OK, this is just a start on a somewhat controversial subject- the McClellan saddle.
The more I use this saddle, the more a really dislike it. For the 1904, one of the biggest issues is that no matter how much I configure the cinch and billets, there's always a significant bulge of leather formed by the billets being doubles over and tied (just like with a western saddle). This bulge is also located such that the only way to position my legs is to the front of the bulge and this in turn makes me seat a lot less centered than what I'd want it to be. Worse, it seems to make Max dull to the leg aids (plus I need to use longer spurs...like the Army issue ones...hmmm!).
Now, no doubt I might have gotten things wrong but I just don't see any way around it. I decided to study what original sources I have at hand and I studied the pictures intently. I noticed that many of the riders have the same seat that I have- legs forward, in front of the "bulge". To me, this seat feels like you're sitting in a chair versus my usual position with my English saddle which is a bit more up and down.
Perhaps this is the way it was for riders "back in the day". If so, it definately forces me to ride a little differently and it's obvious that certain dressage movements are going to be hard to do (not that this is sort of saddle you would use for showing dressage! :-)).
The other disturbing element is that unlike my Germany Army saddle or my English saddle, this one rests more directly on Max's back and to me, it seems to focus my weight more directly on the horse's back and inhibit his movement more than with the other saddles. Now, I admit that I could probably stand to lose some weight but still...
OK, I'm still working this out in my mind and I could be totally off-base so I'll have to think some more about this...
The more I use this saddle, the more a really dislike it. For the 1904, one of the biggest issues is that no matter how much I configure the cinch and billets, there's always a significant bulge of leather formed by the billets being doubles over and tied (just like with a western saddle). This bulge is also located such that the only way to position my legs is to the front of the bulge and this in turn makes me seat a lot less centered than what I'd want it to be. Worse, it seems to make Max dull to the leg aids (plus I need to use longer spurs...like the Army issue ones...hmmm!).
Now, no doubt I might have gotten things wrong but I just don't see any way around it. I decided to study what original sources I have at hand and I studied the pictures intently. I noticed that many of the riders have the same seat that I have- legs forward, in front of the "bulge". To me, this seat feels like you're sitting in a chair versus my usual position with my English saddle which is a bit more up and down.
Perhaps this is the way it was for riders "back in the day". If so, it definately forces me to ride a little differently and it's obvious that certain dressage movements are going to be hard to do (not that this is sort of saddle you would use for showing dressage! :-)).
The other disturbing element is that unlike my Germany Army saddle or my English saddle, this one rests more directly on Max's back and to me, it seems to focus my weight more directly on the horse's back and inhibit his movement more than with the other saddles. Now, I admit that I could probably stand to lose some weight but still...
OK, I'm still working this out in my mind and I could be totally off-base so I'll have to think some more about this...
4 comments:
Interesting. So few sites talk about McClellans, and most that do just say "Riders either love or hate the seat. The end." I think that'd drive me nuts, too.
For me, I don't mind the ride in terms of seat comfort (although it can be a bit rough a times), it's the way my seat seems to be shifted- it's more like sitting stiffly in an upright chair.
From what I've read, the 19th century military seat, at least as used by the US Army, tends to be more upright with less of a leg bend than what we're used to today.
The thing that really comes to mind is that my seat turns into something resembling that used before Caprilli came along.
Perhaps I'm overthinking this a bit but lately I've been re-evaluating everything that I do in riding (plus having a greater awareness of how it all affects my horse's way of moving).
As the living history types say, perhaps this is experiemental achaeology! :-)
I really really love the Mcclellen saddle seat. That being said, if I had continued to use it in Endurance with Minx, I would have had a couple of custom modifications done....including eliminating that bulge. I was going to have my saddlery put two dressage type billets on the rings and elimiate the latigo and the off billet. then I could have used a modern day girth.
I was also going to tape down, or otherwise modify all the brass rings. It was SO NOISY at a trot!
In the end the biggest problem I had with it was that blankets slid underneath of it unless the girth was supertight. I was planning on lining the underside of the saddle with felt to minimize this.
My biggest non-fixable dislike about the saddle was the pain I felt when my crouch hit the front fo the saddle for the millionth time while trotting down hill when I got fatigued. Grrrrr....nothing for that except to hold the front of the saddle and make sure my rear was jammed into the back of the saddle (or of course, go slower down hills when I was tired).
But overall, I loved the saddle and the seat, and was going to make the modifications I needed to make it work until Minx died. I'm a lighter rider, so the pressure wasn't an issue for me, and I rode 50-55 miles in it fine.
subscribing to comments
Post a Comment