leanne123
Well-Known Member
hes 18.3hh i'd say middle weight irish hunter any ideas thanks
how much weight can he carry?
- Thread starter leanne123
- Start date
hes 18.3hh i'd say middle weight irish hunter any ideas thanks
Blizzard
Well-Known Member
He is gorgeous!!
I would say he could carry up to a decent weight 14-15 stones?
I would say he could carry up to a decent weight 14-15 stones?
Tia
Well-Known Member
16 - 18 stone max I'd say. He may be tall but he isn't particularly "weighty".
leanne123
Well-Known Member
hes a b*gger you can have him st bernard if you like. (only joking)
everyone thinks cos of his size hes a weight carrier and also a mans horse. but i was thinking about 16 stone, and hes none too keen on men as you have to ride him really quitely otherwise it turns into a battle of wills.
oh and do you think hes a little back at the knee or am i being paroniod ?
the left knee is still slightly swollen from his injury but you can really see it in this pic.
everyone thinks cos of his size hes a weight carrier and also a mans horse. but i was thinking about 16 stone, and hes none too keen on men as you have to ride him really quitely otherwise it turns into a battle of wills.
oh and do you think hes a little back at the knee or am i being paroniod ?
the left knee is still slightly swollen from his injury but you can really see it in this pic.
tanflislibs
Well-Known Member
wow he's lovely!!! good height!! massive!
well i dunno about him, but a riding school pony of about 11 hands at my old yard could carry 10 stone, a welsh b so she was quite fine aswell, didnt look very hardy. but the thing is, if a larger person wanted to ride i'd say an 18.3 would be able to carry alot of weight!! is the person leading him on a mounting block or are they really tall?
well i dunno about him, but a riding school pony of about 11 hands at my old yard could carry 10 stone, a welsh b so she was quite fine aswell, didnt look very hardy. but the thing is, if a larger person wanted to ride i'd say an 18.3 would be able to carry alot of weight!! is the person leading him on a mounting block or are they really tall?
leanne123
Well-Known Member
lol thats me im 6ft 3 so i guess you could say i'm tall.
he needs some muscle & topline and tidying up a bit cos hes the one who's been on box rest for 18 weeks now.
hes got a bit of a weedy neck atm too but as soon as his leg gets better we can get going again.
god im so bored atm, i bought him last summer and i've only rode him 7 times lol.
he needs some muscle & topline and tidying up a bit cos hes the one who's been on box rest for 18 weeks now.
hes got a bit of a weedy neck atm too but as soon as his leg gets better we can get going again.
god im so bored atm, i bought him last summer and i've only rode him 7 times lol.
puddicat
Well-Known Member
There have been two recent threads on this subject (which I think is quite fascinating).
The outcome I got from the threads is that the best answer is "nobody knows - your guess is as good as anyones" so throw anyone on his back and if they look too big in your eyes proportionally, they probably are. If the horse seems to find it difficult to stride out or balance, you're probably overloading him. If neither of those things are true, you're probably OK. Note the deliberate use of the word 'probably' in each case. Past that its pure speculation and I think there is no benefit to be gained by looking at a photo and saying "yeah he could carry xxx stone". (sure I can take the height of a horse, work out the sort of size of person that would ride it, probably know they're typical weight and add a bit, big deal)
Incidentally, presumably when people say, my pony was 13 hands and he could carry 17 stone, they mean that they didn't notice any damage following whatever speed, type and duration of exercise was performed under this load. Without knowing the last three things you can't really draw much of a conclusion because any animal can stagger along with a much larger weight that it can carry at speed and incur no lasting damage. The other thing you would have to assume is that the person making the statement would recognise damage if it occured. That's not something I think could be taken for granted. Thinking about this for a while now I'm increasingly convinced that the nature of the damage is likely to be rupture of muscles or ligaments in the back which would have no observable effect on movement unless they were already quite extensive and severe. So I think we come back to the point that came up in the last debate we had on this subject that animals tell you if they're overloaded if you know what the signs are to read. As a simple guide these are 'difficulty in balancing' (see henryhorn comment in the last thread) and 'reduction in athletic performance' (see coment by dubble and moi in the same thread).
The outcome I got from the threads is that the best answer is "nobody knows - your guess is as good as anyones" so throw anyone on his back and if they look too big in your eyes proportionally, they probably are. If the horse seems to find it difficult to stride out or balance, you're probably overloading him. If neither of those things are true, you're probably OK. Note the deliberate use of the word 'probably' in each case. Past that its pure speculation and I think there is no benefit to be gained by looking at a photo and saying "yeah he could carry xxx stone". (sure I can take the height of a horse, work out the sort of size of person that would ride it, probably know they're typical weight and add a bit, big deal)
Incidentally, presumably when people say, my pony was 13 hands and he could carry 17 stone, they mean that they didn't notice any damage following whatever speed, type and duration of exercise was performed under this load. Without knowing the last three things you can't really draw much of a conclusion because any animal can stagger along with a much larger weight that it can carry at speed and incur no lasting damage. The other thing you would have to assume is that the person making the statement would recognise damage if it occured. That's not something I think could be taken for granted. Thinking about this for a while now I'm increasingly convinced that the nature of the damage is likely to be rupture of muscles or ligaments in the back which would have no observable effect on movement unless they were already quite extensive and severe. So I think we come back to the point that came up in the last debate we had on this subject that animals tell you if they're overloaded if you know what the signs are to read. As a simple guide these are 'difficulty in balancing' (see henryhorn comment in the last thread) and 'reduction in athletic performance' (see coment by dubble and moi in the same thread).
Rambo
Well-Known Member
It also depends on the rider as has been said on many previous posts of this nature.
Bottom line is he is a big, strong horse and i doubt he would struggle too much to carry 16st - 18st, probably more
My two are 16.2hh and 16.3hh. They carry that sort of weight easily and are no more heavily built. They also showjump up to a decent level too
Bottom line is he is a big, strong horse and i doubt he would struggle too much to carry 16st - 18st, probably more
My two are 16.2hh and 16.3hh. They carry that sort of weight easily and are no more heavily built. They also showjump up to a decent level too
Dogbetty141
Well-Known Member
I would estimate 16-18 stone too but like puddicat said put the person on and see what they horse is like!
JessPickle
Well-Known Member
Well Pickle could happily carry around 18 stone ish but is a lot heavier build than your lad. Pickle currently only ever carries a max of 15 stone and thats my dad. I think it really makes a difference if the person can ride for beginners I would set the weight limit a couple of stone differece
I would predit around 14-16 stone would be a good weight for your boy to carry
I would predit around 14-16 stone would be a good weight for your boy to carry