For
as long as saddles have been in use it has been recognised that the
underside of the saddle should be as near as possible the same shape as
that part of the horse's back upon which it must sit. Why then are some
saddles produced with panels that have profiles which appear to totally
disregard this principle? Very often, such saddles are otherwise of
excellent quality both in materials and workmanship, but do not
incorporate gussets in the panels with the result that the last four or
five inches under the cantle does not bear the back. When one considers
that this is the widest part of the panel the result will be that the
part that does bear will be exerting considerably more pressure than
would be the case if the whole area of the panel is made to bear weight
evenly.
Before this century saddle design was largely dictated by the military
and from an examination of the universal pattern trooper saddle which
is still in use, it is evident that the objective of the designer was
two part. Firstly the seat was relatively deep to keep the rider from
falling off and secondly, the wooden bearers or bars which sit either
side of the vertebrae were made so as to conform to the shape of the
average horse's back in order to avoid saddle sores. Because the
saddles were of standard shape and sat on folded blankets, success in
this regard was highly variable, but at least the principle was sound.
I believe that some time last century hunting people complained that
traditional saddles were too restricting when riding across country and
particularly when jumping, which resulted in the introduction of the
flat seated hunting saddle. Because the underside of the tree was
shaped so as to follow the line of the horse's back the panel was
approximately the same thickness throughout its length. The topside of
the tree or seat was then padded with flock, serge and leather so as to
support the rider with a minimal degree of comfort. Because the seat
was relatively flat it was possible to fulfil the uniquely dual role of
the saddle which is to fit both horse and rider on the same framework.
However the second half of the century has seen a dramatic increase in
dressage riding with the consequent introduction of the deep seated
German dressage saddle. Simultaneously horse riding has changed from
being solely the pastime of the upper classes to a sport without social
barriers resulting in large numbers of part-time riders who undoubtedly
found that the security provided by the deeper seat gave them added
confidence.
Saddle makers responded by making deep seated saddles on banana shaped
trees and because the panels largely followed the shape of the tree
they began leaving the horse's back at the cantle end. Eventually most
saddlers began to incorporate gussets in the panel under the cantle in
order to enable the panel to follow the line of the horse's back and
those that did not produce panels that bear no relationship the horse's
back.
However, I find that some large horses, usually Warmbloods or
Thoroughbred Irish Draught crosses have withers that are so much higher
than the back, that normal saddles are high at the pommel, even with
the minimum clearance under the arch. Most saddlers will make deep
gussets; even so it is sometimes not possible for the saddle to fit
level and balanced. Understandably saddlers are reluctant to make
panels which are excessively deep at the back and I know that some
people have serious misgivings about relying on wedge shaped panels in
order to stay in contact with the horse's back, since they believe that
the variable depth of the flocking in the panel may result in a
variable degree of pressure on the back throughout the length of the
panel.
My local pub in Minster here is The Saddlers Arms' and displayed on the
wall of the saloon bar is and army officer's saddle of some antiquity
and each time I see it I wonder if it is not superior in design to the
modern saddle; the bars are padded but are of equal thickness from
front to back. The seat is deep but has no effect on the shape of the
bars. I realise it is not close contact but neither is a saddle with an
excessive depth of panel under the cantle. Only a relatively flat
saddle which can have fairly thin panels can achieve close contact.
Have you ever noticed pictures of our top show jumpers using expensive
close contact saddles with layer of thick numnahs under their saddle?
Some saddlers produce saddles for endurance riders that have "fan back"
panels that appear similar to design in the military "Universal
Pattern" saddle. Frank Baines1 Endurance Saddle and Thorowgood's
Rambler and Trekka Saddles are examples and the Roe Richardson Reactor
Panel saddles are basically a development of the military saddle using
modern materials. The difference between this type of saddle and
conventional saddles is that they don't rely on wedge shaped panels to
achieve a balanced fit. While I don't know enough to have an opinion as
to the efficacy of these saddles they do at least treat the
requirements of the seat and the panel separately.
It is I believe accepted that saddle makers with notable exceptions
don't fit saddles; nevertheless tree makers naturally produce what
saddle makers specify. I realise that innovation is expensive and has
no guarantee of acceptance by the riding public, however I wonder of it
would be possible to design a tree that would obviate the need for a
wedge shaped panel which is currently necessary to compensate for the
banana shaped tree which in turn produces the deep seat. Such a tree
would make it far easier to accommodate the needs of the larger horse
with excessively high withers.
Could it be that the Society of Master Saddlers with its blend of
saddlers and saddle fitters is uniquely qualified to examine and
possibly influence saddle design?
Finally, I hasten to add that my purpose is not to offer instruction
for which I am not qualified; merely to question in the hope that
debate ensues.
Welcome to Best Value bespoke saddles