novice 6'2" 14.5 stone what horse size?

My son is 6.4" and 13.5 stone, and unfortunately wants to both event and play rugby. He has outgrown our 15.2 mare, although she is phenomenally deep, and looks large on my 16.1. I think those dimensions really require 16.2 upwards and critically, deep enought take your leg.
 
This is me on another 16hh horse but one with a chunkier body - looks more in proportion?

NewImage.jpg
 
dusty1967 said:
This is me on another 16hh horse but one with a chunkier body - looks more in proportion?

NewImage.jpg
Click to expand...

I think you look like a good combination; I saw nothing 'wrong' with the earlier one however and think a lot of it is down to 'feel'.

May I take this opportunity to extend a cordial invitation for dusty1967 and any other gentleman readers to join us on this thread: http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=497253 where we are undertaking some educational research into the design and marketing of gentlemen's riding apparel.


;) :D
 
2010snowetc004.jpg


This is my husband on his chestnut. He is 6'4" and the horse is 17h ISH (heavier type) with quite flat withers (So would be higher with a wither!!) When he rides my 16h mare (the bay on the left) he makes her look about 12 hands as his legs hang halfway down to her knees. This photo doesn't really make them look much different as my horse is standing higher up. My friend on her is 6', but shorter in the leg than my husband. Just to give you an idea of how big the horse looks with someone else on, this is my stepson on him at 5'7"..

.
autumn2011007.jpg


While a 16h could easily carry you weightwise, riding something that is too small for your leg leads to the foot creeping up to give the aids, so I prefer people on horses that take up the leg..

For your first horse, I'd go for an 7-12 year old. Don't buy anything younger - learn from them, not something that needs to learn itself.. You will always want to do more and more as you go on, which you may not be able to do with a novice horse..


ps. Still think you look tall on that second horse - if that was 16.2-17h it would be perfect. On a smaller horse, if it threw a dirty stop in and you were body tall on it, you would unbalance much easier...
 
Last edited:
You don't need a tall horse because you are tall, you need one that has a deep girth and good wide body to take up your leg. Nice sturdy legs help carry your weight but they shouldn't be long.

If I were you I would look for a heavy weight maxi cob. A Maxi cob is a true cob that has exceeded the height limit for showing classes. They can be really smart and versatile animals, the riding school my husband and I rode at had several cobs that stood at about 16hh but were real solid types, they weren't follow my leader plod types at all but would jump over 3ft and competed at dressage and showing.

My husband is your height and he looked and felt more comfortable on a 15.3hh cob than on a 17.1hh sport horse type because of the way the cob took up his leg.

In my opinion you look ok on both of the horses you have put pictures up of but if you are buying I would look for something a touch chunkier.

I can't post a photo but if you look in my albums there is a picture of my DH at a competition riding a 15.1hh coloured cob. He does look a little tall (he has long legs for his height and generally rides longish) but the little chap was perfectly happy carrying him and could jump, do flying changes, half pass, pirouettes etc with DH on board, they did quite well in unaff dressage and unaff showing in both cob and coloured classes. He now rides our 15.3hh WBx.
 
To give you a bit of an idea I'm 5'11 (and half an inch :D) and my boy is quite a fine 16.2hh DWB x ISH and I couldn't have anything smaller than him because my legs are too long, but my last horse was a 16hh CBxHanovarianxArab and he was quite a chunky lad and I looked no smaller on him than my current boy. I would agree that something like an ID or IDx at 16.2 + would probably be fine. But it's whatever you're most comfortable riding - you don't want to over horse yourself.
 
I would agree with those saying that you don't need height, you need a horse with a good amount of bone. Just looking at height can be misleading as you could just perfect of a stocky 15.3hh or too tall on a light 17hh tb!

A full ID (say 16hh, 16.1hh) would do you very nicely. Or perhaps a lightweight cob? CBs are wonderful, but can tend a little towards the compact, and on account of often being sensitive and too clever can sometimes be a mismatch for a first time horse owner. That said, if you bond with one and have a good old school horsemanship style then I would hunt one out!! You don't want a horse that is either too short or too long in the back - just right so that they have a good strong back, but enough space for you to fit a saddle that is comfy for you.

Age - something that is old enough to have been there and done it, but not so old as to have alot of miles on the clock! You are likely to be after a popular type, at a popular age, so you aren't going to wind up with a bargain. But if you hunt around for just the right one then they will be worth their weight in gold many times over. You might find that having a look around at the end of the hunt season might result in some worth taking a look at?

(OH is 6'1'' (but a lightweight soul - too much riding racehorses has kept him whippet thin!) and he rides his own cbxtb (16hh and short coupled, which has meant that the hunt for a cc jump saddle has taken a little more time to find something perfect), he also occasionaly has a ride on my 15.3hh Irish heinz girl. He doesn't look too big on either tbh (although he is lanky!) as they both have a good deep girth to take his leg up.
 
People keep posting that a good wide 16h would be better for you than a 17h sporthorse, but sport horses come in all widths too - look at both of my ISHs on the photo above - loads of chest room and width.. Not all tall horses are skinny.

You could manage on a 16h horse, but you would be better on something taller. Fact.
 
Sarah1 said:
It appears to be just me that doesn't think you look too big for the horse you ride!!!!!! I do think a bigger saddle would make a huge difference though but you need to make sure the horses back can take a longer saddle of course.
Click to expand...

I agree with you ;) The saddle is far too short and puts you in a really odd position; no wonder you feel like there is nothing in front when you canter! If you had a better size/shape saddle then you would find a massive difference.
 
Honey08 said:
People keep posting that a good wide 16h would be better for you than a 17h sporthorse, but sport horses come in all widths too - look at both of my ISHs on the photo above - loads of chest room and width.. Not all tall horses are skinny.

You could manage on a 16h horse, but you would be better on something taller. Fact.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not fact. The length of the leg of the horse is irrelevent, the proportions of the horse's barrel are key.

I see it all the time with DH, horse height is irrelevant. At the riding school where we used to ride DH rode all kinds of horses, and he absolutely was not best on the tallest horse. The tallest horse was about 17.1hh and a hunter type probably a clydextb or similar. He was tall, but relatively shallow in the girth and narrow in the chest, DH's feet would hang below his belly line. The horse DH looked least big on was a very chunky coloured IDx who was a real hunter type, she was about 16.2hh but felt huuuge and made most people look overhorsed, he didn't look comfortable on her though because he felt overhorsed, she was big and bouncy and strong and she knew it. He looked and felt most comfortable on the maxi cobs, there were three he rode regularly between 15.3 and 16.1 and built like proper cobs, but scales up he looked no less comfortable on them than he did on a pure RID of about 16.2hh.

At the end of the day there are certain advantages to not having tall horse, especially as a novice. It also makes no sense to limit your criteria unnecessarily, a good sensible suitable for a novice weight carrier will be difficult to find at the best of times without saying you only want those over 17hh. Much better to look at anything over 15.2hh that is up to the weight and see how you look and feel.

It is impossible to know from the ground whether you will feel too big on a horse or not once mounted. When we have been looking for a horse to buy many have been deceptive as to how much leg they take up.
 
CBFan said:
I would go for something around the 16hh - 16.2hh mark with a large girth and plenty of bone.

ID's, Cleveland bays, Shire crosses, clydie crosses or indeed any of the heavier crosses would be worth a look. Or 'just' a good solid cob.

I think you need to look for temperament as much as anything. Most horses can turn their hooves to most things and deal with most environments but you need something sane and sensible due to the fact that you are a novice, still riding riding school horses which, as someone else said, are very different to 'normal' horses. I'd also echo the sugestion of sharing for a while to get your hand in a bit more.

Good luck
Click to expand...

Hmm, bear in mind if you want to hunt all day long you want a bit of blood or it won't last the pace, and be harder to get fit.

Agree that taking out hirelings is a good way to start..
 
It is all about the barrell. I have a picture of me (unfortunately not on this comp) on a 17hh 3/4 Shire and we look made for each other but he was comparitivly slab sided but then there's another of me 14.3 old fashioned sec D and I looked just as in proportion on her and she rode like a WB. I was just as comfortable on both, I'm 5ft 6.
 
IMO something around the 16.2hh mark should be ideal - though dont rule out those a few inches larger or shorter than that. I totally agree that it is barrel depth that is most important. I ride a 15hh TB, a 16.3hh TB and a 17.1hh TB on a daily basis. I feel best on the 16.3hh as he is a NH chaser type. The 17.1hh rides smaller than the hack-type 15hh as he has no depth to his barrel at all - so much so I can easily touch my feet under him. I am 5ft8 and 9stone.

Keep an open mind as regards breed - I would think a pert-bred irish draught would be good especially if you are keen to do some hunting. Starting off hunting, taking out a hireling would be an excellent idea - most of these are ID x types anyway so might give u a better idea of whatyou want too.
 
Polotash said:
Hmm, bear in mind if you want to hunt all day long you want a bit of blood or it won't last the pace, and be harder to get fit.
Click to expand...

1) I sugested crosses of most types- which means adding a bit of 'blood'. The CB has blood of it's own as does teh ID. Both are draught type horses designed for strength and stamina.

2) I would actually have to disagree with you that any of the above wouldn't last a days hunting. Any type or breed of horse would struggle if it wasn't fit enough - as would the rider!
 
Here is my OH on his hunter, she is 16hh, he is 5'8'' and 14 stone. Kelsi will stay all day hunting and has been an excellent first horse for my OH. She is very forward going but safe.
pictures004.jpg
 
KristmasKatt said:
Absolutely not fact. The length of the leg of the horse is irrelevent, the proportions of the horse's barrel are key.

I see it all the time with DH, horse height is irrelevant. At the riding school where we used to ride DH rode all kinds of horses, and he absolutely was not best on the tallest horse. The tallest horse was about 17.1hh and a hunter type probably a clydextb or similar. He was tall, but relatively shallow in the girth and narrow in the chest, DH's feet would hang below his belly line. The horse DH looked least big on was a very chunky coloured IDx who was a real hunter type, she was about 16.2hh but felt huuuge and made most people look overhorsed, he didn't look comfortable on her though because he felt overhorsed, she was big and bouncy and strong and she knew it. He looked and felt most comfortable on the maxi cobs, there were three he rode regularly between 15.3 and 16.1 and built like proper cobs, but scales up he looked no less comfortable on them than he did on a pure RID of about 16.2hh.

At the end of the day there are certain advantages to not having tall horse, especially as a novice. It also makes no sense to limit your criteria unnecessarily, a good sensible suitable for a novice weight carrier will be difficult to find at the best of times without saying you only want those over 17hh. Much better to look at anything over 15.2hh that is up to the weight and see how you look and feel.

It is impossible to know from the ground whether you will feel too big on a horse or not once mounted. When we have been looking for a horse to buy many have been deceptive as to how much leg they take up.
Click to expand...

A 6'+ man will not be great on a 15.2. Perhaps your OH is just lucky, short in the leg or something. Most men I've known and taught over the years are better balanced on bigger horses. Men are triangle shapes, with broad shoulders, so their centre of balance is a lot different to ladies with their slimmer shoulders and broader hips and bottoms. Many men I've seen on smaller horses fall off them a lot - kind of roll of. They've all progressed to bigger horses. I'm not saying they have to be over 17h - that just worked best for my leggy tall husband, but this OP is 6'2", and unless he has strangely short legs, a 15.2 won't take that much up.

I would never reccommend a 16.2+ for a novice lady - I think a lot of people ride horses too big for themselves. I ride my husband's 17h, I'm 5'6" and an instructor, and its way too big for me. He can hold it together much better than me.

I have to disagree that a good sensible weight carrier is hard to find at larger sizes - there are so many draught crosses that are lovely calm horses. Also prices are often lower. There are down sides - the amount they eat and how they go through shoes etc.



The man in the picture above is not a very tall man, and he looks great on a 16h - much better than the OP looked.
 
Last edited:
I was in a similar position as you about 2 months ago
I'm 6ft and weigh 15 ish stone (rugby build) and had a few lessons on RS horses that always felt too small and really didn't feel that i was moving forward at all. (obviously had a lot to do with the RS as well).

finding riding schools with suitable horses was an absolute nightmare

We already had one horse (my OH's) at a professional eventing yard and whilst he was way to small for me at 14.2 (OH is only 5ft 3 and size 6) i wanted to learn at the yard with the same instructors having seen how much my OH had come on in the short time we had been there. So was left with no other choice but to go and buy myself a horse.

My riding was at a very basic level (Walk, trot and had cantered once only)

It took ages to find the right horse as i didn't want something that had to be kicked along constantly, nor something that was very forward but would still tolerate a novice being unbalanced, giving inconsistent aids and generally me demanding the confidence from the horse.

I travelled all over the country (i live in west sussex and even went up to Harrogate to look at one horse) and probably viewed 15 of 20 horses (incl 1 failed vetting on a gorgeous 16.3 Oldenburg :( )

I now have a fabulous 17h 12yr old Hannovarian X TB who has the most fabulous tempremant but had previously be a rather successfull dressage horse.

I don't ever feel overhorsed and having tried various sizes of horses i really wouldn't have felt right on anything under 16.2.
Having said that it wasn't the size that was the main factor but the temprement of the horse.

Yes his movement is rather large compared with the RS horses but i feel so much more secure feeling there is something underneath me.

In 2 mths of ownership with 2 lessons a week i am already jumping 80cm (he is way more capable than that) and looking to do my 1st prelim dressage test in Jan.



BTW - i'm a 41 yr old bloke (and now soppy horse owner)
 
Last edited:
I haven't read all of the other posts but agree that for weight carrying you should look for bone before height.

Another word of caution - there are an awful lot of VERRRY small 16.2-17hh horses out there! We have a livery yard and there are two "16.2"s (according to their owners) that are actually smaller than my 15.2hh :) Just beware when you are viewing that the height the seller tells you is not guaranteed to be accurate!

Just for the record my daughter is 5'9+ and rides a 16.1 (with his shoes on) TB -
scan0006.jpg
 
HO-HO-HOney 08 said:
A 6'+ man will not be great on a 15.2. Perhaps your OH is just lucky, short in the leg or something. Most men I've known and taught over the years are better balanced on bigger horses. Men are triangle shapes, with broad shoulders, so their centre of balance is a lot different to ladies with their slimmer shoulders and broader hips and bottoms. Many men I've seen on smaller horses fall off them a lot - kind of roll of. They've all progressed to bigger horses. I'm not saying they have to be over 17h - that just worked best for my leggy tall husband, but this OP is 6'2", and unless he has strangely short legs, a 15.2 won't take that much up.

I would never reccommend a 16.2+ for a novice lady - I think a lot of people ride horses too big for themselves. I ride my husband's 17h, I'm 5'6" and an instructor, and its way too big for me. He can hold it together much better than me.

I have to disagree that a good sensible weight carrier is hard to find at larger sizes - there are so many draught crosses that are lovely calm horses. Also prices are often lower. There are down sides - the amount they eat and how they go through shoes etc.



The man in the picture above is not a very tall man, and he looks great on a 16h - much better than the OP looked.
Click to expand...

Actually DH has long legs for his height. I think that is why he feels comfortable on small horses, he doesn't have the high centre of gravity, top heavy thing you can get on a too small horse. As long as the horse is big enough to ensure his legs don't bash their elbows he's happy. For his favourite little cob at the riding school he bought swan neck spurs especially so that he could lengthen his stirrups for dressage and still make contact without needing to lift his heel.

One of our instructors used to joke that with his lanky long legs he could get on anything and make it look like a pony, there were several horses over 16hh that he simply couldn't ride as they didn't take up enough leg, but he was fine on a shorter horse that took up more leg.

The height of the horse is not the most important factor, it is the barrel of the horse that is key as that determines where your feet come to. The set of the neck and the length of the neck are also important.

Plenty of big men ride small horses at a fairly high level without being unbalanced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top