Do Western Riders ride smaller horses? Weight related..can of worms!

E

EquiGirl1

Well-Known Member
Joined
27 July 2012
Messages
113
Visit site
As mentioned this I am sure might be a can of worms as I have seen a few posts on here related to height/weight of rider and size of horse but I wanted to see if anyone knew anything about riding western and what was considered common practice.

Basically I work with a girl who rides western, we are all horsey people but all ride english apart from her. Me I'm 5'10 and weigh 9 - 9 1/2 stone and felt too tall (not a weight issue) on my 15.3, now riding a 16.1, colleagues both 5'6 ish 10 - 11 stone and ride 15hh cob and 15.2 ISH. Western girl has 2 quarter horses... I'll admit I dont know much about the breed. Anyway I was shocked when she said her mare was 14.1 as she is taller than me, about 6ft and must weigh about 14stone. She said it like its compleatly normal but I cant deny our faces were that of shock, though this might have also been because she said she likes the look of her horses fat so over feeds (dont get me started). She saw a pic of my 16.1 and asked how big he was and then when I said was like "oh I thought he looked like 14.2 ish" to which I said I would never get a horse that small (wasnt being bi*chy but was still shocked).

Then a new lady moved to my yard (about 5'7 and slim - average build) and I saw her riding her pony (13.2 quite fine new forest type), at first I thought it must be her daughters but nope its hers and she rides it western. Her feet are by pony's knees!

Weight wise they might just be okay might they? Do we in english riding just get encouraged to go bigger because we ask for more in terms of jumping etc? Is it common practice for adults 5'6 + to ride 14hh ponies in the western world? I personally would rather always be on a horse that I knew could comfortably take my weight even if I put on a bit rather than look at a 14hh and go "well i'm sure it will be fine providing I dont put any weight on".

Just interested to hear peoples thoughts!
 
To UK eyes, yes a lot of american horses seem to carry a great deal of weight. But they don't jump.

In Montana I was given a little quarter horse, can't have been much more than 14hh. After it had a day off and I had another horse, this little one was carrying a tall man, about 6' and normal build, he wasn't fat but he wasn't thin either. I think cowboys go for a smaller horse because theya re easy to get on and off!

Also much over 15hh and you are into soundness problems. A pony is "over engineered" which is why ponies go on for years with few soundness problems, a small horse will have fewer problems than the larger horse.
 
There is definitely something in it. Here we do have a culture of "going onto horses" as a kind of coming of age thing. Plus we want our horses to do everything and when buying put the emphasis on whatever type is the fashion for whatever discipline we're mainly into. I'm talking very generally, but YKWIM.

Also in America, they seem to value trail horses more as a useful type on their own merits and these tend to be smaller purely for handiness, manuverability and safety. Here most happy hackers are just horses too poorly put together or not sound enough to be marketed or sought after as competition horses, shoved into the next career along.

The "english" competition riders in the USA ride bigger sports horses too.

Just musings, I don't know about the weight thing but quarter horses can be very strong and stocky like our cobs.
 
Yes I think they do. I stayed at a ranch in the US a couple of years ago and was given 14h horses which I would regard as too small here. The quarter horses are very strong though and seem to be able to carry a bit of weight.
 
Me and my friend both ride out western, my horse is a 16.3hh warmblood, hers a 15.1 QH.

We once swapped and her horse felt way bigger than mine! He is as wide as 2 barrels yet quite slim to look at, it was a total surprise!! She got on my horse and wondered where the horse had gone!


So yes especially with full QH size in height isn't everything.
 
My QH is 15.1 and considered tall by QH standards, she is however very muscular and broad compared to most other breeds.
As far as athletesim goes she is fast and very nippy.
I'm about 6' and 13 stone, I certainly don't look underhorsed and she can carry me all day without a problem.
 
Flame_ said:
Here most happy hackers are just horses too poorly put together or not sound enough to be marketed or sought after as competition horses, shoved into the next career along.

.
Click to expand...

Thats a bit of a sweeping statement Flame!! Not all people who don't compete ride around on old crooks you know! :)
 
What amazes me is that most English riders forget that there is a whole world out there that do not ever use or want big sport horses, and manage to have a wonderful full and happy time doing things on small horses that most english riders would not dream of doing. I have always ridden small horses 15hh with a western saddle that weighed 28lb (two stone) with no problems what so ever. When I jump I use English jump saddle, but my weight stays the same. Horse never had any trouble.
 
Me and hubby have QH. Mine is 15.1hh approx and I am 5ft 8. His is 15hh and he is 6ft 4. She can carry him all day, they are strong, compact little horses who ride big. My husband learnt to ride on a 14.2hh QH, he didn't look too big on her at all and she also carried him fine. It's all a matter of being sensible, keeping the horse fit and rides short for heavy riders. He's about 14 st. Here's a photo of him on a 15hh QH, please ignore lack of hat and suitable footwear! :o

wes1.jpg


ETA: He had some english lessons too and rode a much bigger, but narrower horse and somehow looked more daft! He has a long body so looks tall on almost any horse. Just trying to find a photo of our mares but they are both quite chunky madams!
 
Last edited:
Surely there are two parts to this. One being whether the rider is too heavy, and the other if they are considered too tall. Personally I think weight is an issue, but height isn't. Among my western friends I never hear the phrase "takes up your leg" in relation to riders. They tend to like their horses trained to respond to energy and without much need to use the leg, so it doesn't matter if their legs are a bit below the barrel. One of mine is 14hh and ridden by my very lightweight friend who is 5'9" tall. It's not an issue for either of them.
Western saddles are heavy, so that maybe needs to be taken into account when you try to decide if a rider is too heavy or not, but I think you can tell if a horse or pony is carrying too much weight on top. Quarter horses are strong though, maybe a bit deceiving like Arabs?
 
In answer to the question, yes they do on the whole.

Why?
Because Quarter Horses and Paints tend to be shorter (not smaller, a 15h adult can weigh in excess of 1000lbs without being fat, the good ones are short backed and solid) Crossbreds and Appendixs (QH/Paint x TB) are taller. As said, you need a smaller horse when you are working cattle and getting on and off a lot you don't want to be hauling yourself up the side of something that is 16h plus on a regular basis.

15h, give or take an inch or two either way is normal.

If you look at the saddles they are seating the rider much higher up, saddlepads are thick and don't flatten,that's another inch or more per pad.

None of these horses are over 15.2h.

July2012170_zps8bb180db.jpg
 
Last edited:
Tinypony said:
Surely there are two parts to this. One being whether the rider is too heavy, and the other if they are considered too tall. Personally I think weight is an issue, but height isn't. Among my western friends I never hear the phrase "takes up your leg" in relation to riders. They tend to like their horses trained to respond to energy and without much need to use the leg, so it doesn't matter if their legs are a bit below the barrel. One of mine is 14hh and ridden by my very lightweight friend who is 5'9" tall. It's not an issue for either of them.
Western saddles are heavy, so that maybe needs to be taken into account when you try to decide if a rider is too heavy or not, but I think you can tell if a horse or pony is carrying too much weight on top. Quarter horses are strong though, maybe a bit deceiving like Arabs?
Click to expand...

The element of 'taking up the leg' is very true I suppose. My mare neck reins and moves forwards off voice and seat so really needs little/no leg. Hubby's mare not quite to that level yet as she's only recently started but again she doesn't need much leg. The saddles are heavy but spread weight more evenly (less lb per square inch) so can actually be better in some cases. We did purposely find a lighter saddle for my husband's mare though! :)

Slightly different tangent as have no photos of us on our horses but here is someone riding both our mares...she is about 5ft 5 and she makes them look rather big! :)

philsundersaddle.jpg

bowtrailhorse.jpg
 
Last edited:
Quite a few years back the norm was 12.2hh =rider 12 years and under. 13.2hh = rider 14 years and under and 14.2=rider 16 years and under really regardless of height, it was pretty much the way for local shows and a natural progression on to horses. Now it's much more common to see children on the bigger ponies or even horses. There seems to be a rush to ride horses instead of ponies

Don't get me started on weight of riders, all I have to say on that subject is that very obese people (me included) shouldn't ride but that some others vastly under estimate the weight carrying abilities of some horses and ponies
 
Within reason height has nothing to do with how much weight a horse can take, a fine 16hh will take less weight than a 14.2 heavy boned short backed pony!.......

I see a lot of horse snobbery, but ponies really rock in my book! :D
 
Nice photo Enfys, none of those guys are underhorsed, but I am a Western rider (UK wussy version) & I do get it. People, try it before you wade in with negative comments, until you have ridden a QH, Appy or Paint , you won't get it.
 
I didn't know anyone rode Western in the UK. Cool!

Qh's usually have really short canon bones , which helps with staying sound under a lot of weight. Unfortunately, some of them haver really small feet because of breeding for halter showing which has favored the "big butt" look and lost the hoof needed to carry all that.


I am only 5'4 " tall (and fat, too) but don't like to ride a horse where my leg hangs well below the barrel. It's a lot harder to stay balanced over the hrose when your whole lower leg has nothing to rest against.
 
Well, I'm not a western rider, but I am 5'9", 11+ stone and my tallest horse is 15.1, the others are 14.2 and 15h. They are all Baroque type PRE's and a Friesian (she's the 14.2, but is built like a brick you-know-what and takes the longest girth of the 4). I always used to ride 16.2+, now wouldn't like anything over 15.2.
 
Jumps up and down with excitement since I have a view in this now :D:o

I've just bought a paint mare to ride English and Westerm (in that order, neither she nor I have ridden western before).

She is 14.3 just now at 4, I am just under 5ft8. She is built like a tank but not fat, 6ft rug and a rather wide back and bum. I ride a 13.2 just now and she feels enormous in comparison.

I didn't want anything over 15hh.

Loving the pics on this thread.
 
Devonshire dumpling said:
Within reason height has nothing to do with how much weight a horse can take, a fine 16hh will take less weight than a 14.2 heavy boned short backed pony!.......

I see a lot of horse snobbery, but ponies really rock in my book! :D
Click to expand...
Good points yes most QHs are big horses with stocky little legs :D I think its a bit small man syndrome with a lot of English riders!!! seems the smaller the person the bigger horse they have :D oh and western saddles spread the load over more area so more comfotable for horse and rider asumming they are corectly fitted....
 
15.1h. APHA. Proverbial brick outhouse.

IMG_8724.jpg


She is a little long backed but as a broodmare that is acceptable, she has fantastic feet too. By halter bred Robins Jag of Gold, who is a little too butty for my liking.
 
Last edited:
Oh what a laugh!! Especially as I am a 6ft + Western rider with small QHs. Look at my album pictures - one horse is 15hh, the other is 14.3hh. Have I squashed either? Doesn't look like it.

With the stock horse type, you really need to step away from thinking about the overall height of a horse and start thinking about the size of the component parts: Measure the girth circumference of one of my QHs and compare that to your English horse and each QH will size up the same as a 16.3hh-17hh English. So yes they do 'take up the leg' - you are just positioned closer to the ground and closer to the engine elements! What they don't have is the scopiness and stride length of the longer-limbed sportshorse types - and if you're trail riding or working stock on a ranch, you wouldn't want that; you'd be bouncing around like a pea in a pod with belly ache after a few hours and your horse would keep overtaking the stock. Not ideal. Smooth, low headed, athletic, cool-minded are what are needed more.

And weight-wise: the importance of being able to sit square and carry yourself as a rider is as important for Western horse comfort as or English horse, but the Western saddle sits around the barrel of the horse and distributes rider weight over a broader weight-bearing surface, you are not sat 'into' the back of a horse as you are in an English saddle.

And if anyone were to think that I looked a bit big or a bit daft on either of my horses, and I am sure there are some people out there who do, I really couldn't care less as they are way better trained than most of the horses I see out and about. Can't bottle that, really :)
 
I think that the statement QH = Powerhouse answers your question. Go and look at one up close - they are very very strong, don't let their pretty faces kid you. Many a heavy adult rides a QH pony and the pony has no difficulty carrying them :D
 
Some western pleasure bred QH/paints get up over 17hh. So not all western horses are tiny, the saddles can weigh more but the bigger tree helps ensure the weight is move evenly distibuted over a wider area of the horses back and not concentrated in a small area like an english saddle.

I think its more of a riding style choice rather than a breed/size thing.
 
Coldfeet! said:
Some western pleasure bred QH/paints get up over 17hh. So not all western horses are tiny, the saddles can weigh more but the bigger tree helps ensure the weight is move evenly distibuted over a wider area of the horses back and not concentrated in a small area like an english saddle.

I think its more of a riding style choice rather than a breed/size thing.
Click to expand...

Big buggers aren't they? Totally useless as working horses if you had to be on and off them all the time unless you had long legs. It is the same as with all breeds, people like to move away from the breed standard as they find other uses for them or they become the trend, look at what they have done to some strains of Friesians for instance :rolleyes:

The tall, tall ones are mostly Appendixes though, the pleasure breds always look like Tb's with huge butts to me :) At 5'2" on a good day I like my riding horses small, in fact, I don't even ride a QH/Paint but a tiny stick insect of an arabian :)
 
Hen said:
Oh what a laugh!! Especially as I am a 6ft + Western rider with small QHs. Look at my album pictures - one horse is 15hh, the other is 14.3hh. Have I squashed either? Doesn't look like it.

With the stock horse type, you really need to step away from thinking about the overall height of a horse and start thinking about the size of the component parts: Measure the girth circumference of one of my QHs and compare that to your English horse and each QH will size up the same as a 16.3hh-17hh English. So yes they do 'take up the leg' - you are just positioned closer to the ground and closer to the engine elements! What they don't have is the scopiness and stride length of the longer-limbed sportshorse types - and if you're trail riding or working stock on a ranch, you wouldn't want that; you'd be bouncing around like a pea in a pod with belly ache after a few hours and your horse would keep overtaking the stock. Not ideal. Smooth, low headed, athletic, cool-minded are what are needed more.

And weight-wise: the importance of being able to sit square and carry yourself as a rider is as important for Western horse comfort as or English horse, but the Western saddle sits around the barrel of the horse and distributes rider weight over a broader weight-bearing surface, you are not sat 'into' the back of a horse as you are in an English saddle.

And if anyone were to think that I looked a bit big or a bit daft on either of my horses, and I am sure there are some people out there who do, I really couldn't care less as they are way better trained than most of the horses I see out and about. Can't bottle that, really :)
Click to expand...

Lovely horses hen. Ebby is stunning.
 
Flame_ said:
Another musing... I suppose we have polo ponies.
Click to expand...

THIS!!!!

I have actually got to the point where I am scared to ride Zoom after reading all this threads on HHO. She needs bringing back into work but I'm having to find someone else to ride her as I'm worried I'm squashing her :(

I am 6ft and weigh 12 1/2 stone. Zoom is a FINELY built 15hh argy ex-polo mare. Right from the get-go when I looked after her for her owner I was worried that I was waaaaay too big for her but she played polo with a man who weighed alot more than me!! She is now 16 and we've done everything together and she's never had a day lame!!

Zoomy struggling to carry my massive bulk

552823_10151584057155174_1991507016_n_zps767ea28c.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top