"close contact" western saddles

[bruce johnson]

To carry this thread over from another section....

A few observations I have with some saddles being promoted as "close contact" western saddles.

Skirt shape - a lot of these saddles, especially the western pleasure saddles have cut-outs of varying degrees and shapes under the fender. My thoughts are that on at least some of these, the cut-out makes little difference. the width of the horse determines how far in my legs hang somewhat. It is above my knee somewhat in an area I can't bend inward anyway. Some of these have a dee ring rigging (bulky silver clad rings) on the skirts and when wrapped with the latigo can be a barrier to free forward swing of the leathers. Others are skirt rigged with "J" rings that are riveted into the skirts.

Ground seat - Some of these are not much more than a narrower ground seat. Some of the saddles shaped specifically for women or the close-contact models have a narrower pinched ground seat. The ground work is tapered out onto the bars higher, rather the maker's normal seats that carry the ground work down to the bottom bar edge.

Also the ground work on top of the channel may be thinner than normal, sitting you closer to the bars. A lot of the cutting saddles are like this - a one or two layer buildup in front, and nothing over the strainer but the seat. If the bars are like the cutting tree I showed, and are a good inch plus off the horse, the bars themselves negate getting you closer to the horse with a thinner seat on top. They need to be closer on the bottom to start with.

Trees - First off the tree needs to fit the horse. Too wide and it is closer to the horse, but probably riding downhill. Too narrow and it is sitting higher than it should off the horse.

Some tree makers have bar patterns that are narrower through the "waist" of the tree than their normal. The bar width might be up to 1" narrower. since the bars are set at an angle, the total reduction is a bit less than the reduced bar width, viewed from the top. Again, is that reduction in width in an area the rider can notice?

Seat leather - Some of these show and roping saddles have lined the seat jockeys pretty heavily. Adding a liner of 10 oz leather under a 16 oz seat jockey is not conducive to closer contact. It is one thing to hang out to the right throwing a rope, another to go around a ring showing a pleasure horse. Cutting out a skirt, and having 26 oz edges on the seat jockey are probably self defeating. I have gauged a roping saddle with 28 oz seat jocky edges, 32 oz rear jockey, double plugged skirts at 34, and flanky torn 10 oz rigging leather. The rigging blew out while the horse was tied to the fence, not to a calf.

Pads - Bulky pads are another issue, and there are close contact cut-out pads too. Just because it is an inch thick but has a cut-out, seems like it raises you up that high and away at the same time.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on what they see or do to make a rider closer to the horse?

Edited September 4, 2007 by bruce johnson

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

A question to ask is what do people mean when they say they want to have "close contact" with their horse? Is it just another marketing gimmick? So often people want a "deep seat" when what they really want is a secure seat. You can build a secure seat with a lot of leather under it and people still think they are in a "deep seat". Is it the same way with "close contact"? You don't cue a horse with your upper leg but your lower leg. You can't "feel" a horse's muscles move under a saddle, no matter how thin the bars and seat are. You can feel the movement of the horse under you because it moves your body around, no matter how thin the bars and seat are. So what are people really looking for in a "close contact" saddle? A seat that interferes the least amount with how they feel the horse move, and that would most likely be a seat that is comfortable and conforms to the shape of their backside. At least that is my idea. On the other hand, you don't want to have excess bulk under your leg either.

The bars are narrowed in the middle because that is where the leg sits, and it helps accommodate a maker putting in a narrower seat at that point. They do need to be wide enough for strength too, and since the horse is wider than the tree at this point anyway, it is the horse that determines how close together the rider's legs can come. So there is a limit to the usefulness of narrowing the middle of the bar. And just because it is a narrower point on the tree doesn't mean that the angle between the bars compared to the horse is steeper there. The bottom of the bars should still be shaped to fit the horse regardless of how wide or narrow the bar is.

A lot of tree makers are going with very thin bars these days, maybe with this close contact as a reason behind it. A question to ask is do the thinner bars make a difference in the "contact" a rider has with the horse, and (not to hijack the thread) how thin is too thin?

Rod

[bruce johnson]

Rod,

I think in many cases it is a marketing ploy. Also I think "close contact" means different things to different people. Some of it goes back to the day of the big skirted show saddles, and heavy plugged skirts. Add a full stirrup leather, lined fenders, and thick pad and you do have to make an effort to hit the horse. I also think it is a response to the way ground seats are/were put in a lot of production saddles. They use a fiberglass strainer that is exactly the same each time. They use clicked out and lightly skived buildups and each seat is the same as the next. On a spready tree and leaving the buildups full to the bottom of the bars just makes a wider seat. You used to see a lot of western pleasure riders with their feet braced out, and they are sitting pretty straight and shoulders back. Made for a nice picture, but getting a leg on the horse was pretty tough. When they tried to ride that same saddle/way for a reining horse - didn't work. They needed something narrower and less bulky under and in front of the leg.

To a lot of cutter/cowhorse people, close contact may mean sitting closer to the horse now. Usually these saddles may have the seat right on the strainer. Thin flexible fenders, half leathers, and a narrower seat from a narrower bar pattern, thinner bars, and minimal groundwork down the bars. I wish I had one of those old Billy Cook cutters from the early 80s to dissect. They were like riding a barrel. I am not sure if the bars were flatter and wider, or if it was a ground seat issue, You were beating your backside, and splitting your hips with a hard stop. Some of this probably has to do with the evolution of the horse and changing bar patterns. We have gone from the flatter-backed old-style horses to the narrower ones. Seems like the majority of the Doc Bar influenced horses are narrower than the old Hollywold Gold and Poco Bueno breeding.

Regarding the narrower bars. One thing I found. I ordered a couple trees from a supplier. Both Wades, one was a for a woman. At least some of their trees go into a Wade targeted for women, and this was the tree I got. The overall difference in wdth measured straight down from the top was about 1/2" narrower. Each bar was 1/2" narrower measured across the narrowest point, but the angle minimized the effect. Is that 1/2" narrower measurement significant enough to be noticeable? Don't know.

I also am not sure about how thin is too thin. Probably not a factor until you break one. Like Blake responded on the cutting tree pics I posted, some of these break in the stirrup slot area, Probably more from stress of the bridging and unsupported weight of the stirrup leathers than scored rawhide. I am pretty sure that thin bars and throwing a 1" pad on with a top blanket is self-defeating. My thoughts would be thicker bars that really fit and a thinner pad would give a better result.

[bruce johnson]

One other factor to throw out. Seems like the old saddles I have got to sit in in some of the museums and where ever (Visalia, Porters, Hamley, Keystons. etc) all sat "narrower" than later saddles. Was there an evolution from narrower bars, an effect of groundseat build-up, or what other factors contributed? An effect from changing bar angles and wider horses? The effect that these makers just plain took the time and had the skilled workers to put in a better seat?

[Mike Craw]

Bruce,

I can't quote my sources, since I can't remember where I heard this, but it is my understanding that all those narrower antique saddles are a result of narrower antique horses. I've been told that modern breeding, feeding, and evolution have resulted in a much hardier horse. My experience with really old saddles is that they have all seemed much narrower through the gullet and between the bars than modern trees. I'm sure that Rod and Denise could give a more informed opinion on this, but I agree, the old saddles sure seem narrower to me.

Mike

[pella]

I repair many old saddles and they are narrower for the horse but not the rider! I sat in them and it feel so WIDE between my legs...

As a woman, yes, i do want a narrow waist saddle seat, and that bring to closer contact with the horse and help for a proper balanced position.

[AndyKnight]

When i build a close contact saddle i make it with the least amount of leather under the insde of the thigh area as possible. This is done by using lighter leather , usually a full double or 15/16 rigging, half stirrup leathers (2 1/2"). No plugging under the thigh area of the skirt as well as cutting the skirt up .

With a saddle built this way the rider can feel the horse from the inside of the thigh right down to the stirrup. Obviosly this isn't your average ranch saddle however I use the same ideas in heavier saddles to increase the ridability of the saddle.

Narrower waisted trees can help but the tree in itself will not create a close feel.

Typical production made " close contact" saddles tend to be a marketing ploY!!

Edited October 31, 2007 by AndyKnight

[JLD]

Hi,

I was wondering if any of you have had a chance to look at the saddles being promoted by parelli as close contact. Are they? I sat in one of their dressage saddles and it definately felt as if there was less leather? Bulk? was this an illusion, because of the really wide trees, putting you lower on the horse.

I am thinking (very tentatively) of having a go at making my own saddle both western and english (I know a bit ambitious) and the more I look the more confused I am getting. How do you devide what sort of tree and where do you get them.

Sorry for the vague questions

Johanne

(aussie)

[pella]

Johanne: I cannot see how a wider tree could place you lower on a horse, if that happend, that mean the previous saddle was too narrow or angle was wrong. I dont know parelli stuff. I am also interested about english/western mix saddle, and as you, more i think about that, more i am confused ! lol!

Some french saddler use to make hybrid and one use a kind of western bar tree BUT with webbing for the seat instead of a rigid leather ground seat. Sound like a trooper saddle but not the same.

[AndyKnight]

Pella. The further the bars of a tree are apart the lower they will go on the horse back allowing the saddle to sit lower will in affect put the riders "seat bones" closer to the horse. The down side to this is that the seat will become wider. Then the tree maker has to narrow the waist of the tree to try and compensate for this. Either way the tree can fit the horse but keep in mind that the lower the bars come down the horses back the restrictivness of the tree increases.