Yanno, everyone, one thing to consider is the angle of the bottom of the pelvis on folks.
What I mean is the relationship between your spine when you are sitting in balance on a horse,…
how your spine joins your pelvis (with that swung underneath that spine or back out, like the proverbial duck’s ass)…
and how the pelvis is itself is built. Compared to, say, the top of those wings of the pelvis in front, is the line drawn from the underside of the pubic bone to the back of the sitting bones closer to horizontal or closer to vertical?
Do you know how yours is built? I don’t know that. I did have a Rolfer once tell me that I had one of the most neutral pelvises she had seen. I think that means that the way my pelvis joined my spine was not fore- or aft. I don’t know if she could tell me about the shape of the bottom dimension. And Rolfers get their hands way up on your business there, so if anyone would know, they would.
It seems to me that the shape of the saddle you like will depend a whole helluva on this mysterious, no-one-measures-it orientation of the bottom side of one’s pelvis. So until we can figure that out, I cut people some slack. So long as they sit in a position that lets them ride by balance and allows them to “just let their legs hang,” unless they mean to use them, I’m good. But that might mean the relationship between their upper body and legs that we see from the outside will differ.