The Horse Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Weight Distribution Percentage: Legs Vs. Seat - Cantering

28K views 199 replies 24 participants last post by  Smilie 
#1 ·
It's little hard to phrase this question. But it is about how much weight you support/put in your legs vs in your sit during walk , trout & Canter. Just for the discussion purpose, for example, while waling , you would put very little 15-20 percent of your weight in your heels ( enough to keep heels down) and rest ( 80 % approximately ) is in your seat. I need to know how these number dynamics changes with the change in the gate: so

1) During walk:Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

2)During trot:-Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

3) During cantering: Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

I hope it's not a confusing question. Also what are some tips to keep weight in your heels?
 
#2 ·
While I totally understand what you are asking, I have no way of answering in those terms, to me horse riding is not a science where I could even begin to break down my position in terms like that.

To me riding is more than a science where you can break down what you are doing in those terms, it is about feel and dynamic responses to what is happening, or more properly what is about to happen...my new mantra

Do a lot more a lot earlier and a lot quieter, than a lot less, harder and too late.

Anyway, I sit with my lower body kind of melting into the horse, varying the pressure of legs and seat as needed.

The weight just sinks into the heels, not pushing them down, but just letting the feeling of weights hanging on them draw them down, should not be forced, just let them fall.
 
#5 ·
Gosh you are way overthinking this OP - no way would anyone put definite calculations into something like that and expect it to not cause tension in the way they ride
Quite apart from anything else you aren't actually putting X amount of weight on your heels anyway - what you need to be doing is thinking that your weight is sinking down through your calves and into your heels but in a relaxed non forceful way and not going down on to the ball of your foot and pushing down against your stirrups
Even when you are lifting your backside up out of the saddle you shouldn't be doing it by pushing up from your feet or you'll destabilize your lower leg position
 
#6 ·
It depends. The forward seat, at least as originally taught, DID put a lot of weight into the stirrups. It does not destabilize your lower leg because your center of gravity is also over the stirrups. Paul Cronin described it as "based on the stirrup rather than the seat". VS Littauer wrote "the stirrups will come directly under the body and the rider can at will stand in them as he would on the floor". Harry Chamberlin, describing the American military seat, used the phrase "standing in the stirrups". By keeping the ankle relaxed, the bounce is absorbed by the "hinges" of the ankle, knee and hip.

Others styles of riding do not. Western riders often carry all their weight in the seat AND THIGHS, and just have enough pressure on the stirrups to keep the stirrups from sliding off.

And, of course, one can ride without stirrups at all, which means zero percent goes into them.

BTW - "heels down" is, IMHO, very over-rated. Even "toes up" doesn't capture the right idea. "Ankles relaxed" would be a much better description.
 
#7 ·
The forward seat is no longer taught like that. We've moved on from the days of the Military rider
The destabilizing of the lower leg not about centre of gravity, it's all about how effective that leg is on the horse when in forward seat/2 point because when jumping that is extremely important - you cannot use your legs correctly if you're standing up on your stirrups
Riders are now taught to use rise from their knees using thigh strength - much less risk of being hurled up over the horses neck and/or getting ahead of the action too
Try jumping a course of obstacles using both methods and then come back and tell me which feels the most effective, safest and the most secure
 
#10 ·
The forward seat is no longer taught like that. We've moved on from the days of the Military rider...

...Try jumping a course of obstacles using both methods and then come back and tell me which feels the most effective, safest and the most secure
Maybe you have "moved on". Littauer discusses your approach at length is his last book, "The Development of Modern Riding". It was a former moderator on HF, maura, who introduced me to Littauer's thinking, and she still taught the forward seat that way. In the 90s, George Morris wrote about 'the American Jumping Style', which was based almost completely on the American 'Military Seat'.

The problem, as Littauer viewed it:

"But then there occurred in riding what has often happened before in other human activities - man's ambition to attain the barely attainable took over jumping; it forced many international horsemen to drop Caprilli's method and to search for other, more forcible means of making horses negotiate almost impossible combinations of obstacles. Today many of these horsemen will rightly tell you that Caprilli's basic tenet, that "there is little in common between ring riding and cross-country riding" could be altered to - "there is little in common between cross-country riding and international show jumping.' Show jumping has become a narrow specialty...Artificial jumping problems, and the corresponding artificial means of solving them, have placed such jumping just around the corner from the tanbark of the circus. Just as in former days our ancestors admired the particularly artificial feats of High School, so today many of us enjoy a new type of circus - unnaturally high obstacles assembled in tricky combinations..." - The Development of Modern Riding, VS Littauer, pg 252

He also adds:

"Seunig also fails to recognize the fact that the Forward Seat and the Dressage Seat (he calls the latter the Normal Seat) have little in common, because the balance of the first is primarily based in the stirrups and that of the latter in the saddle. Obviously not realizing this, he believes that the 'forward seat is developed organically from the normal seat'. He also believes that it is impossible to maintain the Forward Seat "by balance alone" - which is precisely what beginners learning the Forward Seat are required to do by many American riding teachers. The Germans, who have apparently never discovered how easy this is when properly taught, make a strong point of the fixed knee, and teach that the rider should raise himself above the saddle not from the stirrups but "from the knees". Although I know a few excellent riders who ride with pinched knees, such a seat used by the majority would be quite disastrous, both from the view of security and that of softness.

One error leads to another, and Seunig wrongly claims the fixed knee become 'a shock absorber'. The shocks of locomotion cannot be effectively absorbed if the knees are fixed, and this is why: [a detailed discussion then follows]...

... It is a law of nautre that we can deliver a spring only from our feet. When in the saddle the stirrups are the substitute for the ground...

...True enough, one can post a trot without the stirrups, from gripping knees, but this opening and closing angles of the knee should not be confused with spring...
" - page 279

But just to be precise, I specifically wrote: "The forward seat, at least as originally taught, DID put a lot of weight into the stirrups. It does not destabilize your lower leg because your center of gravity is also over the stirrups."

And having learned from Littauer (and Chamberlin, and Morris), that is how I rode 'Australian' - and it did NOT destabilize the lower leg at all. Even now, in a western saddle, I often ride using a forward seat as taught by Caprilli, the US Cavalry, and Littauer - and it does not destabilize my lower leg. It is based on letting the weight flow uninterrupted past the knees and into the heels, and the relaxed heels add a spring to the leg as the weight is supported by the stirrups. It is using balance to...well, balance on the horse, versus using grip to avoid balance. When I post, that is the basis for it. That is the basis when I ride two point, which I spend some time doing every ride. It is both stable and secure, and proved itself to me in many sideways jumps and countless spins, all of which were unplanned.

At a bare minimum, it is obvious that at least one approach to a forward seat did and does emphasize weight flowing uninterrupted into the stirrups, and some of us still use it - without our leg flopping around. And thus my point remains totally valid - a rider can ride with a very large percentage of weight in the stirrups, or almost none, and be riding well at either extreme. This remains true at a walk, gallop, or anywhere in between.
 
#9 ·
I have read several people who ride English here saying that their instructors will have them post a trot without stirrups. That to me says actual weight in the stirrups is not a desired thing at least at the posted trot.

Personally, from a western riding perspective, I keep just enough tension (not weight) through the leg and ankle to keep my feet in the stirrups at all gaits which naturally, with a relaxed ankle pushes my heels down.

I always know when I have been relying on my stirrups for balance instead of balancing in the saddle, because my toes go numb and my ankles are stiff. Different kind of riding than English though. ;)
 
#23 · (Edited by Moderator)
A forward seat is not a "jump seat". To think of it as a way to jump is to misunderstand why and how it was used, and still can be used. It is a way to ride, not a way to get over an obstacle. Thus I can honestly say I've ridden most of the last 8 years using a forward seat - because I have.

Weight must go someplace. The options on a horse are limited to butt, thighs, knees and stirrups. Although one can allow the weight to flow into the heels, it is actually supported, of course, by the stirrups.

If your rump is out of the saddle, the weight must go into thighs or stirrups. To prevent it from flowing into the stirrups, one MUST squeeze with the thighs and knees. Unless one squeezes, it will flow into the heel and be supported by the stirrup.

Letting it flow into the stirrup, uninterrupted by the knee's squeezing, is not, in any way, bad riding. Nor does it destabilize the lower leg. Not if you are balanced on the horse. One might as well say a person standing on the ground has an unstable lower leg!

The picture below comes from a book by Jane Savoie:



E & F are balanced positions. Notice what Jane Savoie says (and I echo): In order to sit in balance, your feet need to be under your center of gravity. Both have the rider's center of gravity directly above the stirrups. In either one, the rider can unfold a little, not gripping with the knee, and end up standing in the stirrups - balanced! There will then be a lot of weight in the stirrups, but the rider will remain balanced and the lower leg will stay in place. When posting in those positions, one can unfold the body, and raise it and lower it without pivoting forward around the knee.

That is one of the traits of a balanced seat - one CAN raise oneself's to the top of the posting position without needing the horse to push you (creating more work for the horse) and without leaning forward, or gripping with the knee and then pivoting around it.

Picture g has the rider "behind the horse", which is fine as a defensive posture. Many western saddles are designed to put you in that position because it IS a good defensive posture, although it is more work for the horse. Littauer borrowed the following from Chamberlin & the US Cavalry, but that is OK:

"To see whether he is really in balance with the horse, the rider should try the following experiment; without increase in inclination in his torso and without any lurching up or forward he rises slightly in his stirrups and stays up while the horse walks, without toppling forward or collapsing backwards. The rider's weight is then supported by the stirrups, and this attitude is given stability by the tension in the three springs...This incidentally, is also the rider's position during the upward beat of the posting trot and at the gallop..." - Common Sense Horsemanship

No one is saying you should "brace" in the stirrups. If you brace, you lose two of the the "hinges" that allow you to absorb shock and stay out of the way of the horse - the ankle and knee are gone, and all you have left is the hip. Bracing is bad. Bracing is bad if you are standing at attention on a parade ground, too - you're likely to pass out and fall. Watched it many times.

But putting weight in the stirrups is no more bracing than walking or jogging is bracing.

Now, does anyone NEED to ride this way?

Nope. There are a lot of ways to ride a horse, including gripping with the knee.

But a few things ARE true:

1 - Allowing weight to flow into the stirrups, and even "standing in the stirrups", does NOT destabilize the lower leg. It does not destabilize mine, and I am neither a great athlete nor God's Gift to Horses. So if I can be stable, balanced and secure doing it - it CAN be done. If I could ride out many spooks that way, then it is also secure.

2 - If allowing weight to go into the stirrup destabilizes you, in any way, you are not riding balanced. You are either in front of or behind the horse - which is fine by me if you have a reason, but it is not balanced. You are substituting grip for balance.

3 - If you need to move forward to feel stable at the top of a post, then you started behind the horse - unbalanced, although that is OK if you have a good reason to start there.

4 - Just because a top athlete, riding many hours a day, can successfully do something, it doesn't mean the average rider can imitate it. It is a serious mistake to try to imitate top riders without actually BEING a top rider!

And here is something odd:

Folks are glad to read a paragraph by an anonymous Internet blogger, or listen to a few sentences said by their local instructor, and carry those around for life as if they are written in stone. But QUOTE a great rider like Chamberlin (4 Olympics, twice as team captain), or quote an instructor who taught thousands of students (and who felt he could safely teach someone who had never been on a horse before to jump 2 1/2 feet in 15 lessons)...and well, who cares about them! Imbeciles and morons! The only people who knew or know how to ride are those who lived in the 1600s (Dressage Masters) or those born...well, since we were, be that 1950 or 1990.

If "standing in the stirrups" unbalances you, you were not balanced to begin with. The fault is your unbalanced position, not the weight in the stirrups.




 
#13 ·
bsms you read Littauer, which sometimes I believe you do not always interpret correctly. I was lucky enough to observe Littauer, Gordon Wright, Steinkraus and other masters in real life often while they were still alive since they lived in my area.

Weight goes into the heels. I hear it daily. Sometimes more than once a day. To hear "weight in your heels" to me and most English riders is very common.

From a revised edition of Commonsense Horsemanship by Vladimar Littauer:
While insisting upon pulling the heels down, I should have added that all the weight going into the stirrups should go into the heels, which of course is a physical impossibility but is very descriptive of the feeling that the rider should have.
Bolding mine.

bsms said:
In the 90s, George Morris wrote about 'the American Jumping Style', which was based almost completely on the American 'Military Seat'.
Someone who had the same exact exposure to riding as I did growing up is one of the riders George uses as an example in that book. Believe me, she puts her weight in her heels, not her stirrups.
 
#14 ·
It might be worth considering just sometimes, I have been watching videos of old dressage masters, and the type of horse and the movement that they had are a far cry from the dressage horses of today, I'm guessing that in most disciplines riders are adapting to this new movement. While one must have respect and remember the lessons taught by the masters of the past, their tack, equipment and horses were different.

The OP's question about weight distribution, my answer "It depends" and to be honest the whole sport of "equestrianism" is a fluid and dynamic thing, or we would all still be riding in stiff johds, with elephant ears, in flat leather only saddles, with a limited choice of bits.

Those of us who have had instruction in many different disciplines, realise that the fundamentals actually remain the same, Stand on your horse, don't sit, let the weight fall through your heels, weight over the centre of balance, feet forward, etc etc, sure the finesse of each becomes different, but you look at the instruction in my barn, hunters, jumpers, English dressage, western dressage, reining, trail riders, pleasure riders, and weekend riders, the horses are different, the tack is different, but the instruction is fairly universal.
 
#19 ·
weight over the centre of balance, feet forward, etc etc,
When I say feet forward I don't mean feet forward :icon_rolleyes:

What I meant was TOES forward, a lot of the stability of the lower leg comes from toes forward..

LOL, going back to greats of the past, I remember reading the late great Pat Smythes autobiography as a teenager, she spoke of the collective horror of her foot position, and the realisation that it was ballet that was doing it. The ballet was dropped and she learned to ride with her feet correctly facing forward and not stuck out at 90* as though she was in first position:rofl::rofl:
 
#16 ·
Balance and weightlessness for riding are best explained by Sally Swift in her book, "Centered Riding." Amazing drawings and photos, plus mental images to be balanced at any gait, in any saddle.

She says stirrups are there "to rest on, not to push on." Pushing into stirrups stiffens your entire leg and body. I've also heard: Toes softly up, NOT heels pushing down.

Swift says: "Let the ice cream in your body melt and dribble down and out through your feet."

One idea is that if the horse was instantly pulled from beneath you (not literally, imaginatively) you would be left in an athletic stance as if playing tennis or baseball. If your invisible horse were trotting or cantering, you'd be on the ground running lightly, perfectly balanced, as in jogging or skiing - eyes forward, weight balanced.

In posting, forward movement from the horse moves you forward, not upward. An instinctual rider who is connected with her horse can post beautifully with neither saddle nor stirrups - and without "leaning/pulling" on the reins.
 
#17 ·
Forcing stirrup position/weight also forces an unnatural and stiff position all the way up.

It is incorrect in ANY type of riding to not ride from the seat. Yes, in jumping discipline's that is different but the same concept is modified. Some discipline's use the leg more than others, so on a cowhorse you may use your leg to balance as opposed to dressage you would use it to cue. I can put different types of saddles on the same horse and be riding completely differently.

I say again my concept of the leg is to have it as an anchor, and that alone is a good example, imo, that is across the disciplines. Whether it's the "ice cream dribbling" or an in the moment (and only in the moment) brace to help balance. Other than in the moment bracing is always wrong. Whether that is bracing your seat up in the air, or simply bracing your leg into a certain position. (And you can definitely see the negative effect of "toes up heels down" when taught incorrectly).

It's always interesting to see how equitation classes are often so different from proper riding. *Proper riding is proper riding regardless of discipline*

I agree the bareback is your best friend!
 
#20 ·
I was lucky enough to observe Littauer, Gordon Wright, Steinkraus and other masters in real life often while they were still alive since they lived in my area.
Bolding mine.

I have to correct myself as I should have written "active or alive". Without proofreading what I wrote before posting I made an error, one I know not to be true. William Steinkraus is alive and I apologize for writing otherwise.
 
#27 ·
It's little hard to phrase this question. But it is about how much weight you support/put in your legs vs in your sit during walk , trout & Canter. Just for the discussion purpose, for example, while waling , you would put very little 15-20 percent of your weight in your heels ( enough to keep heels down) and rest ( 80 % approximately ) is in your seat. I need to know how these number dynamics changes with the change in the gate: so

1) During walk:Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

2)During trot:-Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

3) During cantering: Weight in your heels:____ % and weight in your seat :___ %

I hope it's not a confusing question. Also what are some tips to keep weight in your heels?
This is the reason I can't dance. I have to count 1 - 2 -3- up, 1 - 2- 3 back, 1 - 2 - 3 turn..... I can't enjoy the music. I can't appreciate my partner. Counting and measuring turns it into work. I'm retired. I don't have to do that anymore.
 
#29 ·
OP, when you try and "force" one part of your body to have more "weight" than another... that is when things go wrong.

Riding is work, but it should be relaxing at the same time. Meaning you aren't forcing yourself to keep X amount of weight in Y place... you are allowing your butt to be in the saddle (or out if in half-seat) and your legs to shape around the horse but hanging down so your foot rests in the stirrup not curled up under you to where you lose your stirrup or pressing against the stirrup and creating tension all down your leg. Regardless of the discipline you ride.
 
#30 · (Edited)
I jump Oliver on trails in a western saddle.:eek:mg:

Not a lot, but on a two hour ride maybe twice or three times every time we go out. The boy loves to jump when there is a reason for it (hates artificial jumps). Sometimes it is 18” some jumps are 3-4’.

Having no formal jump training, I am left to my own observations as to what works and what does not. What does not (besides ending up with a horn to the solo-plexus), is entirely based on feel, since I am a kinesthetic learner, even without training, it is possible to feel when you nailed timing and position in a jump beautifully and when it was awkward because you did not.

What I have found is this: successful tension, weight distribution and muscle release is not stagnant, it flows. You don’t “assume the position” and freeze there. It is an interplay.

Where my weight/tension may be on my stirrups at one point, it flows away from there and into my ankles, knees or seat in order to stay in balance with the movement of the horse from the ground, to the air, to the ground again. At some points it might flow the other way but it always has to stay with the horse. I have found that the jumps where I did not allow for the interplay of adjustments and became ridged in holding a set amount of tension throughout, were bad feeling jumps.

I’m sure that those of you for whom jumping is your sport, will have another viewpoint, but this is what I have observed in the differences between the jumps where I thought “well that was ugly” and the ones that I thought “that was amazing! We moved as one entity.”.
 
#32 ·
bsms - Please will you stop dwelling on things from the past - English/European riding has moved on, things have changed and you either change with them and improve or you get left behind
Jane Savoie thinks that tapping a horse on the legs will train it to do a piaffe so you'll have to forgive me for not being impressed with anything she says
 
#34 ·
What has changed in riding horses? Folks have done it for thousands of years. Mongols and Native Americans were famous for their riding long before international show jumping or dressage caught on! Show Jumping may change its courses, but riding around arenas in front of judges is no test of genuine riding. If it were, rollkur would have been rejected immediately, and WP would not have tolerated peanut rollers for years, nor would WP continue to encourage horses to be bred to move with their noses way down.

The seat I learned from the US Cavalry and Chamberlin and Littauer kept me on a horse who bolted many times, and spooked, leaped sideways and spun madly around far more times than I could count. My one fall came when my horse spooked during a dismount, which isn't a bad record. It has also worked for teaching Bandit to trot with confidence instead of bracing his back. It seems to work well for helping Cowboy stay balanced when I'm riding him at 30% of his body weight. It simply has worked, and worked very well for me and my horses.

If you choose to ride otherwise...fine. If you and your horses are happy, I'm happy for you. There IS more than one way to ride effectively.

And at an absolute minimum: I have very often ridden my horse "standing in the stirrups", yet with a very stable lower leg - in English, Australian and western saddles. Thus my original statement remains indisputably correct - weight in the stirrups does NOT destabilize the lower leg.

But if someone wants to ride well, they might want to ask themselves who they should trust. Should they take the sentences written by Internet bloggers as authoritative? Or should they trust world champion riders describing how a novice can ride well? Is there anyone on this thread who has won at high levels of polo, or been chosen to be the team captain of an Olympic equestrian team? Has anyone on this thread graduated from Samur? Anyone graduated from the Italian cavalry course? Anyone here who has won Olympic gold?

Do you or does anyone else on this thread have the record of equine accomplishment that Harry Chamberlin had? So why should a new rider take YOUR advice, and ignore HIS? Why does it bother you or others to read his advice to new riders?

"Because of the widespread preconception that you can only learn, in a sort of intuitive way, by doing, and that reading or even thinking seriously about riding is rather pointless, too many young riders are doomed to groping too long in a forest of problems solved long ago. I can recall my astonishment, when I first began to collect books on the techniques of riding, at finding, in books written two or three centuries ago, minute descriptions of "discoveries" that I had made for myself only after a long period of trial and error...Once we become interested in learning about riding, and are not content to repeat interminably the same errors, there is much that we can learn." - William Steinkraus, Riding and Jumping, 1961.

If William Steinkraus could learn by reading old books, why is anyone on this thread above it? Why should riders rejoice in ignorance of the past?

"OP, when you try and "force" one part of your body to have more "weight" than another... that is when things go wrong." - Skyseternalangel

Agreed. Forcing, bracing, tensing - those are enemies of good riding. Riding should be like walking - not without muscle tension, but not forced.

"What I have found is this: successful tension, weight distribution and muscle release is not stagnant, it flows. You don’t “assume the position” and freeze there. It is an interplay." - Reiningcatsanddogs

Common Sense Horsemanship was recommended to me by maura, a former moderator who taught jumping. I waded thru the section on riding philosophy, resenting it and not understanding, then, how important it can be to understand one's own riding philosophy. But when he started discussing position, he said there wasn't one. He pointed out that he could put a rider on a standing horse and adjust the rider to have "perfect position" - and the moment the horse moved, it would be all over.

He said the test of riding was this: Do you move in fluid balance with your horse? Can you give your horse the cues you want and he understands? If so, you are fine. And for the new rider, or the very imperfect "sometimes" rider like me, the real test is largely this: Do you move in fluid balance with your horse? As Cordillera Cowboy implies, it's a dance, not a drill.

And one of the reasons I ride in two-point every ride, regardless of saddle, is that I know of no better way to feel the balance of your horse. If you are ahead or behind your horse, or fail to match your balance to his during a turn, acceleration or slowing, it will become immediately apparent - IF you do not substitute grip for balance. When I get back in the saddle, my goal is to replicate the balance I needed in two point while sitting - to move with my horse. If I pay too much attention to position, or weight, or where my feet are, the dance ends.
 
#33 ·
I have learned over many years that the most stable and secure way to ride is to keep the majority of your weight OFF your feet. If you are sitting the gait, then your weight should be on your seat. If you are rising a trot or riding in 2 point, your inner thigh and knee. Ideally, there shouldn't be more weight on your feet than required to keep your stirrups on your feet. There is no way to calculate exact percentages as it all depends on feel and what you are doing.
 
#35 ·
Moderating:

Hello all. Several posts have been edited or removed in this thread.

Please try really hard to be polite in your disagreements and as hard as it is, attempt to relate responses back to have some relevance to the subject of the Original Poster's query.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Textan49
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top