Re: New horse/Weight ratio

["Susan Garlinghouse" <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>]

>very important.  I saw Susan Garlinghouse's name on >that piece, but I didn't see it on her website.  What it >is...and I don't profess to  teach you all her math and her >research..you take the horse's weight, and your weight >>(include tack) and add them together. You measure the >cannon bone, and divide the weight number in lbs. by >the cannon measurement! in inches.  Then you divide it by

 

 

Oh Lord, I just knew this thing would haunt me forever.  I'm gonna see if Steoh can remove that post---that whole thing was based on some numbers I came up with at the earlier Tevis studies.  I was doodling around with some things and lo and behold, came up with this equation.  I checked the ratios against a few dozen horses (which is a nice start towards "suggestion", but in no way constitutes "a statisitcal sampling") and for those few dozen horses, the numbers held up okay.  Made the BIG mistake of mentioning it on ridecamp as a possible nifty tool to use.

 

However, when I finally got around to trying to apply the ratios to over 600 horses, the ratio DOES NOT WORK.  It's just a statistics thing.  It's like going to Norway, looking around you and concluding that all human beings are blonde.  That's fine as long as you're just looking in Norway, but once you start looking at EVERYONE, then the statement 'all people are blonde' doesn't hold up anymore.

 

So, bottom line, I'm glad you like your horse for lots of other reasons, because if you'd bought him based only on the Susan G Weight Ratio That Doesn't Work, then I'd have to reimburse you for your purchase price or something.  :-)

 

If nuthin else, this sure taught me NEVER to muse online about theories and hypotheses until I've got really good numbers to back it up yea or nay.

 

Susan G