Talk:Sidesaddle/Archive 1

History
Mrs Stace of Yarrowitch, Walcha was a famous sidesaddle rider who created an unbroken record for high jumping when riding sidesaddle at the Sydney Show in 1915, when her horse, Emu Plains cleared 6ft 6in (1982 mm). This was an Australian record and could possibly be a world record? Mrs Stace dominated the ladies' hunting and high jumping contests during the early 1900's. There have been several failed attempts to break this record. I have a poor quality photo of this record, but will attempt to obtain a better one, plus her full name. Cgoodwin 00:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Ref.: The Agricultural Society of NSW http://www.rasnsw.com.au/timeline.htm "Country Leader", 6 Nov 1989

Hard to say, would have to know worldwide records, safe to say she jumped 6'6", which is in the article already, but will add the source. Don't want to get into too many famous feats stuff, for fear of creating laundry lists, but this was interesting.   Montanabw (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for adding that. There have been attempts to break this record, including some by men. I am pretty certain that this is an Australian record, not sure about a world one. Below is a little more: Mrs. Esther Maud STACE (nee MUMFORD) became famous as the sidesaddle rider who created an unbroken record for high jumping. Riding sidesaddle at the Sydney Royal Show in 1915, her horse, Emu Plains, owned by T.E.JUDD, cleared 6ft 6in (1.982 m). Mrs Stace dominated the ladies' hunting and high jumping contests during the early 1900's, winning in Sydney in 1910, 1912, 1914 and 1915. I will add a photo to Commons. Ref.: Northern Magazine 9 Dec 1984 Cgoodwin 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cool photo. I assume by "world record," you mean for sidesaddle riders.  I know the show jumping record is definitely higher, seems like around eight feet. Until we can source a world record, best we leave it as is.  But I will see if I can work in that photo.  Wow!  Some people have a LOT of guts!   Montanabw (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, it is only right that this lady should be mentioned. Yes, it would only be a sidesaddle record. There several jumps of over eight feet, but not all were officially recognised. Cgoodwin 04:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "unbecoming"
The article does not explain why it was unbecoming for women to ride astride. I can certainly understand the problems which would come from the large dresses, but it seems like there is more to this. Could someone please elaborate? Thanks. Jimaginator 00:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I addded one pic to the article which explains somewhat (in its own way). Churchh 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seriously? You have to be explained as to why a woman sitting with her legs spread open like a oil rig worker is "unbecoming".   Really dude, it's common sense.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.206.206 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Farm women"
Farm women in nineteenth century Europe sometimes were placed on top of donkeys, ponies, or worn-out farm animals, but they didn't normally "ride" in the sense that middle- and upper-class women did (atop large strong horses). Churchh 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Advice
I have removed the below to talk since it is not within the purview of wikipedia articles to give "advice (legal, medical, or otherwise)" WP:NOT. It could probably be edited into a description of old saddles and re-intergrated. 69.72.2.72 03:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

''Warning: If you find an old sidesaddle in an attic or barn, do not attempt to ride it unless you have it reconditioned. Sidesaddle riding places great stress on the underpinnings of the saddle. If the wood tree has become rotten the horn can break off from the saddle and result in a fall. This weakness will not be visible from the outside. Sidesaddle reconditioning requires complete removal of the leather and examination of the tree. A visual inspection is not enough to determine its safety. If you are a Civil War re-enactor and are interested in riding in a 'real' single pommel or "U" pommel sidesaddle typical of the mid-1860's in the US, be advised that this saddle is regarded by most modern sidesaddle riders as too dangerous to ride. The single horn saddles make attractive decorations, but should not be used on horseback.''


 * During edit I re-integrated most of this information into article in a "descriptive" form. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 18:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
I have reformated the article to beter fit the title. The topic of the article is overall "sidesaddle" so the jump it made to a discription of just "modern sidesaddle" did not fit. "modern sidesaddle" is now all in its own section (that section could in future be its own article if need be (Help:Section)). I replaced some of the images because they had the problems of: they were redundant (two more images of women sidesaddle and a non-descript painting), they did not reveal relevant detail at thubnail scale (this could be fixed with photo editing), they were not relevant to the sections they were placed in (WP:IMAGE). I have added the images to the gallery below. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 06:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I more or less agree with the improvements in the article and really like the new photos, though as a person who does occasionally ride sidesaddle myself, I see no reason to split modern and historic sidesaddle at this point, just like other saddles, there is a historical progression to the present day. I am restoring one historic image, as the cartoon only mocks women riding astride and there are no historic images.  I wouldn't call a state portrait of Maria Theresa "non-descript," but exchanged it for one of Catherine II, which shows the riding form better. I also placed the images in good faith where I considered them balanced to the format and close to relevant content, so I would appreciate it if you would be a bit more WP:Civil in your comments.  Thumbnail scale is irrelevant when any wikipedia user can click on any image to see it full size.  As for redundant, why have two photos of just a sidesaddle?  Hmmm, maybe because you took them??. Montanabw 18:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * To take your (second to last) criticism first, "Images should be large enough to reveal relevant detail without overwhelming the surrounding article text" WP:IMAGE. So thumbnail scale and detail is relevant as per guidelines. You will also see guidelines there re:not repeating images, and putting images near relevant text. The comments above are not un-civil in any way, they are the comments of an editor explaining edits to other editors (like you). Some more comments/suggestions for improvement:
 * The (other) image of an empty sidesaddle was used by me because it is superior to the top image (that one is flat perspective not showing placement of horns) and was place directly opposite the text explaining the layout of a modern sidesaddle, not because it was "mine" (please read WP:ATTACK). I will probably re-insert the empty saddle image for that reason.
 * The shortcomings of the top picture means I think it could be replaced. I would suggest (your?.. that actualy is a question since I don't understand the image history) image SideSaddle1.jpg with the caveat that it needs to be edited via cropping and dodging to bring out information. I or some other editor can do this via Photoshop.
 * Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia the article needs to describe the whole subject of "Sidesaddle" and not just be a manual of how to ride sidesaddle. That was the reasons for my re-arrangement and edit of the article. You have even hit on further edits I was thinking of re: getting more info into their appropriate descriptions. The claim that we have a "historical progression to the present day" of a single saddle design seems to be opinion and needs to be backed up by references. Points where it needs firming up:
 * Is there evolution? It seems to me that "sidesaddle" classes fix on one late 19th century ideal form and are not a present evolution of a form.
 * Describing a single form of the sidesaddle as its basic description could be USA-centric. a modern USA-centric (or Anglo-European centric) view (WP:BIAS).
 * The current state of the article seems to have problems re: being an instruction manual WP:NOT. The section "Riding techniques" is a canidate for deletion since it is basically intruction. Paragraphs beginning with phrases like "Both legs are to be carried", "Hands must hold the reins evenly" need to be re-written to describe... not instruct. Also the section "Riding techniques" is a subset of "modern English sidesaddle"... not a section on its own (since it does not describe all sidesaddle).
 * Lastly... maybe a better section title for "Modern sidesaddle riding" is "Modern English sidesaddle" since that is what we are describing here (following the wikipedia standard of "what are we really saying here?).
 * Fountains of Bryn Mawr 14:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I actually think the article now is much better than what was here 6 months ago, so whatever else is going on, we are improving it. I do think that the first photo in the article would perhaps look better in the design section, and, arguably, the one you took might work OK as the lead image. The ideal image just doesn't seem to have appeared in the public domain yet. FYI, the images I added were from Flickr, some cc licensed photos that appear to have been taken at the Royal Dublin Show in Ireland, though they just say "Dublin." I just uploaded them as I found them, I think, I definitely didn't photoshop them.

I am concerned that we may have a wholly different view of what this article is all about. I see it as the only article in wikipedia that has much of anything to do with sidesaddles, sidesaddle riding, etc., and hence needs to be pretty broad in scope: equipment, history, riding, etc. For now, it doesn't make sense to break it out into separate articles yet.

I think we can stick with "modern sidesaddle" riding without splitting it out into English or Western at this point, because while the vast majority of modern sidesaddle riding is English, the basic principles of form, equitation and balance cross all disciplines (basically, there really is only one correct and effective way to stay in a two-pommel sidesaddle, no matter what style of tack or clothing you use!) The relatively fewer number of people who do western style sidesaddle or historical period reenactments all have to go to the same basic well, so just tossing in a sentence or two here and there about other styles is probably sufficient unless we get a new editor that really has a lot of detail or expertise to add later on.

As for "riding techniques," well, at this point "sidesaddle" is both the saddle and describing the style of riding the sidesaddle. I don't agree with your argument that it should be deleted. It isn't intended as a how to section, it's a description of what correct form looks like and why it matters. Call it a spectator's guide, you sure couldn't learn how to ride sidesaddle from just reading what's there, IMHO. There is room for improvements in style and phrasing, I'm sure, but everything can be improved. Down the road, perhaps like the equitation article, it could be split out into its own, but for now, I think it's just a new section.

Anglo-centric bias probably can't be helped. The sidesaddle developed in Europe (I agree that specific citations and footnotes would strengthen the article, do you have any of the books listed in the references section?), it's an Anglo-centric field in the present day, and if someone actually has any info on other cultures that may use a sidesaddle (there's some interestng Hispanic cultural stuff out there in exhibition land but I'm not familiar with it), they are welcome to add. The sidesaddle DID in fact "evolve," or change, or whatever word you like, at least from the 13th to the 19th centuries. I'd say going from a little sideways glorified pad with a footrest to the two pommel design is a pretty clear technological progression. Phraseology can be debated, and if there is a better way to say that the design changed and improved over time, well, fine. Bottom line for me is that the article is getting progressively better, there's room for continued improvement but no time crisis, so no sense getting too anal-retentive yet, it's not like we are going for FA status any time soon! Montanabw 22:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery here
Putting gallery here for the images to "live" for easy access by editors

History
When citing another web site's historical facts caution should be exercised before using them as a footnote for another source. Many of the historical facts stated need to be reevaluated especially when dealing with the earlier centuries of horsemanship. Example: Women on Greek vases. It is assumed that the women depicted that are riding aside are average women of the time period; they are goddesses "enthroned". The woman usually seen in many of the Celtic (broad term) images, is Epona, goddess of the horse, not a typical woman of the Celtic tribes.

The "chair" saddles shown are actually later than the 14th and 15th century. The horn on a side saddle is rarely if ever associated with the 15th century and is believed to have been introduced in the 16th century (contemporary iconography does not support horns before the 16th), the most famous being that of Elizabeth I.

129.83.31.3 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Jenn

So give us some sources and help out! (smile)  Montanabw (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Men riding aside, sideways, or sidesaddle
Per WP:UNDUE, I'm moving this material from the article to the talk page for now. I do think there may be a place for a short section on why men may ride sidesaddle, but happening to sit sideways on a horse isn't quite the same thing. There may be sources on men who actually ride sidesaddle due to back or pelvic injuries, etc. But sitting "aside" or sideways on a horse is not quite analogous to riding side saddle. (For one thing, riding sidesaddle requires a saddle). Montanabw (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Men riding sidesaddle One occasion for a man to ride sidesaddle was in war conditions when he was laying field telephone cable from a cable-drum from the back of a galloping horse. Sometimes a farm workman riding a very wide-backed carthorse bareback finds it easier to side sidesaddle than astride.

Virginity?
Is there any mileage in the suggestion that I've heard that sidesaddle was a way to prevent a female rider from breaking her hymen and thus keeping the appearance of her virginity intact? Pbhj (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Complete myth, but it was a pervasive one and you still run into it. But it's an urban legend.  (or maybe a "rural" legend.  Whatever). At any rate, it's horse puckey!   Montanabw (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)