Re: Horse Height

["Duncan Fletcher" <dfletche@gte.net>]

Not suprising from the standpoint of physics. The lever arm acting against
the lower part of the leg is longer and the stressses therefore higher (even
assuming the taller horse is no heavier and carries the same weight rider as
the shorter horse). If the horse has the bone (and other supporting
structures) to go with the height, no problem. Unfortunately, in the
practical world of breeding and the emphasis on height as the final product,
that does not always happen.

Duncan Fletcher
dfletche@gte.net


-----Original Message-----
From: Susan Evans Garlinghouse <suendavid@worldnet.att.net>


>When we were collecting data at Tevis, we sure saw alot of big horses
>that did very well (including that 16.2 mule Ruby that won Haggin Cup
>this year).  And historically, there have been plenty of big horses that
>have done high mileage, won numerous races, won BC, etc. etc.  However,
>now that we have a larger database, we're possibly starting to see a
>trend that larger horses are more prone to lameness problems, not
>because of rider weight or anything like that, but because of the extra
>body weight that comes with a taller frame.  The big horses that did
>well all had excellent bone in excess of 8" circumference.  Ruby has a
>cannon bone around 8 3/8" if memory serves, the biggest I measured.
>
>So, just based on the data we've analyzed, I'd say big horses certainly
>can do well if they have the bone to back up the extra body mass.  If
>that big body has light bone, well, he may not do as well.
>
>Good luck!  My 2 1/2 year old Karahty colt is 15.3, so maybe we can ride
>together in the future and fret about our kids.  My motto is gonna be,
>"If you can't beat 'em---trample 'em.":-D
>
>Susan G
>