Saddle Fit: Tree measurements and descriptions

Sunday, September 28th, 2008 | saddle fitting

“Not everything that counts can be measured. Not everything that can be measured counts.” - Albert Einstein

Although centimeter measurements are a common means of comparing one saddle to another, in reality this means of describing the fit of a saddle is about as useful and as accurate as describing the fit of the saddle by saying, “It’s brown.”

A schematic is helpful in comparing the shape of trees

If I knew the centimeter measurements on all of the trees we use (which I don’t), I’m afraid that information wouldn’t help much in comparing the fit of one tree to another tree.   The overall shape and fit considerations of a saddle cannot be accurately expressed as a single measurement, either as a distance between the tree points or as a nominal standard such as “medium” or “wide.”

We don’t know how this bizarre idea ever got started of measuring tree points, but it is a bit like buying a pair of pants on the basis of how long the leg is, regardless of the actual size of the garment or the measurement of the waist and hips.  The measurement you are asking for – the distance between the bottom of the tree points – could be a completely misleading indicator of the actual fit.

Because these measurements are taken at the base of the tree points, if the points are longer on tree A than on tree B, that absolute distance will be larger on the tree with longer points; but the actual fit on the horse will be narrower.  You might very well get a larger cm measurement on a narrower, Thoroughbred-type tree because of its longer points than on a warmblood tree with short stubby points.   Obviously this obscures the real picture about which is more suitable in fit for rounder, wider-bodied horses.

The geometry of trees is more complex than many people realize

The only circumstances in which a comparison of centimeter measurements between trees might be a remotely useful indicator of comparative fit would be the comparison of a single type of saddle built on a single type of tree, whose “width” variations derive solely from pushing the tree points out to widen the tree and pinching them in to narrow it.  In reality, the whole geometry of the tree is critical, and centimeter comparisons between trees are much less helpful than having a good understanding of the shape and fit considerations of a particular tree.

This is not, by the way, something that saddle marketers are falling all over themselves trying to educate the consumer about, as it is vastly more commercially convenient to allow people to believe that every manufacturer can fit every horse with just a small handful of tree options, or with one synthetic tree that can be “adapted” to fit any horse.

If I ruled the world of saddle fitting, I would encourage consumers to make probing inquiries about the shape of the trees in the saddles under consideration, and whether the overall shape of a particular tree is going to be a suitable match for their horse’s bearing structure.  If told that the tree can be manipulated to fit any shape, I would politely request proof of this — and ask for an opportunity to look at the tree so that some comparison can be made of how suitable the shape of the tree is to the shape of the back it is going on.

Tags: saddle fit, saddle fitting, saddle measurement, saddle shape, saddle tree, saddle tree points, saddle trees

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.