Re: Short coupling

[CMKSAGEHIL <CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-03-13 16:20:17 EST, Jpcornes@aol.com writes:

<< I know that a long coupled horse is a poor choice for endurance.   What
about
 short coupled horses?   Is there any reason you would not want to ride one,
 especially a horse that is VERY short coupled?    Would the fact that I am a
 heavy weight (170 with tack) make a difference in the decision?    >>


I don't think that a horse CAN be too short-coupled (have certainly never seen
one) but will qualify that to some degree.  Short-coupled horses tend to also
have long shoulders and long hips.  If one did not, he would look like he was
squashed from front to back.  I have also seen UNBALANCED short-coupled horses
that have had problems with forging, because their legs are way too long for
their bodies.  They are also rough riding when this is the case--just the
opposite of what you get with a short-coupled horse that IS balanced.  My rule
of thumb is that I don't choose horses that LOOK tall when I stand back and
look at them from a distance.  I do not find that height correlates well to
quality in and of itself, and do not use it at all as a selection criterion.
If the horse looks normal at a distance, and you do not discover he is tall
until you walk up to him and reach up to put your hand on his withers, then he
is a well-balanced tall horse, and is worth a further look.  A shorter,
balanced horse will carry a heavy rider much better, though, than a tall horse
that is NOT balanced.

Short coupling is VERY desirable the more weight there is to carry.  Just like
taking a long board and putting it over sawhorses placed at the very ends vs.
placing the sawhorses part-way in from the ends.  See how many bricks you can
pile on before the board breaks.

Ummmm....  As to being a heavyweight at 170 pounds--I weigh a lot more than
that, but I am still just a lowly middleweight.....

Heidi Smith, DVM--Sagehill Arabians (Oregon)