Using the Equine profiling cards; Dennis and/or Rod

[Alan Bell]

I have some questions about the cards and possibly some suggestions. 1st: since the cards key off of card A, which keys off of the horses shoulder blade, where is "behind the horse's shoulder blade"? Directly, behind it one finger width, two finger widths? I'm wondering since the distance between A and B is measured so where you locate A seems to be important and I already know of at least one person that had trouble referencing that point. 2nd: is point B the same as the point on the bars at the back edge of the stirrup slot? This seems to make sense and puts point A at the "deepest" part of the swell. Which leads me to 3rd: is A the point where the bars are supposed to be leaving the shoulder to make room for the shoulder to move underneath the bar when the horse is moving? Maybe knowing this will make it easier for us to place A or R when we palpate for the shoulder blade, maybe we could walk the horse forward with A in place to see if it is disturbed? Should it be?

Now, knowing all of the above could I make the inverse of the cards to be able to check saddle fit to see if a previously built saddle will fit a horse I have measured? Once I have established where A should be on the saddle I could make an R card with slots for A, B and C. Now that I think of it couldn't the Equine A, B and C cards have slots on them where R goes and as we measure the horse we set the cards on the R card and that would leave the cards in place to walk the horse a bit and see what takes place and it would also make it easier to write down all the data while the cards are sitting up there on the horses back?

Hopefully, the only stupid questions is the one I didn't ask!!

Vaya Con Dios, Alan

[daviD A Morris]

Allan,

All good questions, and I’ve been working on an article to go on the DL website to explain some of these very questions, but now having someone actualy asking the questions might make it easier for me to write the info.

With regards to:-

1. point B and the back edge of the stirrup slot”, And

2. point A in relation to;

- the "deepest" part of the swell or

- where the bar should leave room for the shoulder movement.

The DL cards are striclty a tool to measure, categorise and compare the shapes of horse’s backs, which then in turn assists the saddle and tree maker in achieving the saddle fit which they desire. Deciding the location on the horse’s back where the saddle/tree SHOULD be designed to be placed, and thus fit, is still up to for debate between riders, saddle makers and tree makers. Some say the saddle should be behind the scapula while others say the rider should be further forward over T12, and a lot of very well respected practioners including yourself address those issues in detail in other topics on this forum. For example

http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=16300

http://leatherworker.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=2913

and many others.

Thus I don’t see it as Dave Morris’ or Dennis Lanes’ jobs to tell others where they should be placing their saddles on their horses. The DL cards measure the horses.

I’ll address your other points in more posts, just as quick as I can.

Thanks

dam

Edited June 30, 2009 by daviD A Morris

[daviD A Morris]

...since the cards key off of card A, which keys off of the horses shoulder blade, ...

The way we set it up, “B” is the 1st datum point. And should be (as far as practicaly posible in the real life situation) at the 13th/14th thoracic vertebrae T14. The reasons for choosing this location for the #1 anatomical datum point are:

A) It is a location that everyone can find to the degree of accuracy required. When the horse is standing level this is the lowest point of the horse’s spine. Pete Gorrell does a great demonstation in his classes on saddle fit, where he puts a ball on the horse’s back and lets it rolls to the lowest point.

B/ There are theories that the horse’s center of mass (COM) is directly below T14. There are those who theorise that the COM is below the T12.

C) T14 (sometimes T13) is the anticlinal vertebrae, the ones in front of it lean backwards the ones behind it slope forwards and T14 is staight up and down (anticlinal).

I could go on, but anyways we decided that because there is so much refernce to it that, T14, is the ideal #1 anatomical datum point for us to start from.

In practice using the DL cards, if you take your “B” measurement an inch forward or an inch behind this location it will not make a difference to the “B” cross-section measurement. However, it will alter the “S” measurement which is the distance from the “B” cross-section to the back of the scapula (cross-section "A"), and I will address this issue and the history benind the "S" measurement in another post.

Thankyou

dam

[daviD A Morris]

where is "behind the horse's shoulder blade"? Directly, behind it one finger width, two finger widths?

We have found that, immediately behind the scapula, or upto 1.25 inches behind the scapula, will get you the same measurement for the “A” cross-section. But if you change from immediately behind the scapula to, up on top of the sacapula, then you get a significant difference in measurement. On narrower horses, down around S4 – S7, measuring behind the scapula or up on top of it can make 2 or 3 size differences. Mostly on the D8, D9 horses, there might not be a difference in size whether you measure behind or over the top of the scapula. Of course what it does make a difference to is that length measured from the “A” position to the “B” position.

The reason that we chose just behind the scapula is that it is relavent to those people who believe that the saddle should be placed behind the scapula. And for those who want their saddles to fit further forward, either just over or right up over the scapula, then the point measured is still under the saddle. Whereas, if the measurement is taken on top of the scapula then it will not be relevent to those who fit their saddles further back.

Regards

dam

[Alan Bell]

David, I really appreciate you not only taking the time to create the system but also the time to address these questions.

Vaya Con Dios, Alan

[daviD A Morris]

David, I really appreciate you not only taking the time to create the system but also the time to address these questions.

Vaya Con Dios, Alan

I just hope that my descriptions are making sense. Please question if they don't.

dam

[daviD A Morris]

Maybe knowing this will make it easier for us to place A or R when we palpate for the shoulder blade, maybe we could walk the horse forward with A in place to see if it is disturbed? Should it be?

I think that it is a good idea to walk a horse around and observe and more importantly feel what changes in the horse’s back as it moves. I find it benefits my understanding. Once again I’ll refer to Pete Gorrell. Pete has people in his saddle fit class walk around beside the horse while it is being led, and they can feel with their hands on the horse and then also holding their hands down on a bare tree which is placed on the horse’s back as it walks. You feel the top-rear edge of the shoulder blade moving back under the front of the tree and also how much the tree is pushed around by the changing horse’s back.

It would be great if someone else who has been in Pete’s class could chime in here with their experience and thoughts. One thing that this exercise revealed to me when I first did it, is that as soon as the leg becomes unweighted the top rear of the scapula (the cartlage elongation of the scapula) blends in with the surrounding muscles, it is no longer as prominent, or causing a bulge as it moves back under the front of the tree or saddle. I’ve seen “saddle fitters” of english style saddles lift a horse’s leg forward to demonstrate how far back that top-rear of the scapula actualy moves, and then say that the saddle should not bear any weight in the region where the scapula moves. My issue with this is, there is then not enough room to left to actualy fit a western saddle tree. I’m sure that there have been lots of western saddles and pack saddles that have applied weight in the area where the scapula moves back to and they have not crippled the horse. What do other people think? However, having said that, I’ve been told that if the saddle is too narrow over the area where the top of the scapula moves back to, that it can make the horses “paddle” with their front legs as they move, because by swinging their legs wide, the top of the scapula moves in closer to the spine and thus relieves pressure against the inside of the channel area of a too narrow of a saddle. I’d be interested to hear what Blake has to say on this, he has a wealth of experience for us to draw on.

Regards

dam

Edited July 1, 2009 by daviD A Morris

[daviD A Morris]

Now, knowing all of the above could I make the inverse of the cards to be able to check saddle fit to see if a previously built saddle will fit a horse I have measured?

Oh yeah this can be done. Over the years in development of the Dennis Lane Cards, we have investigated multitudes of potential adaptions, configurations etc etc etc.

Using the cards in this way will tell you one thing:--

IF THE TREE DOES NOT FIT THE CARDS IT DEFINITELY WILL NOT FIT THE HORSE!

However:-

It is possible that the saddle might appear to fit the cards, but not fit the horse.

Reasons why we are not promoting the use of the cards in this way:

1/ Just because the inverse of the cards used in this way do not show up any problems with the saddle fit, does not mean that there will not be any problems with this tree on a horse whose back has these card-size measurements.

2/ The cards measure 4 profiles of the horse’s back. We believe this is sufficient information, achieved at an economical cost for the practical purposes of what I call effective "Macro-fitting” of saddles to horse’s backs. For “micro-fitting”, more detailed shape measureing can be achieved with other measuring devices or casting methods, but at considerably higher cost. Cost not only in price of equipment but also expertise in using the equipment.

3/ If we promote using the cards this way and someone checks a saddle for fitting their horse in this manner, prior to purchase and then that saddle hurts their horse, Dennis and Dave will be very unpopular! Despite the fact that there are many other factors which could be causing the problem, such things as rigging or padding, factors which also are being discussed at length in topics of their own on this forum.

4/ There is a fair degree of interpretation required to successfully use the cards in this way, which experience treemakers and saddlers can handle, however the average person with limmitted knowledge and experience will be far more prone to error.

5/ It is a big enough chalenge for me to write the instructions for the cards as they are now, adding instructions for your suggested features and explained at a level at which the general public could understand and implement them effectively is beyond me!

We are not saying “do not use the cards in this way” just saying that we are not promoting their use in this way.

Regards

dam

Edited July 1, 2009 by daviD A Morris

[mulefool]

Just wanted to say thank you Alan for asking the questions and Thank you to David for taking the time to write such well described answers. Really helpful. Chris

[jonwatsabaugh]

I to have used the cards in a similar fashion only for my own curiosity...with one difference though. Instead of using the rock cards for gathering data, I use them to test my theory. First I find all three appropriate card profiles, then make a top line template and mark the intersection points. Inverse profile cards are made and fitted together as David has done, building a model. The top profile template positions A,B,&C in the proper position to check to see if I had chosen the proper rock card in the first place. Theoretically this places B in relationship to A & C properly. I've only done this once and everything checked out as my theory intended, but this is not to say this is fool proof in any way. The placement of the cards and establishing the proper planes is somewhat subjective. I know that Dennis and David have given very clear instructions on how to use the system, but I have had a couple of customers give me totally incorrect rock profiles that resulted in a totally incorrect tree. The top line was much easier to determine than the placement of the rock card for them. I wish I had taken pics and archived the info of this process but I did not. I have though, included a drawing of the intended results. Hope this makes sense. Do I even macro-fit on a regular basis? The answer is no. I do these things to try and gain a better understanding of Dennis's system and it's inner-workings and potentials to adapt to my system of construction. I like systems!

Jon

[Alan Bell]

Jon, I was placing the cards on horses yesterday and noticed how big a difference the hind leg makes in the rock profiles. I have a couple of horses that like to "hip sit" on the near side, which flattened the rock on that side and one of those horses will also place the near hind out back in the classic Arabian pose which also flattened the back. Usually it went from one profile up to the next so from R:9 TO R:6 or from R:12 TO R:9. My question to you would be couldn't

any of the 3 R cards fit into your top line since they are dealing with a point roughly 3 1/2" from the top line? One idea is to make the cards with a slot to fit the R card in at the relative angle that places it 90 deg. to the horse's body at that point so then I can see what happens to the all the cards as the horse moves. I'll try that today and get back with pics.

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

[jonwatsabaugh]

Alan,

Your study and analogy is quite interesting. Understandably, everything changes when the horse moves off. My test was conducted at static position, square and level to test my theory of all relative templates. With my results, the different rock templates fit the model differently, and did show the rock template I had chosen as correct. As I had mentioned, this was performed one time and as time permits, I will do further study. Placement of the rock template is the most subjective of the needed measurements, therefore my interest in the relationship of the top line to A,B,C, & R.

Jon

[daviD A Morris]

Great minds think alike (or is it "dummies don't differ!!)

Notice that the "C" card in this case is "3 profile" card, thats from 3 years ago. I found that these were all great excercises that helped my understanding of the shapes of horses backs, how the change with movement and how they vary from one horse to the next.

Looking back now at my post that says "we are not promoting the use of the cards in this way", I am now thinking that we should promote this kind of investigation/analysis amoung saddlemakers and treemakers. And then discuss it all here, (with photos) others can learn from what we have done, and then don't start from scratch, going over ground that has already been covered.

dam

Edited July 3, 2009 by daviD A Morris

[daviD A Morris]

I certainly agree about the rock being affected by how the horse is standing, and bending the head and neck to one side or the other also affects it. And with the horse standing up squarely we have measured quite a few that are different on the other side. However, the final result we are trying to achieve is to categorie horses that need extra front-to-rear rock in the bars of the trees or flatter front-to-rear rock and ocassionally we are now finding horses even flatter than the R6. Thus, for comparison I think we need to focuss on measuring them all while they are standing up square. And if I have any doubts I ask the person who is doing the measuring to take photo of the horse with the cards on it.

regards

dam

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

We have also found that the rock card measurement is the most variable. The height of the horse’s head also makes a difference in what reading you get (which would be why the instructions tell you to take the measurement with the horse’s head in his normal working position.). And yet the topline, unless it is combined with the other cards to make a 3D form like Jon and David have done, does not in itself tell us much about the rock under the bars either, so the rock card is the best thing we have to give us that information right now.

When I (Denise) was working as a vet I noticed something. If there was one treatment for a condition that everyone used, it was because that was the definitive treatment. Anything else either didn’t work or worked poorly. If there were many treatments for a condition, it was because a) a number of treatments worked equally well or b ) nothing worked well at all and we were grasping at straws.

I can carry this analogy over to saddle fitting. There are some things that (almost) everyone agrees on – there should be no weight carried by the shoulder blade, nothing should dig into the horse anywhere, etc. But in the question of “If you had to have a small amount too much or a small amount too little rock, which would you choose?” there are solid saddle and tree makers answering both ways, though everyone agrees that too much in either direction is definitely bad. This tells me that both ways work. If they didn’t, everyone would agree on which way was best.

The variation in shape we see with the DL cards based on how the horse is positioned tells us that there is a lot of variation in rock as the horse moves normally. This explains why, so long as nothing digs in anywhere and the difference in rock between the saddle and horse isn’t too extreme, either a bit too much or a bit too little will work. Both probably fit the horse extremely well at some phase of the stride, and don’t harm the horse at the other end of the spectrum.

There is also the idea promoted by some people that you should ask your horse to do a belly lift by poking him a bit in the belly to make him “round his back” to mimic collection and take your reading that way. But what even researchers of biomechanics and gait don’t know is what the shape of the back is when ridden compared to standing square. There is only one study that I am aware of (Effects of girth, saddle and weight on movements of the horse, P. DeCocq, P.R. Van Weeren, W. Back, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Utrechet University, the Netherlands, Equine Veterinary Journal, 2004 36 (8) 758-763) that has attempted to figure that out. Their conclusion was that the back sags under dead weight, though the weight of just an English saddle has no effect. However, they did not look at what the shape may be with a rider up, asking the horse to round. Is the horse able to round his back to his standing shape or not? Or might he even be able to round more? Nobody really knows. There is still so much to learn.

[Alan Bell]

I was discussing this with a friend and we were looking at it from the dressage perspective. Even though we are mostly Western riders and saddle makers we are still trying to get our horses to lighten up the forehand and achieve a better balance in the work they do. Most have heard of the roughly 65/45 relationship for weight distribution of the horse with 65% of the horses weight being supported by the front legs. This is mainly due to the way the head and neck are carried out in front of the forelegs cantilevered (if you will). We were considering "Ramener" or "rassembler" the state where the horse carries itself with a more balanced weight distribution whether cause by the horse or by the rider. Some may be familiar with the experiment where a horse is standing on 2 scales and they measure what happens when the horse is brought on the vertical and flexed at the pole. Basically as the horses head is raised until the neck is at 45deg and the nose is brought near vertical the horse shifts weight off of the forehand on to the rear, this also includes the riders weight (the test was done in a dressage saddle by the Classical Master Baucher) I was also wondering if when the horse is in ramener and collected is he not placing his back in a position that may be maintained throughout the gaits? Watch a stud around a bunch of mares. As he nimbly prances and dances around the mares his back remains level. In martial arts they say to stretch your spine by feeling as if there is a string out of the crown of your head lifting you up. This sinks your weight and stretches your spine while flattening out your lower back and when done properly and completely goes all the way to your coccyx, which is what the horse flexing its neck and poll does to achieve ramener. I am again reminded of the real importance of strengthening the horses back which is something that is all but lost in the Western world but if you go around and look at the top horses compared to the backyard horses the strength in the back is very evident even though it is achieved as a side effect to the top horses training! Not quite sure where I'm going with this but maybe it will make that "average" back position easier to fit if we see that our clients horses are fit and if not and the horses back is weak maybe we can offer some simple back strengthening exercises to our customers to help them have a better fitting saddle?

Vaya con Dios, Alan Bell

[Saddlebag]

After reading all of the above, I can't help but wonder what happens when the horse's back changes, from aging or become more or less fit. During the 23 years I owned a particular horse he used three different trees, all rawhide wrapped.

[daviD A Morris]

After reading all of the above, I can't help but wonder what happens when the horse's back changes, from aging or become more or less fit. During the 23 years I owned a particular horse he used three different trees, all rawhide wrapped.

Saddlebag,

You are not alone in that thought. I've have heard lots of anecdotal evidence about how and how much horse's backs change shape throughout the season and over the years, and I think most of what people say is pretty true, but now I can actualy measure and keep a record of the shapes to see how much they realy change. And when they change past a certain point we'll know its time to change saddle or pads or whatever.

Regards

dam