The battle for the soul of the saddle fitter

Sunday, October 12th, 2008 | saddle fitting

It is my impression that virtually every saddle fitter I have ever met has a genuine concern for the comfort of the horse.  It is thus fantastically frustrating that we are lacking a science-based, unified theory of correct saddle fitting.  Most of the time we don’t really know what is optimal for a particular horse and we have to rely on personal experience to make that judgment.  To some extent — for me at least – judgment derives from years of digesting the kind of “learning experience” that I might have preferred to avoid if possible.

These photos are clear examples of conflicting philosophies of saddle design:    

I find it extraordinary that there can be such divergence of opinion about some of the most fundamental aspects of correct saddle fitting.  On several occasions, I have had the opportunity to hear presentations by well-known luminaries in the field who have developed their own brands based on particular design concepts.  I have tried to be as objective as possible in evaluating what I understand their approach to be, and to be open-minded to new concepts that might help me to be a better saddle fitter. 

I haven’t always been disappointed.  The WoW saddle, for example, which is based on design technology that is entirely different from what we use in conventional saddle fitting, is mind-blowing; it’s conceptually ingenious; and as some of you know, we really tried to make the WoW product work for us and for our clients, but alas, the stars did not align.  I have often described WoW as a different paradigm in saddle fitting, but that’s not really accurate.  It is in fact a radically different technological means to the same conceptual end.  The path we have gone down instead is to seek out a wider variety of conventional saddles with good fit features.

The incredible thing to me is that clearly not every one in the professional community can agree even broadly on what good fit means!  According to conventional wisdom (by which I mean the teachings of the UK’s Society of Master Saddlers and the schools they have influenced), it means to achieve the least pounds per square inch of pressure by using a tree/panel configuration that will distribute the rider’s dynamic weight as evenly as possible over the muscular bearing area of the horse’s back.  In other words, you pick a suitable shape of tree in a suitable width, then you cushion and balance it with a suitable panel.  Cushioned, even weight distribution, like a well-fitting pair of athletic shoes: this is how I think it’s meant to work.

Not everyone is in agreement, however, and I have often come away from these presentations convinced that if the presenter’s approach is the right one, then mine has to be wrong.  Of course I don’t think I am wrong, but I’m not positive.  What if they’re right and I’m wrong?  Why can’t we know this? 

These photos prompt the question:  Which of these is a better way to do panels?

Thanks to Pliance, the technology is available to test these duelling design theories head-to-head.  But one thing’s for sure: it ain’t going to happen until consumers force the issue.  I don’t see many saddle companies lining up to put their product to the science-based test.  I understand why; it could be really scary.

Even if a more objective means of measuring our success in getting an optimal saddle fit were readily available, there would still be commercial constraints in the production and marketing of saddles that complicate this effort.  But I’ll save that for next time.

Tags: pliance testing, saddle design, saddle fitters, saddle fitting, saddle panels, saddle technology

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.