, I do not); being smaller, my saddle is a lot narrower and a much smaller seat and I have no problem touching either calf or ankle or heel. 

I was just curious if the neutral position, as far as contact with the leg on the horse, was different with English and it seems it is.


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Foxhunter said:


> ...Looking at your leg position is not correct, the stirrup is way to far back on your foot amd your toe pointed out which leads to you using the back of the calf of your leg rather than the inside.
> 
> Your thigh doesn't look to bad but your knee is away from the saddle. Try, when you get on putting your hand under the back of your thigh and pulling the muscle to the back, this lays the thigh flat, the knee and toe will then be forward and it is a much more secure position.


I'm not worried. Why?

1 - I prefer the home position. Widely criticized by English riders today, it was both taught by the US Cavalry and is very commonly used in western riding. Australians also use it a lot, judging from pictures. See this thread I posted back in 2011:

http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/question-stirrup-position-ball-foot-mid-74556/

Also see the riders pictured at the bottom of this post.

2 - Toes out is intentional. For one thing, it would create enormous strain and tension in my leg to get my toes front. I don't even have toes front when in the shower! And when jogging, as in riding, my left toe is always out more than my right. That is probably why George Morris recommends toes 10-45 degrees out, depending on the horse and rider. The Cavalry recommended 20-45 degrees out, and Littauer taught 30 degrees out as a start point, then adjusting based on the individual.

3 - My knee tends to be slightly away from the saddle, which is what I like because I want my weight, when placed in the stirrups, to flow into the stirrups without being interrupted by any grip with the knee. It is also a function of how the rider's leg flows around a western saddle.

4 - There is no flat part of my thigh. I'm a lifelong jogger. I have very lean thighs. My fat, unhappily, considers my belly button to be a magnet, so I have belly fat but none at all in my legs or butt. And my thigh is round, or very close to it - nor do I grip with it anyways. 

For western riding, consider Larry Trocha:










Shawn Flarida:










Or these folks:



















Good riding cannot be separated from "Good for what?" and "What rider is on what horse using what tack?" In my Australian saddle, my knee will be closer to the horse and my feet slighter more to the front, because of how my leg fits that saddle. But the American approach to a forward seat differs, apparently, from what the British teach. Both Ft Riley and Littauer simply taught a different position for a forward seat, and most western riders simply do what seems to get the best result for them, since the typical western rider learns by mounting and riding, not by lessons or books.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

BSMS

Your biggest problem is that you refuse to try anything else and then go back to out dated methods to justify your reasoning.

Times change as has horse riding. 

By moving the thigh muscle to the back puts your knee flat against the saddle it does not make you grip with it.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

the twist width has a lot to do with being able to keep that knee close to the saddle, and whole thigh on , as Fox is talking about. 

I just watched a video with Wendy Murdoch and she talked abuout rotateing the thigh outward , like Fox is explaining, and how this also widens the area between the hip (where the femur's ball fits into the pelvis's socket) and the coccyx . this creates a wider , softer area at the buttock, and allows the rider to sink down around the saddle seat more, and creates less resistance when the horse steps under himself and pushes his pelvis upward when he thrusts onto each back leg . it's a minute difference, but is something dressage riders strive for. helpful for cattle? nah. there's way too many other things to think about.

pinching with your knees happens when your thigh is tignt on AND your lower leg is turned outward, toes out and heels sucking upward.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

I had a couple of saddles made for me amd my horse of the time although they were adjustable amd fitted most horses well. 

When I was measured for my seat I sat in a work mate bench which was slowly opened until my seat bones were on the edge. Then the saddler worked out the twist needed.

Women generally need a wider twist due to the width of their pelvis. When I was taking some serious dressage lessons I would be bleeding because the twist was to narrow for me.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Foxhunter said:


> By moving the thigh muscle to the back puts your knee flat against the saddle it does not make you grip with it.


Now that takes me back, I suppose it would be 'inappropriate touching' these days to grab a students leg and pull it back! I can still remember the light bulb moment when it was done to me...

I guess it is the difference as ever between those who have actually been taught these things, and those who read about it.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Thanks English riders! A new (at least to me) and such a simple thing to try! 

I have long bird legs and narrow, very flexible hips and even so you can see in this picture by looking at the pucker in my jeans what is rolling forward and yes, my toes are turned out! Then again this was taken new year’s day morning, so take that for what it is worth. 

PS No saddle, or stirrups so that is out of the equation.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Rotating the thigh muscle has nothing to do with body type/body mass.

I am thin as a rail and at times have to grab my thighs and 'turn' them. Especially on my left side which is my weaker due to my hips and pelvis are out of whack.

When I have to do the 'twist', it is Chiro time for me!


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Foxhunter said:


> BSMS
> 
> Your biggest problem is that you refuse to try anything else and then go back to out dated methods to justify your reasoning.
> 
> ...


Foxhunter, your biggest problem is that you refuse to try anything else and then go back to your BHS methods to justify your reasoning. Physics does not change, and horses have not changed much in the last 50 years. Neither has the human body.

Maybe the hard core English riders here ought to admit there may be more than one way to ride a horse, and that western riders like Larry Trocha & Shawn Flarida are not bad riders for putting their feet into stirrups or not worrying about a flat thigh - which, in my case, does not exist anyways.

Rather than simply asserting something as true, maybe you and others ought to offer evidence. I've explained why something that works in one saddle may not work in a different style of saddle. Maybe you need to open YOUR mind to a world of riding that wasn't born and bred in Merry Ol' England...


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> Thanks English riders! A new (at least to me) and such a simple thing to try!
> 
> I have long bird legs and narrow, very flexible hips and even so you can see in this picture by looking at the pucker in my jeans what is rolling forward and yes, my toes are turned out! Then again this was taken new year’s day morning, so take that for what it is worth.
> 
> PS No saddle, or stirrups so that is out of the equation.



when you ride bareback, your leg will want to fall into the 'groove' along the girth line, and that causes your toe to hang out. this is totally cool, and quite natural.

but, to post, with that even pressure (no gripping of knee, no gripping up of heel, and not loose 'flopping " lower leg) you need to have more of a "clothespin" type of adherance to the horse. with the thign rolled inward to open the seat, have more surface area ON the saddle, and lower leg in alignment with the thigh, so weight goes down the whole leg to and out the heel. 

posting in the postition you are in would be ok, but would sort of just be rolling your hips forward and back. if you are going to be moving and posting at faster gaits, you need more of that lined up leg.


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

I sit the trot bareback, but maybe I'll give posting it a try for something "New and Exciting" --cue the announcer voice.  Just to see if I can do it.


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

jaydee said:


> A snip of that western seat from the video posted and one of a GP/AP English seat (better comparison perhaps than using a jumping or 'mid to upper level' dressage seat)
> Not a lot of difference in them


These are good pictures that do show the similarity of position between "Western" and "English" basic riding. 

Do not know however, what the English rider was doing at the time the picture was taken. The rider's leg may have been more on the horse r/t a leg cue. Or the basic shape of that horse which appears wider near the abdomen, compared to the horse with the western saddle on. Or as mentioned, the width of a western saddle r/t the thicker fenders. 

IMO it is a combination of all the above, but at it's most basic, the seats are very similar. Thus, yes, basic training is (and should be) much the same. So long as a beginning rider learns from a correct instructor, it doesn't matter if it is Western or English. However, a bad instructor can cause a lot of misinformation and make it harder for even a naturally talented rider to advance because they have to re-learn so much.

BMS, do have to disagree with the "home" stirrup position. Just because you can find examples of riders doing it, does not make it correct in Western or English or Australian. Proper placement of the foot in a stirrup is a safety issue, and the home position is _not optional for correct riding. 
_


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

Case in point, in my avatar picture, my heel is up and my leg is on. That picture was caught at the very moment I was sliding my heel along his side. 

Because my legs extend past his belly, and I refuse to ride with my knees bent enough to bring my heels up to a proper place to cue him, I have to actually lift my heels to cue him strongly. Normally I just use the side of my calf instead of a heel. 

30 seconds later and my leg would be in a different position; heel down and hanging long


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Now that takes me back, I suppose it would be 'inappropriate touching' these days to grab a students leg and pull it back! I can still remember the light bulb moment when it was done to me...


:rofl::rofl:



Golden Horse said:


> I guess it is the difference as ever between those who have actually been taught these things, and those who read about it.


Excellent point


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

AnitaAnne said:


> ...BMS, do have to disagree with the "home" stirrup position. Just because you can find examples of riders doing it, does not make it correct in Western or English or Australian. Proper placement of the foot in a stirrup is a safety issue, and the home position is _not optional for correct riding.
> _


Do Craig Cameron, Stacy Westfall, Larry Trocha, Shawn Flarida and others ride a western horse properly? 

Watch a campdrafting video from Australia, and see how many use the home position. One of the first threads I posted on HF asked about the home position ( http://www.horseforum.com/horse-riding/question-stirrup-position-ball-foot-mid-74556/ ), and after experimenting, I followed the advice I received. If you ride a properly fitted saddle using a good boot, it is not a safety issue.

Same with things like thigh position. A western saddle has something called the "ground". A custom saddle tree maker says the tree fits the saddle to the horse and the ground fits the tree to the rider. An English saddle has no ground. The shape of the 'ground' of a western saddle has a big impact on the rider's position - and it is something an English rider does not encounter.

I paid for Larry Trocha's advice on position. It then took me the better part of a year to get used to the shorter stirrup position he teaches - but I finally adapted. So why should I ignore the advice I paid Larry Trocha for, and instead follow what English Internet posters say about English riding - particularly when other English riders disagree with them?

"_I guess it is the difference as ever between those who have actually been taught these things, and those who read about it_."

No, this is a case of someone who has tried a variety of methods, and kept the advice that worked - in the saddle, in the desert, on less than highly trained horses. But it also raises the question: why should I accept advice I read from anonymous posters on an Internet forum, and ignore the advice I read from great riders in books? Why are pixels on a computer screen valid, while ink on a page is not? I've tested what I learned on spooky horses on pavement and in the desert, which is a more challenging test of riding than doing circles in a level & sandy arena while someone confuses dressage with western riding...


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

@bsms - from your above post:

"Same with things like thigh position. A western saddle has something called the "ground". A custom saddle tree maker says the tree fits the saddle to the horse and the ground fits the tree to the rider. An English saddle has no ground. The shape of the 'ground' of a western saddle has a big impact on the rider's position - and it is something an English rider does not encounter."

my response


HUH? what? of course English saddles fit or don't fit the rider. I used to have a lovely Crosby dressage saddle that fit nearly any horse it was put on, yet . . .did not fit me. for you to say that English saddles do not have have a 'fit' that is for the rider is the most outrageous thing I've heard yet. of course they do!


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Years ago several western ridden horses were brought to the UK and I rode several of them. I found it very strange to ride in a western saddle and as the people looking after these horses were useless they were no help as to how to ride these animals. 

There were eleven stallions with about fifty mares plus foals on the place and when I asked if I could ride western I was put up on a horse that was rearing as he came out the stable, bucked about the yard and to mount him I had to vault on as he moved around (those were the days) On the old rCe course they all took off whilst I had a rodeo display until I had the horse understand that 1. I was not going to let him go after the others, 2. His bucking was not enough to get me off. 3. I was not going to get rough with him. 

I rode that horse with my English style because I had no help to do otherwise. The only thing I knew about western was gleaned from watching cowboy films. 

When I was in Idaho on 01 I had the chance to rode a working horse bringing cattle down from the Rockies some thirty years after I had last ridden in a western saddle. The communication between me and the little mare was not the best, when she took off going after a heifer to turn it back to the herd, and she took no notice of me asking her to slow as we took off going down the mountain. It took me all of a dozen strides for my brain cells to get into gear and think that she knows these hills better than I do and just let her get on with it believing that she didn't want to kill herself so, as long as I could stay on top I would be fine. 

When we got back to the others I realised this had been a set up and it was her party piece for new riders. 

Another time when I was over there one of the first things I did was to book lessons on a reining horse. I was taught the basics and on my return lesson I was put up on their best horse which had won several competitions so, my out dated BHS English dressage queen style couldn't be so terribly bad. 

In the three weeks I stayed I rode a young horse belonging to the people I was staying with, that was proving to be problematic with sudden explosions under saddle. I started riding him in a western saddle and then used and English saddle (the horse was bred for Hunter/jumper) he was spooky out and about but, due to the fact that I had my thighs close to the saddle he never got me off. The nano second he started to whip around I was able to close my thighs and knees against the saddle. Had my thighs not been flat then gripping would clause my knee to be further turned out therefore less secure. 

Please don't tell me that I do not understand there is more than one way to rode a horse - there are at least two ways to do anything, the right way and the wrong way. 

From my limited experience of riding western I do not think there is so much difference in the riders position or the aids given. 

There are videos of an English dressage rider and a reining rider swapping horses - western riders will say the reining rider has the dressage horse going better whilst the English riders will say that why western horse was going better because neither know the finer points of both styles. 

What it does show is that an experienced rider will have a horse, western or English, going well and in a relaxed manner because both riders have the experience to adapt to the horse they are riding. 





bsms said:


> Foxhunter, your biggest problem is that you refuse to try anything else and then go back to your BHS methods to justify your reasoning. Physics does not change, and horses have not changed much in the last 50 years. Neither has the human body.
> 
> Maybe the hard core English riders here ought to admit there may be more than one way to ride a horse, and that western riders like Larry Trocha & Shawn Flarida are not bad riders for putting their feet into stirrups or not worrying about a flat thigh - which, in my case, does not exist anyways.
> 
> Rather than simply asserting something as true, maybe you and others ought to offer evidence. I've explained why something that works in one saddle may not work in a different style of saddle. Maybe you need to open YOUR mind to a world of riding that wasn't born and bred in Merry Ol' England...


----------



## Change (Jul 19, 2014)

Going back to the original question - has anyone considered that this might be an academic question to attempt to analyze the physics of weight distribution while riding rather than a question of what is, or is not, appropriate or correct riding style?

If you ask several fish how much force they each use to swing their tails side to side to propel themselves forward, the answers would be much as this thread has devolved: into correct/incorrect, this discipline/that, this expert/my experience. To a scientist, those answers are of no help at all.

So: Smilie and a few others answered, "It depends," which is the closest anyone got to answering the questions if posed for analysis. It depends on pressure (rise) and gravity (fall) and the differences of each at each gait. Another answered, "more," which is also a good answer for analytics, in that the faster the gait, the more rise and fall will occur, and if the rider is to remain centered on the horse, the more the (shock absorber/hip-knee-ankle) heel weight will increase.

Whether to learn more about proper riding or to analyze the physics of motion, I think, "It depends," and "More" are about all the answers that are needed (unless we have any Physics Majors around? ;-) ).


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> @*bsms* - from your above post:
> 
> "Same with things like thigh position. A western saddle has something called the "ground". A custom saddle tree maker says the tree fits the saddle to the horse and the ground fits the tree to the rider. An English saddle has no ground. The shape of the 'ground' of a western saddle has a big impact on the rider's position - and it is something an English rider does not encounter."
> 
> ...


That isn't what I said. I said English saddles do not have a "ground". The ground is the shape built on to a western saddle tree which shapes the seat. A cutting saddle will have a different 'ground' than a barrel racing saddle. Individual riders will prefer different grounds. Combined with the wider saddle tree, the ground will position a rider a certain way - and that is an individual choice.

The ground on my daughter's favorite Circle Y saddle positions my thighs at an angle I dislike. I either adapt to it or feel pain in riding, and my choice is to avoid riding in it. This is my saddle without the sheepskin:










You can see how it is built up toward the front. It is harder to see how the curves on top guide where the thighs fit - but it does. I tried last night to find a way - ANY way - to sit in it with my feet pointed straight ahead, and could not do so without twisting my ankles.










"_Although many riders are unfamiliar with how the ground seat is constructed and how it works, they will certainly have an opinion about it if it’s not working for them! By definition, it is the part of the saddle that is sandwiched between the visible seat leather and the saddle tree underneath. It is usually made of a galvanized piece of sheet metal called a strainer plate, and covered with layers of leather that are shaved down to the desired shape....

...Comfort, he says, is maximizing the contact between leather and rider. That is to say, even distribution of pressure from the crotch on down to where the leg starts to separate from the side of the horse.._." 

The Ground Seat | Cary Schwarz Custom Saddles

"_Ground seat comes next. There are six layers that take place in forming the perfect groundseat—one that allows the rider to feel balanced and close to their horse. Of course, the ground seat in a Wade or cowboy saddle is different from that of a reiner, cutter, or roper saddle._"

https://www.freckerssaddlery.com/making_saddle.php

English saddles are not built with a 'ground'. They also tend to have a much narrower twist to them. Where my legs go on my Australian saddles, with their suspended seat, is based largely on where the stirrup straps hang compared to the deep part of the seat, and how short I set them. That freedom is why a lot of riders prefer an English saddle. But if the "ground" is right for your rump and style of riding, then it is very comfortable.

The ground is largely why one western saddle may feel like you were born in it, and another may feel like a torture device. It is not part of the tree, but is added on top of the tree.

An English saddle will fit or not fit a rider, but its fit will not be based on how the maker built the ground - because it doesn't have a ground. It has twist and some other factors, but not a built up area intended to distribute the rider's weight (and position).

The top saddle below will obviously ride very differently than the one below, yet might have the same saddle tree:


















The ground positions the rider "_from the crotch on down to where the leg starts to separate from the side of the horse.._." - and yes, on most western saddles, the leg will start to separate from the side of the horse. It is part of the saddle.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Ok. I see what you are saying, bot English saddles vary hugely, too, in how they fit the riders bum; so some can be torture for me and others just fine.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Modern performance western saddles allow for close contact, plus free movement of the stirrups, which you need, at times
I want my legs to hang naturally down to my stirrups, placing them under me, on the horse in/neutral, but not with constant pressure, needing to pedel the hrose each step.
I don't feel much difference, far as contact, between my balance ride saddle or my stubbin.
I sure hate those older western saddles with all that bulk under your legs, and hardware!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Don't like any western saddle that is built up in front, as it locks you into a position.
Old equitation saddles were built like that.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

here is an actual video on chosing a reining or cutting saddle.-the good or the bad


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Worth watching, as it goes into the fact that position ideal, changes with event, and why you wish to sit in areining saddle, running patternas is done, and, not like you are trail riding, riding a very collected pattern with slow square stops, ect
I mean, you can'take a broad brush, and then state that is how one should ride correctly in all discipline, The people working, training in those disciplines, just might happen to know what works, and what they are doing, far as staying in balance with their horse


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

English saddles are built off a 'tree' and they also differ in shape and design from one saddle to another plus what goes on top of that tree also changes the way the rider sits on the saddle and how the saddle fits on the horse


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

My experience has been, when by some accident, my foot slides into the home position my stirrup, western trail, or iron, gets wedged between the boot heel and the sole.

Makes me nervous and why I personally don't like the home position. 

Could be some abnormal thing I do to cause this?


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

sarahfromsc said:


> My experience has been, when by some accident, my foot slides into the home position my stirrup, western trail, or iron, gets wedged between the boot heel and the sole.
> 
> Makes me nervous and why I personally don't like the home position.
> 
> Could be some abnormal thing I do to cause this?


I detest it if my foot somehow slides home, I would rather risk the odd lost stirrup than the possibility of getting dragged. I ride stirrup on ball of foot whatever saddle I'm using, but very very conscious of it in my western


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Once the stirrup was so wedged I had to halt my gelding to dislodge it.

I don't like the home position. Scares the crap out of me in case the Arab gets fractious!


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

sarahfromsc said:


> I don't like the home position. Scares the crap out of me in case the Arab gets fractious!



Red headed mares have the same affect on me


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

Its why I won't ride in thick soled boots, far too easy for them to get wedged


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

sarahfromsc said:


> I don't like the home position. Scares the crap out of me in case the Arab gets fractious!





Golden Horse said:


> Red headed mares have the same affect on me


Blocks of quotes and text has that affect on me.


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

bsms said:


> That isn't what I said. I said English saddles do not have a "ground". The ground is the shape built on to a western saddle tree which shapes the seat. A cutting saddle will have a different 'ground' than a barrel racing saddle. Individual riders will prefer different grounds. Combined with the wider saddle tree, the ground will position a rider a certain way - and that is an individual choice.


This is interesting information. I had not heard or thought of this, I just assumed most of the "feel" of the western saddle related to the size and tree shape. It's helpful to know how to evaluate if one western saddle might work better for a riding style. 
I don't ride western very often anymore, but I've noticed some saddles make me feel more "trapped" than others. 

I think the parts of english saddles that relate most to the "ground" on a western saddle are the twist and the knee and thigh rolls on some dressage saddles. You can pretty much ignore the way the saddle would shape your position other than those factors. I've been in an english saddle that had a wide, square twist so if a narrower person sat on it there was a ridge that hit just where the leg meets the pelvis. Other wide saddles I've been in only put your legs farther apart but didn't cause pain. Built in knee and thigh rolls also can hold the leg back into a position or forward into a position, holding your leg in a spot that may not work for you. 

But with most english saddles you could for instance put your stirrups very long on a jumping saddle and have your leg come behind the flap, so you're not even putting your leg on the saddle, just the seat.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

:iagree::thumbsup::clap::bowwdown::cheers::rofl:


updownrider said:


> Blocks of quotes and text has that affect on me.


:iagree::thumbsup::bowwdown::cheers::winetime::rofl:


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

jaydee said:


> Its why I won't ride in thick soled boots, far too easy for them to get wedged


I wear a 'buckaroo' cowboy boot with a riding heel.

It also has happened one time in my dressage boots.

Maybe it is just me......*sighs*.... And my lack of ability.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

sarahfromsc said:


> I wear a 'buckaroo' cowboy boot with a riding heel.
> 
> It also has happened one time in my dressage boots.
> 
> Maybe it is just me......*sighs*.... And my lack of ability.










I think you should look for a book on the subject! How can you get dressage boots wedged? Are you putting your feet in sideways or something? Remember, feet forward, heels down.....

I have to change out my stirrups for winter here, because my warm winter boots just don't feel right in my normal stirrups. Last winter was so warm here though I never did change them because I rode in cowboy boots all winter, then when I jumped on to warm up at the first indoor show, in March, I had 'big boots' on, I hated every second of it, and darn near fell off while dismounting because I was so concerned at getting a foot stuck.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Golden Horse said:


> I think you should look for a book on the subject! How can you get dressage boots wedged? Are you putting your feet in sideways or something? Remember, feet forward, heels down.....
> 
> I have to change out my stirrups for winter here, because my warm winter boots just don't feel right in my normal stirrups. Last winter was so warm here though I never did change them because I rode in cowboy boots all winter, then when I jumped on to warm up at the first indoor show, in March, I had 'big boots' on, I hated every second of it, and darn near fell off while dismounting because I was so concerned at getting a foot stuck.


I will look it up! Any books you recommend? Oh wait! Just cut and paste it here.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

I change out stirrups in the winter as well. Plus I had the stirrup fleece lined foot warmers. Once my feet get cold to where I feel as if someone is stabbing my toes with ice picks, I am so done riding at that moment.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

sarahfromsc said:


> I will look it up! Any books you recommend? Oh wait! Just cut and paste it here.



I have found some great books, but sadly can't link...HANG ON I HAVE THE POWER, I'll come back

meanwhile this is what Wikipedia has to say on the subject

*Weaknesses in design*

The stirrup design does have two inherent design flaws. The first is a safety issue: even with a properly fitted stirrup, there are several ways in which the rider's foot can be trapped and cause the rider to be dragged in the event of a fall from the horse. The second is the potential negative impact on the health of the human foot.
One reason riders can become hung up is due to improper stirrup sizing. If the stirrup is too large, the foot can go through the stirrup opening and be caught. If the stirrup is too small, the foot can become trapped more easily as the foot cannot free itself. The main reason for a rider to become hung up in the irons is due to the 'closing door effect' of a lost stirrup trying to return to lie flat against the side of the horse. When the rider falls and the stirrup is free, it tends to return to its home position flat against the horse's side. As the stirrup returns to the horse, the opening for the foot gets smaller and smaller and can catch a falling rider's boot in that smaller opening.(see _Fitting the stirrup,_ below). Proper stirrup placement, on the ball of the foot, instead of jammed "home" clear up to the arch, also lowers the risk of a rider being dragged.
Modern English saddles are designed with a stirrup bar that allows the stirrup leathers to fall from the saddle if the rider starts to be dragged. Some English stirrups are also designed with breakaway sides or non-standard designs intended to make it easier for the foot to come out of the stirrup when necessary.
Western saddles have significantly wider stirrups, particularly at the tread, to minimize this risk. Sometimes, they are equipped with _tapaderos_, leather covers over the toe that close each stirrup from the front. A tapadero prevents the rider's boot from slipping through and also prevents brush encountered while working cattle on the open range from poking through the stirrup, injuring or impeding the horse or rider. However, the _tapadero_ is not common in modern times and is not allowed in most show competition.
The second design flaw of the stirrup affects the health of the human foot. The rider's whole weight is at times supported entirely by the stirrups. During these periods, excessive pressure can be exerted on the peroneus tertius tendon, which runs along the lateral side of the foot. In extreme cases, stirrups have been found to cause damage to the tuberosity of the fifth metatarsal bone. Over long periods of extreme use, this can cause various medical conditions ranging from simple impaired walking to severe pronation or supination of the foot. Normal riders, however, generally have no related problems, even over a lifetime of riding. Disciplines that require long hours in the saddle, such as endurance riding and some types of western riding on a working ranch, often use a wider stirrup to provide more support to the foot.
For the comfort of the horse, all stirrups require that the saddle itself be properly designed. The solid tree of the saddle distributes the weight of the rider over a greater surface area of the horse's back, reducing pressure on any one area. If a saddle is made without a solid tree, without careful engineering, the rider's weight in the stirrups and leathers can create pressure points on the horse's back and lead to soreness.[15][48] This is especially noticeable with inexpensive bareback pads that add stirrups by means of a strap across the horse's back with a stirrup at each end.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

sarahfromsc said:


> I will look it up! Any books you recommend? Oh wait! Just cut and paste it here.



This may help


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

From one of the links in your post, Golden Horse. 

This is a must have stirrup for all Dressage Queens


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

Ladies please behave yourselves.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

updownrider said:


> From one of the links in your post, Golden Horse.
> 
> This is a must have stirrup for all Dressage Queens


OMG I love this stirrup. I think the little white pony would think it highly fitting for him. He is such a diva. Yep, those will do!


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

Golden Horse said:


> This may help
> 
> View attachment 810770


What can I say?

I got nuttin.

:riding:


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

updownrider said:


> From one of the links in your post, Golden Horse.
> 
> This is a must have stirrup for all Dressage Queens



That is seriously gorgeous, and leads me to a question, how would that affect the way you ride? I wonder about the balance of the stirrup, how it would make you ride. Seeing as it is a ladies stirrup from 19th Century I believe would it have been on a side saddle? Now there is a whole nother area of balance grip, toe up and toe down.. @Allison Finch, you have experience of side saddle don't you, anyone else we can think of?
Save​


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Folks ought to do what works best for them. This is from Jim Wofford, another English rider who often offers interesting analysis, even if I ride a different style:
._Returning to position adjustments, while still at the halt, rise in your stirrups as if you were posting the trot. Allow your heels to sink down and your toes to turn out slightly, though do not attempt to keep your feet at some pre-determined angle to your horse's body. Frank Chapot, a member of the U.S. Show Jumping Hall of Fame, says it best when he tells us to ride with our feet at the same angle as that with which we walk. Again, *you want to ride where your joints align correctly*..._

_ ...A Historical Perspective_

_ I am always interested in the historical development of our theoretical practices. In this instance, our show-jumping leg position was originally developed in the early 1900s. At that time, Federico Caprilli, originator of the modern jumping position, advocated placing the foot slightly deep in the stirrup with the ball of the foot just past the inside branch. This produced a very strong lower-leg position but lacked suppleness and sensitivity. *Brig. Gen. Harry D. Chamberlin, our greatest equestrian theoretician*, also advocated this position. However, two genius horsemen, Bill Steinkraus and George Morris, place the rider's foot against the outside branch of the stirrup, so I am in good company._Jim Wofford: A Leg To Stand On from Practical Horseman .com | EquiSearch​.
Chamberlin's advice was:
_.
__ "...the foot is placed well home, so that the tread rests under the instep, and not against the ball of the foot. The almost universal habit of putting the ball on the foot on the tread is very faulty, and should only be done in schooling of a technical order....For cross-country work, polo, jumping and other real riding, the foot belongs well home in the stirrup where it will not jar out at the least mishap, and endanger or momentarily incapacitate the rider._" - page 22, Riding and Schooling Horses​.
Remember, that book was written for novice riders. Not experienced ones, and most experienced riders make adjustments over time because riding is about balance and not position. Learning on a spooky horse ridden in the desert, I put high value on security, so I started using the home position. I grant that "spring" suffers, and so does sensitivity. And if I ride level-headed Cowboy, I might ditch the stirrups entirely at times, just because I can afford to do so. It will become irrelevant if I ever save up to buy stirrups like these, which would cover pretty much all of my foot in front of the heel:








​ 
My left foot tends to stick out further than my right - just as it does when I stand in the shower or jog. That is how I approach it. But if anyone feels more comfortable, confident or secure doing it differently, then I'm happy you found what works for you. When on vacation earlier this month, on a ranch, this happened:



bsms said:


> ...I did get a kick out of one thing, though. The reins when I rode had a mecate, and I asked him how to ride with that set-up since I never had. His response was, "_Out here, there is no 'correct way'...but if you want to know how I like to do it, I'll show you. But others will do it differently_." So I did it the way he does it, but I got a kick out of that:
> 
> *"Out here, there is no 'correct way."*​


Jim Wofford took a similar approach, admitting some great riders disagreed with him but also noting that he was in good company in doing what he did. There is a lot to be said for that approach to riding.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The stirrups on my trail riding saddle, are wide enough to accommodate both hiking boots in summer and winter riding boots in late fall
First time I went on a late fall pack trip, a blizzard hit. All we had was a pyramid tent with no stove.
My leather riding boots got wet during day, froze over night, and I was in tears, forcing my feet into them, next morning. My feet then remained numb, until well past noon, when the sun finally thawed those frozen boots
Cured me of using regular riding boots there!
Yes, you don't want stirrups meant for showing in cutting, if putting in a day in the saddle
Here is the history as to how the invention of the stirrup, changed the World

Article: How the Stirrup Changed Our World, by Dan Derby


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

sarahfromsc said:


> Once the stirrup was so wedged I had to halt my gelding to dislodge it.
> 
> I don't like the home position. Scares the crap out of me in case the Arab gets fractious!


I don't ride in the 'home position, esp on the edge of a drop off! However, if your foot gets jammed, if you do get into the ;home position, I would buy wider stirrups!
My foot got jammed once, and it could have e been a serious fault. As I mentioned before,, I ride in the mounatins with hiking boots, making sure they can easily come out of my stirrups.
My old boots had to be replaced, and I assumed' that the new boots I bought, were the same width, thus did not really test them
I was riidng along anarrow frozen trail, with a drop off on one side. Anyone who has ridden the Chinaman's Hat trail at the Ya Ha, probably knows what part of that high trail I am talking about
Anyway, my horse slipped off the trail, even with sharp shoes on, and we slid down that slope quite abit, until Rocky managed to get his feet under him, and scramble back onto the trail, with me still aboard
Not until we got back down to the flat and the campground, did I try to get off. Found my foot wedged tight in that stirrup, so could not have parted company with Rocky in that slid if I wanted to, or if he rolled.
Last time I ever took boot/stirrup fit for granted!


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

The one thing that we were taught at the riding school was stirrup fit. With different riders on each horse we were regularly changing the leathers and irons. 

Only once did I ever get my foot jammed in a stirrup and that was out hunting when as I was jumping a rail in a hedge another horse barge mine and he was knocked to the some with mu leg and stirrup bashing a tree, it buckled the stainless steel stirrup trapping my foot. My leg wasn't to good either. To dismount I had to undo the stirrup leather and it took a strong man with a wheel bar to open to enough to free my foot.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Men, who spend long hours in the saddle (cowboys and cavalry being perfect example) sat back on their pockets with their legs thrust out for the reason of keeping pressure off their man parts, period. You also see this in the hunt field. It is pure comfort at the expense of effective riding. Just ask any older male foxhunter, and they will tell you this.


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

I was thinking that one reason for the stuck boot, besides needing a wider stirrup, is; when my foot finds itself in the home position, the body energy or gravity runs down my leg into my toes making my toes tip down, versus the energy and gravity running down the leg to the heel. Therefore, the edge of the stirrup rides into the space between the boot heel and sole and becomes wedged.

Might have to experiment later.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Golden Horse said:


> That is seriously gorgeous, and leads me to a question, how would that affect the way you ride? I wonder about the balance of the stirrup, how it would make you ride. Seeing as it is a ladies stirrup from 19th Century I believe would it have been on a side saddle? Now there is a whole nother area of balance grip, toe up and toe down.. @Allison Finch, you have experience of side saddle don't you, anyone else we can think of?
> Save​


Yes, these are for sidesaddles and were mostly used in Peru and South America. They were taken from the solid armored stirrups used by the Spanish Conquistadors.










Amazingly, they are quite safe to ride in. They keep the foot from sliding too deep, they are actually well balanced, and they are comfortable because they support the whole foot. In the event of a fall, the whole stirrup tilts and the solid platform allows the foot to slide out, as it doesn't flex and hang in the stirrup.

That is so beautiful, too. I would put a couple on my dressage saddle!!!:wink:


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

I am riding a borrowed horse in the pair pace series put on by the Red Mountain Hounds Hunt Club. This horse comes with a Tucker Trail saddle. I was dubious, at first, as it looked just plain wierd. BUT, I love love love this saddle. It is so comfortable. The wide stirrups keep the foot pressure from being painful over the 8 miles at trot and canter pace.


----------



## Change (Jul 19, 2014)

I, too, always panic when my foot slides forward to home position. My trooper saddle has stirrups similar to that Tucker and they are extremely comfortable on longer rides, especially if, like me, your toes tend to go numb after a few hours with only the ball of the foot on a thinner stirrup. It did take me awhile to get used to them, though.

There's a slightly more "westernized" Tucker saddle at my tack store that I occasionally drool over. The only significant difference being the stirrup straps have a leather guard/skirt.


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

Might look a little weird Alison but a lot more comfortable than a race saddle where horses training for a distance race would often be required to canter non stop for three or four miles.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

Allison Finch said:


>


I have a pair of those. They are going on my polo saddle once this summer when I show up for a practice.  Ought to get a chuckle. And then everyone will want to try them.


----------



## jaydee (May 10, 2012)

They certainly would put a whole more weight behind one of my mother's most used threats 'If you don't get a move on soon you'll feel my toe on your backside'!!!


----------



## Foxhunter (Feb 5, 2012)

That sure would be an OUCH! :icon_rolleyes:


----------



## bsms (Dec 31, 2010)

Foxhunter said:


> Men, who spend long hours in the saddle (cowboys and cavalry being perfect example) sat back on their pockets with their legs thrust out for the reason of keeping pressure off their man parts, period...


Horse pucky! I write that as a male rider who started at 50, and who has never ridden 'on my pockets'. Not in a Bates CC saddle, not in an Australian saddle, and not in a western saddle. And I sometimes use that old cowboy position, and it works well for some purposes - but it has NOTHING to do with my "man parts"!

Good grief! Take a look at these old cowboys, using a forward leg - and NOT "on their pockets" to protect their "man parts"!




























And here is a hint for the ladies on this thread: If something DOES disturb the "man parts", it takes about 0.2 seconds for the man to know it and take corrective action!

When a bunch of women start writing about how "man parts" affect riding...well, the thread has outlived any possible usefulness.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

bsms, Thanks for the good chuckle this morning!
I needed it, after broken riding mower, Jeep with coolant leak, that left me stranded last week
While I don't agree with everything you say, I do believe in the direction of this last post of yours, as it follows right inline with people never having ridden a reiner, done working cowhorse, rode a cutting horse, then assuming that classical equitation /leg position,is a constant, regardless of disciplines!


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

I have to wonder when did lack of actual experience and knowledge stop you commenting on a thread, you give opinions, learned from books and Google on show jumping, dressage, Calvary riding but you have not done these things.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Smilie said:


> bsms, Thanks for the good chuckle this morning!
> I needed it, after broken riding mower, Jeep with coolant leak, that left me stranded last week
> While I don't agree with everything you say, I do believe in the direction of this last post of yours, as it follows right inline with people never having ridden a reiner, done working cowhorse, rode a cutting horse, then assuming that classical equitation /leg position,is a constant, regardless of disciplines!


Once again Smilie I don't see anyone arguing that, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet on this one. My take on it is that correct equitation is correct, and this is discipline dependant......I don't ride my mare like she is a reiner, because she would not understand, and I had to learn new skills to ride a reiner with any degree of success. 

Some of the fundamentals do cross over between disciplines, of course some do not, but what ever tack you ride in, what ever discipline you ride in, there is right and there is just plain wrong ways of doing things.


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

Golden Horse said:


> Once again Smilie I don't see anyone arguing that, you seem to have a bee in your bonnet on this one. My take on it is that correct equitation is correct, and this is discipline dependant......I don't ride my mare like she is a reiner, because she would not understand, and I had to learn new skills to ride a reiner with any degree of success.
> 
> Some of the fundamentals do cross over between disciplines, of course some do not, but what ever tack you ride in, what ever discipline you ride in, there is right and there is just plain wrong ways of doing things.


Sorry, Golden,I thought one o those last posts lkong this line, were directed at me, so thus the \bee'. I will let it out, and sorry , again, i I assumed your comment was directed towards me, aterr posting that reining saddle video.


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

bsms said:


> When a bunch women start writing about how "man parts" affect riding...well, the thread has outlived any possible usefulness.


BSMS, you are wrong about why many men ride canted back. I have taught many more male riders than you have and have spent many days riding in rugged backcountry guiding pack trips. I know from what they have SAID why they shifted back on their bums, more, and thrust their legs forward. It was a classic, and much used, position. Even I would use it, on long rides, for releif.

The photots you post definitely show "pocket" riding. I won't go into why you may not understand how this position may be a relief one, but this thread will do just fine without the confrontations you continue to use.

So said I, a rough backcountry rider, AND cattle mover........







BTW, this particular grey was a prelim event horse and dressage horse. And she packed many a deer and elk out during hunting season. No pampered pet, here.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

bsms said:


> When a bunch of women start writing about how "man parts" affect riding...well, the thread has outlived any possible usefulness.


If you took riding lessons you would know that a rider's crotch is often discussed. Also if you took riding lessons you would know it is quite common for a man to teach a woman or a woman to teach a man. Even George Morris, someone you quote a lot, discusses buttocks and crotch in his books and his models are men and women. The instructor you took your 7 or so lessons from was a woman, she must have discussed your crotch. In fact, didn't you post a picture of your crotch on this board the other day to demonstrate how you sit in a saddle?


----------



## Reiningcatsanddogs (Oct 9, 2014)

There are lots of superstitions that go along with horse riding that could contribute to the adoption of the odd positions, such as affecting virility or in the case of woman and sidesaddle, the case of the motion of the horse causing a woman of noble birth to appear deflowered by riding astride.

I don’t see it as a ridiculous suggestion at all, in a historical context, that at some point, a riding position might have been adopted by officers who were riding long distances daily, sitting around the campfire at night, having a few brewskies or camel milk and discussing how chaffed they were, contemplating if maybe they were damaging the family jewels. 

Stranger fads have happened as a result of less.


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

Reiningcatsanddogs said:


> I don’t see it as a ridiculous suggestion at all, in a historical context, that at some point, a riding position might have been adopted by officers who were riding long distances daily, sitting around the campfire at night, having a few brewskies or camel milk and discussing how chaffed they were, contemplating if maybe they were damaging the family jewels.
> 
> Stranger fads have happened as a result of less.


:rofl::rofl: Having worked in male dominated work places most of my life I would be shocked if they didn't sit discussing their jewels and such around the campfire


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Male anatomy discomfort has been an issue since the beginning of time. You may consider me an "old woman" and dismiss me as such, but I have been around horses a long time and do keep my ears open.

When I searched on protecting male scrotum while riding, I found COUNTLESS forum discussions, by men, about this. Too bad we can't link to other forums here......

In this medical site, they even say horseback riding can contribute to male infertility. 

*Performing certain prolonged activities like biking or horseback riding, especially on a hard seat.*
Things That Can Harm a Man?s Fertility | One Medical Group

I don't know why you feel so compelled to fight with every issue that comes up that isn't widely addressed in your books.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

this has got to be the most Schizoid thread around. jumping from one topic to another; stirrups to gonads. gah!


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Allison Finch said:


> I don't know why you feel so compelled to fight with every issue that comes up that isn't widely addressed in your books.


Since Commonsense Horsemanship by Littauer is online, I did a word count. Crotch is mentioned 3x and Buttocks 13x.

Riding and Schooling Horses by Chamberlin mentions Crotch 9x and Buttocks 24x.

Those books are practically porn!


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

updownrider said:


> Since Commonsense Horsemanship by Littauer is online, I did a word count. Crotch is mentioned 3x and Buttocks 13x.
> 
> Riding and Schooling Horses by Chamberlin mentions Crotch 9x and Buttocks 24x.
> 
> Those books are practically porn!


not sure your point. crotch and buttocks are ok to say as much as you feel up to. go to town.


----------



## TaMMa89 (Apr 12, 2008)

*MODERATORS' NOTE*

*This thread has been edited several times by mods. While commenting, please behave yourself and follow the forum Rules and Conscientious Etiquette Policy.

Failure to follow these guidelines may lead sanctions such as infractions or temporary or permanent bans.

The HorseForum.com Moderating Team.*


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> this has got to be the most Schizoid thread around. jumping from one topic to another; stirrups to gonads. gah!


Well put Tiny, but good for the laugh I needed, as the last part of last week was nuts for me!
Once in awhile, one does need comic relief!


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

The liberation of women, JMO, just to continue with this ridiculous thread, occurred when they could wear pants to ride, or at least when riding skirts were invented, so they could ride astride, same as a man.
Another step in equality for women, JMO !


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

cross dressing, ie , women wearing trousers was taboo, way back when, hense the side saddle
(well, this thread has so many tangents, might as well keep wandering down them! )

https://books.google.ca/books?id=YJ...WU&sig=bsxoXz4o7ssCw-q4v5fRZP1Ss5U&hl=en&sa=X


----------



## Allison Finch (Oct 21, 2009)

Smilie said:


> cross dressing, ie , women wearing trousers was taboo, way back when, hense the side saddle
> (well, this thread has so many tangents, might as well keep wandering down them! )


For a long time men have noticed that the woman's sidesaddle classes had real class. There was a move to allow men to ride in them, as well. When you think about it, males are more suited to sidesaddle than women, considering anatomy.....

Anyway, some shows do have men's sidesaddle classes!! Bwahahaha!







*Psst, notice him sitting back on his pockets with his legs........*


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Allison Finch said:


> *Psst, notice him sitting back on his pockets with his legs........*


I read that and didn't know whether to :rofl: or request that be put in spoiler code. :wink:


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

Allison Finch said:


> For a long time men have noticed that the woman's sidesaddle classes had real class. There was a move to allow men to ride in them, as well. When you think about it, males are more suited to sidesaddle than women, considering anatomy.....
> 
> Anyway, some shows do have men's sidesaddle classes!! Bwahahaha!
> 
> ...


:dance-smiley05::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Now I have seen_ everything _


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

someone needs to have a talk with those guys on proper support for 'the girls'.


(I figured since this thread was hopelessly silly that I'd join in. you know, if you can't beat 'em join 'em)


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

tinyliny said:


> this has got to be the most Schizoid thread around. jumping from one topic to another; stirrups to gonads. gah!


Makes it interesting!


----------



## Golden Horse (Feb 20, 2010)

tinyliny said:


> someone needs to have a talk with those guys on proper support for 'the girls'.



Wonder where we can find the right man for the job?:wink:


----------



## sarahfromsc (Sep 22, 2013)

I use to be a long distance cyclist....back can't deal with bein bent over the handle bars any longer......and the sensitivity of both the male and female bits is taken so seriously that one can buy a 'saddle' (bike seat) that is correct for your particular bits.

First 100 ride I did was on a saddle designed for a male. I thought I would never have feeling in the bits again. I was totally disheartened.


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

Golden Horse said:


> Wonder where we can find the right man for the job?:wink:



I think that's a job for a woman.


----------



## updownrider (Mar 31, 2009)

Golden Horse said:


> Wonder where we can find the right man for the job?:wink:


You could put a call out for a CV but that man would probably miss it if you did :wink:


----------



## Smilie (Oct 4, 2010)

So, a costume class, I assume, as that man sure looks dressed in drag, and quite sure man boobs don't get that big!

Should have watched the video first=yes definately a costume fun class.


----------

