Originally Posted by ginofalltrades
I agree that he stands under behind. I didn't like it at first, but now I like it because he tracks up really easily. In the photo's he has only been under saddle for a few months, he still has a lot of filling out to do ;)
Someone told me that as long as the horse wasn't too narrow through the loin with a long back, that it is easier on the horse to have a long back than having a short back because there is more surface area in which to carry the rider? Hmmm...
Posted via Mobile Device
Nonsense. There must be as much surface area to carry the saddle on either a short or a long backed horse. The saddle must NOT extend past the ribs that are attached to the spine, into the area where the ribs "float" (help me out here, what number rib is that?)
So, the weight bearing area is exactly equal regardless of length of back.
The longer backed horses are perceived to be weaker because you are carrying the weight over a longer span, and engineering indicates that this puts more stress on the span because the middle is farther away from the supports (legs).