Your Horse Article re Larger Riders got me thinking...

Ludi-doodi

Ludi-doodi

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 August 2004
Messages
1,451
Location
West Yorkshire
photobucket.com
The article was quite interesting but steered well clear of giving any indication of what weight a horse could carry. I know it's a " how long is a piece of string" question, but is there even a rough guideline? EG a typical 15hh medium weight would comfortably carry x stones?

I'm certainly in the 'large' camp and ride a 16.2hh warmblood. This article got me thinking whether or not I might be a bit heavy for him, particularly when it talked about horses that carry too much weight potentially having back and lameness problems.

Interested in what you guys think. If it makes any difference, I'm 5' 10" . I'll ponder over it some more whilst out this afternoon having sunday lunch LOL!
 
The subject was discussed on a thread here a few weeks ago. There is a rule-of-thumb number which is 1/6 body weight of the horse but it's not clear where that figure comes from. I've done some research to try to find out but found nothing useful so far. I have a suspicion the british army is the place to look next because its the sort of thing the army would have a view on.
I also want to come up with a more objective value (well you have to something to keep occupied while the evenings are dark) but that will take a while. As some people pointed out in the previous post, its not just dependent on rider weight, it's what they do with it. On the other hand, differences in breed are probably less significant, I have a suspicion that cobs are no better weight carryers that ponies/horses of the same size but obviously it's not a good idea to say that in public unless you want to be lynched.
 
Thanks for that - I'll have a look for the other thread (I don't log on here as much as I once did so missed it). I think your right that is a combination of other things such as rider skill and balance and not just a pure weight ratio issue. Will look forward to hearing the outcome of your research!

Cheers
G
 
Hi G - long time no hear. Hows Ludo doing? has he had his IRAP treatment yet?
you certainly are in the "large camp" - well i wouldnt say you were. Me=yes You=no

i read the article and did have a few thoughts on it - but again as you mentioned how long is a piece of string....
 
I think there is a huge difference in a large beginner rider and a large experienced rider.
How many times do beginners get on a horse and land with an almighty thump?
I took great pride in always riding "light", it took me a long time to learn to ride like that and because of it I have never had a horse feel overhorsed by my size.
Our 15 hh Welsh Cob carried me on holidays all over Exmoor and if I felt the hill was too steep etc, I got off and walked!
Having taught quite a few 6' 2" well built men, I found horses had far more trouble balancing themselves under taller people, at least at 5' 2" my weight is concentrated fairly low down.
I used to have a chunky ID cob in my riding school, and he struggled with the above men until they learned how to balance properly, after that he coped fine.
I would think though that demand by overweight people isn't sufficient for any riding school to maintain a huge horse for just that purpose, and a 16.2 hh heavyweight takes some feeding...
I think the system will actually find it polices itself re too heavy to ride, how many larger people will suffer the idignity of being publicly weighed before a lesson?
I know I wouldn't!
 
This is a subject which has always interested me. Especially with the natives.

There is alot of claim of "oh, natives were bred to carry weight" but this isnt always the case. True, if you have a native of a older stamp, it will be more than capable of carrying a man with ease.
But more recent breeding has lightened the bone of alot of natives. For some reason judges prefer the lighter bred ponies.
I did a little work for a lady last year who bred NF's. None of her ponies were of the lighter type, all having good bone etc. her 24yr old 13.2hh stallion was more than capable of carrying about 11 stone. Her other stallion, a 14.2hh could carry a 15 stone man. But when we went to shows it was always the lighter boned ponies which came out top. I think it's a shame that breeders are encouraged to do this.
I rode a 12.2hh New forest who had no problem carrying me. I also backed an 11.1hh exmoor x type who also had no problems with my weight (9 stone).
I have just purchased a real 'leg at each corner' type shettie...I will draw the line there!! I won't attempt sitting on him
wink.gif
.

If a horse/pony has good bone then they should have no problems carrying a decent weight. With proper riding, I would estimate a good 15.2hh mw cob to carry a 15 stone man with ease.
 
I took my 11.1hh welsh A for a schooling session with an 8 stone rider this morning. He was absolutely fine, he is very old fashioned and has lots of bone. He was very relaxed and tracking up well. It was an experiment, but we both felt he was happy so she will ride him quite a bit for me.
 
I have a 14.2 connemara x TB gelding who is not very chunky but carries me with ease and i'm 10.5 stone in a small frame of 5ft.

I ride with a light seat and he is fine. however a much ligher friend of mine he struggled with because she sits much heavier if you know what i mean....
 
Now I'm back from that Sunday lunch, I feel like a beached whale!! Ludo is doing well, we're even up to cantering again - first time since April last year! But he is to have more IRAP injections in February. He's perfectly sound on the straight, but struggles a bit on circles hence the additonal injections.

Hope you and Gin are doing well and that offer of grooming for you still stands.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think there is a huge difference in a large beginner rider and a large experienced rider.
How many times do beginners get on a horse and land with an almighty thump?


[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree


[ QUOTE ]
I think the system will actually find it polices itself re too heavy to ride, how many larger people will suffer the idignity of being publicly weighed before a lesson? I know I wouldn't!

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh the embarrassment! I once went to for lesson a well known place in Yorkshire that had a weight limit and although I was border line on the limit, I was terrified they'd take one look at me and get the scales out!
 
I have also pondered on this subject and have been wondering. It is always assumed that a big, well built horse is a lot stronger than a smaller built horse.

However, here's a thought. If you look at the human race. Some of the biggest built people can both be very strong or quite weak the same as some wirey built people are weak and some are incredibley strong. (One of the strongest men I have ever seen in RL was a tall skinny white worm of a man).

Around here you see a lot of Point to point people out training their TB's and some of them are monster size men. I suppose we are then going back to HH's comment about size and experience being very relevant.

I don't know, it is just something I have been pondering on. Thought I would just put my thoughts out there and see what others thought.
smile.gif
 
"If a horse/pony has good bone then they should have no problems carrying a decent weight."

That's what's often said but it means very little because unless you define "decent" and "good" it's saying no more than "most horses can carry most people that look about right sat on them". Traditionally the implication is that is that "a horse with poor bone can carry less than average weight" and vice versa" but I'm not sure this is particularly sensible or true for a number of reasons: First, it isn't the cannon bone that is likely to break first if you squish a horse, it is more likely to be a muscle or ligament on the body of the horse somewhere. Secondly, the amount of bone (where it is measured) does not imply the strength of all the other bits of the horse that might break (so you can't use bone as an indicator of the overall strength of the rest of the horse). Third even if the aim was to give an indication of the strength of the cannon bone, circumference is just one of several things you would want to know - for example the ratio between the length and the diameter of the cannon bone would be more useful (depending on how one imagines damage is going to occur) and bone density would be another useful thing to know. Finally the gene pool for horses is so restricted that its unlikely that the natural variation in bone would amount to a large difference in strength - this is testable and it's on my list of things to do
smile.gif


I might try to find the origin of the 'measuring bone' as an indication of strength but I think it may be well lost in the mists of time. There is something a bit odd about it in that it is a strange place to measure bone unless it is really the strength of the joint one is interested in and not the strength of the bone. The joint is at least as likely to get damaged as the bone so it would kinda make sense.
 
Agree! If a cob weighs more than a pony of the same size you might expect it to have relatively more bone just to carry its relatively greater weight. It's true that the rider would be a smaller proportion of bodyweight in the cob but evaluating the effect of that would be a bit of a nightmare (or nightgelding).
 
I also think that the work a horse is expected to do can have a bearing on weight carrying capability.

It's a bit like carrying your bags of shopping home from Tesco's - I can walk along with them quite comfortably, but if I had to run along with them, I'd be knackered!
crazy.gif
 
yep, that's self regulating to an extent in that if you load an animal up it won't go as fast. How much the weight of the horse+rider loads the bits that might break is directly related to speed so the worst possible combination is going fast and not being able to keep rhythm with the canter/gallop. Getting knackered quicker is a separate effect but probably relevant as tired muscles generate less force.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Getting knackered quicker is a separate effect but probably relevant as tired muscles generate less force.


[/ QUOTE ]
Not forgetting that tired muscles lead to poorer performance, hence a much greater chance of injury.
You could go on forever couldn't you? Age, fitness, strength, rider weight, rider capability etc etc etc, all have to be taken into account.

I guess people have to be realistic, and also honest with themselves.
I don't think there are any rules set in stone. It's just simple commonsense.
 
Does 'Bone' really make that much difference?
My feeling is that the strength of the horses back is the limiting factor. Now I may be wrong but I dont think the spine differes that much in strength from horse to horse. What does differ is the amount of muscle that supports the spine. So in theory a well muscled horse in regular work will have a greater weight carrying ability than a less fit horse.

I agree that novice riders ride heavier than experienced riders but NO rider can ride lighter than their weight.

What a horse can carry vs what it can carry 'regularly' are very different. I can lift 200lbs with out damage to myself on occasions but to do it regularly would cause some serious problems.

The number of factors are huge.
 
There's also the horse's conformation to think about - a well-put-together horse will cope better with work & weight than one with terrible faults.

People often assume that if the rider is too heavy the horse will object. I suspect that in reality what happens is that it's cumulative, and the horse being generally a willing and kind creature, just puts up with it, problems will show up later on though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top