Well this is a can of worms

Copperpot said:
Pmsl Polly :) a small branch don't forget. I'm not an oak tree branch or anything ;)
Click to expand...

... damn, then I'm still twice as large :D, ah well the tiniest of acorns into the greatest of oaks does grow!! (And I always told my mum that wasn't true, turns out mums are always right - I so wanted an exception for my figure rolleyes:)
 
FfionWinnie said:
Good way to lose all of us ignorant, full of our own importance potential customers with so much time on our hands for internet shopping, in one fell swoop.:rolleyes: Class :cool:
Click to expand...

Having had the misfortune to speak to Ms Wild on the telephone before (I did not realise it was the MD of the company until I was so incensed by the manner I was being spoken to in I demamded to speak to a manager to be told I am the MD!) Frankly I am not suprised.

I have flatly refused to buy anything from them since and if asked my opinion of Fuller Filles I normally suggest a shop where barge poles can be bought.

Badly made tat overpriced as alledgedly it has been "designed" for the larger rider.
 
ChristmasSparkles said:
Out of interest. And I'm not a saddle fitter so not qualified to speak. I did stick a measure on my lot earlier for interests sake as it did get me thinking.

My long backed, conformationally incorrect TB [16.3hh if that matters],from his wither to his very last rib, and it came to 18 3/4". To the back of his loins, it came to just over 19 1/2". [Ridden normally in 17.5", but can fit an 18", but too big for me]

My Welsh D mare, 14.2hhish and again slightly long backed though a mare, measured wither to last rib 17 1/4". To back of loins, she's just over 17 3/4". [Ridden normally in a 17", more for my benefit though does fit her obviously, but she could easily get away with a 16 1/2".]

My youngster, traditional cob, a grand total of about 13 1/2" currently wither to loin. He's 2 1/2 so moot point and no relevance.

Hairy [15hh as heavy as you can get traditional adult cob], wither to last rib is 17 1/4. To loins, just under 18".

Again, I'm not a saddler so no qualified relevance, but just personal findings. Hence my curiousness to find out how the saddles are fitted.
Click to expand...

Well, since everyone else is still justifying being sticky or fluffy, I asked some people how theoretically this could work.

I did actually elude to an answer earlier on in this thread but it was lost... oh well.

IF they make it, and that is in capitals because the MD of FF would have to find a saddler to make it first... (somewhere in Walsall probably)... they would have to make it so it had shorter panels but longer cantle/twist/pommel. To avoid putting too much pressure on the weight bearing area of the back, the max this could be is 18". So really only your TB could do it.

The typical "weight carrier" Welsh D only has a 17" space for the panels to sit properly so the seat of the saddle would have to be made especially long at the pommel and the cantle. You can't just go extra long at the cantle or that would move you too far back and put pressure on the horses loins and you would not be in the centre of balance. It's an extra 5" to make up. Even though the panels fit the horse, the seat area extends 2.5" front and back.

You can see that the weight 250 - 300lbs maybe, is distributed over quite a small area.

If I were a saddle-maker, I would refuse to make this saddle. The extra work needed and it still wouldn't be very stable or safe.
 
Chavhorse said:
Having had the misfortune to speak to Ms Wild on the telephone before (I did not realise it was the MD of the company until I was so incensed by the manner I was being spoken to in I demamded to speak to a manager to be told I am the MD!) Frankly I am not suprised.

I have flatly refused to buy anything from them since and if asked my opinion of Fuller Filles I normally suggest a shop where barge poles can be bought.

Badly made tat overpriced as alledgedly it has been "designed" for the larger rider.
Click to expand...

Well the more I hear about this woman, the 'nicer' she seems. :rolleyes:
 
tallyho! said:
Well, since everyone else is still justifying being sticky or fluffy, I asked some people how theoretically this could work.

I did actually elude to an answer earlier on in this thread but it was lost... oh well.

IF they make it, and that is in capitals because the MD of FF would have to find a saddler to make it first... (somewhere in Walsall probably)... they would have to make it so it had shorter panels but longer cantle/twist/pommel. To avoid putting too much pressure on the weight bearing area of the back, the max this could be is 18". So really only your TB could do it.

The typical "weight carrier" Welsh D only has a 17" space for the panels to sit properly so the seat of the saddle would have to be made especially long at the pommel and the cantle. You can't just go extra long at the cantle or that would move you too far back and put pressure on the horses loins and you would not be in the centre of balance. It's an extra 5" to make up. Even though the panels fit the horse, the seat area extends 2.5" front and back.

You can see that the weight 250 - 300lbs maybe, is distributed over quite a small area.

If I were a saddle-maker, I would refuse to make this saddle. The extra work needed and it still wouldn't be very stable or safe.
Click to expand...


Thankyou!!! :)

Sorry if I missed this earlier on on a page...I honestly didn't come across it, must have missed that page out :)
 
dominobrown said:
Having just read the american thread, fuller fillies page etc, I have a conclusion to this thread:
1) Some people are naturally thin, others are not. This through no fault of their own. I personally am not model thin and never will be.
2) Just because you are bigger doesn't mean you shouldn't be allowed to ride a horse- however you must take into consideration- size and type of horse and the horses comfort and welfare.
3) Riding is a sport and therefore you should be *scratch that* MUST be relatively fit to ride for your own safety!
4) Being morbidly obese is not something to be proud of, not all of us are stick thin, but that doesn't mean you should eat a whole cake, sit on the sofa doing nothing and then complain about being called fat. In an ideal world everyone should be fit and healthy, which is different sizes/weights to different people, however by being morbidly obese you are strain to the NHS and everyone around, being that big is not clever, and the person you are hurting the most is yourself. Strive to be fit and healthy, not thin.


p.s "you" refers to no person in particular, but is just used in general. :)
Click to expand...

This ^^
I really struggle with the global issue of obesity. On the one hand we have the models and the celebs bemoaning how they have to be a size zero etc. which raises huge self esteem, body image and eating disorder issues out there (particularly worrying in young children) and on the there we have a huge obesity (I am talking obese and morbidly obese NOT overweight) epidemic that is not healthy for anyone.

I used to think it was down to just over eating/ under exercising but having read some thought provoking books and had some interesting discussions recently it's amazing everyone isn't obese by now! Even compared to 30 years ago the difference in size of people is staggering.

However I don't think that everyone has the right to get on what ever horse they like men or women (seen a lot of underhorsed men recently).

I think our perspective of what is or should be normal has been warped and is more warped over the pond. For example on the US forum where some girls are told they are not plus size enough to post (usually the ones I thought has well matched happy-looking horses and a nice looking partnership) or the European idea of plus size is wrong.

What I also found worrying was the age, size and poor conformation of horses it is deemed acceptable to ride.
 
tallyho! said:
Well, since everyone else is still justifying being sticky or fluffy, I asked some people how theoretically this could work.

I did actually elude to an answer earlier on in this thread but it was lost... oh well.

IF they make it, and that is in capitals because the MD of FF would have to find a saddler to make it first... (somewhere in Walsall probably)... they would have to make it so it had shorter panels but longer cantle/twist/pommel. To avoid putting too much pressure on the weight bearing area of the back, the max this could be is 18". So really only your TB could do it.

The typical "weight carrier" Welsh D only has a 17" space for the panels to sit properly so the seat of the saddle would have to be made especially long at the pommel and the cantle. You can't just go extra long at the cantle or that would move you too far back and put pressure on the horses loins and you would not be in the centre of balance. It's an extra 5" to make up. Even though the panels fit the horse, the seat area extends 2.5" front and back.

You can see that the weight 250 - 300lbs maybe, is distributed over quite a small area.

If I were a saddle-maker, I would refuse to make this saddle. The extra work needed and it still wouldn't be very stable or safe.
Click to expand...

Well said.

I think you've 'owned the tone' of this thread.

Must admit when I saw the thread title I did think tapeworms (oops, too late, said it:o)
 
I am a curvy lady.

I am not light.

I ride light.

I have a 16.1hh with no back problems that can carry me, and doesn't struggle in the slightest.

I have a 17" saddle.

22 " would be HUGE :O Even my fat backside would be far too small in THAT :O

My horse could apparently take a 18" but 22" OMG
 
sophiebailey said:
I think what is worrying is the current trend in 'embracing' your curves etc etc which is all fine and well if you're a healthy weight for your size but carrying a few extra pounds. But when it comes to people who are 'overweight' and 'obese', why are companies creating products that seem to give the impression that not only is it ok to be overweight, but that its normal? (
Click to expand...

simply, because companies have identified a market they can make money out of sophie.

a lot (not all) very over weight people aspire to lose weight for an assortment of personal reasons including health.

companies like FF take the opposite approach and seek to validate largely overweight people to keep their market share.
Thats all good and fine and perhaps im being overly cynical but when someone's coining in on a group of people by making them feel a certain way and encouraging them to join the 'cult of fluffiness' in an almost zealous manner with a lot of 'amen sistas!!' added to the mix i find it hard to think otherwise.
is it purely female solidarity by Suzanne fuller or a ploy to flog more size 22 zebra print jods?

excuse me for not being entirely convinced.
 
lula said:
simply, because companies have identified a market they can make money out of sophie.

a lot (not all) very over weight people aspire to lose weight for an assortment of personal reasons including health.

companies like FF take the opposite approach and seek to validate largely overweight people to keep their market share.
Thats all good and fine and perhaps im being overly cynical but when someone's coining in on a group of people by making them feel a certain way and encouraging them to join the 'cult of fluffiness' in an almost zealous manner with a lot of 'amen sistas!!' added to the mix i find it hard to think otherwise.
is it purely female solidarity by Suzanne fuller or a ploy to flog more size 22 zebra print jods?

excuse me for not being entirely convinced.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was thinking. At first I was wondering why she was so OTT irate, and then I realised. Of course, if people like us convince the morbidly obese that they are too heavy to be riding, then she loses money.
 
lula said:
simply, because companies have identified a market they can make money out
Thats all good and fine and perhaps im being overly cynical but when someone's coining in on a group of people by making them feel a certain way and encouraging them to join the 'cult of fluffiness' in an almost zealous manner with a lot of 'amen sistas!!' added to the mix i find it hard to think otherwise.
is it purely female solidarity by Suzanne fuller or a ploy to flog more size 22 zebra print jods?

excuse me for not being entirely convinced.
Click to expand...

exactly the impression I got when reading the comments on the FF site. Could sum it up as 'come on ladies, eat more cake and keep on buying my clothing!
 
Ah see this is why I love HHO, I popped on here the other day and looking to see if anyone had commented on the new Fuller Fillies saddle (which I might add isn’t even launched yet) well I didn’t have to go very far it was the first thread I clicked on, I didn’t even have to put it into the search.

And as usual you didn’t surprise me rather than discussing the saddle in an informed intelligent way. You quickly grasped onto the 22” which is a very loose 22’inch seeing as they aren’t going to be off the shelf. But made to order, which I would happen a guess that if anyone going to the trouble of ordering a saddle it would go without question they would get the measurements needed for horse and rider.

Rather than discussing the saddle as a piece of equipment you decided to quickly grasp the seat size furore. Fair enough the article in horse and hound is very sparse and despite the initial article being based on a Facebook link, they didn’t think it relevant to include such information that would make for a genuine discussion, on the suitability of the saddle. But then again from reading this thread in its entirety I can see a lot of you have gone over to the mentioned page :-s

As for me, my concern with the initial picture of the saddle is the skirt, it didn’t look very comfortable. But then I am basing that purely on a picture and until I see it in the flesh I won’t know for sure. Same as it wasn’t until I saw a WOW saddle in the flesh and thought Thank god I got my Bates.

Firstly before I continue I would like to thank Wagtail for bringing up my blog on not one but two threads. Yes I am a member on here, which you can’t take away from me nor my right to ride my horse.

I am what most would consider morbidly obese. Myself I like to call it grossly overweight and if anybody who knows me knows I have battled with this all my life. But hey I’m not here to justify myself to you. If you want to know more check out www.diet2ride.com

I’m not even going to give the comments I’ve read on this thread any more credence, they are purely and simply ‘FAT BASHING’ made my obnoxious and rude people who it seems have nothing better to do than belittle people. Whatever your beliefs about ‘Obesity’ or ‘Welfare’ it does not give any one the right to poke fun and make nasty comments about another human being Esp so in an online environment when you know neither the person or the story behind a picture. It is human nature to have differing opinions on a subject. But to bring them down to the level you have on this thread is beyond words.

I just have 2 more points I want to bring up
1, who says horse riding has to be a sport? Where does it say you can only ride if you are an athlete!
2, and as for the picture of the donkeys I thought aww cute donkeys that look healthy and looked after, doing a job they are bred for, Helping a community. Much like the saying “History was written on the back of the horse,

I just want to leave you with one more thing, this was me and Nas earlier this year in the five years of owning him I don’t think there has been a happier day for either of us. I was on his back for over an hour. And yes it was me hobbling around like a cowboy the following day. But Nas strode out of his box like he was ready to do it all again.

http://youtu.be/UVT3VGKkAhI
 
I haven't read the entire thread but I am assuming a 22" odd saddle would be sat on the weak and sensative part of the horses back behind the ribcage and would then cause back problems?
 
Cloball said:
What I also found worrying was the age, size and poor conformation of horses it is deemed acceptable to ride.
Click to expand...


Yes, and sadly elanorg's attempts to educated them on this has failed -

Originally Posted by elanorg
Personally I would go on the overall conformation of the horse. Large amount of bone (measured around the cannon), a good, short back with no signs of sway and plenty of muscle, not fat though. Certain breeds are better weight carriers, such as cobs and irish draughts, however that cannot be relied on as each horse is an individual. For myself personally I wouldn't want to ride a fine boned older horse or young heavy at 150lbs. My last mare was a 16hh anglo arab (mainly tb) but with more bone than usual and comfortably carried my friend who was probably around 180lbs (so comfortably she'd happily spin and leap to the other side of the arena with her), but she was a very experienced and well balanced rider.
Click to expand...


Originally Posted by Waresbear
Maybe you should talk to a vet, horse chiro or at least someone who knows **** from shinola. Whoever told you this is either lying to you, ignorant, mentally challenged but most of all wrong. You sound very novice and uninformed, so get some experience and information. Good thing I weigh within your parameter of 130 lbs otherwise I would be too heavy to ride my horse? Seriously? Crazy talk, stop it, you are insulting these brave peops who have generously shared pics of themselves & their horses for OUR viewing pleasure, not for you to come on here and spout goofiness!
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Some of the ignorant comments on there are even more shocking then the photos.
 
diet2ride said:
I just have 2 more points I want to bring up
1, who says horse riding has to be a sport? Where does it say you can only ride if you are an athlete!
/QUOTE]

You don't have to be an athlete.

It is preferable that YOUR enjoyment isn't causing unecessary suffering to your equine partner, however.

And if you have to pull your horse out of your arse crack when you've finished enjoying yourself....then you are probably too big.

And that includes 9 stone 'skinnies' riding mini shetties.
Click to expand...
 
This I find worrying as a lot of weight carrying horses are short coupled, which surely means that a 22 inch saddle will extend too far back, causing problems.
 
Hippona said:
diet2ride said:
I just have 2 more points I want to bring up
1, who says horse riding has to be a sport? Where does it say you can only ride if you are an athlete!
/QUOTE]

You don't have to be an athlete.

It is preferable that YOUR enjoyment isn't causing unecessary suffering to your equine partner, however.

And if you have to pull your horse out of your arse crack when you've finished enjoying yourself....then you are probably too big.

And that includes 9 stone 'skinnies' riding mini shetties.
Click to expand...

Hippona - made me LOL but very true!
Click to expand...
 
Puppy said:
Yes, and sadly elanorg's attempts to educated them on this has failed -

:rolleyes:

Some of the ignorant comments on there are even more shocking then the photos.
Click to expand...

How true. They seem to really believe that 15.7 stone men on a 14.2 is OK. How can they think that ?

MHFoundation Quarters said:
My hubby is a stout 220 very muscular guy, his favorite ride at our place is a 14.2 bulldog cutting bred QH. That horse has zero trouble carrying my hubby and still moves like a cat on his feet.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Clava said:
How true. They seem to really believe that 15.7 stone men on a 14.2 is OK. How can they think that ?
Click to expand...

The woman who has been pictured on here on the beautiful grulla says she is over 300lbs (which is about 21stone I think), in full western tack, on a fairly fine looking 14hh.
 
Yes, the good old 'fat bashing excuse'. Obviously being overweight means you can't possibly be wrong, cruel or responsible for your own actions, anyone who comments negatively must just be picking on you because of your size. I find that attitude ruder than anything I've said. I judge people as individuals, idiots come in all shapes & sizes, being overweight doesn't entitle you to be excused from wrong. I assume those horrified at so called 'fat bashing' are equally disgusted by the 'skinny bashing' too. Although the general consensus on ff is otherwise. So me possibly offending someone too heavy for their horse isn't on, but causing physical pain to a horse is ok. I'll stick with my own morals thanks.
Lula- excellent post.
 
Sam_1985 said:
This I find worrying as a lot of weight carrying horses are short coupled, which surely means that a 22 inch saddle will extend too far back, causing problems.
Click to expand...

Agree....my arab just about gets away with a 17" and the highland with a 16.5".

Both are weight carrying breeds with stamina, but a 22" saddle would be over the loins/kidneys without a doubt.....
 
Hippona said:
Agree....my arab just about gets away with a 17" and the highland with a 16.5".

Both are weight carrying breeds with stamina, but a 22" saddle would be over the loins/kidneys without a doubt.....
Click to expand...

My old boy would take a 19/20" easily enough, and looks silly in his 16.5 and 17" saddles, but it is precisely because he has such a long back that he's not by any means a weight carrier! He's a 15.3hh lightweight WB (virtually pure TB breeding) with not the greatest conformation.
 
But then, support we cant discriminate and say that "fuller" people cant ride. Though 22 inch would be humongous (or however its spelt!)
 
Even if the saddle was designed as Tallyho said earlier, I think the riders weight, although more spread out would still be in the wrong places.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top