Re: RC: Re: Now Cannons was Belesemo

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated 1/30/00 11:13:29 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
woa@stormnet.com writes:

<< He added that his preference for size was more out of
 pity for the poor horse that has to drag him up steep hills than any
 fad.  >>

But it is the WEIGHT and substance of the horse that matters here, not the 
height.  Unless your husband is obese in addition to being 6'5", there are 
any number of 15:1 and 15:2 horses out there with sufficient substance to 
carry him athletically and comfortably.  A great many extremely tall Arabs 
are disproportionately leggy--and if anything, that is a disadvantage for 
carrying a large person rather than an advantage.  

As to my illustration about clothes--you miss my point.  I did not say that 
HE had his pants hanging off his rear end--I just said that the concern over 
a "look" is similar to that.  And I continue to feel that, when I see tall 
men turn down a substantial 15:1 horse in favor of a less substantial 15:3 
horse that is far less suited to carry their weight.

Heidi