thegrailquest

For those people in the equestrian industry, the “20% or less” rule needs no explanation. It is an unquestionable standard, an axiom, according to which that the weight a horse or pony is to carry in exercise, rider and tack combined, is not to exceed 20% of the horse’s bodyweight. This ratio can be reviewed, based on the horse’s age, conformation, conditioning, tack, the rider’s skill and athleticism and the work performed. The rule is usually reviewed to mean 20% is the maximum and is often shifted towards 10% of the horse’s bodyweight. It is never shifted the other way. Talk to a person in the equestrian sports industry and suggest that a horse can carry over 20% of its bodyweight, and you will be either viewed as an ignorant barbarian or as an animal abuser. Either way, you will be a persona non grata. Over 20% is an anathema.

Why is the 20% rule universally accepted? It is a FEI standard, according to which horses are not to compete in the FEI events unless they carry under 20% of their bodyweight on their back. It means, in practice, that B category ponies (under 148 cm) can rarely be ridden by adults, and A category ponies (under 130 cm) can only be ridden by children.

Is this standard justified? I believe it is, for the FEI events. Whenever I say that, historically, and even today, smaller horses were often ridden by bigger riders (Mongolian horses are an example well-known to specialists and non-specialists alike), I am answered either that those were different and stronger horses or that those were examples of cruelty to animals. Both statements are correct and incorrect at the same time. Historically, horses were working animals used for transportation and warfare; inevitably, this involved a certain amount of exploitation and cruelty that is not necessary nowadays, or at least should not be necessary for a leisure animal. The reality, as we know, is very different, and scandals of horse abuse, often among high-profile equestrians, are rampant – one can always refer to Dujardin’s ban for a year on the grounds of hitting a horse with the whip unnecessarily, as a result of which she could not participate in the Paris Olympic Games. Interestingly, none of these breaches related to the 20% golden standards, at least not that I know of it.

The former argument, about the change in horse’s robusticity, also deserves careful attention. Most of today’s sport horses and sport ponies have longer backs, and, the longer a link, the weaker it is: we can see this very well in those dog breeds that have unnaturally long backs as a result of selection, the Dachshund and the Bassett. Modern sport horses are nothing like Dachsunds, of course, but it is true that their backs are usually longer than their backs. A horse can be described as having a square conformation if, viewed in profile, one can draw a square around its back and legs. If the back is no longer, the resulting outline would produce a rectangle, and it means, in practice a longer and weaker back.

Most sport horses are built on the rectangle, because, to do well in modern show-jumping and dressage tests, they need to show flexibility in the back. Historically, horses with shorter backs did dressage and jumped very well: the high airs, still seen in the Vienna school of dressage, were invented for short-backed, “square” horses, and the Lippizaners performing in Vienna retain their “square” build. One can also note that, by modern dressage standards, they are often small horses, and often ridden by heavy men, probably going towards the upper limit of the 20% rule. Yet these Lippizaners can perform in high airs until they are 25 years old! Dressage and show-jumping horses retire by the age of 20, and most of them can barely make it to 18. So there is some truth in the statement “they are weaker”. But why are they weaker than their ancestors and their contemporaries in Austria and… Mongolia?

Let us start with the first year of the horse’s life, and even before it is born. In nature, foals stay with their dams and are lactating at least until the age of 9 months, if the mare is impregnated in the same year, or until the mare goes in foal again. A mare would only go in foal if it is strong enough to carry a foal. If we take medieval Europe as one example, Jordanus Rufus, in his influential treatise on horse care, stated that young horses are staying with their dams for two years, just as it happens in nature. It seems that mares would be put in foal only every other year. In medieval horse husbandry treatises, it was advised that working mares should be put in foal every year, but manor accounts show this was rarely the case.

In modern horse breeding studs, where today’s sport horses begin their lives, the broodmares are put in foal every year and, to ensure that the mares are not exhausted, foals would be weaned at 4 or 6 months and fed supplements and vitamins to ensure fast growth. They would usually be fed special feeds for the first few years of their life, resulting in fast growth that weakens the young horse. What is more, these young horses would often spend the first years of their life in boxes, with turn-out limited to a few hours spend in a little grassy paddock – all to avoid injuries. This is the case with the prized English Thoroughbred horses, which go on to become racehorses.

Comparing this situation with the Middle Ages, again, we see that Rufus insists mares should live out throughout their pregnancy in areas where food and water are sufficient. Likewise, before young horses are taken into training, which happened at the age of two at the earliest, but, preferably, at three, they would live in the areas that provided enough nutrition and good exercise. Rufus advised mountainous areas, where horses could walk on a variety of grounds. These young horses would live in mixed-age groups, which ensured they would have company and movement. This is the way horses are still bred in some areas: Mongolian horses in the steppe, performing Lippizaners in Austria and… feral or semi-feral horses in various rewilding parks across Europe. This is not the way sport horses are bred.

What is more, most of the modern sport breeds suffer from inbreeding, as the number of prize-winning bloodlines are limited. It has been calculated that 70% of English Thoroughbreds performing on the track can be traced to Northern Dancer. One does not need to be a breeder or a selection specialist to know that inbreeding can lead to the development of all sorts of problems, in the long term. Unfortunately, many traditional horse and pony breeds are also inbred, as they become less popular and the number of available bloodlines decreases.

And the final consideration, which explains why the FEI “20% or less” rule is true – for FEI – is exercise. Sport horses competing in FEI events are working, just like human elite athletes, at the top of their natural capacity. This capacity is stretched to the breaking point by training, more or less progressive and correct, and supplemental feeding, which often includes prohibited substances, as well as medication. Sport horses need to win – or they are discarded and even brutally euthanized, despite the fact that they could have lived their natural lives and there is no ground for euthanasia as a release from suffering. Even if the training and feeding are considerate and adapted to the horse’s genuine needs and natural rhythms, still, one needs not be an expert to understand that jumping fences of over 160 cm of various width is not a natural exercise for an equine, and, for this sort of exercise, extra weight should be limited, otherwise the horse simply would not be able to do it.

There is, however, at least one FEI-sanctioned exception to the 20% rule. Equestrian vaulting, though more of a gymnastic discipline is regulated nevertheless by FEI. Vaulting can be competed by single riders, pairs and teams of 6 riders. For teams, there should be at least one element in the performance where three people of the team is on the back of the cantering horse. While vaulters are usually tiny and vaulting horses are large animals, weighing 400-450 kg, it is still very possible that the cumulative weight of 3 vaulters and the tack would exceed or go very close to the limit of 80-90 kg on the horse’s back. Surely, it is not a long time, but the horse would be carrying them at the top gait practiced in the arena.

This brief summary explains why the FEI “20% or less” rule is right, but under the FEI framework and for the FEI sport events. It may not be right for the numerous other occasions when horses are ridden recreationally, in training and in work.

Let us look at the origins of the rule. The early twentieth-century US cavalry 20% standards is often cited in literature as the point of origin, but non-scholarly publications often eschew the detail that it was only applicable to forced marches. In other words, when going over difficult terrains at speed and for a prolonged period of time, a horse was not to carry over 20% of its bodyweight. Makes sense. One should also remember that, in real war situations, horses could be underfed and overworked, so this is a safe precaution. Indeed, other countries adopted the same standard, but both the US and other cavalry standards were not as simple as they are represented. For example, one Red Army officer, Shpayer, also suggested 30% of the horse’s bodyweight as a good practice for standard marches, while noting that 40% could be admissible for limited periods of time. Shpayer likewise discussed pack animals – donkeys and mules – noting that these equids can carry 50% of their bodyweight, because they are hardier than horses. Traditionally, cavalry horses were small, short-backed (square conformation) and bred on studs where young stock had plenty of turnout with other youngsters. They were not fed supplements designed to make them grow fast in order to become trainable and sellable as soon as possible – unlike modern sport horses.

This discussion can go on, but I want to emphasise that, for most of the history of the domesticated, ridden horse, small horses, 120-140 cm (compared to sport horses of 160-180 cm at withers today), have been ridden by adults whose average height was only 10 cm shorter than those of people today. Horses have grown by 20 cm since the beginning of the twentieth century, thanks to the introduction of better feeds. Humans have grown by 10 cm. These are average numbers.

In prehistoric Asia and medieval Europe alike, horses standing at 130 cm at withers were ridden by men and women standing at 160 cm and more. There are ample studies of horse height by archaeologists and zooarchaeologists published in the last three decades that confirm this. These small horses (modern ponies) were not ridden over levelled school arenas for 60 minutes at most. They were ridden on the steppes, dirt roads, forest tracks and fields. This is far more difficult terrain.

This is a miniature from the Manesse codex, a collection of poetry of German minnesingers, dated to the High Middle Ages. In discussing medieval miniatures, historians and lay people alike often claim that horses are shown small because artists of the past not know how to draw or did not care about proportion. This horse is indeed very small, and the rider is going to violate the 20% rule. Should we believe that the proportion is wrong? Given that the artist is showing the horse’s conformation as square correctly and the other details, such as the coat colour and the indication that the horse is male, are accurate (dappled chestnuts are rare but exist and are not uncommon in medieval iconography), there is no reason to think the artist “did not know how to draw horses”. It does look as if the horse is aggressive or upset or is going to bite the rider who is mounting or the person holding it, but then, if we look at a horse performing in high-level FEI tests or an equestrian event in the Olympic games, we would not infrequently see pinned ears and an open mouth. Are we really that more advanced and humane in our handling of horses? And are we really trying to do better by our horses, who are no longer working animals but tools for our entertainment?

Nowadays, Yakutian horse herders can ride their horses (standing 130-140 cm at withers) for 80 km in a single winter day to inspect all the pastures. Barbaric, isn’t it? Yet these horses thrive in the harsh climate of Yakutia, where temperatures go from -40 in winter to +30 in summer, and they thrive on the grass dug from under the snow, with minimum extra hay and often no extra feed. The exceptional journey from the capital of the Sakha Republic to Moscow, undertaken by Duguydan Vinokurov with just two Yakutian horses, who did not lose their condition at the end of the journey, is an excellent proof that traditional horse breeds bred and managed under reasonable schemes conforming to their natural needs are much stronger than the pampered and (will I shock you?) miserable horses performing in FEI tests.

I have heard that taking an adult rider on a pony to a public event can provide a dangerous and unhealthy example. Imagine other adults who would be afraid of big horses and start buying and riding ponies! Horror of horrors! Yet these same shows, simple tests in walk and trot with an option to jump crossed poles standing at 30 or 40 cm, feature children equipped with spurs on horses and ponies in curbs. What if timid adults and children decide it is all right to put a severe bit in a horse’s mouth and a pair of sharp spurs on their own feet to manage a “difficult” horse? Should we forbid curbs and spurs at all levels, lest they would provide a dangerous precedent? I would not miss it, as I have never ridden in a curb or with spurs in a show, and I have rarely used them at home. But then I am a poor and ignorant amateur…

It is simpler to prohibit than to educate, experiment and take responsibility for one’s mistakes. There are few studies of the influence of increased weight on the horse’s performance, and they do not feature horses conditioned to carry these weights. It is as if one took an office worker and asked them to do an army march with 35 kg of equipment – the results would be detrimental, but soldiers are trained to do it with no damage to their health. But no, let us just introduce some rules and, preferably, exclude taller and heavier men (and women, but mostly men) from riding horses at all. Just in case. Introducing weight limits on riders is safer and simpler than teaching good balance and horsemanship basics – no pulling on the reins, no falling on the horse’s neck or back after a jump, more riding with the seat than with hands and heels. And it also settles the issue of responsibility – everyone who allowed the presence of a rider on a horse without respecting the “20% or less” rule is guilty – riders, trainers, stewards, judges… Let us just glimpse over the other irregularities, the details over whether the rider and the horse move in harmony, whether there may be lighter riders who cause more discomfort because of their poor horsemanship, and let us focus on what we can weigh, measure and calculate – even if our calculations add 20 kg to the rider and shorten the horse by 8 cm and more.

I am not going to be popular, but I am going to continue to distribute workloads for horses not based on the hard and fast rules such as rider’s weights and horse’s heights, but on what I see. This means that some kids will ride stronger horses who would be able to withstand their kicking and pulling efforts, and some adults with gentler hands and better balance will ride ponies. I will also continue to progressively load, train and ride young horses who are ready to carry weight and will allocate the amount and intensity of exercise according to what I see the horse can do on each occasion. Ready to take responsibility for my mistake, and ready to ignore hate speech, accusations of cruelty to horses and even threats. I am not a professional equestrian – and I am proud of it. Throughout history, most of the horse people I respect were not professional equestrians in the modern sense of the world – Xenophon, Jordanus Rufus, Pluvinel, De La Guerinière, Shpayer and that icon of dressage, Podhajski. They were thinking riders, ready to test the rules and believe what they see rather than what they are told. They were ready to experiment, make mistakes and take responsibility for their mistakes. Experimenting on horses sounds cruel – but then modern accepted practices can be inhumane and cruel (weaning foals early, using curbs on “hard-mouthed” horses), so why not use some critical thinking? I have already trained two horses to competition level using a combination of medieval methods outlined by Jordanus Rufus and modern training. Knowing horse history can help in taking a critical look at what is accepted as a “good practice” and realizing it is not such a good practice but is really an absurd and even harmful one. This is not just about “20% or less” rule but about many so-called rules of thumb dominating the equestrian industry.

Some sources:

C. Ameen, H. Benkert, T. Fraser, R. Gordon, M. Holmes, W. Johnson, M. Lauritsen, M. Maltby, K. Rapp, T. Townend, G. P. Baker, L. M. Jones, C. Vo Van Qui, R. Webley, R. Liddiard, N. Sykes, O. H. Creighton, R. Thomas, A. K. Outram(2021). In search of the ‘great horse’: A zooarchaeological assessment of horses from England (AD 300–1650), Int J Osteoarchaeol, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1002/oa.3038

Katherine S. Kanne, Envisioning Early Equestrianism: Clues from Archaeology and Ancient DNA, in Historical Practices in Horsemanship and Equestrian Sports, ed. Anastasija Ropa and Timothy Dawson. Budapest: Trivent, 2022.

Shpayer, N. M. [Шпаер Н. М.]. Voennaya loshadj [Военная лошадь], 2nd edition. Moscow: Voenizdat, 1939.