Fitting different types of backs

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Susan,

Thanks for the extra info and the pictures of your mare. They help in getting a better picture inside our heads of what your horse looks like.

In reading what David has said, it is obvious that we think in a very similar way on a majority of things. We also try to fit a type or style (general shape) of horse, and would not want to say that "This tree will fit this breed of horse". There is too much variation within a breed to label a tree as being made for one breed, or especially to claim that it will fit all members of that breed. On the other hand, if a breed has relatively few individuals in it, and all those individuals are closely related, they will tend to be built more similarly than a breed with many individuals coming from different seed stocks. Even so, we still would not choose to label a tree with a breed name.

We often get asked about rigging position and how that affects the fit of the tree. Our answer generally is that if the tree fits the horse well, the rigging position is not going to move the tree out of position, though if the tree was placed out of position, it might be possible for the cinch to hold it out of position in a few instances.

An analogy which might help would be to picture a couple of tea spoons from the same set. They match in size and shape and fit into each other well. If you move the top one back so its bowl sits on the edge between the bowl and the handle of the other one, and then wiggle them a bit, they will slide together so they fit. Even if you tie the two handles together as tightly as you can (imagining that the handles are smooth on all sides) and then wiggle them, the bowls will still move to fit together because there is nothing that inhibits that movement. In the same way, a tree that has a shape on the bottom that matches the shape of the horse underneath it will shift into the place it should fit as the horse moves. Ideally, the saddle would have been placed in the correct spot originally. The position of the rigging (unless it somehow inhibits the movement of the saddle) won't affect where the tree sits on the horse - if the shape is correct. (This is how the old vaqueros were able to use a center fire rig and rope off it. The trees had to fit their horses back then. If the fit wasn't good, the saddle would have moved all over the place just riding, let alone when it was used to rope with.) Back to our analogy: If the spoon handles have bumps on the sides, and if you place the two spoons where they don't fit together, then tie the handles together at the point of two mismatched indentations, you would be able to keep the two spoons from sliding into the spot where they match. This would be the equivalent of holding the saddle in the wrong place with a breast collar or crupper.

If you take a teaspoon and a tablespoon and try to fit them together, the two bowls will go together, but there will be a lot more movement between the two as you wiggle them around. This is probably the more common situation between a lot of horses and the trees in the saddles they wear. The shapes are close, but not quite right, and so padding, etc. can make a difference that makes the saddle usable where it won't hurt the horse. If you take a teaspoon and a fork or, worse yet, a knife, and put them together, they will be sliding all over the place, off the side of each other etc. This is what happens when the shape of the tree and the horse are very different, and you can't make that tree work for that horse, no matter how you pad it.

So when you say that the whole saddle slides forward and the cinch becomes loose, what is happening is, indeed, a tree fitting issue. The shape of the bottom of the tree doesn't fit the shape of the horse's back, and unless there is something to hold it where it is placed, it goes looking for a spot it will fit better. In your case, it moves further forward. That doesn't mean it was meant to fit there. It just means that the part of the tree that most closely fits the shape of some part of the horse's back got together with that part, regardless of where it was "supposed to" be. And it shows how poorly the match is between the shape of this horse and the "typical" tree is - which is why you started this thread in the first place. And as David said, "rigging position is dependant on where the tree maker designed the tree to fit". So, as in so many areas with trees, the actual number may not mean a whole lot anyway.

You mention "gaps between front of tree and back of tree along horses' backs (one or both sides)". I am interpreting this to mean that the saddle is bridging - contacting at the front and the back but not the middle. Is this correct? Firstly, if it only affects one side, there is asymmetry. Whenever one side is different from another, something is wrong. It is not just a mismatch in size or shape. Something has to be different from one side to another. This could be a fault in the tree construction, a fault in the saddle construction, a difference in the horse, either congenital or more commonly induced by how they use their body, a difference in how the rider sits, disparity in the blankets or pads, etc. etc. But something is wrong and needs to be fixed. This is a different issue than the shape these horses need to fit them.

If both sides bridge, it means there is not enough rock in the tree for the length of the bar on this back. This goes along with the back of the bar digging into the loins that you mentioned earlier, as well as having "short backs that rise up slightly into the loin" that you mentioned in your first post. We checked out the Spanish Mustang Registry site and got a few more looks at different horses. One of the things that struck us is how relatively small "the average" Spanish Mustang is compared to "the average" Quarter Horse for which the majority of production Western trees are built. While you want as much surface area on the horse's back as possible to distribute the weight better, you are limited to the area that will not cause interference with the horse's movement (will not dig into or put excessive pressure anywhere). On your shorter backed horses, bar length is a consideration. A back tip of a bar that is too long will contact high up on the rise of the loin on these horses and be unable to settle down on the back, leaving a gap in the middle. A shorter bar that ends before that rise will sit down on the back better, so that could be part of a solution. Shortening the bar does decrease overall surface area though. That may be OK for a smaller and lighter rider, but there would be a limit to how short you would want to make bars for a larger rider for the sake of both the rider and the horse. Something else to consider is making sure there is enough "relief" built into the back bar tip so it doesn't dig into the loin. This essentially adds rock to the back of the bars. In looking at these horses, they do seem to have more rock in their back than is common, which would go with the "rise into the loin".

In looking at the pictures of your mare as well as the other ones you have posted and ones on the Registry site, we see a horse with quite a round back, but also a relatively narrow back due to their smaller size. In horses overall, the narrower backs more commonly tend to be more angled, more A shaped. These horses also often have wither pockets that are more concave. The rounder back shape tends to be on wider horses, and the wither pockets here will often be flat or bulged outward. At least that is the basic generalization that is commonly made. This is why as the "standard" trees get wider, they also are generally given a flatter angle. The more narrow trees often have a steeper angle. You have a narrow horse that may need a wider angle. These things don't go together in an "off the rack" tree, resulting in the other signs you mention that basically show a real mismatch in shapes between the horse and the tree.

It is good to recognize that horses with a more concave wither pocket will hold a saddle (stop it from sliding forward or back or side to side) better than ones with a rounded wither "pocket" in the same way that two spoons fit together better than two knives because there is a more definite shape to them that will hold them together. But if that is not the way the horse is built, you need to fit the horse as it is. The wither pocket on your mare is not concave. Therefore, what you don't want is a lot of side to side roundness to the shape of the bottom of the bar. Some companies have rounder bars, and some flatter. Some may offer a choice. You would want to choose a flatter "crown" shape for these horses, because too much roundness will put excess pressure in the center of that bar pad. A rounder crown on this wither pocket shape will also have less overall contact since the edges of the bar pad won't contact well. This would be like (I'm exaggerating, but it makes the point) trying to make two rubber balls "fit together".

When you talk about the saddle moving forward, something to check out is what David calls "orientation". The line you drew on the stallion from the top of the croup to the top of the withers is horizontal, but that is not where the saddle fits. We look at the sides of horse's back where the bars sit. Is the loin area toward the back of the bars higher than the wither pocket area where the front bar pads sit? If so, (and it is commonly so), gravity will want to move the saddle forward unless something stops it. I can't see well enough on the stallion to see how it is, but if the mare is standing on a level surface, her back is a little bit "downhill", but not excessively so. If the tree fits the shape of her back well, those matching shapes would keep it place. Since you seem to be experiencing a spoon and knife mismatch in shapes, it will have a tendency to more forward with gravity.

So overall, we feel that if the shape of the tree matches the shape of the horses back, it will stay put unless extraordinary (more than ordinary riding and roping) forces are put on it. If the shapes don't match, it is very likely to move around. On these horses, I could imagine a scenario like this: "typical" tree would have bars that would be a bit too long (or not have enough rock) to fit comfortably, so with every step the loin of the horse would push into the back of the bar, trying to push it forward, and causing pressure points. If the horse happened to be a bit downhill as well, gravity to help the saddle move forward. Meanwhile, up front, you have a rounder wither pocket area minimally contacting a possibly rounder front bar pad. So there is nothing there which would help the saddle to stay in place. And you may also have something that looks like an A (narrow tree, narrow angle) perched on top of a sideways C, or else a more flattened upside down V (wider tree, wider angle) with the edges sticking off in space with only the inside half of the bar contacting the horse because the bars are spread too far apart. So while you may have very little in the way of common shape to hold the saddle in place, you have lots of forces that work to move it around and cause pressure points on your horse. Basically, the typical combinations of width, angle, etc. don't fit.

This in no way is to say that there is anything "wrong" with your horses. They just are not typical quarter horses, which was your point to start with. Fit is a combination of: width (spread between the bars), angle, the change in angle from the front to the back (twist), the amount of rock, the shape of the bottom of the bar side to side (crown), total bar length and length of the front bar tip. All of these things can be varied independently of each other. You don't have to do anything "weird" to the bottom of the bar to make a tree fit your horse. You just have to put uncommon (compared to typical quarter horses) combinations together: a narrower spread because the backs are narrow, not too steep an angle anywhere because they are round all down the back, enough rock on a shorter bar, especially at the back bar tip, and a flatter cup.

We hope this helps you understand more of what areas we look at when we are asked to evaluate a type of horse for fit. It is hard to be sure with just pictures. Generally we get back drawings as well, and then spend time talking with the owner of the horses. So it would be good to get your response to our ideas. What do you think?

As an aside, if anyone is sending pictures to a tree maker to help them see a horse's back better, here are a couple of things we hadn't mentioned earlier. It is helpful to send one side view that shows the whole horse, including the ground on which they are standing, such as the one of the stallion in the May 20th post. Ideally the ground is flat and level and the horse is standing square, but rarely do we get the ideal. This picture gives us a better view of how downhill or level the back is compared to a level surface. As well, it is good to have a person in at least one photo, and information about how tall that person is. That lets us see size of the horse better. Even if we have a weight and height in numbers, which is great, "a picture is worth a thousand words".

Rod and Denise

[Alan Bell]

Howdy Folks, I had been posting on the braiding board and had left this discussion only to find out it has indeed grown quite interesting. I too raise and train SM's and know most of the folks involved in this discussion and their horses and am quite familiar with some of these issues. I also know a fellow that has several saddles built of Warren's trees and I have built on Warren's trees and had not had these issues with my horses nor do I think my buddy has and I will be building him a saddle with one of Warren's trees. I attended the saddlemaking seminar with Dale Harwood and Steve Mecum last year and also have visited with Chuck Stormes and Cary Schwarz a bit on these and other issues. One of my goals was to find a tree supplier to get 'REAL' Wade trees from and not have to wait so long for Warren's trees. In my quest for a tree manfacturer Rod your name was mentioned. From the pic on your home page, Rod, that is pretty much what Warren's trees looke like sitting on my SM's back! Oddly enough I had a 3 yr old QH stud at the time and placed the bare tree on his back and Lo and Behold it set in a slightly different spot but still fit him! Maybe a little further back as I recall because of the angle of his withers front to back. I should have taken pics! I guess i'm in effect lending a little credence to what Dusty Johnson said regarding horsemanship. I built a saddle for another SM owner on Warren's tree and he is also involved in Throughbreds so I know that the same saddle goes from one to the other and he also has little trouble with fit he just rides what is beneath him and he has no legs. I believe it is akin to your spoon discription and the saddle finds it's spot and the rider adjust to ride the horse NOT the saddle. In my discussion with Dale he basically builds 2 different trees; one for Ray and one for the rest that can afford one and the tree for Ray has only slight differences to the width of the bar and where the swells attach or gullet width. At least that is what he was willing to share with us at that time! Quien Sabe? I videoed the entire seminar and will review the info presented and try and post bits of it here when I have the time.

Alan Bell

[AZThunderPony]

Rod and Denise,

This is the best description of the problems I have faced fitting my horses to date. And yes you have described the breed type of back as a general rule.

Here is my thoughts on rigging. Let's assume the tree is a perfect fit and the horse and rider have perfect balance and movement. (hypathetical) Now the cinch which is set back "on this breed" hangs in such away as to restrict lung function as it snugs up along the ribs where they are begining to spring away from the horses back in a round arch, or "C" shape. A rigging set more forward can be tied in a three point tie but still avoid restriction of lung function by resting just in front of where the C begins to broaden. I would like to see the latigo hang vertical from the saddle to the girth and not run along an angle from girth toward the loins of the horse. I really dont care at this point if the tree stays put, now I'm concerned about lung capacity and sore ribs. I dont do ranch work. I do back country distance riding and gaiting. I speak for my horses alone as I breed for multi-gaited stock. My horses sit down in the rear, raise up in the front end, coil in classic Old Time Spanish manner and travel much like a pleasure type Paso Fino (for lack of a better image). When they coil their gut broadens and their ribs expand to allow for the increase of gut pressure. Now I dont want to inhibit that with an awkwardly angled or placed rigging. Keep in mind they do not travel flat like a walker or fox trotter and if they do they are not performing up to par. Does this help?

I'm not disagreeing because I feel I know something about saddle fit that those here don't. Or that I know more about my breed than anyone here might. I stand firm on anatomical function of the musclulo-skeletal system and the depence of neuorlogical health on respiratory performance. A position I have spent some time studying not just in regards to the over all health and functionality of my horse, but I use everyday in my line of work restructuring tissue for humans with injury or chronic issues.

So I am still not convinced on the rigging answers I have heard thus far. I could be if I can see that my horses respiratory function is not compromised by a rigging that is set in my opinion too far back. I understand that mankind has been riding horsekind for many a year without concern for respiratory function. Not to the point that I am conerned about it, and for those few who do.... you dont see TB's on the track with girths set back on their ribcage. I dont want to see a girth set back on the ribcage of my SM either.

Now I'm looking forward to hearing some ideas about how we fix a SM ribcage/rigging problem?

Hey Alan, Good to see you here! Your saddle looked good on your mare. But I thought it kinda dwarfed her! lol You make a beautiful product (I've seen some of Alans work and know folks who use his product).

Susan Catt

Edited September 29, 2009 by Denise

[AZThunderPony]

You just have to put uncommon (compared to typical quarter horses) combinations together: a narrower spread because the backs are narrow, not too steep an angle anywhere because they are round all down the back, enough rock on a shorter bar, especially at the back bar tip, and a flatter cup.

Rod and Denise

So when are we going to start seeing trees like this emerge into the market place for SM'ers to have their saddles built on?

[AZThunderPony]

Howdy Folks, I had been posting on the braiding board and had left this discussion only to find out it has indeed grown quite interesting. I too raise and train SM's and know most of the folks involved in this discussion and their horses and am quite familiar with some of these issues. I also know a fellow that has several saddles built of Warren's trees and I have built on Warren's trees and had not had these issues with my horses nor do I think my buddy has and I will be building him a saddle with one of Warren's trees. Alan Bell

Alan, could you post a picture of one of these trees? Give a better description of them part by part please? I'm learning all these different parts and would like to compare ideas.

This colt is a yearling exhibiting excellent Old Time Spanish qualities.

Alan, How do you like Medicine Bear now? (Medicine Bear my new Romero/McKinley bred yearling colt bred by Terry Moore of Medicine Hat Saddlery)

Thanks,

Susan Catt

[Alan Bell]

Hey Susan, I can't send a current pic of the bare tree because it is no longer a bare tree! But it is probably very similar tothe tree Rod has pictured on his home page setting on the horses back. Rod could tell if there are any differences or not.

I really like the colt and I really liked his sire. I rode Thunder when Roeliff still had him and liked him then. I think Roeliff has a full brother to Thunder that he is going to geld. I couldn't use him as a stud because he is to closely elated to my Medicine Hats. So I'm getting this colt whose complete pedigree I don't know but he is by Tarkio. I'm also getting some bred mares that are heavy in foal to Tarkio so I'll be back in the breeding game soon!

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Just an additional note. While I have used probably an excess of words to describe what we look at when we try to fit a horse, I need to say that saddle fitting is not rocket science. There are two basic rules:

1.) Don't get in his way. Make sure that the edges - the front, back, top and bottom of the bar don't dig in anywhere, and the cantle and fork gullets don't contact the horse.

2.) Within those margins, keep as much contact with the horse as you can. In other words, shape it the way they are shaped as much as possible.

If you do those two things, you will have a good fit.

We are not trying to fit camels, elephants and donkeys here. A horse is built like a horse, with some variations. Problems arise when rule number one is broken. You can have a lot of leeway with rule number two and still "get away with it" (ie. not hurt the horse) because of the movement of the horse under the saddle. This is why if you have a tree that is correct in the basics, it will fit a wide range of horses well enough to be used comfortably.

As far as the rigging position goes, we approach it as it relates to tree position on the horse. We are looking forward to reading about how it relates to everything else from the saddle maker's point of view.

[AZThunderPony]

As far as the rigging position goes, we approach it as it relates to tree position on the horse. We are looking forward to reading about how it relates to everything else from the saddle maker’s point of view.

I agree. I would love to hear some Saddle Makers ideas on how they would address fit in regards to this thread. Ive tried to show clearly how large groups of horses (not just my breed) have been left outside the average fit parameters used by many if not most tree and saddle makers today. So now standing outside that box. It sure would be great to hear some thoughts from saddle makers on how they would take a tree designed to address some of the conformation types and riding styles listed in this thread and build a saddle that would suit both.

Anyone?

Susan Catt

[Alan Bell]

Hey folks, Bruce Johnson and I seem to be having a closed conversation on the rigging posts! I think that these two post are virtually one and the same check out what we've written so far and see what you think.

Alan Bell

[AZThunderPony]

Terry Moore of Medicine Hat Saddlery was scheduled to do a saddle fitting at the Spanish Mustang Registry 50th Year Celebration. He showed up Saturaday afternoon and gave a very informative talk. He brought many examples of trees with him. There were trees from different periods and uses available to inspect. Two were Rod Nikkels trees. I'm not an expert by any means on trees, but these two trees were very outstanding in workmanship compared the others I saw there. They just looked and felt stronger and had a certain quality to them that impressed me. This from an uneducated eye of course. I dont build trees. But I was pleased with them. I bought a mold from Terry and will be molding my horses back this weekend. So soon there will be a Rod Nikkels tree made for my Spanish Mustang mare.

The demonstration was well attended and many of the topics we have discussed in this thread were addressed. Rod and Denise's description of what might be a problem in fitting this breed was made extremely appearant to all there. It really helped me see the problems from the tree up.

For the first time since entering into this breed I am hopeful for a truly proper fit for my horses.

Susan Catt

Bear Paw Ranch

Arizona