|
The problem we face switching people
from measuring horses in cm vs "hands" is not only tradition, but the fact that
there is some convenience in the "hands" method. As a horse owner myself,
I can tell readers that the height of a horse is an important factor in deciding
whether to buy a specific animal. It depends on the height of the owner,
but for many people a horse over "15.2" hands is too tall to mount easily.
The range of normal variation is usually only a couple of "points", ie, "14.2"
to "15.2", so there are only a few numbers to deal with. No one actually
thinks that a 14.3 horse is so-and-so feet high. I wonder how measuring
heights of horses in units of 10 cm would work: The range would normally be just
145-155 cm. Horse owners would not want to deal with individual
centimeters (147, 148, etc) and would want to just stick with the four inches in
each "hand".
And in the US at least, many horse
owners are country people who don't want to be told what to do!
This is just info about what we
face--I am not defending the present system!
HARRY
WYETH
|
- [USMA:30069] RE: Horses and hands Harry Wyeth
- [USMA:30069] RE: Horses and hands Carleton MacDonald
- [USMA:30071] RE: Horses and hands James Wentworth
- [USMA:30078] RE: Horses and hands Carleton MacDonald
- [USMA:30068] Re: Horses and hands MightyChimp
- [USMA:30073] Re: Horses and hands Paul Trusten, R.Ph.
- [USMA:30074] Re: Horses and hands Nat Hager III
- [USMA:30082] Re: Horses and hands Bill Hooper
- [USMA:30086] Re: Horses and hands Pat Naughtin
