Let's talk about Saddle Riggings

[bruce johnson]

OK, looks like time to move onto riggings. And on this topic I likewise expect no consensus, and encourage differing viewpoints. The battle of the "rimfires" vs. the "centerfires" went on 150 years ago, and hasn't been toally solved yet.

A few random thoughts.

First we probably need to define (or at least get on the same page) on what the various positions mean to us. I was in a class that an elderly statesman sat in on. The original positionings were based on the lowest point of the front pad and the rear pad of the tree. Centerfire was exactly half way between these two references. Three-quarters was hung at 3/4 of the way between them toward the front, likewise 5/8. Full position was directly under the low point of the front pad. They didn't go from the middle of the fork, middle of the horn base, or use the cantle as a reference. Likewise, they didn't use the 1" back from full is 3/4, 2" back is 5/8". There trees may have been pretty standard and these measurements would correspond to how some makers determine postion today, don't know. Fork thickness, horn placement, and cantle placement all could affect the measurements on the same bars today. Likewise different bar patterns with differing low spots could affect the postioning going by the old system.

My best references to the centerfire are some of the old vaquero books. Arnold "Chief" Rojas wrote several. He got in on the tail end of the ranchos, and talked with and wrote down the storeies and lore of the older vaqueros who had gone before. Centerfire cinchas were wide for stability. They were riding generally thinner 900# horses, with not a lot of bodyfat, and accroding to several accounts, fairly slab sided.

They were credited with being great horseman, and admired for getting off every so often and loosening the cincha, lifting the saddle, and airing out the back. In a couple accounts it was mentioned this was mainly to readjust the slipping blankets and reposition the saddle, not necessarily caballo concern. Roping was done with reatas, the dallies run, and so not a lot of stress or jerk on the saddle. Centerfires fell out of favor because they were not stable enough for evolving use of the horse, interfered a bit with leg cues, and the body style of the horse evolved.

As an aside, they talk about the time taken to train the famous Californio stock horse. These horses not put into the full bridle until at least 6 years, spade bit packers, etc. According to several sources, horses were cheap and tools. They were used hard over big areas in a day from ranchos, not from cavvies in a camp and traded at noon. The users were not shod like the "Fiesta" horses. A colt might be ridden 30 miles over dry adobe or rocky foothill ground all day. It took many of these horses 2-4 weeks to get over being footsore and saddlesore enough to ride again. They may get to be 6 or 7 and have had 30-40 rides at most. Meanwhile they go through the transition from hackamore to bridle in 30-40 rides. The good horses were like good horses today, if they were special they went on a fiesta horse to ride to town or to another rancho. Rojas estimated that 1 in 30 ever learned or were good enough to pack a spade bit, they were the ones you took to visit. About the same as today. They took several years to train these horses, but it was generally pretty interrupted compared to today.

Back to riggings. The other battle generally is plate vs. ring rigging. Then we get to how low the riggings should go down the side. One camp says the lower they are, the more they "wrap" around the horse, and less cinch pressure is needed to hold the saddle, and the horse is more comfortble. The other says that the lower plate riggings will act like a corset and bind up chest expansion. If the plates have a lot of leather forward of the slot, that can interfere with the shoulder muscles.

Should the rigging be on top of the skirts and spread that pressure over skirt edge, or lower and possible have a lump where two or three laps of latigo are on the horse?

I definitely agree that a tree will seek its sweet spot on the horse's back. My general though is that the latigos should hang vertically below that. The latigos and cinch should be in their "sweet spot" too, behind the elbow and in front of the widest part of the chest. Shoulder angle difference between two horses can play a part in a particular saddle having the same sweetspot on top, but slightl y different for the latigos.

We can also get tinto the merits of rigging hardware - SS vs. brass, beveled or flat dees, EZ dees, etc. How to attach them for strength, but still allow adequate stirrup swing.

All opinions and input are welcome.

Bruce Johnson

[Alan Bell]

While not getting into all the finer points of this discussion I will say this and I think it is part of what plays into Susans last post in the other message about fitting Spanish Mustangs. If we were to sit on the horse bareback we find ourselves sucking up behind the withers. If you bend your legs for grip you can feel the horses shoulder beneath your knees if you stretch them down to hang straight and flex your heels to obtain a deep seat your legs are about where the girth would set. On western saddles we have the swells in front of this point and the bars go even further in front of the swells. The slick fork saddles were to my knowledge designed to adress this problem and allow the rider to have a more "forward seat" more in line with where the bare back rider sits. You failed to mention properly built in skirt rigging. Now I have limited experience as a saddle maker and even as a horseman I've haven't been riding that long compared to some but I did make a study out of all that I have done involving horsemanship. From what I have gleaned a properly built inskirt rig with 3 way will just about allow the rider to adjust for the most forward position on each particular horse with minimal bulk, minimal weight, maximum weight distribution, maximum strain distribution, maximum comfort for the horse allowing for free musclo-skelatal movement as far as is possible giving that we are still trying to put a structured frame between the fluid moving back of a horse and the fluid moving hips of a human. The saddle can find its sweetspot and the rigging can be adjusted to find its sweet spot and hold the saddle in place with less bulk and it can still be made either to wrap more fully around the horses barrell by shaping the skirt kinda like a drop plate if desired. Just my pennya and a half?? Quien Sabe? I'm just a newbie still wettin' my under britches!

Alan Bell

[bruce johnson]

Allen,

Welcome!! A few historical points as I know them. The slick fork trees were not developed. They were the originals. They were made form the fork of a tree, and prior to the early 1900s, all trees were slick forks. The first swell fork developer is open to debate, some say Marsden in Oregon, others claim a Hamley employee, not a major thing, but that is the time period swell forks came about. Regarding the bareback rider sitting right behind the withers, that is true enough. However I would offer (for discussion's sake and not to disagree with you) that gravity is the cause of that. As David pointed out in the bar or fitting thread, very few if any horses are built uphill. You naturally gravitate to the lowest spot, and that is directly behind the withers. The withers rise up to stop you. Ride a down-hill mule bareback, and you may be hanging onto ears. I will agree that that position is close to or the pivot point or balance point for most horses. There is a reason bronc saddles are rigged 3/4 - it keeps the rider closer to that pivot point. Try sitting back further and leverage will kick you over the swells. Also why it is easier to get bucked off out of a double rigged roping saddle, you are further back on the leverage arm. Sitting too far back on a spinning horse, lead changes, standing up to rope, anything, and you are constantly "behind" the horse. The horse that collects up and really gets a hind leg underneath himself to stop or turn, you can sit back in the pocket a bit more. Part of the reason the cutting saddles with the flatter longer seats are designed for that purpose. The poor sloppy or "bracey" rider negates all this, but that is beyond our control. Now we are getting into the rider who either purposely sits back and braces (David's concept of "brida") or the seat is built so the cantle is the low spot and everything ramps up from there. The rider has to sit there, or brace to sit up higher and more forward. The posterior seat as some call it.

So to get back to where we sit on western saddles. Other than a very short seat, thin forked minimal bar in front of the fork tree, we can't easily put the rider directly over the exact same spot they would sit on the horse bareback. We can get them closer. I vowed I would never make saddles several years ago because I only ever rode two that I liked that weren't cutters. I realized why when I ate those words and built a saddle. I whittled away groundseat and sat in a lot of wet leather to get what I liked. I want the lowest part of the seat in the seat not on the cantle. I got lucky on that first one, and it worked. Chuck Stormes did a series of articles on seats and riggings on a natural horsemanship website - Eclectic Horseman or something like that, where he showed "my" seat in some 1930 Visalias. Some people call them centered seats, David uses the concept of "jineta" vs. "brida"; hell, Xenophon probably had a Greek term for it before any of us. I doubt the Visalia tree makers had heard much of jineta, brida, or Xenophon, but they built a seat that worked.

So to expand this thread from riggings and include seats, I think it does fit together.

Regarding your bringing up skirt riggings, I purposely left that out, just to create some discussion. I think a properly installed skirt rigging is the hardest to do, and probably strongest rigging styles. I think the deep drop front skirt riggings could be restrictive, just like a deep drop too-much-leather-to-the-front plate rigging could be. Minimal stirrup swing restriction, opportunity for more attachment points, and less bulk makes them a real plus. Too bad there is the prejudice against them in many areas caused by the historically poor job some factories and makers did installing them. We are on the same wavelength about the 3 way. There is a reason some of the best horsepeople are barrel racers and there are a lot of three way skirt riggings on barrel saddles. One thing I am not sold on is free sliding cable riggings. Hamley tried it years ago, and another tree maker is trying to bring it back. The concept is probably OK, the mechanics aren't. What makes me think a leather latigo won't be more easily cut by a cable under tension than by a metal ring with more radius under tension. I cut enough hay strings with a spare string to know my thoughts on that.

Now how I was taught to position a rigging. With the bare tree on the horse sitting in the sweetspot, The latigo should hang vertically in the narrower part of the chest. Behind the shoulder muscles and where they will be in all phases of the stride, and in front of the area where the chest widens out viewed from above. Reasons I was taught. Too far forward - we are binding muscles, too much motion under the cinch rings and we are creating sores. Too far back and we are inhibitng chest expansion on some level. Obviously this intimates we are fitting a "particular" horse, but in light of other discussions, I call it fitting the general type of horse now. I think the sweetspot for the latigo has more leeway than the sweetspot for the tree.

I was taught to saddle a horse by setting the saddle up a further than you want it. Then slide it back and it will find its "bed" where it wants to stay, let the latigo hang straight down and cinch up. The reasons given were that it (1) puts the saddle where it needs to go, (2) smooths out a wrinkle in your blanket if you have one, sliding forward could make a wrinkle, (3) lays the wool down in all one direction to keep the blanket in place (we aren't going to woolskins front or back right now!! LOL) because thats the way the woolskin was put on, (4) lays the hair down on the horse preventing wither sores, (5) because my Grandpa said so, that was enough - no discussion.

I am attaching a couple pics of some of my saddles to illustrate a centered seat vs. a posterior seat. The slickfork with the corner stamping is pretty typical for my "centerish" seat. The branded fender saddle was done with the posterior seat by request. This guy wanted that seat because that he is what he wanted. It is a definite ramped up narrow posterior seat. He wanted to be able to grip something standing up from front to back - he can.

Bruce Johnson

Edited May 25, 2007 by bruce johnson

[Alan Bell]

Hey Bruce, I'm really enjoying this!! I think the old Visalia builders probably did know about Jineta vs la brida as they were Californios and especially back then saying a person was 'muy jineta' meant not only that he rode well but was kinda gutsy. Used mostly in S. America but still used. What I would like to see is the saddles of the N. African Moors that invented this style of riding. I do know that the Ethiopians used a toe stirrup and only your big toe was in the stirrup. I imagine this made it easy to keep your heels down! I came aobut all this by way of raising Spanish Barb horses and all this relates back to the breed and how they have been used historically. I think the Moors made the 5 inch stirrups so this affected how they sat the horse too. I noticed on the pics you posted that the more centered seat also has more leather in front of the swell so I guess I am trying to find that medium between the leather in front of the swells (minimal) the rise of the seat (moderate) and the rigging position (placing the rider as far forward as possible with out interfering with the horses movements) Oh yeah and on a Western saddle! I guess this is why Wades are becoming more popular. As far as roping livestock they are designed to give the most consideration to all these factors.

Alan Bell

[bruce johnson]

Allen,

Thanks for your input. Regarding the leather in front of the swells. I am not the end all guy for saddle making for sure, and have changed with time. My fronts are actually blocked up higher than the bar level, and I use 2 sets of tugs in front to hold them up there. Two reasons, first is to minimize that contact with the shoulders forward of the bartips as much as possible. Blocking less to have pressure out there is not to my mind necessary or wanted forward of the bars. Second reason for the heavy blocking is to help cover up the tips of the bars. I want no gapping there. Also these two saddles were built on really different trees. The Weatherly had more bar in front to start with. The association didn't have much. In fact rigging was a bit tricky. I am attaching a picture of my wife's saddle that has a fair amount of "front" to it, but really opens up. It is a roper/user, but there was more bar than the Association had. The length of bar tip determines how far in front I extend the leather. I just want enough that I don't see tree when done. One thing that is a little deceiving on my saddles is that the skirts aren't real deep either.

There is a pretty good book, now out of print, on saddle evolution. Glenn Vernam wrote it, and it is called "Man on Horsdeback". Goes from ancient times to modern, at least as modern as 1964. Glenn also wrote "The Rawhide Years" a book about the evolution of the American cowboy gear and co-wrote "They Saddled the West" with Lee Rice, which is the history of several american saddlemakers. Man on Horseback has some illustrations of Moor saddles, as well as Algerian, Bedouin, etc. in some sections.

Regarding the Wade popularity. In the Northwest and basin area, slickforks always maintained a good level of popularity. I think the regional popularity was expanded by one man - Ray Hunt. He rode them, and was the first major equine clinician to take the show on the road. He opened the door for a lot more equine clinicians who rode them, and it took off from there. Joe and Jane ClinicAttendee see these guys getting some stuff done with a horse that is pretty phenomenal to them. They see the saddle, it ain't their Circle Y with the braided "boy" horn, and want one. I would wager that at least half the slickforks sold now will never be see a rope as anything but a decoration, and very few big posts will see a reata. There are pluses and minuses to all swell and slick forks.

Back to getting the rider forward. There are two limiting factors. The swells and the stirrup slots. You can build a seat more forward, but when you get closer to the swells, that limits the proper knee bend and severely limits forward movement. You are also getting up where the tree is widening out again. The stirrup slots have to have some allowance forward swing, and the more forward you put the seat, you cross that line from stirrups underneath you to behind. If you have ever ridden a saddle that stirrups tend to fall away behind you, and have little forward movement, you probably won't want to again. I am claustrophobic if I can't get my feet up into the flats. This is where plate, triangular, and skirt riggings have the advantage over most traditional folded leather drop dee riggings.

Bruce Johnson

[AZThunderPony]

Aas for rigging. I really would love to see a saddle maker share some thoughts on rigging placement with the concerns I listed on the other post. I like the way David listed out reasons for ill fit and then how Rod and Denise spelled out the changes that might be made to the average trees to make them a better fit for SM's I would love to see the Rigging addressed in a simialr manner by the saddle makers.

As it sits now I'm leaning toward a sam stagg rigging. I love it because I can use it either as it is positioned by the saddle maker, or I can add adjustable dropped 3 point riggng to it for the occassional adjustment for a different horse(s). Now I bet that throws a monkey wrench into things?

Ideally though I am looking for the rigging that fits my Horses from the saddle makers shop and not end up having to make changes once the saddle gets to me to make it usuable. Especially after paying 2 or 4 grand.

Susan Catt

[bruce johnson]

Susan,

Mechanically once you get a tree positioned on the horse's back and then get the latigo position you want, that will determine the rigging position for me. Looking at the pictures of your horses, it looks to me like your thoughts on full rigging or 15/16ths looks right for the way I would do it. David talked on the other thread about the horse that goes well in a 5/8ths. Tree fit is probably a bigger issue than a strict rigging position.

To introduce a few variables into this equation - if the horse has a good back and the tree fits, there should not be a lot forward and back movement of the saddle. If the side to side fit is likewise good, then there shouldn't be as much rolling. With these, you can get by with a looser cinch for most riding. Add a thick 1" pad, or pad and double navajo blanket, and that will change things a bit. More roll and more movement. The rider's cure for saddle movement - pull the cinch tighter. I think that is where a more posterior position will cause some issues. Not to be assumed that back cinches are not to be pulled. They are there for a reason and I use them.

Also as David pointed out the mechanics of putting in the rigging are an issue. If the rigging ring is right at the bottom edge on the bar, it will stand away from the horse a bit more than one slightly lower and formed when made. Over time everything may stretch and pull into position, but maybe not.

I have zero experience with the Sam Stagg rigging other than seeing it on some period pieces, and the old "Windy Bill" song. You are right, this does throw a monkey wrench into the works. My basic thoughts on any adjustable rigging is they are only as strong as the weakest link. Buckle tongues bend, laces wear and tear, fasteners come undone, and the wreck is on.

Bruce Johnson

[AZThunderPony]

Susan,

Mechanically once you get a tree positioned on the horse's back and then get the latigo position you want, that will determine the rigging position for me. Looking at the pictures of your horses, it looks to me like your thoughts on full rigging or 15/16ths looks right for the way I would do it. David talked on the other thread about the horse that goes well in a 5/8ths. Tree fit is probably a bigger issue than a strict rigging position.

To introduce a few variables into this equation - if the horse has a good back and the tree fits, there should not be a lot forward and back movement of the saddle. If the side to side fit is likewise good, then there shouldn't be as much rolling. With these, you can get by with a looser cinch for most riding. Add a thick 1" pad, or pad and double navajo blanket, and that will change things a bit. More roll and more movement. The rider's cure for saddle movement - pull the cinch tighter. I think that is where a more posterior position will cause some issues. Not to be assumed that back cinches are not to be pulled. They are there for a reason and I use them.

Also as David pointed out the mechanics of putting in the rigging are an issue. If the rigging ring is right at the bottom edge on the bar, it will stand away from the horse a bit more than one slightly lower and formed when made. Over time everything may stretch and pull into position, but maybe not.

I have zero experience with the Sam Stagg rigging other than seeing it on some period pieces, and the old "Windy Bill" song. You are right, this does throw a monkey wrench into the works. My basic thoughts on any adjustable rigging is they are only as strong as the weakest link. Buckle tongues bend, laces wear and tear, fasteners come undone, and the wreck is on.

Bruce Johnson

Good info Bruce thanks. I am getting a very good idea from all this. This forum is extremely helpful. More folks should stop in and have a chat or at least a good read!

[mulefool]

The way I understand it you would add something like on a Mcclellan, a strap figure eighted between the front and back rigging? I guess I'm with Bruce on this. Sometimes we make things harder than they have to be especially after struggling with a problem for awhile. From my viewpoint I would be surprised if you ever needed more than 3 different positions and that could be accomplished much more simply and elegantly with either a well made flat plate or in skirt 3 way rigging. There's a reason you don't see any Sam Stagg riggings anymore, except on period reproduction saddles. They add bulk and they bind up your stirrup leathers. Just my two cents on it. Speaking of 3 way riggings has anyone used Herb Borks 5085 3 way rigging? It like a "B" rigging, but the middle of the B doesn't connect to the upright. It allow you to move the latigo from the front position to the back without having to unlace the latigo. Put it in a saddle last year and thought it was kind of slicck.

[AZThunderPony]

The way I understand it you would add something like on a Mcclellan, a strap figure eighted between the front and back rigging?

a reason you don't see any Sam Stagg riggings anymore, except on period reproduction saddles. They add bulk and they bind up your stirrup leathers. Just my two cents on it.

Speaking of 3 way riggings has anyone used Herb Borks 5085 3 way rigging? It like a "B" rigging, but the middle of the B doesn't connect to the upright. It allow you to move the latigo from the front position to the back without having to unlace the latigo. Put it in a saddle last year and thought it was kind of slicck.

As for the McClellan style rigging. Yes you are right and I agree I would much rather have the rigging put inproperly (for my riding purposes and breed dynamics) in the first place.

As for the Sam Stagg Rigging. Well I can agree and I also cannot agree. But I guess since the saddle I'm having built originates from an 1880's/On The Border style saddle with modifications for gaiting and my style of riding, I chose Sam Stagg for both its verstility for me and its "looks".

As for the inskirt riggings, it's a personal preference I think, but I have never liked them whether used on QH's or Arabs, or whathave you while training or riding, and to tell you the truth, I cant put a finger on it. But I have never liked working with them or the feel of them. Where Spanish Mustangs are concerned... the breed seems to be so round on the sides that the rigging that is inskirt seems to dig into the ribs as they extent out beyond the saddle skirt and this is a bigger problem if its a dropped rigging. With that said there was some discussion regarding a differernt set to the bars that might well fix this problem and in that case the inskirt rigging would be fine for those who like it.

The Borks 5085 rigging? Please post pic ifyou can!

I guess I'll deal with the bulk if any, I'll be riding in a period (to some degree) saddle with a Sam Stagg rigging.

Thanks so much for your post... more good information to chew on.

Susan Catt

Edited May 27, 2007 by AZThunderPony