Re: Newbie query: why required weight...yada yada yada

["Frank Mechelhoff" <fmechelh@c-s-k.de>]

Suzanne J. Griffin wrote:

> rider on a horse that is accustomed by being ridden by a lightweight.
> HOWEVER, I think Donna Snyer-Smith is the only person I have heard of (might
> not be the only one you flamers..) speak about the EFFICIENCY of the rider.
> That is something I feel is a lot harder and a lot more important, if not
> impossible, to measure the affect on the horse than is just weight.  Packing
> your backpack with weight is one thing...HOW you pack it and WITH WHAT kind
> of weight is another thing.  Same thing with weight of riders...a heavier
> rider that is more efficient than a lighter weight rider who is much more
> imbalanced...which is better, which is worse?
> Uh huh...let the games begin.

who knows... but this wisdom is an old one. in the Prussian cavalry, down the
19. century, horses and riders were fitted together for efficiency. they knew
that a rider can be too lightweight, *or* too heavyweight to ride a horse
efficiently, smoothly, or with the right aids. they estimated the rider incl.
saddle should have 1/5 the weight of the horse, as a rule of thumb. (this didn't
include weapons and field equipment). but there is a wide tolerance, as Susan
showed with her Tevis-study.

;-)

Frank