What cantle height do you prefer

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Seeing KAWs saddle with that tall cantle set me to wondering again...

We have built cantles from as low as 2 3/4" (a copy tree from an old, broken saddle) to 6" tall. Some makers have expressed concerns with tall cantles catching a rider in the back if things "get western". Other don't think it is a problem. While cantle height is often rider preference, height combined with angle and dish also affect how the groundseat is built.

Questions for the saddle makers: What cantle height do you prefer and why? How does it affect your groundseat? Do you have safety concerns with taller cantles? Are there any cantle heights you would refuse to build on and why?

[Alan Bell]

Rod and Denise, I was going to try and talk to you about this very thing. I printed out your articles about cantles, horns, gullet width, etc. It got me to really thinking about the "forward seat" and its mysteries! part of the function of the slick fork was to be able to allow a rider to sit a bit more forward comfortably thus enabling you to be a bit more in line with the horses balance spot. Of course this balance spot moves forward the faster the horse goes so with a slick fork you are not fighting to stay 'up' with the horse. Theoretically! As you said the height and angle affect the ground seat as does the number of layers to the build up in a ground seat AND where the strainer attaches to the fork. Might then an shallow angle on the inside of the cantle help slide the rider into the sweet spot and tuck the hips which rounds the lower back placing the rider on his "W's"? So then with a shallower angle or dish how does this affect the cantle height? Wouldn't we want a straighter cantle back because a leaning one with a shallow dish would be basically tipping the cantle backwards? Is that a factor? The saddle tree maker fits the horse: the saddle maker fits the rider. Maybe not totally true! Can't we design a tree that will make it easier for the saddle maker to fit the rider into the position that is most beneficial to balanced/centered riding? My brain is swimming!

Vaya Coin Dios, Alan Bell

Natty Dread Rides Again!

Bob Marley

[KAW]

I will order whatever the customer wants, they are paying for what they want so that is what they get, I may make suggestions but it is their choice.

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Alan,

Lots of food for thought in your post. You hit a number of different points, most of which we see as a saddle maker's responsibility, though the tree maker can help or hinder him in his work by how the seat is made in the tree.

1.) Slope of the face of the cantle and how it affects the ground seat. You say a couple of things here that I would like to clarify a bit so we are talking about the same thing. At one point you mentioned "a straighter cantle back" and at another you talk about "a shallow angle on the inside of the cantle" and at a third you talk about "tipping the cantle backwards." It is important to understand that while these things are all related, they are three separate things that are independent of each other. In making a cantle, the angle – whether the cantle is tipped back a little or a lot – is the first of these three parts cut because that cut is what makes the cantle fit onto the bars. That angle is only seen if you look sideways across the rim of the cantle. That angle is what we look for when we check to see how “laid back†or “stood up†a cantle is. The angles of the back and the face can be whatever we make them after that within all cantle angles.

Once that angle is set, the amount of dish and cantle height combined determine the slope (or angle) of the face of the cantle, which is vital to how you want to make your groundseat. The amount of dish is set (and measured) at the top of the cantle gullet. That point will stay the same compared to the rest of the tree regardless of the height of the cantle. As you increase the cantle height, the top of the cantle rim moves further back from that point, resulting in a “shallower angle†on the face of the cantle. So if you determine the type of slope you want for the face of the cantle, you would have to change the amount of dish you order depending on the cantle height. For a taller cantle you need more dish to get the same slope you have on a shorter cantle.

We were once asked to make a tree with the slope of the face of the cantle a specific number of degrees off the table. We had never measured this before, so it took some figuring but we were able to do it. We thought it a rather silly request, but after consideration we have since measured that angle on all our trees. Now it was a rather silly request because that angle is affected by how the bars are shaped, so between makers the numbers mean absolutely nothing. Even within our own trees, the numbers mean absolutely nothing other than allowing us to compare the slope between cantles with different heights, angles and amounts of dish. So we haven’t talked a lot to saddle makers about this yet because we don’t want them to get hung up on certain numbers, since, as we’ve mentioned, the numbers mean absolutely nothing and yet without numbers, how can we discuss it? And yet this slope is probably what most helps or hinders a saddle maker as he builds his groundseat.

As for the back of the cantle, that is the last thing that gets done, and as long as there is enough wood for strength, it is strictly cosmetic.

2.) Rider position relative to the horse. What a can of worms that one is. The truth as we see it is that the rider is going to sit in the lowest point of the saddle, regardless of where that point is placed, simply due to the effect of gravity. No amount of trying to "go with the horse" can move you further forward for more than a step or two before you slide back into the "pocket" placed there by the saddle maker (unless you have a totally flat seat which leaves you moving all over the place - not necessarily a good thing). The fork type has no bearing on this though with a slick fork there is nothing to stop your legs from going further forward over the sides of the fork, whereas with a swell fork, those swells would hold you back. However, the shape of the seat is what really keeps the rider in one place.

As far as being able to move forward with the center of gravity of the horse, the only way to do that at speed would be to ride a jockey saddle placed right over the withers above the front legs. I (Denise) learned that one by experience in my younger days when I was told I could ride only this one horse, and only bareback because she was so grossly obese that nothing would fit her well enough to use. She was a mutton withered, barrel shaped horse to start with, and you literally had to press down to find the top of her withers amongst all the fat. There was nothing you could use to hold you back on this horse, and at a lope, her knees, as they came up, hit my feet. I consistently ended up at the base of her neck above her front legs. That was where the "center of gravity" put me. This is why Rod feels the whole idea of being "over the center of gravity" is not worth while considering. It is just not possible in a western saddle at most gaits, no matter how it is made.

The western saddle was originally designed for long hours of use. It has a lot more surface area under the bars to distribute pressure better, and the aim of a well designed tree and saddle is to stay out of the horse's way as much as possible so as not to interfere with his normal way of going. (There is a lot involved in that in many areas.) For the rider, the goal is to be in the best position possible for the horse to most easily carry their weight for long time periods, while being both secure and as comfortable as possible. Being over the horse's center of gravity at all times doesn't fit into that scenario.

3.) Rider posture. All sorts of "experts" argue about what is the "correct" body position of the rider. And yes, the seat you build in the saddle dramatically affects the rider’s posture. But that is in the saddle maker's domain, and would make a great thread if you wanted to start it. We're staying out of that one.

The answer to your last question, “Can't we design a tree that will make it easier for the saddle maker to fit the rider into the position that is most beneficial to balanced/centered riding?†is yes. The opinions on what that “most beneficial†position is varies between saddle makers. We have the capability to make the cantle the way you would like. The purpose of our question is to find out from saddle makers what it is that that they find the most beneficial in regards to the way a cantle is constructed that helps them make a good ground seat. This is not just for our information, but hopefully the discussion will help any saddle maker. (Without sending their brains for too long a swim.)

[bruce johnson]

I usually go for a 4" plus or minus a half inch cantle. My calf roping saddle is a 3-1/2" and the others are 4" or more. I think the angle and amount of dish is more of a factor for the back grabbing when horses buck. A really straight up fronted cantle with more dish will tend to pivot up into yout lower back - a bad thing. A cantle with a little flatter slope to it will push on your lower pelvis and roll your tailbone more underneath you (sitting on the "W"s, as Alan said) - a good thing. Especially if you set a low spot and a place to sit slightly in front of, not on, the cantle. This is a factor of dish, cantle angle, and how much groundwork the maker leaves in that area. I have heard this referred to as a "beaverslide seat".

Looking at some of those old timer bronc saddles - the seats were shorter and the cantles were steep and not "filled" all that much. That combination will bite. Modern bronc saddles have longer seats and more cantle slope. Also most guys will adjust their leathers so there is just cantle pressure at full leg extension. The seats are longer (15-1/2 to 17-1/4" seats) vs. the 15" on the oldies. More "float" and less "mash" now when things get western in a bronc saddle or a western saddle. You could probably get some argument from Don Butler, me, and anyone else who has broken a pelvis in the saddle if "float" is always a good thing though. LOL.

Another factor I see vary from maker to maker is at the front corners of the cantles. Some will curve around more the front and others will blend down the bar. The first will tend to grab a "wider-beamed" rider at those corners. I don't know how else to describe this and how to tell a treemaker about it. It is below the meauring point for "dish", so dish really can't account for it.

The final concern I have with cantles is how well it blends into the bars. Some trees will have an abrupt angle, and others will have a graceful curve. The abrupt angle can be filled in somewhat with groundwork.

I guess everything I have concerns about is with the front of the cantle. The backs vary by treemaker. Some makers have the backs pretty flat, and others undercut a little and have some "undercurve" to them. The straighter ones probably have a little more footprint on the bar and are potentially stronger. I like a litle curve, and can use a filler to make an undercut to slide my rear jockeys up under.

[Alan Bell]

Denise (and Rod) I think Bruce is describing a 'Taylor' Cantle. I am thinking along the lines of a Taylor cantle 4 1/2" with a 35 degree angle, 1 1/4" dish and a straight back. In your opinion would sitting on a bare tree made like that feel different than sitting on a bare tree with a regular cantle 4 1/2" with 35 degree angle, 1 1/4" dish and a straight back. Wouldn't the Taylor tend to tuck the riders hips in even more or does it just make the rider "feel" more forward because of less bar and thigh space? It would be nice to have a bunch of different ones to fool with in order to decide what does what and what effect it has on the rider and his or her desired style of riding. If I can order a tree with the cantle basically in the shape I am going to build the ground seat into anyways then I can do a little less skiving or building up. Like you say the riders butt finds the lowest point because of gravity wont the Taylor described above slide that point a little more forward with less effort on the saddle makers part? I ask a lot of questions because I know how I would like to feel when I ride. At the Cowboy Museum when Dale and Steve built the saddle I asked both if they set in their ground seats while building them and they both said "No". I like to sit in each one I build and I'll have six or seven different people of all sizes and levels of riding experience and if I can't get the customer over then I like to get someone of similar build and in doing this it seems that fitting the cowboy that rides all day is a lot easier than fitting the "dude" or housewife that hardly rides at all. The cowboy is a lot more forgiving and will adjust to make the saddle work. Dale touched on this and told a story of how he rode an ill fitting saddle on a hunt but by the time the hunt was over he had adjusted and thought the saddle wasn't all that bad! Another reason I ask so many questions can be summed up with this story; at the same deal at the Cowboy Museum they had an "expert" speak about saddle fit. Right off the bat he talked about how he wanted the bars to gap along the horses back so that when the horse gathered itself and rounded it would fill in that gap and he used cutting as his example. (he had a heavy drawl so he sounded like he knew what he was talking about LOL) Well he did say "What do you think, Dale?" and Dale answered "Well, I like to have as much of the bars in contact with the horses back at all times as possible." Seems the "expert" didn't really have a lot to offer and they just should have let Dale speak! Anyways, down here in "The Saddle Making Capitol" of Texas I can't hardly find anyone with a logic and experience based idea or opinion on anything to do with saddles. Plenty of opinions; just no logic!

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

Rise up this morning, rise with the rising sun. Three little birds are by my doorstep, singing sweet songs a melody pure and true. Singing "this is my message to you"

Bob Marley - Don't Worry

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Alan,

Good questions and thinking material. It seems we are trying to work toward the same goal - putting the seat in the tree to be most like what the saddle maker wants his groundseat to be so he has less work to do. Clarifying what that might be (for different makers, because it is not only tree makers who do things differently) is what we are aiming to get out of this thread.

A question for you is, "What is your definition of a Taylor cantle?" because I don't know if we are talking about the same thing. (We know of at least 3-4 definitions.) When we make what we call a Taylor cantle, a number of things change but the basic cause of those changes is the amount of dish it is physically possible to put into a cantle.

(Warning: Technical material in this paragraph. Please skip if you get bored by details... I have a couple of pictures of similar trees taken, unfortunately, at slightly different angles. The first is a regular cantle, more stood up angle, 5 " tall by 12" wide.

The second is what we call a Taylor at the same angle and height, but 11 1/2" wide.

The difference in our trees (remembering that every tree maker does things differently - especially with cantles) is best seen in the angle of the row of nails where the cantle meets the bars. It is much sharper in the regular cantle than the Taylor. That angle is consisten within the two categories of regular and Taylor regardless of the amount of dish they have, but there are limits on the amount of dish that is possible to put into each type. The maximum dish one of our Taylor cantles has is 1" simply due to the geometry of how they are made. The minimum dish one of our regular cantles can have is 1" in the more laid back angles and 1 1/4" at the more stood up angles. There are other changes necessitated by the change in angle, but this is complicated enough already and Rod keeps telling me to keep it simple.)

So we can't really compare between Taylors and "regulars" because they generally have different amounts of dish. If we could, they should feel pretty much the same, because even with the differences between the two, so much depends on the shaping of the cantle. Like so many other parts of the tree, the measurements can be the same but the shape can be very different. My understanding of what Bruce is saying that he likes the cantle to blend nicely into the bars at the front (the area we call seat blend) and not be like a couple of two by fours joined at an angle. That blend can be made smooth, though differently, in almost any type of cantle, though a cantle whose specs require a very stood up slope to the front of the cantle is the most difficult to make nice. In our trees, Rod makes the low spot ahead of where the cantle joins rather than the base of the cantle regardless of the specs of the cantle. So the slope comes down the front of the cantle and continues down onto the bars for a short distance before starting to climb again.

Just like fitting a tree to a horse where you have to put it on and see it because you can't compare between makers any other way, the best way to find out what a seat is like is to sit in it. Being able to sit in a bunch of different trees really would give you the best idea of what you want. I would hope that most tree makers, custom or factory, would be open to someone visiting and checking things out that way. I know we are, though we generally don't have too many trees around at a time, and we are rather off the beaten track. (We do have electricity and running water up here though. And no igloos - in summer... )

I know a lot of saddle makers who "test drive" their saddles as they build the seat. But it also depends on who you are building the seat for. Rod spent a lot of time sitting in the saddle he made for himself as he was working on the groundseat. He loves it. Fits him perfectly. I don't like it at all because we are built very differently. So for him to check the groundseat by sitting in it if he were to build me a saddle would do no good at all. (The thread Blake started on groundseats for men versus women would be a very interesting read if more saddle makers added to it.) I would think by the time you get as much experience as the guys you were learning from have, your head would know the shape you are after so your butt wouldn't need to test drive it anymore.

Hopefully some of this helps you understand the factors that affect the construction a bit better. If I understand both you and Bruce correctly, you are both trying to build a seat that lets people "sit on their pockets" and round their lower back more. Is that what you are saying? Or are you saying that having a sloping seat gives more support to "the W’s" area while the rider is sitting straight so they don’t slouch back?

Bruce,

I can't quite picture what you mean when you talk about "the front corners of the cantles. Some will curve around more the front and others will blend down the bar." Here is a picture of a tree with a "normal for us" cantle, but a curved line drawn where we can take off that front corner for "leg cut". (Please ignore all the other writing.) Is that difference what you are meaning? Or could you explain more?

Thanks,

Denise (for Rod, who is sane enough to be sleeping by now)

[greg gomersall]

Alan if both your regular cantle and your taylor cantle are at the same angle on the same seat length the thigh lenght measurement on the taylor will be longer due to the more acute angle of the cantle cuts on the bar.

As for Joel's talk at the TCA he said he felt a saddle should bridge a little so a horse can round up under neath it. This is not a desireable trait in a usin rig but I believe that if a person were building an areana only type rig you might reconsider, in reining, cutting etc. a horse is constantly underneath himself and his back rounded up quite frequently, The "slight" brigeing effect at this time might work to your benifet. Greg

[bruce johnson]

Denise,

That is "kind of" what I was referring to at the cantle corners. I had occasion to ride a saddle that the cantle points dug in a little right below the pockets if I got rocked back or reached back with my leg. It was on a fairly high cantle, 5" or so. It got to be fairly obnoxious by the end of the day.

A few months later I talked to the guy who built the saddle. Asked him who made the tree (so I would be forewarned). A few factors were at play. I will preface this by saying I know little about making cantles. Apparently this tree maker had one cantle "pattern" and so the bottom was shortened to make the various heights. It had an oval profile from the front. As the height increased, the oval was "raised". This made a pretty good undercut at the corner instead of blending into the bars. This saddlemaker thought it was a plus, because he could really tuck the seat jockey ear up in there and it made a tight clean look. The issue was the point of the cantle was running around that oval and made a ridge where it started to curve around and went up the bar. I like to have that point blended in and not continue forward. Some better groundwork could have filled that in a bit too.

As far as test fitting seat. I had a guy I respect tell me he learned to test fit by stripping down to underwear, and sat in the groundseat for a while. If he was pretty comfortable at the end, he thought it was probably going to be alright. When he got his shop in town, he didn't use that method anymore. LOL.

As far as seatbuilding in the cantle area, I want to slouch back. I leave the angle pretty full in the center. That way the first thing that hits is down low and kicks the bottom of your pelvis forward relative to the top. It rolls your butt up underneath you, rather than getting hit up higher and and kicking the top of your pelvis forward and arching your back. If the back end comes up, you are forced forward and down if your back is "slouched" or curved back. If your back is arched, everything stiffens and it forces you up and out. The low spot in front of the cantle on the bars makes that kind of a seat easier to build. A trainer I worked for used to say, "sit on your pockets". When they figured that out, it changed to "sit on your belt loops". An exaggeration, but worked.

Greg,

Interesting point about the arena saddle vs. cowboying saddle. I had asked that question a while back on another thread, may have even been another list. I had been told that same thing about having a little clearance for the horse that really rounds up. It makes sense to me. I think probably front and back pad shapes and angles play a significant part in fitting these horses. They round up when stopping and turning, but then may hollow out when they jump out and go across the pen. Those pads have to bear weight without digging in. What I AM really curious is, what kind of contact these horses have when they drop that front end and are low behind, doing that little "cow dance"?

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

As far as seat length and thigh length comparisons from Taylor to regular, you actually get the same thigh length for the same seat length on both. (Rod and I disagreed about this point until we had enough data to convince me that he was right...again. Sigh...)

While it appears that what you are doing is taking moving the corners of the front of the cantle back so the thigh length should be longer, actually what is happening is that the rim of the cantle, from where you measure both seat and thigh length, is staying in the same place and the center of the cantle is what is moving forward to change the angle of those cantle cuts.

So yes, your rider is sitting further forward in the seat with a Taylor cantle because the front face of the cantle has moved forward, and whatever low spot you are putting in the seat has also moved forward. As such, the front corners of that cantle will be further behind his legs than with a regular cantle. But the actual measured "thigh room" is the same - on our trees at least. Seat length measures the same. Thigh length measures the same. But top of cantle gullet to top of fork gullet would measure shorter (though the last thing we need is another place to measure on these trees!)