Funny Cide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> smalltimer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That\'s a great concept. The idea that a
> horse(s)
> > should be weighted according to their body
> weight
> > is likewise worth a chuckle, no offense taken
> > Funny Cide.
> >
> > FYI, Zenyatta weighs 1,300 pounds. So, she
> > carried 10% of her body weight.
> >
> > Strength does not precipitate speed.
> >
> > If you give me your personal email address in a
> > private message, I\'ll send you a picture I took
> of
> > her last year from about 5\' away.
> > Physically she is a monster.
> >
> > Peace out...
>
> It\'s a logical concept. Size has nothing to do
> with talent or speed, but it obviously affects the
> ability to carry weight. If Zenyatta is 1300
> pounds (that would\'ve been my guess as well), then
> she carried 9.9% of her body weight when carrying
> 129 pounds. Her competitor who weighs 1100 and
> carries 120 is carrying 10.9% of its body weight.
> If the competitor weighs 1000 pounds, it\'s
> carrying 12% of its body weight.
>
> There are few studies on weight-carrying ability,
> but not surprisingly, all talk about weight as a
> percentage of the horse\'s weight - not random
> weights with no care for the horse\'s own weight:
> -------
>
>
> While most healthy horses can easily carry a rider
> and saddle, they do have their limits. Now
> researchers have identified a threshold for when a
> rider is too heavy for a horse to comfortably
> carry.
>
> The scientists base their findings on detailed
> measurements taken of eight horses that were
> ridden while packing anywhere from 15 to 30% of
> their body weight. The horses ranged in size from
> 400 to 625 kilograms (885 to 1375 pounds).
>
> When carrying 15 and 20% of their body weight, the
> horses showed relatively little indication of
> stress. It’s when they were packing weights of 25%
> that physical signs changed markedly, and these
> became accentuated under 30% loads.
>
> The horses had noticeably faster breathing and
> higher heart rates when carrying tack and rider
> amounting to 25% or more of their body weight. A
> day after trotting and cantering with the heftier
> weights, the horses’ muscles showed substantially
> greater soreness and tightness. Those horses that
> were least sore from the exercise had wider loins,
> the part of a horse’s back located between their
> last rib and croup.
>
> Based on these results, the study’s authors
> recommend that horses not be loaded with greater
> than 20% of their body weight. A 545-kilogram
> (1200 pound) horse, then would be best off
> carrying no more than 109 kg (240 lbs) of tack and
> rider.
>
> Interestingly, this research from the Ohio State
> University Agricultural Technical Institute has
> concluded with the same weight guideline that the
> US Calvary Manuals of Horse Management published
> in 1920.
This is all well and good.
But weight assigned has to do with performance, not size. So a big, slow horse should carry more weight than a small, fast horse??
Unless you have a big fast horse, they would carry more than a small slow horse.
A big fast horse should carry more than a fast small horse??
And finally if we have a big slow horse going against a small slow horse......nobody would care.