If I remember rightly @Jessey - and again I'm talking from memory so could be wrong - then that study was later found to be flawed. It was a small sample, the horses carrying heavier riders weren't all used to that, and the same tack was used for each rider on the horse so while it may have fitted the horse it wouldn't always have been suitable for the rider and would have put them off balance and/or in a poor position. I'm not saying weight isn't an issue, but there is far more to consider and a lot of faith was put in a flawed study. I know I've said it before but Little Un would happily carry me and look sound, yet the day we put my friend's I think 5 yo daughter on him who was very light he quickly looked lame because she wasn't balanced enough on him and he wasn't used to an unbalanced rider. I doubt she'd have been 10% of his weight including tack!
The new dressage 20% weight rule, and other competitions
- Thread starter newforest
- Start date
I certainly questioned the use of the same tack on the horse with different riders, and the sample wasn’t big, but she does state on the report further study required. But it did show that over 20% had negative effects, sue also looks at 100s of horses and riders in non study conditions and has noticed the correlation and long riders guild have long said horses can carry more but are infinitely more likely to go lame than if you stick under 20% and until someone stumps up the cash for more studies it’s the best available.
It may be the best available but I feel it needs to be applied with a hefty dose of common sense and looking at each case separately. It felt like the release of a flawed report suddenly demonised many riders who had healthy sound horses that were happily doing a job. Realistically there are horses that go permanently lame that have never been ridden, and if that doesn't show there's more to consider then I don't know what does.
It looks like they haven't had any legislation on weight previously and it states in the article that judges and marshalls are increasingly finding themselves in difficult situations where they feel the horses welfare is comprised (or words to that effect). So if they don't introduce, a currently accepted 20% weight limit by the available science, legislation where does that leave them?
Again I haven't competed BD dressage but I imagine alot of the horses are slightly finer breeds? So perhaps it's more applicable in the competitions specifically rather than the whole riding community?
Again I haven't competed BD dressage but I imagine alot of the horses are slightly finer breeds? So perhaps it's more applicable in the competitions specifically rather than the whole riding community?
I don’t disagree, but I don’t see many (I actually can’t think of any) riders around here that would be over the 20%, though I’m not out regularly competing now days, but even when I was I can only think of 2 people out of 100’s who would have been questionable on the circuit I was on.
From the report I saw from BD I see it more as an ass covering rule that doesn’t effect most and gives them some recourse to question the few that clearly are impacting the animals welfare.
I’m short and fat, I’m not a bean pole arguing because it doesn’t effect me, going from Jess to Niko I’m going to have to work to get my self and gear under his 20% when we get to doing big rides, but I’d have been doing it regardless of this.
I agree with the 20% rule.
It's based on the animals ideal weight, not current weight
Mine is able to carry thirteen stone based on that, if yours are able to carry 16 and 19, I struggle to see how we are finding riders that are actually too heavy.
I think it's a case that we are finding riders that need to be riding a bigger mount.
I don't wish to know what you guys weigh, it's up to you whether you say here or not.
But last time I checked I weighed 11 stone with tack. Based on the 20% rule, how small a pony is this claiming I would fine on?
I think common sense needs to be included.
I read somewhere that it's believed tack adds two and half stone.
But last time I checked I weighed 11 stone with tack. Based on the 20% rule, how small a pony is this claiming I would fine on?
I think common sense needs to be included.
I read somewhere that it's believed tack adds two and half stone.
I think an ass covering exercise is exactly what it is. Without accurate scales and weighbridge on site how would it be enforced? What would happen if a rider was disqualified and immediately went to a weighbridge and got it proved that they were within the 20%? What if that was a championship class, or a late in the season qualifier? I've known professionals make some wildly inaccurate estimates on horse weight, at which point the 20% figure is also wildly off. Likewise how many people are good at looking at someone and guessing what they weigh? Though at least a set of bathroom scales is easier to have on site.
11 stone is just under 70kg. so is 20% of 350kg. Some quite small but chunky ponies would weigh that - I bet many Exmoors would weigh that, wouldn't be surprised to find some of the more substantial Welsh Sec As did too and both of those breeds are under 13hh. Dartmoors and Welsh Sec Bs are finer, I wouldn't expect them to be within the 20% although the Bs are taller than the As. And a lot of the mini cobs around the 13hh mark would probably weigh at least that too. Further proof that weight isn't the only issue since the chances are you'd struggle to get a well fitting saddle for both of you and would also have to be very well balanced for your height not to be a factor, plus some of the mini cobs can have poor conformation for a riding horse.
My tack is about 5kg, saddle, girth, pad stirrups, leathers and biothane complete bridle. My saddle is particularly light due to the type of tree, serge underside and synthetic flaps and fine leather on top, some English saddles are much heavier.
I wonder if we are going to see a sudden transition from saddles to treeless or the show pads? My show pad is a 16" but I would look out of place on anything under 13hh I think.
Looking at racing as an example. They have hundreds of races everyday and it's standard practice that the jockey can only be a max height, and a max weight to be a jockey. They are weighed before and after every single race.
So I don't see a set of scales at a competition as being a big deal, if anything its probably about time it caught up.
If they plan to do it, it needs doing properly and for me that means everyone having a LHC with a condition score of 3 with both parameters added with rider weight.
THATS where I see a problem.
I can't read the h&h articles as I am not subscribed.
Rider age or pony height has been the norm in sj for years unaffiliated and affiliated.
Imo is just saying you need to move up in pony height as you may have grown?
Rider age or pony height has been the norm in sj for years unaffiliated and affiliated.
Imo is just saying you need to move up in pony height as you may have grown?
New rider age rule sparks debate in showing circles *H&H Plus*
I just don't see how it would be practical to have a weight version of a LHC though @newforest, weight is too much of a variable. Even with the same condition score weight can vary, and there's a degree of judgement in condition scoring too. So if I had a life certificate on a horse's weight that I got when it was as muscled up as it could be and had been fed plenty of hay for a day or two so it was as heavy as it could be at the required condition score (and assuming I knew a vet who was prepared to be generous on the condition score) it would get one weight limit to carry. Move on a year and the horse is no longer muscled up so weighs less, is carrying a badly balanced rider who is bang up to the limit it has on paper and is badly shod and in a badly fitted saddle - how is that ok? No. to make it reasonable a correctly calibrated weigh bridge would have to be available on site as well as someone capable of saying whether or not a horse met the required condition score.
The weight limit for jockeys has little to do with horse welfare and a lot to do with trying to level the field for speed to make betting more profitable. The weight of the horse they ride isn't a factor.
The weight limit for jockeys has little to do with horse welfare and a lot to do with trying to level the field for speed to make betting more profitable. The weight of the horse they ride isn't a factor.
Won't the majority be over the ideal weight, certainly in the show ring, it's show condition.
They could be looking more into suitability? I could ride an Exmoor, but to compete I would be more suited to something bigger due to my leg length.
I have competed on a 12.3hh
@newforest it depends what you want to compete at, years ago I used to write at a fairly big dressage venue and there was a teenager on her Shetland who would regularly beat adults on "proper" horses at novice and elementary! They may have looked unconventional but they were very correct and the pony always looked as though he loved strutting his stuff! As for Exmoors, most of the ones I've known aren't suitable for small kids but would make a small adult a cracking hack, hunter or RC ride.
I found this article about the Yorkshire Show, it has had a rule in place since 2016.
I believe they also have a weighridge for anyone wanting to challenge the request to dismount.
But HOYS dropped them from the qualifiers.
www.horsenation.com
I believe they also have a weighridge for anyone wanting to challenge the request to dismount.
But HOYS dropped them from the qualifiers.
Great Yorkshire Show Rider Weight Policy Spurs Debate
Thirteen riders were asked to dismount from ponies at the Great Yorkshire Show last week when they appeared to weigh over 20% of their ponies' weight, spurring international conversation about suitability, equine welfare and the best way to enforce such a rule. The Great Yorkshire Show in Great...
www.horsenation.com
I think 20% is quite a lot. I know horses do carry that and more. For me it would mean if I weighed 10 stone I'd be carrying 2 stone. I can't imagine being able to walk all day with that strapped to me, never mind running over hill and dale or jumping over things. Although I suppose in military training you do have to achieve all that carrying huge weights, so I guess it comes down to fitness.
My personal pet hate is not the actual weight of the rider, it's when I see a rider's bum hanging over the back of the saddle, or those total contact saddles that seem to put the rider right over the horse's loins. That makes me cringe.
My personal pet hate is not the actual weight of the rider, it's when I see a rider's bum hanging over the back of the saddle, or those total contact saddles that seem to put the rider right over the horse's loins. That makes me cringe.
I notice that the article about the Yorkshire show says that horses with wides strong backs cope better with more weight.
I'm glad that the saddler noticed Sid's back muscling up. Though am I am just under 11 stone I don't expect that Mr Big would have much trouble with me, anyway.
I'm glad that the saddler noticed Sid's back muscling up. Though am I am just under 11 stone I don't expect that Mr Big would have much trouble with me, anyway.
I have downloaded the dressage file so we can see exactly what is worded in their rule book.
Hang on while I sort uploading.
One thing that stood out first about the significant changes was.
Wouldn't it be great if showing followed suit, if it's all about the welfare.
Hang on while I sort uploading.
One thing that stood out first about the significant changes was.
Wouldn't it be great if showing followed suit, if it's all about the welfare.
The stockier types probably do cope better with more weight, maybe from having the shorter backs and compact size?
Cobs and heavies were however bred to pull not to carry the weight of a rider above them.
I did read somewhere that although they have more bone, the back muscles weren't necessarily going to be much stronger than your tb. It is all still connected to the spine and their strength comes from behind.
Its strange to hear people say mine is a weight carrier, her max is 13 stone. Your average tb can carry more than her based on this 20% rule, so actually she's not.
Yours though being 15.1hh could be?
Cobs and heavies actually have more fast twitch muscles than TB types so there are differences. These muscles are the ones that bulk up with exercise - think of the difference in body type between a sprinter and a long distance runner. Many cobs have now been bred for generations to carry riders, their conformation isn't that of a small heavy any more and hasn't been for a long time though you can still find examples that are.
I've said before that while I have no issue riding Luka I wouldn't ride a 16.2 tb that was the same weight. It would have less bone, longer bones (always a weakness in the canons that have a hollow area) and are longer through the back too which while it makes saddle fitting easier is also weaker (think long v short bridges, or why nearly all older Dachshunds have back problems). This is one of the reasons why I think the 20% rules is, at best, only a starting point. @newforest for her height she's a weight carrier.
newrider.com