Picking The Right Saddle Tree For Fat Or Inshape Horse?

[GrampaJoel]

When measuring for a saddle tree, do you measure for when the horse is fat after winter or in shape after summer?

My mare gains a lot of weight in the winter. But she looses it during the riding season. So when do I measure for a saddle tree that will fit her best?

Thanks

Grampa Joel

[David Genadek]

When measuring for a saddle tree, do you measure for when the horse is fat after winter or in shape after summer?

My mare gains a lot of weight in the winter. But she looses it during the riding season. So when do I measure for a saddle tree that will fit her best?

Thanks

Grampa Joel

The horse owners management skills should always be considered as should their riding ability. A saddle tree will be somewhat self adjusting for weight gain and and loss with in normal parameters if the maker has actually fit the skeletal structure of a non pathological back and the rider is proficient in the five essentials of horsemanship. If not it is a crap shoot of shifting pathologies.

This works because of how the fat collects in the body. The whither will get thicker but fat will also collect along both sides of the spine, that is why on a really fat horse you can pour water on their back and it won't run off. If you have fit the ribcage the fat wi will lift the front of the saddle which is triangular shaped and as such it gets wider as it is lifted. This only works with in normal limits and it is the responsibility of every horse owner to know what those limits are for each individual and do all that is necessary to maintain their emotional and physical health.

David Genadek

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

We recommend that you get your saddle for a horse in his "normal working shape". A good saddle will have enough allowance built in to accomodate a few extra pounds. You may want to use a thinner blanket till they slim down in the spring, but if you are using them much that doesn't take long and they will then be in their "normal working shape" for most of the time they are ridden. (For some horses, their "normal working shape" is fat since they are never used enough to get in good shape!)

[GrampaJoel]

Rod and Denise Nikkel

Thank you for the reply.

It was stated very clearly and I now know what I need to do.

Thanks again!

Grampa Joel

[Billy H]

Grandpa Joel, You asked a great question!

If you dont mind (not trying to take your post over) ............. This is to Tree Makers, Saddle Makers, Where do you all feel the back of the bar should lay on the horses back once it settles in?

Billy

[Denise]

Billy, Could you rephrase your question please? I am not quite clear on what you are asking.

[Billy H]

Hi Denise, When I wrote my question it seemed so clear! LOL

The PICTURE that you show with you and Rod would be a great example. Once the Saddle Tree has found its place to ride on the horses back (settled in its spot)........... Where do you and other Makers think

the back end of the BAR lay. I hope that makes sense.

I ask because not all horses have the same length back. ( what is to short or to long past the back of the Cantle)

If you have a Quarter Horse (Average in build) and a Haflinger Horse (Average in build).........In my minds eye they would not take the same length BAR, but should the back end of the BARS end at the

same position on the back.

My apologies to all, In college I got a C in english. Thanks Billy

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Billy,

That is also a good question, and boy does it open a can of worms. First, we, as most custom or hand made tree makers, make a cut in the bar for the cantle (the same way as for the fork) and have a consistent length of bar behind that cut. This way of building trees helps to center the rider's weight over the whole bar. This also means that we don't make a standard bar length. Our bars vary in length between the fork and the cantle based on the room for the rider. The problem of bar length only arises when you have a short backed horse and a larger rider.

Our quick answer to your question is that the bar should end a bit ahead of the point of the hip at least. We can't give a specific distance because that will vary with the total length of the horses back, but you don't want to interfere with the hip. Because of its position high up on the back and its shape (curving toward the back bar tip), the bar itself won't be what interferes with the hip. The skirt may do that depending on its shape and how it is made, but since the bar length dictates the minimum skirt length, it needs to be considered.

What is absolutely crucial is not the total bar length, but the bar shape, especially the shape of the back bar tip. We have no problem with weight extending onto the lumbar or loin area of the horse. That really is not a problem (see below). What damages horses is excessive pressure from either back bar tips that dig in because they don't have enough relief built into them or from the tree bridging badly, creating four pressure points – two front and two back. You can have problems at the back of the bar with even really short bars if the shape is wrong. When we look at a bare tree on a horse, we want those back bar tips to be lifting off the horse. If they are down on the horse without weight in the saddle, they will be digging in when you add a rider. Some horses have a flat back front to back, and others have a rise into the croup. Either way, so long as the shape of the bar matches the horse, you shouldn't end up with excessive pressure.

An objective measurement we have found helpful in comparing the length of horses' backs (compared to a subjective assessment) is from the back of the shoulder blade to the point of the hip. The shortest we have measured was 23" on a really small Arab. The longest was 31" on a very large thoroughbred.

Now for the worms… If you Google "saddle fit" you will find THE RULES: seven, nine, eleven, fourteen, name your favorite number, of rules that supposedly determine if a saddle fits or not. One of most commonly stated rules is that nothing should extend past T18, the last thoracic vertebrae, or the last rib - depending on how they put it. The reason given for this is that "the loin should never carry any weight" and usually goes along with dire warnings of what will happen to your poor horses if any gear goes past the thorax. The original idea seems to have come from people evaluating English saddles, where the back of the saddle looks to end an inch or so behind the rider. If the back of an English saddle ended where the bars on a Western saddle end, the rider would basically be sitting on the loin, which is far behind the horse's center of gravity. (Note: in history, people have ridden everywhere on the horse's back from over the hips all the way up to the withers, as the art from over the last 2700 years depicted on this site shows. http://nicholnl.wcp....eatHistory.html ) "THE RULE" has then been transferred over to Western saddles, even though the rider is usually well over 6" ahead of the back of the bar, let alone the back of the skirts.

All this is supposedly based on "anatomy and biomechanics" and what "they" - the experts - say. Lots of people state it as fact. Lots of people state it very emphatically as fact. Lots of people with Dr. in front of their name state it as fact. But all are either stating their opinion or quoting something they have heard/read from another "they". Tracing this statement as far back in the academic literature as far as I can find it, I have been unable to find any objective studies or data of any kind that supports this rule (and personal communication from a veterinarian who is a researcher on equine backs concurs.) It just seems to have been stated as fact by an early author with no objective basis for the statement, and repeatedly quoted since. The idea seems to be that since most ribs are connected together as well as to the spine, the thorax is strong enough to support the rider but since the lumbar area has no rib support, it can't. What isn't looked at is muscle volume (much larger over the lumbar area) and the change in vertebral shape – large sideways extensions (transverse processes) on the lumbar vertebrae that support that muscle. The entire bar sits on the long muscles that support the back. The front of the bar also sits on major propulsive muscles for the front legs. The back of the bar, if it extends onto the loin, will sit on a major propulsive muscle for the back legs, though it is a small percentage of total surface area and therefore total weight that is carried that far back. In all cases, the muscles continue to work under the moderate pressure exerted by the rider's weight distributed over a large enough surface area. It is only when there is excessive pressure (and the numbers thrown around for that are also not based on any studies on horses either) that the horse's movement will be affected or damage will occur.

Practical experience tells us this is the case. Unless they have been made with super short bars and are put on a long horse, the bars on every western saddle extend onto the loin of the horse. The increased surface area that results from the longer bars (compared to English saddle panels) distributes the rider's weight better over the horse's back which is what allows for the long hours in the saddle put in by working cowboys. If just having weight on their loins really harmed horses, then the people who have depended and still depend on their horses for a living wouldn't be riding these saddles.

[Tosch]

As everyone on here knows, I am everything but an expert. That said, I will share my observations.

I once had a saddle buit on a Weatherly tree with a 16" finished seat size and a overall bar lenght of 22 1/2" . This is a bar lenght I seem to like. Maybe I have mostly ridden horses that were on the shorter side. I had this saddle on a ca. 15.1 + hand QH and on a much smaller Haflinger. Before putting the saddle on the horses, I'd doubted it would fit both - but it did (as far as I could tell).

I have a saddle with 23 1/2" bar lenght also built on a Weatherly tree with a 16" finished seat length. On a 15.1 hand OH/Akal Tekkiner (sp?) it fit fine. On a horse that was probably 15.1 hands,too, but way shorter, the tree was way too long as one could tell by the rub marks on the horse's back. So I tried what have I have heard named "creative padding". I used what we around here call a sandwich pad - with removable inlays. I cut them shorter. So the felt inlays stopped ca. 1 " before the back of the bars , and I had to do the same at front. No, it was not a perfect fit - but a workable fit, and the horse never showed signs of discomfort. Ok, I just get to ride -sometimes - in my spare time. But I saw this type of creative padding in one of the online pics about The Californios or a Ranch Rodeo (not sure). So if your tree is too long for a particular horse you could do some creative padding. That said, given the choice, I personally would go with a 22 1/2" bar lenght.

Hope this helps some. Tosch

Edited September 7, 2010 by Tosch

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Tosch, what you basically did with your padding was add more relief to the end of the bar, and it worked. If the bar was shaped like that to start, it wouldn't have been a problem. So it isn't the length, but the shape that caused the problem.

Edited September 7, 2010 by Rod and Denise Nikkel

[Tosch]

Denise and Rod, I hope I am not nit-picking... I am convinced from a technical point of view you are right. If that tree had been built with more relief (necessary for THAT horse) I would assume it to have too much relief = way too much rock for the "average" lenght and shaped back. So I think I would rather go the way I did then go with a tree with as much relief as necessary for this one horse and running the risk of having too much rock for the "average" lenghted (is this a word?) and shaped back. Unless of course it would be a saddle for THAT horse. Am I on the right tack or do I just add to the confusion (if so I am sorry ) ? Tosch

Edited September 7, 2010 by Tosch

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Tosch,

It depends why it was rubbing. If it was due to bridging, then yes, you would need to add more rock in the middle of the bar so the tree wouldn't work as well on a flatter backed horse (though we would rather have a bit too much rock than too little if we had to - but that is another conversation). And for short term solutions or idiosyncratic horses, padding is often a good solution. But often it is only that last couple of inches that are too straight and dig into the loin of the horse if it rises towards the croup. (Other horse's backs are flat there.) The rest of the bar fits the rock of the back fine. So building a tree with the bar bar tip relieved a bit extra to account for this will not necessarily negate the fit for a horse with a flatter back since it is only the last little bit that is affected. (Then of course, is the question of "Was it the back bar tip that was rubbing, or was it the skirts, and if so why (multiple reasons there) or even the pad?" Sigh - the variables involved in saddle fitting...)

The other way to make trees is to have the same bar length and move the cantle forward and back on the bars to get the correct seat length for the rider. So for a larger rider, the cantle has less bar behind it and the rider is sitting more toward the back of the bar, putting more pressure on the back bar tips and possibly causing them to dig in just from sheer weight. We feel it is better to have the surface area behind the rider and their weight more central on the bar, where possible, to avoid this. It is always a balancing act...

[David Genadek]

Billy,

That is also a good question, and boy does it open a can of worms. First, we, as most custom or hand made tree makers, make a cut in the bar for the cantle (the same way as for the fork) and have a consistent length of bar behind that cut. This way of building trees helps to center the rider's weight over the whole bar. This also means that we don't make a standard bar length. Our bars vary in length between the fork and the cantle based on the room for the rider. The problem of bar length only arises when you have a short backed horse and a larger rider.

Our quick answer to your question is that the bar should end a bit ahead of the point of the hip at least. We can't give a specific distance because that will vary with the total length of the horses back, but you don't want to interfere with the hip. Because of its position high up on the back and its shape (curving toward the back bar tip), the bar itself won't be what interferes with the hip. The skirt may do that depending on its shape and how it is made, but since the bar length dictates the minimum skirt length, it needs to be considered.

What is absolutely crucial is not the total bar length, but the bar shape, especially the shape of the back bar tip. We have no problem with weight extending onto the lumbar or loin area of the horse. That really is not a problem (see below). What damages horses is excessive pressure from either back bar tips that dig in because they don't have enough relief built into them or from the tree bridging badly, creating four pressure points – two front and two back. You can have problems at the back of the bar with even really short bars if the shape is wrong. When we look at a bare tree on a horse, we want those back bar tips to be lifting off the horse. If they are down on the horse without weight in the saddle, they will be digging in when you add a rider. Some horses have a flat back front to back, and others have a rise into the loin. Either way, so long as the shape of the bar matches the horse, you shouldn't end up with excessive pressure.

An objective measurement we have found helpful in comparing the length of horses' backs (compared to a subjective assessment) is from the back of the shoulder blade to the point of the hip. The shortest we have measured was 23" on a really small Arab. The longest was 31" on a very large thoroughbred.

Now for the worms… If you Google "saddle fit" you will find THE RULES: seven, nine, eleven, fourteen, name your favorite number, of rules that supposedly determine if a saddle fits or not. One of most commonly stated rules is that nothing should extend past T18, the last thoracic vertebrae, or the last rib - depending on how they put it. The reason given for this is that "the loin should never carry any weight" and usually goes along with dire warnings of what will happen to your poor horses if any gear goes past the thorax. The original idea seems to have come from people evaluating English saddles, where the back of the saddle looks to end an inch or so behind the rider. If the back of an English saddle ended where the bars on a Western saddle end, the rider would basically be sitting on the loin, which is far behind the horse's center of gravity. (Note: in history, people have ridden everywhere on the horse's back from over the hips all the way up to the withers, as the art from over the last 2700 years depicted on this site shows. http://nicholnl.wcp....eatHistory.html ) "THE RULE" has then been transferred over to Western saddles, even though the rider is usually well over 6" ahead of the back of the bar, let alone the back of the skirts.

All this is supposedly based on "anatomy and biomechanics" and what "they" - the experts - say. Lots of people state it as fact. Lots of people state it very emphatically as fact. Lots of people with Dr. in front of their name state it as fact. But all are either stating their opinion or quoting something they have heard/read from another "they". Tracing this statement as far back in the academic literature as far as I can find it, I have been unable to find any objective studies or data of any kind that supports this rule (and personal communication from a veterinarian who is a researcher on equine backs concurs.) It just seems to have been stated as fact by an early author with no objective basis for the statement, and repeatedly quoted since. The idea seems to be that since most ribs are connected together as well as to the spine, the thorax is strong enough to support the rider but since the lumbar area has no rib support, it can't. What isn't looked at is muscle volume (much larger over the lumbar area) and the change in vertebral shape – large sideways extensions (transverse processes) on the lumbar vertebrae that support that muscle. The entire bar sits on the long muscles that support the back. The front of the bar also sits on major propulsive muscles for the front legs. The back of the bar, if it extends onto the loin, will sit on a major propulsive muscle for the back legs, though it is a small percentage of total surface area and therefore total weight that is carried that far back. In all cases, the muscles continue to work under the moderate pressure exerted by the rider's weight distributed over a large enough surface area. It is only when there is excessive pressure (and the numbers thrown around for that are also not based on any studies on horses either) that the horse's movement will be affected or damage will occur.

Practical experience tells us this is the case. Unless they have been made with super short bars and are put on a long horse, the bars on every western saddle extend onto the loin of the horse. The increased surface area that results from the longer bars (compared to English saddle panels) distributes the rider's weight better over the horse's back which is what allows for the long hours in the saddle put in by working cowboys. If just having weight on their loins really harmed horses, then the people who have depended and still depend on their horses for a living wouldn't be riding these saddles.

The Longissmus dorsimuscle has no weight-bearing capability. It is however the major antagonist to getting the horse to collect and as such it is the role of both the tree and saddlemaker to do all that they possibly can to prevent this muscle from becoming tight. Commonly accepted practices of horsemanship such as collection, engagingthe hind quarter getting the horse on the bit all become extremely difficult if not impossible if the with longissamus dorsi muscle is tight. The actual function of the the longissamus muscle is to support the spine and arch the back.

The actual argument for placing the saddle goes as follows :

The horses spine is made up of two separate limbs thatconnect at the anticlinal vertebrae. (The limb theory comes from the world ofpaleontology and biomechanics not the veterinary community so it isunderstandable that people in the veterinary community are not aware of it.). Here is a picture showing a horse divided basedon it's spinal limbs. The argument isthat the back half of the horse or the rear spinal limbs function is the engineof movement and needs to left unencumbered to allow for the generation of thehorses arc of motion. Here is picture ofa sliding stop and you can clearly see how the lumbar region flex's away fromthe saddle. Would you place your chair on a trap door that you know would have to open?

Becauseof its' function there is no weight bearing capability in the lumbar span. In fact it has to flex upward in order to get the stifle torelease because of how the reciprocating system of the hind limb ties into thelower back. Inhibit the upward flexationof the lumbar span and you cause stifle and then hock problems. Here is a linkto a diagram that originally appeared in Equus magazine. You will find the photo on the last post onthis page My link

The anatomy dictates that the only area a horse has a the ability to support arider is on the back half of the frontspinal limb. Here you have support from both passive and active systems.

To understandthe functioning of the horses back you have to understand that the horses bodyhas both active and passive systems. The active systems have muscles that cancontract the passive systems are made of ligaments. The passive systems form reciprocatingsystems. A desk lamp is areciprocating system so this becomes a crude model of the reciprocating systems of the horses body.

Most horse owners are aware of the importance of havingproperly balanced feet as this puts the reciprocating systems of the legs intobalance. What horse owners are less aware of, is that the reciprocatingsystems of the legs can also be thrown out of balance form the top down. Inshort if the Longissamus dorsi muscle is tight you will throw off the balanceof the reciprocating systems of thelegs. The dorsal ligament is a major component of the horses back that allows the body to carry wieght. Here is the lamp model with the spinalprocesses and dorsal ligament added.

The differing angles of the spinal processes create a reciprocation when the horse engages his hind quarter and puts tension on the dorsal ligament. The sacrum is one big fused bone where the spinal processes lean backward and it acts like a lever to pull on the dorsal ligament . In the lumbar span the spinalprocesses lean forward so when hind endis engaged the reciprocation of the lumbar is upward which in changes anglesand allows the stifle to release. The spinal processes of lumbar region are inclined backward so the reciprocation is backwards and actually lifts the frontend of the horse .

to some slow motion bucking horses. You can see the systems working . Notice how the lumbar span on these horses have an upward curve to them . Notice how the horse uses its hind end to lift the front end. First they will engage their hindquarters then they will lift the base of the neck. The last thing to notice is where the cowboys are sitting. keep in mindthey make their living by staying on the rankest of horses and to get themaximum effect they sit at the base of the wither because it is there and only there that the horse is best able to move.

You fit english and western saddles exactly the same. The biomechanics are exactly the same inenglish riding as they in western riding . The working of a pickup truck doesn't change depending on what thedriver is wearing. Nor does it changedepending on if you are going to the grocery store or hauling wood. How the horse works is how the horse works and you either work with that or against it. English saddles on average have1" shorter bar length than western saddles.

For anyone interested in learning systems anatomy I recommend this class. The content of this class has been reviewed by the veterinary community and found to be correct so the class can be used by vets for their continuing education. The added benefit is the teacher rode extensibility with Tom Dorrance and Ray Hunt so she can put the system anatomy into the everyday perspective of a cowhand.

I would also like to invite everyone to join me at the University of Wisconsin River Falls October 1st at 6pm to hear my complete lecture on the subject. Although I am always cheap I am seldom free and in this case I'm being sponsored by local vets and the university so the lecture is free. Here is a link to an interview I did with Rick Lamb where we talk about some of this, some of you might find it interesting. It re aired on 8/14/2010.

David Genadek

Edited September 12, 2010 by David Genadek

[AdamTill]

Here's another good image David (linked from http://www.westernhorsereview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/caldwell4721.jpg). It was taken at a clinic done by Richard Caldwell in Nanton this year (that's me in the right corner...GREAT clinic).

I'd also really recommend Dr Bennett's class. I took it a few years back up here in Alberta (Ft Mcleod), and it was great to see in person muscles and structures that I only new from name before (the poas complex was especially fascinating...got some great photos).

Cheers,

Adam

[GrampaJoel]

What a great photo shot!

Just look at all the dynamics going on in that one photo!

Muscle strain , saddle rise,. rider position

Again a great shot!

Do you remember if the shot was of a bounce during the slide stop, or is the horse doing a fast back up?

[AdamTill]

What a great photo shot!

Just look at all the dynamics going on in that one photo!

Muscle strain , saddle rise,. rider position

Again a great shot!

Do you remember if the shot was of a bounce during the slide stop, or is the horse doing a fast back up?

Don't remember the particular shot, I'm afraid (boiled brain by the end of the day), but it wouldn't have been a slide stop because there aren't furrows behind the horse.

I'd imagine Richard was backing in preparation to roll him over his hocks to the right.

The degree of gathering up that Richard is able to achieve is just unreal...his lateral work puts any dressage horse I've seen to shame. More like a combination of a spanish bullfighting horse and a working cowhorse.

Cheers,

Adam

[Denise]

David, I like to learn as much as I can about the biomechanics of equine backs. Could you please give some references to papers discussing the spinal limb theory and how it functions? Thank you.

[Billy H]

Rod and Denise, Thank you for helping me to better understand what is most important!

I know you say that it all can be a big can of worms, and I would agree...... but sometimes I think people can make it more difficult than needs to be.

When you spoke of enough relief to the back end of the Bar, that dusty old light came on! Thanks Billy

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Billy, you are very welcome. We work hard to understand these things as much as we can, and then we enjoy helping others understand them too if they are interested. Glad we could help.

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

David,

You have not yet responded to my request to provide backing for the ideas you presented in your post. Although you state that this theory “comes from the world of paleontology and biomechanics”, I believe the lack of support is because it was you who came up with it in consultation with your friend and mentor, Dr. Deb Bennett. You posted your ideas as you developed them on her forum in this thread, starting with your March 8, 2009 post: http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/forum1/188-17.html (For those who can’t see the pictures, the ones David posted on April 22 are the lamp-horsie and lamp-horsie plus spine diagrams he posted here.) Dr. Bennett’s PhD is in paleontology, which is the connection to that part of your claim for veracity. However, I am at a loss to explain your claim for backing from the area of biomechanics. As far as I have been able to ascertain, Dr. Bennett has no academic credentials nor peer reviewed publications in the areas of anatomy, biomechanics, botany, history or any other area (with the exception of paleontology) though she has written extensively for the layman on all these topics. Peer reviewed academic literature (evaluated by people recognized as being knowledgeable in the field the paper is written about) is one way of assessing the validity and accuracy of the ideas being put forward. But it is easy to be described as an “expert” when you write and speak authoritatively, especially if you have Dr. in front of your name, even if your ideas are totally off the wall. The internet is full of such people. It is true that not all good and correct ideas come from the academic world. So how is a lay person supposed to discern if what is said is true or fabrication?

One of my methods is to check if the things I can verify fit with what is written in reliable sources. If this is the case, I am more willing to accept the ideas presented which I don’t know much about or the new theories proposed. As I have pointed out previously on this forum, Dr. Bennett’s writings fail this test miserably. Despite apparently teaching full body equine dissection courses and claiming “very few people have dissected as many horses and other animals as I have” (her November 30 post here: http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/forum1/511.html) she has repeatedly made very serious and very basic errors in fundamental anatomy, and it is on some of these errors that she bases her theories on saddles and how they work.

Fundamental Error #1: In her August 19th post in this thread (screenshot below): http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/view_topic.php?id=445&forum she states “This is how the top of the mesenteries (added note – along which the small intestine of the horse attach) are "gathered" in the horse: the "curtain rod" from which they are hung is compressed into a very small patch…” “the whole weight of the fire hose is concentrated in one patch at the top, the compressed patch where the mesenteries are attached to the underside of the horse's vertebral chain. This point in the horse is beneath the anticlinal vertebra, which in most horses is Thoracic no. 16 or 17.” “Almost the whole weight of the intestinal tube is supported by the mesenteric drape -- and thus by the anticlinal part of the back -- NOT by the wall of the abdomen or its muscles.” Based on these statements, she declares “So you want your saddle designed so that it puts your weight as far ahead of the anticlinal part of the back as is practicable. Ideally your weight should be borne just at the base of the horse's withers -- as far ahead of the anticlinal vertebra as possible.” And she concludes with “the anticlinal zone of a horse's back must already carry the weight of his intestines; let it not also have to carry us.”

FACT – the true position of the mesenteric attachment is below L1 and L2 and possibly the back of T18 (Reference below - #1)

FACT – the diaphragm of the horse slopes backward from the bottom up and ends at the last thoracic vertebrae (T18), where the tendons that attach it to the vertebrae join with the ventral longitudinal ligament of the spine and via this method actually extend back as far as L4or even L5. (Reference #2)

Conclusion – anything attaching directly below T16 would be in the horse’s thorax. Therefore, Dr. Bennett is placing the horse’s small intestine in its CHEST CAVITY.

FACT – the mesentery is long enough for the intestine to reach the floor of the abdomen (Reference #3). And, as anybody who has ever butchered or dissected anything knows, you have to be very careful when entering the abdomen not to cut the contents because there is no room in there for anything to “hang”. Everything is very compressed and supported by the abdominal muscles. While the small intestine is only attached at one point, it IS supported by the abdominal muscles.

Conclusion – the anticlinal zone of spine is NOT the major support for the small intestine in the horse.

Therefore, I cannot accept Dr. Bennett’s statements regarding position of the rider (and saddle) on the horse.

Fundamental Error #2 – In her August 11, 2010 post in this thread (screenshot below): http://esiforum.mywowbb.com/forum1/540-7.html Dr. Bennett states “The convex contour of the rear part of the ribcage changes as it goes to the front, becoming concave at about the 9th rib.” Lest we think she is just saying it is becoming flatter – less convex – she repeats the word “concavity” five more times in the same post. And in case we think she was meaning that it goes concave horizontally, wider at the back and the front, she corrects this idea with her statement later in the post “For that is what the horse's thorax is: a funnel-shaped object, with the small end going toward the front.” And it is on this basis that she goes on to discuss girth placement.

FACT – all ribs are convex to various degrees. (Reference #4), therefore the ribcage is always convex. If the ribs went inward from their narrow attachment point on the vertebrae and back out to their narrow attachment on the sternum (which ribs 1-8 do, #9 attaching to them closely) there would be no room in the chest for internal organs such as the lungs and heart which actually inhabit that space. (If anyone wants photographic evidence of rib shape, PM me and I can send you pictures of a dissection Rod and I did, plus of a skeleton we have mounted. I thought it best not to post the pictures here as some people aren’t as thrilled with real anatomy as I am.)

Conclusion – the rib cage is NOT concave.

Therefore, I cannot accept Dr. Bennett’s conclusions regarding position of the girth based on her “anatomy”.

Biomechanics has to be based on an accurate knowledge of anatomy, and you have repeatedly said in varying places (I am thinking of Dr. Bennett’s Inner Horseman 2002 CD ROM specifically) that you have learned your anatomy and biomechanics primarily from Dr. Bennett. (In this CD she also states that she has learned a lot of what she understands about saddles from you.) I am assuming this is the basis for the following:

Fundamental Error #3 – In your post your say “you can clearly see how the lumbar region flexes away from the saddle” “Because of it’s function, there is no weight bearing capacity in the lumbar span. In fact, it has to flex upward…” “Inhibit the upward flexion of the lumbar span and you cause stifle and hock problems.”

FACT – the lumbar area of the horse has the least ability to flex of all the sections of the spine. This has been determined both in cadavers and, as far as possible with today’s methodology, which is pretty ingenious, in live animals. (Reference #5) What you are seeing most in these fantastic pictures you and Adam Till posted is the major flexion available from the lumbosacral joint which allows the pelvis to tilt. Looking at the body position of the horse, we assume the entire spine (excluding the neck) is at maximum flexion. Since we can’t see what is going on under the saddle (though in Adam’s picture what is visible of the lumbar area appears to be fairly flat) and since we know (see above references) that between T2 and the lumbosacral junction, the area of the back that has the most ability to flex is between T9 and T18, we can assume that most of that flexion is occurring in that area – which you suggest is the only place for the saddle to contact the horse. Riders in both these pictures have saddles that extend onto the lumbar area, and in neither picture does the “arc of motion” appear to be “encumbered”.

Conclusion – Normal pressure from a saddle does not inhibit (though it may affect) spinal flexion.

Therefore, I cannot accept this as a basis for making bars that do not extend onto the loin.

Fundamental Error #4 – You state “The Longissimus Dorsi muscle has no weight bearing capability. It is, however, the major antagonist to getting the horse to collect and as such it is the role of both the tree and saddle maker to do all that they possibly can to prevent this muscle from becoming tight.” The insinuation is that by placing weight on the longissimus dorsi on the lumbar area, you will make it tight and affect the horse’s motion.

FACT – the longissimus dorsi muscle extends from the sacrum forward to the 4th cervical vertebra. It is a complex muscle made up of both larger segments and smaller ones that attach in various places to all the vertebrae along which it runs, both over the thorax as well as the lumbar region. The bar will sit on this muscle, regardless of its length, and if any level of pressure causes it to “become tight”, then I would think that concentrating the rider’s weight over a length of 12 to 14 inches (which is what you advocate on the Inner Horseman 2002 CD) would cause more problems in the function of this muscle than distributing the weight over a larger area which decreases the pressure on it.

Conclusion – there is no more effect on the function of the longissimus dorsi muscle from pressure on it over the lumbar area as opposed to the thoracic area.

Therefore, I reject this as a reason for avoiding non-excessive pressure on the lumbar area of the horse.

I could go on, but I see no need. It is because of these plus numerous other errors in both Dr. Bennett’s and your writing that I cannot entertain the idea of the “spinal limbs” being a “reciprocating system” seriously. At present this is a simply a theory you have recently conceived, and there is no data supporting it. Yes, the supraspinous ligament has a huge function in the horse. (It is always best to use the proper anatomic term so people can easily check out the validity of your statements. There is a totally different spinal ligament called the dorsal longitudinal ligament - Reference #6 - and your terminology could confuse people checking anatomy textbooks for the accuracy of your information.) However, the whole back is much more complex and complicated than you are presenting and functions as a continuous unit, not as two distinct parts. If the theory is not correct, then neither will be conclusions regarding saddles which are based on it.

In my original post regarding the origin of “THE RULES”, I stated

All this is supposedly based on “anatomy and biomechanics” and what “they” - the experts – say… But all are either stating their opinion or quoting something they have heard/read from another “they”. It just seems to have been stated as fact by an early author with no objective basis for the statement, and repeatedly quoted since.

I believe you have just given us a clear demonstration of how easily this can occur.

References:

#1 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 482

Nickel, Schummer and Seiferle, The Viscera of the Domestic Animals, 2nd edition, page 186

#2 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 406

#3 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 482- 483

Nickel, Schummer and Seiferle, The Viscera of the Domestic Animals, 2nd edition, page 186

#4 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, pages 266-268

#5 Clayton, Hillary M. Conditioning Sport Horses, pg. 123

Faber, Schamhardt, Weeren, Johnston, Roepstorff and Barneveld, Basic Three-Dimensional Kinematics of the Vertebral Column of Horses Walking on a Treadmill American Journal of Veterinary Research, Volume 61, #4, April 2000

Faber, Johnston, Schamhardt, van Weeren, Raepstorff and Barneveld, Basic Three-Dimensional Kinematics of the Vertebral Column of Horses Trotting on a Treadmill, American Journal of Veterinary Research Volume 62, #4, May 2001

Clayton, Haussler and Faber x 2

#6 Sisson and Grossman, the Anatomy of the Domestic Animals, 5th edition, volume 1, page 34

Edited September 18, 2010 by Rod and Denise Nikkel

[Tosch]

Denise and Rod,

I do thank you for putting things straight! And I admire you for keeping your calm while not being amused! I am sure, when you start your saddle tree seminars these biology facts will be a very appreciated topic.

When one is in the right mood though, "Dr. Deb's" forum is an entertaining read – for a max period of 3 minutes at a time. As they say… just enough knowledge to be dangerous and, of course, it is presented in a "I know it all mentality".

David, I have seen some time ago that you are back to this forum. Welcome. I am afraid, however, that due to the way you present your opinions/convictions or due to incorrect "facts" as Denise and Rod have pointed out the discussions will be as confusing as the ones we had some years ago. I think this is very unfortunate.

Tosch

Edited September 18, 2010 by Tosch

[Steve]

Thank You Denise and Rod

Steve

Edited September 18, 2010 by Steve

[Traveller]

Thank you, Denise and Rod, for taking the time to respond to David's points in such academic depth. Clarity and substantiated claims are grand things indeed.

[GrampaJoel]

Rod and Denise Nikkel

You folks are bit of fresh air , in a often time stale world.

[RWB]

Please excuse me for being to simplistic, but I really don't understand the entire controversy of "saddle fit". Don't get me wrong I want to fit horses well just as much as the next guy, but when you get right down to brass tacks the fact is that we are STRAPPING and inanimate object to a moving animal and then sitting on top of him and asking him to do all sorts of maneuvers. With all of that going on, I think that is is inevitable that we are at some point going to sore horses. Again I understand that the comfort of the horse as well as the position of the rider is what we are trying to acheive, however there are always going to be horses that will never be comfortable under saddle, and there will always be people who can't ride for beans. We have become to obsesed with making "saddle fit" a science and not understanding that more of what is at stake is sheer practicality.

People have become to concerned with how their saddle "fits" horses. They think about it to much and fail to understand that their pleasure horse is far more resilient to ill fitting saddles than they are. I can't tell you how many times I've had someone tell me "This saddle fits everything" and it turns out to be the cheapest factory saddle money can buy. But it fits in their brain and that's all that counts.

Again don't take this the wrong way, I want to fit horses as good as we can, but there comes a point were to much thinking isn't helpful. In fact it more of a hindrance. I wish more people would just cinch their horse up and ride him instead of worrying about whether or not they will sore him. I wish that I could tell some of my customers that they never ride enough to sore a horse. Horses have put up with all kinds of ill fitting harness and saddle since the beginning of time.

Ross Brunk

Edited September 19, 2010 by RWB