I have to Ask! Plus Sized riders + Arabians = ? - Page 2
 
 

       The Horse Forum > The Horse Forum Community > Plus Sized Riders

I have to Ask! Plus Sized riders + Arabians = ?

This is a discussion on I have to Ask! Plus Sized riders + Arabians = ? within the Plus Sized Riders forums, part of the The Horse Forum Community category
  • Does an overweight horse have more trouble carrying a rider

Like Tree76Likes

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
    11-16-2012, 01:51 PM
  #11
Trained
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clava    
but really should they have to carry such a heavy load simply for the rider's pleasure? No animal should struggle, there are other bigger boned animals more suitable.
Sorry, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. They are beasts of burden and the average pleasure horse only gets ridden 2 or 3 hrs per week, not a big deal. If she were looking for a cow horse or something to ride 40 hrs/week it'd be a different story, but I'd still lean toward a larger, heavier boned Arab.
DixieDarlin and horsietori like this.
     
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
    11-16-2012, 01:56 PM
  #12
Super Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamcatcher Arabians    
Sorry, you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. They are beasts of burden and the average pleasure horse only gets ridden 2 or 3 hrs per week, not a big deal. If she were looking for a cow horse or something to ride 40 hrs/week it'd be a different story, but I'd still lean toward a larger, heavier boned Arab.

2 to 3 hrs of discomfort for any beast is not acceptable to me, beasts of burden maybe but I don't believe in any animal suffering just for a rider's pleasure.
secuono and SunnyMeadeFarm like this.
     
    11-16-2012, 01:58 PM
  #13
Trained
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clava    
2 to 3 hrs of discomfort for any beast is not acceptable to me, beasts of burden maybe but I don't believe in any animal suffering just for a rider's pleasure.

LOL, then I guess you better start walkin'. I don't think there's a horse alive who would ask to be ridden.
     
    11-16-2012, 09:06 PM
  #14
Trained
My biggest concern is his age at the moment, a bigger rider should never ever be riding a young horse, they need to be at their full strength before being asked to carry the heavier loads.

Next it is a question that I have been asking for a while, everyone says that Arabs are good weight carriers, being short of back and good solid bone, but then they keep quoting the same 20% as everyone quotes for any other breed, which I find very confusing.

Be aware also that while the camera appears to add 10 pounds to a person, it does seem to make horses look finer than they are. I am told by people who see this girl on line



Now a couple of people who have only seen her online have met her recently and have been shocked how solid she look when you actually meet her. I'm losing weight at the moment with the aim of being able to ride her, and my first target is 250 pounds, at that I would get on her and walk her around, but I would like to get to 225 before I ramp it up a bit, but that will all depend on how she does.
prairiewindlady and Leemew like this.
     
    11-16-2012, 09:26 PM
  #15
Super Moderator
I think Arabs are not physically mature until at least age 6. So , would not heavily burden such horse before that.
Druydess and SouthernTrails like this.
     
    11-16-2012, 09:32 PM
  #16
Trained
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Horse    
My biggest concern is his age at the moment, a bigger rider should never ever be riding a young horse, they need to be at their full strength before being asked to carry the heavier loads.

Next it is a question that I have been asking for a while, everyone says that Arabs are good weight carriers, being short of back and good solid bone, but then they keep quoting the same 20% as everyone quotes for any other breed, which I find very confusing.

.............

Now a couple of people who have only seen her online have met her recently and have been shocked how solid she look when you actually meet her. I'm losing weight at the moment with the aim of being able to ride her, and my first target is 250 pounds, at that I would get on her and walk her around, but I would like to get to 225 before I ramp it up a bit, but that will all depend on how she does.

That's why I said to give him time over the next couple of years to build up to carrying a heavier load. The OP is not riding the 3 y.o., and is having a trainer ride him and train him. If the trainer is worth his salt, he ought to be light enough in the saddle that the horse doesn't suffer any damage from carrying him.

I don't know why people go for the 20% thing, I suppose that's optimum but I also think people are getting carried away with it. I think it was originally deemed for horses in hard work. Your average pleasure horse, especially here in the US, might get ridden 2 or 3 hours per week IF their owner is really active with them. I know many who don't ride except maybe an hour on a weekend, 2 if they go on a trail ride and that's mostly at a walk, maybe a little trotting tossed in for good measure. It's certainly not what I consider a work out.

I think there are differences for differences in ability too. I know people who weigh 150 lbs but have no muscle tone that I would not allow on my Arab's back. But his trainer was 6'9" and weighed 300 lbs and he never missed a step. His trainer could have been a quarterback but instead had one of the lightest seats and gentlest hands I've ever seen.

I don't like blanket statements and assumptions made over the internet when people don't know the horse or the rider involved. Too many things get said that can be hurtful and discouraging, as is demonstrated by the fact that the OP's first trainer was an oaf and now she's still questioning whether she should ride her own horse. That's not constructive to anyone.
     
    11-16-2012, 10:07 PM
  #17
Green Broke
20% is an old wives tale with no basis in science. It was started by a bureaucrat that didnt know his butt from a whole in the ground, and who's cavalry frequently got thier butts handed to them on a platter. He just happened to right a Army manual that has been quoted over and over and over.

FACT: Tevis cup winners, finnishers and pulled percentages over the last 10 years ZERO correlation between rider weight percentage,
FACT: A lard butt overweight horse can't carry more than a fit one,
FACT: A horse weight, was a unit of measure used in the pack horse industry equal to 200 lbs. In an era when an average horse went 800 lbs.
FACT: Medival combat horses that actually campaigned in battle, were those same 800 lb horses and did quite well carrying armored troops and armor.
FACT, Lots and lots of 200 plus lb men with 50 lbs of tack criss cross this country every single day.
     
    11-16-2012, 11:00 PM
  #18
Trained
Just thought of a thing I read some years ago. The army, after WW II, took small Arabs, barely over 14hh, let them carry 240lbs, 8 hours a day, for 5 days. None came up lame or injured, and every single one could have gone another week or two. None had lost condition either.
Now who, nowadays, rides that much? So I totally agree with dreamcatcher and Joe.
     
    11-16-2012, 11:11 PM
  #19
Trained
I like the 20% number as a comparison method. If I came up way over the 20% I would reconsider the situation. For example, if I came up at the 40% mark then maybe a different mount is in order. That's just me though.
Posted via Mobile Device
Clava likes this.
     
    11-17-2012, 04:23 AM
  #20
Super Moderator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreamcatcher Arabians    
LOL, then I guess you better start walkin'. I don't think there's a horse alive who would ask to be ridden.

No, but they don't deserve an incredibly heavy weight inflicted upon them either. Just because a horse can carry such a weight does not mean we should make them do so. Just get a bigger horse!

Examples of what horses were made to do during the war is really laughable, we don't think it is now acceptable to have them facing bullets and bomb blasts nor is it acceptable to have them over loaded as they were.

Goldenhorse, the horse in your photo is very overweight, her actual cannon bones are reasonbly fine, if she was the correct weight she would not look so chunky. As someone else said, fat horses cannot carry people any better (and will struggle more) but they will make the calculation look better. The 20% actually referes to the weight of a fit and not overweight horse.

The 20% rule of thumb is not a scientific rule but a rough guide line to send warning signals that the weight is getting too much, there are loads of examples of horses that have incredible weight carrying abilitites such as Highlands and Icelandics, but they are exceptions and treated accordingly, the average small horse and fine boned arab cannot take 19 stone people without some damage. As horse lovers why would you do that to a horse.
     

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0