"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.

[pella]

i guess your right. I supose thats just on the back part of the tree that you can widen it? Do you know the difference of heigth over the horse back between a regular western tree and a "closer contact" wider one? curiosity. How can we know if a tree maker make it the way we want, is there a measure to ask about that fit? ...i am still looking to buy my first tree. More i know, beter i will understand the complicated wolrd of saddle trees...!

[JLD]

Andy

Now I am really confused (sorry)

The idea (so I was told) behind the really wide gullets and bars is said to be to allow the saddle to be LESS restrictive to the shoulders and spine. But thinking about it the further down the side of the horse the weight bearing surface of the saddle is the less "side" of the horse is left to spread the load over hence increasing the pressure.

I would think that the more contact with the horses back the greater load bearing and the more comfortable for the horse.

What are your thoughts?. As I said earlier I would like to eventually make a saddle and now have no idea of what sort of tree to select.

Have we confused the saddle issue hopelessly with all this modern technology? or is it a fashion thing. Surely it is possible to have a saddle which will fit (or be comfortable) for both horse and rider. After all as your horse gains fitness he changes shape as his muscle mass builds so his back is really a work in progress.

Johanne

[bruce johnson]

Pella,

Some of these questions are addressed in the sections on saddle trees. Unfortunately it as not as simple as widening just one part of the tree. Doing that will change the angles and how everything else is sitting. The bars really need to made for the horse first, last, and always. Anything else that doesn't compromise this can then be done for the rider. The saddle maker has a lot more to do with making the saddle close-contact than the tree maker.

As far as getting a tree that fits. There are several schools of thought and a few measuring systems and devices out there. Dennis Laine from Australia has the simplest, repeatable, and least expensive system going.

Edited November 1, 2007 by bruce johnson

[Alan Bell]

Andy, What are we supposed to be feeling "from the inside of the thigh right down to the stirrup"? Not 'TRYING' to be cynical but...You state that most close contact saddles are a "ploy" As a horseman and as Bruce mentioned it seems to me even when I have ridden in an English saddle that what matters to me AND the horse is what we feel from the knee down. I truly want to make sure I know where my horses feet are and want to control where the horse places its feet and I can do that in a heavy working saddle OR a light weight English saddle. I can yield my horses barrel in a Wade with heavy leather and a drop late rigging under my thigh so I'm failing to see what benefit reducing the leather of the skirt has besides lightening the saddle. And, isn't it a bad compromise to eliminate the plugging because you are creating pressure spots since the leather is uneven? I thought that was the whole idea behind plugging the skirts. Am I missing something? If it makes for closer contact and better communication then why wouldn't you do it on a working hands saddle? Does it somehow weaken the saddle if you eliminate the plugs and cut up the edge of the skirt? I understand how lighter weight leather overall would make a weaker saddle but couldn't you still make a "close contact saddle" (if possible) but with heavier leather and then working hands could ride with closer contact too?

Vaya Con Dios, Alan Bell

Sheriff John Brown always hated me. For what? I don't know!

Bob Marley - I Shot The Sheriff

[barra]

Pella. Hybrid saddles are made in Australia on trees with western bars but have retained the traditional web strung "ground seat" so it is possible. The Trooper saddle or Universal pattern (UP) of various models eg 1912 pattern has the rider suspended over the tree with the bars still quite visible. It is therefore possible to build an English type top of the saddle while retaining the western skirts.

Barra

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

The further the bars of a tree are apart the lower they will go on the horse back allowing the saddle to sit lower

Yes, we would agree with this basic concept - sometimes. That would work on a horse like this one where the muscle falls away from the spine in an A shape. As you widen the bars, the whole tree will sit lower on the horse's back. The saddle maker in this case would need to be very sure that his groundseat across that space doesn't touch the spine, which can cause serious damage to the horse.

But, widening the space between the bars will have basically NO effect in lowering the rider on this horse, where the back is much flatter. At least, not for the first 5 inches or so...

And, while (how do I put this politely) the center of your behind will be closer to the spines of the vertebrae on the first horse, unless you do something different in the construction of the saddle, you still have the same thickness of material between your seat bones and the horse's back. So I don't see that you have gained anything.

Combine that with the fact that to design a tree to fit lower down the sides of the horse than "normal" and still get it to fit the horse properly, you will have to change the angles of the bars and the amount of twist in them, most likely the amount of rock in them, and possibly even the profile of the bottom of the bars. As Andy says, it can be made to fit, but it would have to be designed to fit there. And are you widening just the back, or the whole tree? Widening the whole tree affects the front more than the back. So you can't just order a wider tree to get closer contact. It won't fit your horse properly any more.

So overall, as far as trees go, we think the only thing that really can be done to get the rider's seat bones closer to the horse is to make the bars themselves thinner. And then you are playing that balancing game with strength.

This topic has been bugging me all day, because one of the HUGE fallacies we have fought for years is the idea that to get your saddle "right down on the horse" you make it wider. I have never heard of this in reference to the cantle area or close contact before, but it is a very common idea among ropers who want the fork low to the withers to decrease the leverage placed on the saddle when roping. So they buy super wide trees to get them low, and this is what happens, (and what will happen if you just order a wider tree to get "close contact" at the back):

1.) Since the tree is too wide for their horse, and the front end of their horse is more A shaped than the back, the front of the tree goes lower than the back, tipping it forward on the horse. This makes the tree go "downhill" on the horse, increasing the pressure on the front bar pads. This is a MAJOR problem.

2.) Since the tree is too wide for the horse, it isn't shaped to fit how low it is sitting. Generally what happens is that the top of the bar surface area is all that is contacting the horse, increasing the pressure there, while the bottom sticks off into space.

3.) Occasionally, the top of the spine is contacted by the saddle, either at the withers or by the cantle gullet or even the groundseat if the horse is very A shaped. What is “nice and close†when you first saddle up can easily hit after riding a while.

(Off topic here, but to conclude with this pet peeve - There are two parts of a tree that affect the clearance up front - the bar component and the fork component. The way you get a fork to sit down low on a horse is NOT to order a wide tree. Order the correct fit for the horse, and order a low gullet or hand hole height. The difference will be in the fork component, the fork will still be low to the withers, and the horse will thank you.)

Edited November 1, 2007 by Rod and Denise Nikkel

[Rod and Denise Nikkel]

Johanne,

You have an excellent tree maker down in NSW - the Dennis Lane that Bruce mentioned. Not only has he developed a system for easily communicating the shape of a horse between owners and saddle and tree makers, he also makes the hybrid trees the barra talks about, along with traditional stock saddles and western saddles. If you contact him, I know he can help you understand a lot of these concepts and get you a tree that will work for your horse. If you are interested, PM me and I will give you his e-mail address.

[AndyKnight]

The feel that you would get from being close to the horse from the inside of the thigh down is probably inconsequential for 99 percent of the riders out there. how ever the comfort of the least amount of leather between you and your horse is appreciated by most horseman that experience the difference. eeven more so if you are riding wide horses.

I build working rigs with these ideas with good success.

I guess close contact has two areas... One vertically how far from the horse are you sitting and the other is lateral ,what is between you and the horse from the thigh down.

In my busineSS I been focusing more on the lateral .

When I am working with a customer that wants "california syle stirrup leathers " Flat Plate riggin" extra heavy leather. etc. I show them how many layers of leather that I can remove.. It can be a very subtantial amount. This does not mean I don't like building saddle with flat plate and heavy leather etc., infact I prefer to!

I also agree with what Rod and denise say that the wider you make the tree the further it will go down at the front.. .. causing a front low saddle.

One of the things that I now take into cosideration as to how far apart to set the bars is the size of the horses spine. If the saddle is being built for 900 lb arabs the spine is cosiderbly narrower that the 1500 percheron cross. My reasoning is thst the muscles on the smaller hore that the bars need to set on are considerbly closer then on the large r horse ...

Whenever I give saddle fitting seminars I always say thet " this is what I belive to be right today, it may be different tomorrow!! "