Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

Title: RE: [RC] rider weight studies, part 1

> This would not be the first time Deb Bennett sounded
> more expert than she really was.
>  
> Regards,
>
> Mike Sherrell
> Grizzly Analytical
> 707 887 2919; fax 707 887 9834
> www.grizzlyanalytical.com
> > -----Original
> > Message-----
> > From: ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:ridecamp-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Kristen A
> > Fisher
> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 6:35 PM
> > To: suendavid@xxxxxxx; ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [RC] rider weight studies, part 1
> > I finally
> > had the time to read these posts in detail and have a few
> > questions/speculations.
> >  
> > Would it be
> > fair to say that the parameters below for Tevis could
> > be extrapolated to 50s or even pleasure riding? Eg, if a
> > horse/rider under a combined 1200# can finish a 100 mile ride and be
> > fit top= continue, wouldn't you say that in a 50 mile
> > ride or a pleasure ride, the same would be true? Just because of
> > the lesser exertion on the team.
> >  
> > If that is
> > so, then why do I keep hearing a LOT of people bandy about the 20%
> > rider weight "rule"? Even Deb Bennett recently stated in
> > Equus Mar 2007 that "when the [rider weight] percentage rises to
> > 20 extra care must be taken." She does go on to say that
> > conformation and bone structure also matter - but has IMO nonetheless
> > perpetuated the 20% rule/myth/whatever.
> >  
> > Maybe it's
> > just one of those old "rules of thumb" that people can't let
> > go?
> >  
> > Kristen

The original rule of thumb came, I believe, from the US Cavalry, where they were looking at functional longevity of equipment (the horses) in the hands of rider recruits of varying skill levels, many of the "plowboys" just off the farm with no equitation skills at all.

-- 

 Lynn Kinsky, Santa Ynez, CA

 http://www.silcom.com/~lkinsky/