Fallacies (More Misinformation)

Having been in this profession for more than a decade, you'd think I'd have heard the bulk of the available info - both good and bad - about saddles and fit.  However, humans are nothing if not innovative, so there's often something new stirring out there.  Sometimes it's a new fitting diagnostic or a new saddle design, sometimes it's a new fitting theory or a new dingwhacket guaranteed to cure every saddle fitting ill on the planet.  But the one "new" thing I find unceasingly amazing is the amount of (what I feel is) questionable theory that I seem to trip over every time I turn around ... and the people willing to believe it.

ROCK ON

My saddle fitting training and philosophy states that the saddle should spread the rider's weight over the largest possible weight-bearing area (without extending past T18) and maintain contact with the horse's back throughout the panel when the horse is in motion.  So I was quite surprised when I read this post.  My first impression was that it runs very counter to what I've been taught, so I read it through a few times, trying to understand the author's point (and keeping in mind that, while he's quite fluent in English, it is not his mother tongue).  I think I get it:  the saddle can't press too heavily in the rear of the panels, it shouldn't put pressure on the loins and it must fit the active back ... and I couldn't agree more.  However, if the Holy Three (tree width, tree shape and panel configuration) are correct, there won't be tons of pressure or "visual indents under the panel wedge" (which in my experience often come from a too-narrow tree), so the saddle doesn't need to "rock slightly at the cantle".  I can understand using upswept panels to keep the weight-bearing surface on the safe side of T18, but the word "rock" is really throwing me here.  This could be a misunderstanding on my part, or it could be an example of the differences between the UK school of fitting and the "Continental" school ... but if the cantle lifts when the horse is in motion, there's a fulcrum point somewhere that's causing the rocking, and that's causing a pressure point, and that's not good.

SHIMMING FOR SPACE

This reminds me of the old saw, "Fighting for peace is like f******g for virginity ..."
  

Recently, someone sent me photos of their horse and saddle, hoping I could shed some light on an ongoing fitting problem.  Her chiropractor/saddle fitter had recommended using front shims to "create some room", since the front of the saddle seemed tight.  When I saw the photos, it turned out that the tree was substantially too narrow for the horse, and the shims just made things worse.  "But the fitter said there needed to be more room in the front of the saddle, and the shims would help create it."


I can follow the thinking here:  if you add shims to the front of the saddle, they take up space; if the saddle's a little too wide, they can make up the width and lift the front of the saddle, making it sit level instead of nose-diving. So if you add shims to a tree that's too narrow, yes, you'll lift the front of the saddle and create more room between the horse's wither and the pommel arch ... but you're creating even more pressure under the tree points.  Following that logic, if the waistband of your jeans isn't roomy enough, you should be able to add a couple pairs of granny panties and create more room.  And trust me, one will be just as uncomfortable as the other.  If the tree's too narrow, adding more bulk under the tree points is the last thing you should do.


FITTING THE HORSE TO THE SADDLE


Customer calls and is interested in trying a Frank Baines Capriole, says she rode in one and loved it to pieces, most comfortable saddle she's ever been in, and wants one for her horse.  When I ask if she's ever tried one on her horse, she says no; when I ask what sort of horse she has, she says she has an older Thoroughbred mare with big withers and a dippy back.  Problem here is that the Baines Capriole fits flat as a pancake, and putting one on a horse with the described conformation will probably make it bridge like a plank over a ditch. But I asked the customer to send tracings and photos, just in case the "big withers and dippy back" was less extreme than it had sounded.


When the info arrived, the mare indeed proved to be the opposite end of the spectrum from "flat".  I contacted the owner with some recommendations, which included a Black Country Eden, a Frank Baines Reflex, an Albion high-head and an older County Competitor (the kind that looks like a leather-covered banana with billets).  But the owner wouldn't let go of the idea of a Capriole.  "But won't her back come up with training?  When she's doing dressage, doesn't her back come up?"


I agreed that it would and it should, and asked just how old "older" was, and what level the mare was presently working.


"She's 18, and we're just starting to work at Training Level," was the reply.


Now, I have seen horse's backs change to an amazing degree with correct training, and it's not uncommon to see dramatic muscle development happen ... but in an 18 yr. old horse under an ammie owner and just getting into Training level?  Not so much, honestly. I told the customer all my reservations and doubts, but she insisted on trying a Capriole.  She sent photos to me, and the saddle was showing daylight under the panels - plank over a ditch, indeed.  Needless to say, her fitter nixed the saddle, her trainer nixed the saddle, and her vet nixed the saddle.  Finally she settled on a Frank Baines Reflex (which fit the horse like a glove and turned out to be fine for the rider, too) ... but she told me her next horse is going to be a LOT flatter in the back.


WIDTH, WIDTH, WIDTH


"My horse needs a wide tree."  "My horse needs a 34 cm. tree." "My horse needs an extra-wide tree."  I hear this day in and day out.  And given some of the fitting information available on some saddle companies' web sites, it's understandable - width is one of the most frequently-mentioned facets (and sometimes the only facet) of saddle fitting.  I've even had customers tell me that reps have told them, "As long as the tree width is correct, everything else will be, too."  And while it's a vital part of the saddle fitting equation, it's not the only part.


HEY SANTA - REINDEER GOT FUR!


Take a look at this.  Get past the reindeer "fur" saddle pad and click on the "How To Fit Your Horse" link on the left.  Please do not send me tracings made to these specs.  Please ... just don't.  


SLIP SLIDING AWAY


One of the most diplomatically sensitive areas of saddle fitting is seat size.  To some people, large seat size means "your arse is huge," and they can get downright cranky if you infer that a 16.5" or 17" seat might be a tad ... snug.  While the size of your back yard does play a part in the seat size you'll need, remember that the length of your femur plays a part here, too.  So if you're 5'9" and long-legged, please don't be offended if your saddle fitter mentions an 18" seat (or an 18.5" or 19" seat in the snug-fitting brands like Duett and Lovatt and Ricketts).  That said, there are times when a larger seat size is NOT the answer; I've dealt with lots of tall, skinny riders who'd spent years trying to stabilize their leg when they couldn't reach the knee/thigh block and swimming in seats that were miles too big.  Sometimes the answer for the tall skinnies is a smaller seat size and a modified (longer and/or more forward) flap, so if you're 5'9" and weigh 130 lbs., that may be the better option.  (If you'd like some in-depth info on fitting the rider, check out my Saddle Fit for the Rider article on the shop's website.)


If you run into any info you wonder about, check it out with a reputable saddler/fitter.  And if you don't know one, you can always leave a comment here or send me an e-mail; I'm happy to offer whatever help I can.

Mythbusters, Inc.

Here we are, more than four months into a new year and a new decade.  I remember being in my teens and doing the math to find out how old I'd be in the year 2000 ... and not being able to imagine being that old.  And now I'm 10 years older than that.  Little did I know ...

There were lots of things I believed in my youth that have turned out to be fallacious:  "Wait an hour after a meal to go swimming.  If you don't, you'll get a cramp and drown."  (I rarely go in over my head, and "You'll get a cramp while you're wading" just doesn't have the same impact.)   "Eating raw potatoes will give you worms."  (I love raw potatoes, and if I have worms, they're very quiet tenants.)  And the biggest, courtesy of my French-Canadian Catholic grandmother:  "At midnight on Christmas Eve, the animals in the barn bow down to honor the birth of the baby Jesus."  (Ever the pragmatist, I snuck out to the barn one Christmas Eve when I was about 6, sat quietly, and watched.  Midnight came and went, and while most of the cows and some of the horses were lying down, there was no bowing to be seen.  This not only made me question the whole organized religion thing - it also blew some pretty big holes in Grandma's credibility.)

There are also a lot of old saws regarding saddles and saddle fitting that should be laid to rest.  Some are based on outdated practices or technology, and some were never really true to begin with.

1)  "If the saddle is the right size for you, you'll be able to fit your hand between the back of your butt and the edge of the cantle."   Perhaps back in the day when English saddle design was pretty static, this might have been true.  Now, however, it's pretty much gone the way of the dodo.  If you look at the deep seat and high cantle on some dressage saddles, or the swept-back cantle on some cross-country saddles, you'll see what I mean.  The length and set of the flaps, and the placement of the blocks are also important - if the seat's ok but the flap or blocks are wrong, the rider won't be comfy:

The seat on this saddle is sufficiently large - it would be too large for some people's taste - but unless the rider lengthens the leather considerably, her knee is going to be over the block and off the flap.  A more forward-set flap would be needed if the rider is not comfortable with a longer leg.

Now here's an example of a saddle that's just too darn small - we're almost talking "thong with stirrups" here:

Probably another inch of seat length, and perhaps a more generous flap, would make the saddle a much better fit.

 Also, personal preference plays a large part here.  Some people like to feel a little more cradled, while some prefer a bit more room to move.  If you feel balanced and comfortable, and can ride well and effectively, then the seat's the right size for you.

2)  "Foam panels are no good because they break down so quickly."   This was pretty true in the beginning.  Anyone who's old enough to have had one of the first English saddles with foam in the padded flaps will tell you that it degraded in pretty short order and became this nasty, grainy sand-like stuff that would magically leach out and cling with great tenacity to the knee patches on your breeches.  Unfortunately, the first foam panels behaved in pretty much the same manner.  The good news is that today's foams are far more resilient.  They don't conform to a horse's back the way wool does, which makes them a good choice for a "one saddle, multiple horse" situation (providing, of course, the fit is basically correct for all the horses it's being used on).  And if something does happen that affects the integrity of the foam, the saddle can be sent back to the manufacturer and the foam can be replaced.

3)  "You should have 3 fingers' clearance between your horse's wither and the gullet of the saddle."   This has changed to a much less exacting "adequate clearance."  With some horses and saddles, three fingers will be about right ... and on some, it may be 4 fingers, and on some, only one.  Hoop trees, for example, are designed to sit lower on the horse than standard trees, in order to minimize lateral instability on the sausage bodies.  Here's an example of a hoop tree that's fitting well (note the green lines showing angle of the back and angle of the tree points).  There's not 3 fingers' clearance there, but the fit is correct:

4)  "Buy a saddle with a wide tree and you can pad it to fit any horse."  I'm going to go back to my favorite analogy here and compare that to buying a pair of size 14 shoes and thinking they'll fit everyone if they just wear enough pairs of socks.  I know there are some big-name trainers out there who subscribe to that theory, but if a tree's way, way too wide for a horse, you can have it sitting up on 4 or 5 or 6 pads, and it still won't fit properly.  And in addition, you'll run into lateral stability problems if your saddle is perched 3" off your horse's back on a drift of multiple pads.  Just not a good idea.

5)  "Women want saddles with wide twists, and men want saddles with narrow twists."  I covered this in a blog post way back in March of '09 (http://saddlefitter.blogspot.com/2009/03/twist-and-shout.html), so I won't go into tons of detail -  I'll just reiterate and say that I've never found much truth in that particular statement.  I'm a woman, and I like a narrow twist; two women here in the shop like a wide twist.  So go figure.  If I ever get to the point where I can peg twist width preference and fit for the rider as easliy as I can assess fit for the horse, I'll retire in under five years.

6)  "High withered horses need narrow trees for wither clearance."  High withered horses rarely need narrow trees.  I've been fitting saddles for a decade or so, and in that time I've run into two horses that really needed a narrow tree (and strangely enough, when their fitting needs were met, they both developed muscle and had to be re-fit with medium trees).  Often, high withered horses need modified panels:  a K or trapezius panel, a wither or full front gusset, or a deeper rear gusset.  Putting a narrow tree on a horse just because of a big wither will actually cause more muscle atrophy under the tree points and actually exacerbate the fitting problems.

7)  "Steeple-withered horses are built that way because they've never had a saddle that fits them properly."  As I said in #6, trying to fit a big wither with a narrow tree can make a bad matter worse.  But there are times when saddle fit isn't the culprit - genetics are.  If you've been on the Trumbull Mtn. website at all, you might be familiar with this photo:

(Sorry it's so pixellated - I can't find the original and had to pull this one from the site.)  This is a fairly young horse at the beginning of his under saddle career.  That wither's a fitting challenge, and could be made worse by a bad fit, but it comes directly from Mom and / or Dad, not from a saddle.

8)  "Getting a custom made saddle is the only way to get a really high-quality saddle, and if you have a hard-to-fit horse, it's the only way to fit them correctly."  Any saddle company out there is going to make the best saddle it possibly can, whether it's a stock model or a custom job.  And as for fitting hard-to-fit horses ... in all the time I've been fitting saddles, I've yet to see a horse that really, truly needed a fully custom saddle.  Some need a bench-made saddle - that is, a stock model made with certain modifications - and some have needed one saddle built on another saddle's tree.  But as far as honestly needing a custom tree and a custom saddle built on it?  Nah.  It's a nice way to spend your disposable income, and the snob appeal is undeniable, but I've yet to see it be an absolute necessity.