Looking for info for fitting Arabians

[TwinOaks]

Hi all,

At the request of She Who Must Be Obeyed, I'm looking for info on fitting Arabian horses for both Western and English saddles.

Our mare wears a 20/22 cut-back English (she's broad across the withers, 15.2 hands) and we're trying to find the right size Western.

Thanks,

[Saddlebag]

You best bet is to just try on saddles with various trees, arab, qh, semi, full. My boarder's arab drowns in full bars yet that worked on another arab. Some are fine with semi. The angle of the bars should match the horse's build which you can see by standing near the horse's shoulder. I recommend a pad of no more than 1" thick as too thick a pad can cause it's own set of problems.

[Saddlebag]

I need to update my info. It was last summer that the 3 yr old Arab couldn't wear full bars. She's grown a little and now she's getting a pretty decent fit with a Big Horn leather/cordura saddle with the full bars. It even works with her wide sprung rib cage. Again was a case of trying on saddles with various trees.

[chevygirl]

I'm not much help in the english department... but depending on how your horse is built, she may be able to wear an arab, full qh , or semi qh bars. It just depends. An arabian gelding I owned was perfectly built for full quarter horse bars. If you find that she is built for a qh tree, you will probably need to find a saddle with a short or rounded skirt. I have heard that the standard arab saddle skirt length should be 27", but that would certainly vary from horse to horse.

As for the size (seat), the rule of thumb is 2" shorter for western (I think).

Its really just a matter of trying them on, if possible. Because in my opinion, there is never a measurement accurate enough to beat seeing them on the horse itself. When you try the saddle on, you will be able to start making your assessments as to what qualities she needs in a saddle.

check this website out, might help:

http://www.arabiansaddle.com/guide.htm

Edited June 5, 2009 by chevygirl

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

We agree that you can't order or buy a saddle based on any "size" or "name" of the fit, since there are no standards to which saddles or trees must adhere. Frustrating, but true.

Something else that needs to be remembered is that you cannot extrapolate "rules" from English to Western. This is commonly done, even by "professionals", and it is just plain wrong. The link chevygirl put up is about English saddles, and there are a number statements there that, while they may or may not be true for English saddles (that is not our area), they don't apply to western ones.

Position of the saddle 1 1/2 to 2" behind the shoulder blades - the arches on an English tree are different than the front bar tips on a Western one and they are positioned on the horse differently.

The "balance" of the seat tells you something about saddle fit. Yes, the fit being too wide (rarely too narrow) can affect the balance of the rider, but there are many other factors, especially the way the saddle maker builds the groundseat, that have more effect on how the rider sits than the fit of the saddle. The top and the bottom of the saddle are two different things.

The amount of gullet clearance tells you something about the width of the saddle. The fork of a western tree is built separately from the bars, and the height of the gullet is set by the cut of the fork. Yes, a too wide tree will sit lower than it should and a too narrow tree will sit higher than it should, but you can have a great fit of the bars with a low gullet or a high gullet. So long as the gullet doesn't touch the withers at any time, it is good. A miss is as good as a mile. You don't have to have X amount of space for things to be OK.

You can't determine saddle fit by taking one measurement at the front of the saddle. The bars on a western saddle need to have the same basic angle as the horse all the way down, not just at the front. A measurement taken only at the front won't tell you about rock or the fit further back, which is equally important as fit at the front.

So you always come back to the different components of fit:

1.) The angle of the bars, and how they change from front to back (Note: the change in angle is called the twist in Western terminology. Twist in English terminology refers to the narrowest part of the saddle. Another difference that needs to be clarified.)

2.) The width between the bars, sometimes called spread. Most production trees combine the spread and angle so as the angle gets flatter, the bars also get wider apart. This is the basic difference between semi-QH, QH and full QH. It doesn't help if you have a narrow horse with a flat angle to their back, which is more common in Arabs.

3.) Gullet clearance

4.) Bar length - which can be a concern on Arabs as they often have fairly short backs.

5.) Amount of rock

6.) Shape of the bottom of the bar - how much crown there is.

And you can't tell all these by a name or "size". Basically, you gotta ride it to know how it really works on your horse.

[chevygirl]

We agree that you can't order or buy a saddle based on any "size" or "name" of the fit, since there are no standards to which saddles or trees must adhere. Frustrating, but true.

Something else that needs to be remembered is that you cannot extrapolate "rules" from English to Western. This is commonly done, even by "professionals", and it is just plain wrong. The link chevygirl put up is about English saddles, and there are a number statements there that, while they may or may not be true for English saddles (that is not our area), they don't apply to western ones.

Position of the saddle 1 1/2 to 2" behind the shoulder blades - the arches on an English tree are different than the front bar tips on a Western one and they are positioned on the horse differently.

The "balance" of the seat tells you something about saddle fit. Yes, the fit being too wide (rarely too narrow) can affect the balance of the rider, but there are many other factors, especially the way the saddle maker builds the groundseat, that have more effect on how the rider sits than the fit of the saddle. The top and the bottom of the saddle are two different things.

The amount of gullet clearance tells you something about the width of the saddle. The fork of a western tree is built separately from the bars, and the height of the gullet is set by the cut of the fork. Yes, a too wide tree will sit lower than it should and a too narrow tree will sit higher than it should, but you can have a great fit of the bars with a low gullet or a high gullet. So long as the gullet doesn't touch the withers at any time, it is good. A miss is as good as a mile. You don't have to have X amount of space for things to be OK.

You can't determine saddle fit by taking one measurement at the front of the saddle. The bars on a western saddle need to have the same basic angle as the horse all the way down, not just at the front. A measurement taken only at the front won't tell you about rock or the fit further back, which is equally important as fit at the front.

So you always come back to the different components of fit:

1.) The angle of the bars, and how they change from front to back (Note: the change in angle is called the twist in Western terminology. Twist in English terminology refers to the narrowest part of the saddle. Another difference that needs to be clarified.)

2.) The width between the bars, sometimes called spread. Most production trees combine the spread and angle so as the angle gets flatter, the bars also get wider apart. This is the basic difference between semi-QH, QH and full QH. It doesn't help if you have a narrow horse with a flat angle to their back, which is more common in Arabs.

3.) Gullet clearance

4.) Bar length - which can be a concern on Arabs as they often have fairly short backs.

5.) Amount of rock

6.) Shape of the bottom of the bar - how much crown there is.

And you can't tell all these by a name or "size". Basically, you gotta ride it to know how it really works on your horse.

Yes, the link I gave is only regarding English saddles, since Twinoaks requested info on both english and western. I'm not very familiar with english saddles, but thought that the extra info might me helpful just the same.

I read some of your articles, they offer some terrific information! Really helped me understand a few things about saddle fit problems as well.

[BondoBobCustomSaddles]

We agree that you can't order or buy a saddle based on any "size" or "name" of the fit, since there are no standards to which saddles or trees must adhere. Frustrating, but true.

Something else that needs to be remembered is that you cannot extrapolate "rules" from English to Western. This is commonly done, even by "professionals", and it is just plain wrong. The link chevygirl put up is about English saddles, and there are a number statements there that, while they may or may not be true for English saddles (that is not our area), they don't apply to western ones.

Position of the saddle 1 1/2 to 2" behind the shoulder blades - the arches on an English tree are different than the front bar tips on a Western one and they are positioned on the horse differently.

The "balance" of the seat tells you something about saddle fit. Yes, the fit being too wide (rarely too narrow) can affect the balance of the rider, but there are many other factors, especially the way the saddle maker builds the groundseat, that have more effect on how the rider sits than the fit of the saddle. The top and the bottom of the saddle are two different things.

The amount of gullet clearance tells you something about the width of the saddle. The fork of a western tree is built separately from the bars, and the height of the gullet is set by the cut of the fork. Yes, a too wide tree will sit lower than it should and a too narrow tree will sit higher than it should, but you can have a great fit of the bars with a low gullet or a high gullet. So long as the gullet doesn't touch the withers at any time, it is good. A miss is as good as a mile. You don't have to have X amount of space for things to be OK.

You can't determine saddle fit by taking one measurement at the front of the saddle. The bars on a western saddle need to have the same basic angle as the horse all the way down, not just at the front. A measurement taken only at the front won't tell you about rock or the fit further back, which is equally important as fit at the front.

So you always come back to the different components of fit:

1.) The angle of the bars, and how they change from front to back (Note: the change in angle is called the twist in Western terminology. Twist in English terminology refers to the narrowest part of the saddle. Another difference that needs to be clarified.)

2.) The width between the bars, sometimes called spread. Most production trees combine the spread and angle so as the angle gets flatter, the bars also get wider apart. This is the basic difference between semi-QH, QH and full QH. It doesn't help if you have a narrow horse with a flat angle to their back, which is more common in Arabs.

3.) Gullet clearance

4.) Bar length - which can be a concern on Arabs as they often have fairly short backs.

5.) Amount of rock

6.) Shape of the bottom of the bar - how much crown there is.

And you can't tell all these by a name or "size". Basically, you gotta ride it to know how it really works on your horse.

Every thing that Rod and Denise have said here is correct. To simply add, more often than not, people don't know that Arabs have one less vertabrea (lord only know why) than other horses, so it is not just that some arabs have a short back, all 100% arabs do, they are also wide in the withers, and flat on the top line. Be sure to keep this in mind when you are looking to fit your horse.

Bondo Bob

[David Genadek]

If my memory serves me correct, it is only 30% of the Arabian breed thathas one less vertebrae. It is a lumbar vertebra that is lacking. If as a saddle maker you are using the lumbar span to bear weight you will be causing stifle and hock problems in the horse due to the way the reciprocating system of the hind leg ties into the reciprocating system of the caudal spinal lamb. In short the lumbar span must flex up to allow the stifle to release. Of course it is always ridiculous to say any bar will fit a breed as within Arabians the difference between Polish or Russian bred Arabians and Egyptian bred Arabians is dramatic.To say there is a breed bar would be like Levi's coming out with a pair of jeans claiming they will fit anyone that likes to sing.

The anatomical facts and real life measurements dictate that fitting an English saddle is exactly the same as fitting a Western saddle. Although you will see differences in the skirt and in the rigging configuration the reality is the bar portion of a English saddle only averages 1 inch less than that of a Western saddle and you could in fact find some English saddles with a longer bars than that of some Western saddles.

David Genadek

Edited September 12, 2009 by David Genadek

[Denise]

Arabs have one less vertabrea (lord only know why) than other horses

I've heard this stated as fact for years and, being the sceptical, "prove it to me" type person I tend to be, I would be curious if anyone knows of any documented evidence of the true incidence of this in a large population of Arabs (and non-Arabs for that matter).

What I have been able to find comes from Sisson's and Grossman's The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals volume I. It seems that variable number of vertebrae are uncommon but not really rare. Cervical always seem to be 7 in number, but while thoracic are generally 18, "there are sometimes 19, rarely 17" (pg. 260). "The occurance of a nineteeth rib-bearing vertebra is not at all uncommon. In such cases there may be only five typical lumbar vertebrae." (pg. 262) "The lumbar vertebrae are usually six in number in the horse; however, five lumbar vertebrae have also been reported in the domestic horse, donkey, Arabian horse, Przewalski horse, ass and mule." (pg 262) "The sacrum is usually formed by the fusion of five vertebrae... However, the number of vertebrae in the sacrum of the domestic horse, Przewalski horse, and Shetland pony has also sometimes been listed as four or six. In the case of the mule and ass, both six and seven sacral vertebrae have been reported." (pg. 263) Reference information for the studies quoted are included in the book. However, there is no indication of the incidence of such anomalies.

I also have an article from Australia, from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Publication number 07/118 entitled Back Pain in Horses. It was a study involving 120 horse cadavers - 65 Thoroughbreds, 24 Standardbreds and 31 "other breeds" not defined further. They were looking at not only the bones but also the muscles of the back. They found 8% of the Thoroughbreds, 16% of the "others" and 0% of the Standardbreds had only 5 lumbar vertebrae but the normal 5 sacral vertebrae. (But no one seems to think that 8% of Thoroughbreds have "short backs" as a result.) They also found that in horses with normal numbers of vertebrae, the conformation and place of maximal movement were abnormal in 32% of the Thoroughbreds, 29% of the others and 0% of the Standardbreds. So they found only 67% of the horses they checked to be "normal" (60% of Thoroughbreds, 55% of "others" and 100% of Standardbreds). With the differences between Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds being so dramatic, it makes sense that there must be some genetic component involved. Does anyone know of documented studies involving Arabs?

the bar portion of a English saddle only averages 1 inch less than that of a Western saddle

I guess that would depend on which saddles you were measuring.

[BondoBobCustomSaddles]

I've heard this stated as fact for years and, being the sceptical, "prove it to me" type person I tend to be, I would be curious if anyone knows of any documented evidence of the true incidence of this in a large population of Arabs (and non-Arabs for that matter).

What I have been able to find comes from Sisson's and Grossman's The Anatomy of the Domestic Animals volume I. It seems that variable number of vertebrae are uncommon but not really rare. Cervical always seem to be 7 in number, but while thoracic are generally 18, "there are sometimes 19, rarely 17" (pg. 260). "The occurance of a nineteeth rib-bearing vertebra is not at all uncommon. In such cases there may be only five typical lumbar vertebrae." (pg. 262) "The lumbar vertebrae are usually six in number in the horse; however, five lumbar vertebrae have also been reported in the domestic horse, donkey, Arabian horse, Przewalski horse, ass and mule." (pg 262) "The sacrum is usually formed by the fusion of five vertebrae... However, the number of vertebrae in the sacrum of the domestic horse, Przewalski horse, and Shetland pony has also sometimes been listed as four or six. In the case of the mule and ass, both six and seven sacral vertebrae have been reported." (pg. 263) Reference information for the studies quoted are included in the book. However, there is no indication of the incidence of such anomalies.

I also have an article from Australia, from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Publication number 07/118 entitled Back Pain in Horses. It was a study involving 120 horse cadavers - 65 Thoroughbreds, 24 Standardbreds and 31 "other breeds" not defined further. They were looking at not only the bones but also the muscles of the back. They found 8% of the Thoroughbreds, 16% of the "others" and 0% of the Standardbreds had only 5 lumbar vertebrae but the normal 5 sacral vertebrae. (But no one seems to think that 8% of Thoroughbreds have "short backs" as a result.) They also found that in horses with normal numbers of vertebrae, the conformation and place of maximal movement were abnormal in 32% of the Thoroughbreds, 29% of the others and 0% of the Standardbreds. So they found only 67% of the horses they checked to be "normal" (60% of Thoroughbreds, 55% of "others" and 100% of Standardbreds). With the differences between Standardbreds and Thoroughbreds being so dramatic, it makes sense that there must be some genetic component involved. Does anyone know of documented studies involving Arabs?

I guess that would depend on which saddles you were measuring.

Thanks for taking the time to investigate the statement. More knowlege is always good. I made the statement from what I read out of Stohlmans Encyclopedia of Saddle Making, page 21 Volume 1, I quote, "Arabian bars are generally shorter because the Arabian horse has one less vertebrae", the information goes on to discuss how many thoractic vertabrae and center of motion and so on. I am not a vet, nor have I done any studies on equine cadavers. I simply have used these books as a basis for how and why I make my saddles the way I do, and I can say with experiance that in twenty years or so, they have never lead me wrong. I have made several saddles for people with Arabs, and the results have always been excellent, so I will continue to do what has always worked for me and my customers. As always, I value the opinions of others that give their advice and help in an effort to improve and widen the knowlege base.

Bondo Bob