It takes longer to learn to ride astride than side saddle; the side-saddle is less tiring for long hunting days; and the seat is more secure. On the other hand the side-saddle is more dangerous during a fall, the rider being less able to get clear. But as it is much less fatiguing a lady might be able to hunt one more day a week riding side-saddle than riding astride. At the same time, as riding is so much a matter of 'leg' and half the pressure and more than half the control is obtained by the use of the legs, the sidesaddle is from the point of view of equitation certainly not to be recommended. And it has other disadvantages. It makes a horse very one sided, and it means that the rider's muscles, too, do not get equal work. Moreover, the side-saddle is a heavy and expensive affair; and sore backs are much more prevalent under it than the ladies who use this type of saddle would have us believe. It makes mounting and dismounting very much more difficult, and if a horse has to be changed for any reason, such as lameness, it is often a troublesome thing to manage. Any girl who wishes to take up riding seriously and continuously will be well advised to ride cross-saddle. But if she knows that she will be able to ride only intermittently, or if she tires very easily, or if she is anxious never to have a fall, and is content just to sit on one side of a horse's back, then the side-saddle is to be recommended.

RIDING FOR CHILDREN

It is often alleged that few riders who have not begun young ever ride well, and it is perhaps still more often alleged that middle age is too late to begin. In point of fact neither of these statements is true. Like many other such statements they do not bear examination in the light of experience. The fallacy lies in the supposition that people who have ridden all their lives, from donkeys to ponies, from ponies, to cobs, from cobs to hunters, must necessarily ride better than those who begin to ride in adolescence or early manhood, a supposition which pre-supposes that the instruction has throughout been sound and beneficial. But obviously if the principles of the teaching have been faulty or negligible, the result will not be good no matter how long it has been going on. And unfortunately a good deal of the instruction in these days is faulty. One often sees small children out with grooms, sitting all wrong and committing almost every kind of enormity in equestrianism unchecked and even unremarked. Their so called lessons are breeding a crop of errors they may never grow out of. Yet their parents fondly believe they are learning to ride. Many of them enjoy themselves highly, and everyone likes to see children having a happy time; but, as far as riding is concerned, that is not the point. To enjoy a ride is not necessarily to learn riding; and youthful riding, which is usually a pleasure, is often no education. All riding masters in cavalry regiments would, I think, agree that it is easier to teach a young subaltern who has never ridden before than one who has 'ridden all his life'. It is true, the more 'experienced' recruit officer will, for a month or so, be better than the other, but by the time a year is out there will be nothing to choose between them; in fact, the odds will be, if anything, on the beginner. This seems to establish pretty definitely that to ride well it is not essential to begin young. Riding muscles can be developed without beginning in the cradle. Another argument often advanced in favour of beginning to ride young is that it strengthens the nerve,

previous page | next page