User talk:Eventer

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am amazed to find your talk page empty... because you have made some very nice contributions to Wikipedia. However, I wanted to ask you for a huge favor: could you please tag them for proper category and proper stub? It's very simple. Most articles would go with {{horse-stub}}. if you have any questions - drop a line on my talk page. Thank you in advance! And thanks for those amazing articles you've created! Renata3 01:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirects

Brookie here - I have fixed a soft redirect you did on the hcandaian (spelt wrong) horse - to do it your self use: #Redirect name of destination as a wikilink :) Brookie: A collector of little round things 15:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

On 18-Jan, you made another soft redirect from Grasshopper (horse) to The Grasshopper (horse). As Brookie said above, you should do a real redirect in cases like this. The instructions for how are at Wikipedia:Redirect. I've fixed this one, but if you need help in the future, let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 17:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Sheila Willcox

Please provide references.TheRingess 04:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for edit summmary

Hi. I am a bot, and I am writing to you with a request. I would like to ask you, if possible, to use edit summaries a bit more often when you contribute. The reason an edit summary is important is because it allows your fellow contributors to understand what you changed; you can think of it as the "Subject:" line in an email. For your information, your current edit summary usage is 1% for major edits and 6% for minor edits. (Based on the last 150 major and 48 minor edits outside the Wikipedia, User, Image, and all Talk namespaces.)

This is just a suggestion, and I hope that I did not appear inpolite. You do not need to reply to this message, but if you would like to give me feedback, you can do so at the feedback page. Thank you, and happy edits, Mathbot 05:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Breeds

I think your expetise could be helpful at Wikipedia:WikiProject Horse breeds.--Joe 23:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Racehorse categories

As a contributor to racehorse articles I would appreciate you taking a look at Category_talk:Racehorses and expressing any views you have regarding Racehorse categories. - Cuddy Wifter 04:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Saddle

Thanks for your contributions to the Saddle page, but that's not the right place for them. Saddle is a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page, which exists only to help people find the article they're looking for, not to provide information on its own. The excellent information you added should be incorporated into English saddle or Western saddle, or into a new generic article called Riding saddle or something similar. You could also create a new article called Parts of a saddle (or Parts of an English saddle and Parts of a Western saddle). If you need help, let me know where you think it would work best, I'd be happy to work with you, but it will need to be removed from the Saddle page soon. Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 20:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I've decided that, by the guidelines on Wikipedia:Disambiguation perhaps Saddle should be a generic article on its own, and the current page should be moved to Saddle (disambiguation). I've proposed it on Talk:Saddle. If I make the moves, would you help to flesh out a "Saddle" article? Thanks! — Catherine\^talk 21:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, I have completed the moves. I've created a skeleton article at Saddle, which I encourage you to expand and rewrite wherever necessary. Remember that anything that applies only to one type of saddle should generally go to that specific article instead; this one should be an overview of things that apply to all saddles (or at least all equestrian ones; I don't think we need to worry too much about camel and zebra saddles...). If you haven't already, see Wikipedia:Summary style, Wikipedia:Lead section, and Wikipedia:Citing sources for some ideas on developing an overview article like this. Best of luck to you, and thank you for your interest and your willingness to do research on this! I'll keep this on my watchlist and help out if I can think of any suggestions as it develops. Feel free to ask me any questions, or for any type of help. — Catherine\^talk 18:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Irish Draught Redirect

Hallo, would you take a look at both Irish Draught and Irish Draft. There can't be two different pages of the the same item. Irish Draught is the correct Irish/European spelling. Culnacreann Ireland 13:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

Thanks for redirecting Irish Draught - Culnacreann Ireland

Big reorganization project idea

Noticed that in general there is a lot of repetition in some of the articles, partly because they aren't cross-linked (and partially because people don't read before they edit). I was thinking that someone could do to the Equestrianism article something akin to what was done with horse, in that more links could be put to related articles using that main article template and much verbiage cut from the main one. I say "someone" because you might have the time. <grin> I wish I did, but it took me weeks just to fix one long article I took on...I tweak at everything here and there, but a wholesale reorganization may be needed in some areas, what do you think? Some of the articles that could use some serious thought in terms of organization and removal or moving of material repeated other places (content is often decent to good, especially if things were more consolidated) include the hunt seat article, the english saddle article, etc...one thing that would be great would be to put together some better western articles. The horse training article is also kind of a mess, and I don't know what to do about the "horse breaking" article, which is also problematic. Perhaps putting some merge templates into suggested articles and some redirect pages...? Just thoughts. I like your work and I appreciate when you tweak mine. I still really haven't figured out when multiple categories are appropriate and when not, and if there's an easy way to fix all those categoy trees and arrive at something approaching universal language and useage...(sign) Montanabw 19:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to your last message, I think we can collaborate here pretty well. If you can organize and outline, I can flesh out details--I grew up with western stuff so can help out there--it's easy, when I have time. I do more baby hunter and dressage stuff at this time in my life, but hey, I live out west and we do it all around here. I used to show saddle seat, so that's reasonably familiar ground to me as well. I also used to train young horses and teach lessons, (when I was young and immortal) so again can flesh out details on a decent outline...it's the reorganizing and rearranging of messy articles that is so time-consuming. As an example, there was some good cleanup work started on the horse article, to create links to other articles and condense the main article to a summary, I think something like that can work. My other contribution here is that I have probably heard of at least half the working theories out there so can probably explain the different viewpoints and help create NPOV as needed (oh goodness, do NOT get me started on "horse whisperers!" ARRGH!) Anyway, plow onward and feel free to holler for me if you want me to peek at something! Montanabw 00:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh great goddess of article writing

Noticed that you found a bunch more horse images, but then the powers that be tossed that one cute appaloosa one! Doh! Anyway, any tips on where you can find these gems? Commons is not my favorite location, seems to be pretty sparse. Anyway, kudos aside, we could sure use a better photo of a western saddle than that one with the (offensive to some people) confederate flag horse blanket that seems to be everywhere. If you find one, can you give me a heads up? Montanabw 06:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, unfortunately, I had found them all, though it does look like more images have been added to the horse category (equus caballus brings up a few more), but the horse photos not categorized and noted in other languages are hard to bring up on searches. The other western saddle is a treeless one, so doesn't work. I think I'm mostly grumbling over the lack of professional-quality public domain images, and acknowledge that I'm probably dreaming. Montanabw 21:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You are GOOD at finding obscure images! Wow! I am impressed! As for the image, I'd crop it to just show the saddle because the horse it is on is more of a draft horse than a stock horse, but it is a pretty good shot of the saddle. Montanabw 19:49, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit (almost) war, need help

Go to War horse and especially Talk:War horse and check out the comments by User:Wandalstouring. I'm getting sick and tired of dealing with this person and need some reinforcements. Bascially this guy wants a peer-reviewed source for every statement, and claims he is the god of all military history. In 500 contribs on his page, as far as I can tell, all he does is bitch at people, revert material, and demand sources. The negativity is getting to me, and I'm starting to get snippy with him. A good sign that I shouldn't be fighting this alone. Maybe I could ignore him and see if he goes away, but would you take a look-see? He may have a few legitimate points about sourcing and such, but I haven't the time to deal with it... Montanabw 00:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Let's see what happens! Montanabw 04:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Copied and pasted the same thing to me. Montanabw 17:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

war horse

all talk no action is assuming bad faith. Wandalstouring 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Stop bickering and stop making personnal attacks. I made a suggestion for structuring the article You disagree, make your own suggestion, constructive criticism. Have you ever tried to critize an article on the talk page? How long did it take until anything happened? If I say source this and that it usually means I have no more to say about it than I really want to delet this unsourced nonsense, but I assume good faith, maybe I'm wrong (that happens) and wait until it is sourced. Besides I have a lot to do with complex vandal fighting (several of them per day for months). No, I'm not the only one who fights them, so I hopefully do not delet edits of someone trying very hard to contribute. I even took a look on my contributions, well, blue water navy seems one of my recent major issues. Just take a look at the article, it's definetly a lot of my work and sourcing. Although I'm not inclined to do that in the warhorse article, I just want it on the right track. Wandalstouring 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new article titled Horses in Warfare as a place to do a complete restructuring of the War horse article. I inserted a basic outline and some suggestions for what I think should go there. Maybe a whole new rewrite will make the military history people happy. Or, at least make them put up or shut up. go see what you think and add anything you believe would be appropriate. Montanabw 05:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I screwed up, sorry, but am trying to fix

Hi, First an apology and confession for screwing up one of your articles, then an explanation of how I think it will get fixed. I have been frustrated that we have articles on types of specific bits but apparently no generic bit article, so I created Bit (horse). That's the good news. Then I got over bold and found bit mouthpiece and had a brain fart, tried to move it into Bit (horse), screwed up the title with a typo-- called it bit (horse without the second parenthesis, then realized I couldn't move the article and had to merge it, did a cut and paste merge into the new article, then realized that you also wrote bit ring and realized you were on the right track in the first place and the article didn't need to be merged, but I'd edited too much to just revert it properly so had to cut and paste back.

Long story short, the article bit mouthpiece is back in place, but it's history isn't. So I put in a request to the admins to merge the history of the temporary article back into yours, but it is putting up a weird template about speedy deletion...I put an explanation in their holding pen and I hope they get it all fixed properly. If not, well the text was also temporarily in my new Bit (horse) article and could be pulled from there if necessary.

At any rate, I'm really sorry and am actually NOT trying to screw up other people's work...sigh...mea culpa! I think you can just monitor the page and the admins will fix the history, I hope! Montanabw 08:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Which horse? The gray isn't mine, actually. I just took the picture. I did use my critters as guinea pigs for a couple other things, but I'm keeping them incognito.<grin> FYI, the admins did fix the history on the article. We now have the generic Bit (horse) that is listed in the disambiguationpage ifpeople type "bit" and can be linked instead of the horse tack article, plus both bit ring and bit mouthpiece. I should do up an article on bit shanks as well, but no time now...all there is is that archaic 1912 Britannica one on "branches." Montanabw 04:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

When you create a disambiguation page, such as Aids, please mark it with a {{disambig}} at the bottom. This will allow the Wikipedia software to recognize it as a disambiguation page. Eli Falk 10:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Equestrian surgery

You put a proposed deletion template on the article's talk page. It should have been on the article itself, and I took the liberty of moving it. I hope this is okay. --N Shar 05:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Fun in the tack room

Just an FYI, I added (or, to be precise, am adding while I write) about 20 some images of horse tack and stuff to commons. I use the same username there, I probably didn't categorize everything properly, but if you search by my contributions, they will all come up. Most stuff is of western style bridles and western curb bits, and the majority I've released to public domain. Anyway, I'm going to add some of these images where needed, but if you see a good spot for them, have fun and use them yourself if you'd like. Montanabw 01:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you found some of the images, hope they helped...I exchanged a few just because I knew what I stuck in there, hope that was OK. (check out hay I had some fun with that one, the barn cat insisted on "helping"--FYI, if you want a project, that article needs more help than I had time to give it!) In other news, what got me started on all this was my desire to create an article on bit shanks to go with the one you did on bit rings, so today I got that started, and found a somewhat obscure page Branch (bridle) that was obsolete terminology and has been moved to Bit shank. Anyway, long story short, I will probably be stealing some of the material about bit shanks from your articles and putting in wikilinks to the article. Look over the new stuff, and then if you want to edit it or any of the other articles accordingly, well, now you know what I'm up to! Montanabw 04:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Nutrition article

I couldn't find an article directly on feeding horses (maybe there is one, I couldn't find it...), so I created Equine nutrition. See what you think and fix what needs fixing! Enjoy! Montanabw 00:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

TROUBLE! They have slapped the article as being too directly copied from the Rutger's site...while that was a primary source, I would argue that there was enough material that they shouldn't have blocked the whole thing, but oh well. In the meantime, it's been exiled to Talk:Equine nutrition/Temp where it can be fixed... I could use a hand in rewriting and rephrasing. And, given that I inadvertently drwe the attention of the wikipedia admins on this, best to footnote and source everything. ARRGH! Montanabw 17:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, after spending WAY too much time today properly sourcing the article, it's back up. However, I added tags to everything I didn't put in, and encourage you to add source material for anything you included. Teach me to draw attention to myself by submitting a "did you know?" Arrgh! Montanabw 22:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Rolex Kentucky Three Day

Greetings Eventer. Thanks for the comments on the photos. Unfortunately, I do not have photos of the dressage test, but I intend on getting some this year. Taking a couple extra days and going Friday through Sun. Just hope the rain holds off. Got a new lens as well, cant wait to use it, it's a little faster than the one I used last year. --ronjamin 05:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The historic seats

<< la jineta and la brida seats>>

Not a bad idea, I have a couple books in hardcopy that discuss it, Bennett and another, older work. Do you think this would be one article or two (I favor one for now) and what could it be titled? (We could create a redirect for each term.) Montanabw 21:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I put in a bit about la jineta and la brida in the stirrup article, which needed some serious work, especially after a newbie had added some extensive but basically useless edits. Still would be good to do an article, but what to call it? Do we have a History of Equestrianism page? Montanabw 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI #2, I just created a new article Stable vices. Pretty short, maybe look it over and see if you can add anything. Also did a tuneup on horse care and added a bunch of new stuff, maybe see if there are tweaks needed there. Montanabw 06:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a minor little itty bitty thing about your grammar

You have some really nice articles going on in the realm of horses and horsemanship, but for future reference, you should note that it is perform, performance, not preform, preformance :) Lappado 18:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll be the first to admit, grammar and spelling are not my strong suits. Eventer 00:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Equsetrianism? ARRGH!

<<<As far as I know, we do not have any page related to "History of Equestrianism." I think its a good idea, I'm wondering how we are going to break it up. Discuss the different seats/styles of riding and how they emerged? Would we mention any sports? And would we begin with the "evolution" of riding (i.e. from the first person to sit on a horse), or from a specific time period? Eventer 20:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)>>>

AARRGGHH! This would be something like REAL WORK! The first thing we probably need to do is to figure out what already exists in Equestrianism, Domestication of the horse, Horse breaking (an article that is a total mess but has a section on Xenophon), maybe some of what's in Horses in warfare and probably some of the articles on the masters, such as Guerinere (sp?). (and the bit I added to Stirrup, maybe take a look at Saddle too. I "de-stubbified" and rewrote Horse training, so I know there's no history there (a deliberate decision).

We don't want to duplicate domestication of the horse, but I see the new article as sort of taking the topic forward from where the domestication article leaves off. (Arguably, domestication should discuss the first person to sit on a horse, the time of which is, of itself, a surprisingly contoversial topic!).

Most books on horsemanship start with Xenophon or Kikkuli, i.e. the first people to write on the topic. I'd say that's as good a place as any to start. We also have the dilemma that history of riding and history of horse training sort of overlap -- I guess that's why we'd say "equestrianism," eh?

As for the seats, we could just treat it historically, I suppose. The ancients went through a time when they sat way the heck back on their horses and someone else led them. (Early LaBrida) La Jineta was basically the only way anyone could ride fast bareback without falling off, the La Brida seat required the invention of the solid tree saddle to ride faster than a walk without flying off the back...oh gawd, this means RESEARCH...! Arrgh!

I think maybe the thing to do is to create a sandbox somewhere, the way User:Gwinva did when she and I came up with Horses in the Middle Ages. We can dump in stuff we find wherever we find it and then start organizing it, cleaning it up, and figuring out what is missing. Where shall we put the sandbox?

Two sources I can think of now that have good history sections are Deb Bennet's Conquerers and Robert Miller's Revolution in Horsemanship. I think Paul Belasik's books also discuss some of the old masters; I have a copy of Dressage for the 21st Century, I'll have to see what's in there. I also have some older books that may have something to offer, too.

What say you create the sandbox, somewhere, shoot me the link and then we both start dumping in what's out there? Montanabw 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Grooming...

Great Minds, if you looked at the horse care article, I added an entire new section on grooming there, plus one photograph of grooming tools (and a bunch more grooming tool photos in commons). I bet the unencyclopedic tag got put there because there is a lot of how-to that they seem to want people to put into a wikibook instead. That's a thought, actually, but a bigger project than I want to tackle.

I think we can save the grooming article, I think it was tagged by an overeager admin. Looks like the tag was already removed, but can we merge in my stuff too? I haven't looked over your article in detail, but there are probably some differences...east coast versus west coast (I've already had to remove edits about metal currycombs! Arrgh!)

For now, I'll throw in a source or two on yours and fix the Category tag. I'll add a "main" tag to the horse care article. Check out the pics I added to commons in my contribs list (More fun in the tack room, I confess I own the world's rattiest hoof pick!) Look over what was done in Horse care and if you want to merge in some stuff, I'll wait until the horse grooming article is done before shortening the bit in horse care. Montanabw 15:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

Did you catch that I created a new article, Stable vices? It is pretty short, if you feel in the mood to go and play with it. We could also create more wikilinks to it. I may go out with my camera and see if I can find a nice example of wood chewing, too bad I painted all my fence...will have to drive around like I did for the photos I added to agricultural fencing ... Montanabw 22:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Stirrups

Hmm. The security issue is a tricky one and your point is well-taken. The trick is perhaps to convey the "Goldilocks answer" what makes it "Just right?" We probably need to go deeper than just stirrup length, as the real issue is balance.

I DO agree that it is necessary to shorten stirrups while jumping (I don't do eventing, so I'll take your word for that), but on the other hand, with beginner riders on the flat, a short stirrup gives an illusory sense of security and actually makes them MORE likely to be bounced off. (Been there, seen that!) Young riders starting over fences also can get overbalanced on the forehand if a too-short stirrup pushes then into a too-forward seat.

What is going on here is that when you must move your seat forward, your leg has to stay under you.

Obviously, leaning forward with a long stirrup WILL move your leg back, as the stirrup bar doesn't move and you can't put a saddle anywhere other than on the back, girthed around the barrel... Thus, the shorter stirrup allows the "crouching" you mention, and keeps the leg balanced under the rider's center of gravity. But balance is one type of security, at speed, it's a trade off with contact, another type of security. And all the "contact" in the world won't keep you on a horse if you are unbalanced!

A jockey being the extreme example--with a long stirrup, not only would the horse not run as fast, but if it did, the rider would probably fly off backwards! That said, a stumble or stop and they usually fly over the horse's head instead.

OTOH, I most certainly will not ride a short stirrup on a young colt that is potentially going to buck or bolt on me. I keep my stirrups and legs long...(within reason, obviously, one shouldn't be reaching for the stirrups, either). When I ride different western saddles other than my own, I often find I have to adjust stirrup length to stay balanced; if a saddle has poor balance, I have to ride a shorter stirrup so as not to be trapped in a "feet on the dashboard" position, which is also quite insecure; you're perpetually behind the horse...but the short stirrup also is very fatiguing, say, on an all-day trail ride...it's a stopgap that compensates for a poorly designed saddle...

I will kick around in my head the whole notion of balance, as that's the real thing...if you can think of ideas, go for it. Montanabw 16:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

stirrups-2

It's all about balance...stirrup length allows you to stay over the horse's center of balance at the average speed it travels...if short length alone = security, we'd all ride like jockies! <grin> Security is being in balance. (That's why we are supposed to ride without stirrups sometimes!)

A short stirrup over fences makes sense because not only does the horse move faster overall, but the thrust of a jump requires a rider to stay agile and balanced so as not to be left behind, and we humans do that better with more bend in our legs. I probably am not explaining this right, but Dressage requires more precision, so the horse sacrifices forward speed for collection and lateral agility, and the rider gives up some physical freedom of movement for control.

((I think with beginners, shorter stirrups feel more secure because they haven't lengthened their legs yet.))

Oh dear, no! I always start my beginners (on the longe line especially) with a properly adjusted stirrup--at or just below the ankle bone. Otherwise, they learn to "clutch" on the horse, they lean forward too much and any bump or bobble and they fly right off!

((it does take time to develop a longer leg))

This is true. But it's all about position and learning how to place the leg properly, particularly the thigh-hip angle, and then, paradoxically, to relax. You are right that they have to learn to loosen up the leg, but it really doesn't take long, and once you learn the position, you have it! When I have not been able to ride for a while (like when it gets 20 below up here--I don't have an indoor arena!), I might ache like crazy when I start riding again, but my stirrups don't change.

((get in a chair seat and push forward against them (therefore they enable a rider to have a lower skill level and still stay on)))

At dude ranches, that's what they tell people who have never ridden; to "put your feet on the dashboard," but that "chair" seat, though it feels secure and kind of wedges you into the saddle, it is completely incorrect -- if we are talking about the same thing -- you are always balanced over your feet, shoulder, hip and heel in line. (see George Morris, Hunt Seat Equitation, he's the god of correct position--he knows it too, but...)

((I also find that galloping in my dressage saddle is not comfortable, nor is it very secure. I have trouble getting my butt out of the saddle, and the pommel usually starts hitting my crotch.))

Indeed, this is true, because the saddle is not made for galloping. It's made to provide a deep, secure seat. You can't get out of it very easily. Gallop in it, and you are forced behind the motion, behind the horse's center of balance, and oh yeah, feels like riding uphill or something. Shortening the stirrups on a dressage saddle is a stopgap solution when you have to use it in a more forward position, but my experience is that it isn't long before you are getting rubbed badly because your leg is ont aligned witht he flap as it was built, plus the cantle is so high I am still getting bumped on the pommel...you sure don't want to jump anything very high in one! =:-O

Two holes difference really is about the difference between everyday flat work and everyday jumping...and the flaps of saddles reflect that leg placement -- try riding a dressage length stirrup on a saddle with a real forward flap. Weird things happen there, too!

But, basically, (and this is the voice of experience) if a young horse is going to get serious about dumping you off, you will stand a better chance of staying on in a dressage saddle than a close-contact. Endurance riders often swear by the Stubben Siegfried VSD, which seems the optimal balance between freedom and security -- they can get out of the saddle when they need to move, but have security for things like, oh climbing Cougar Rock at the Tevis or something...

((obviously in a western saddle it is easy to gallop with a longer stirrup length)) No, not really. Calf ropers, steer wrestlers, and barrel racers have smaller, lighter saddles with lower cantles and ride a somewhat shorter stirrup than do, say, people who do cutting or reining. (Look at a western saddle manufacturer online like Tex Tan or Circle Y and see how saddles marketed for barrel racing are different than those for reining or cutting..and look at photos of people in those respective events--very different seat) I don't do cattle work, but when I am riding a horse where I anticipate a lot of faster work (say, on a trail ride with people who have gaited horses that will make me trot all the time), if I ride a western saddle at all under those circumstances (I more often trail ride in an English saddle), I'll put my stirrups about one hole shorter to be able to post in the saddle.

At least, that's my story and I'm sticking to it! (grin) Montanabw 01:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Stirrups 3

(In my mind, if I'm jumping a huge oxer, and my stirrup length hinders my performance (because it is too long) this stirrup is not secure. So long stirrups are not appropriate for galloping or jumping: they decrease the chance that I will stay on my horse if something were to go wrong and they do not help me even if things are going right. Therefore, they are less secure in that situation than shorter stirrups. So maybe its situationally-based?)

I don't think we are all that far apart in reality, probably just use different terminology. And have a different perspective because I teach a lot of beginner riders and mostly do flat work. Wish I had illustrations to explain. Basically, I agree with you 100% that you must have a shorter stirrup over big fences or at high speeds. But my reason why is that it is all about doing what puts you over the horse's center of balance. A too-long stirrup is insecure because it keeps you behind the motion of a fast-moving horse and thus off-balance. But, you also don't go to the other extreme and jump with a jockey-short stirrup over fences, there is an optimum length that is neither too long or too short!

Essentially, you DO have to trade freedom and balance for security, though. While you are more secure jumping with a short stirrup because you are balanced and able to move with the horse, if the horse does something really obnoxious like stop dead and start bucking, you are going to be off in a forward position in a jumping saddle (how many times have you seen a horse refuse a fence and the rider fly over it? I've sure seen it happen a lot), but you might stand a chance of staying on in a dressage saddle. (But you obviously can't jump very high in a dressage saddle... it's always a trade off)

I just see too many riders on the flat who are unable to sit down on the horse and have a deep, secure seat because they shorten their stirrups too much in the mistaken belief that it is more secure. About the most ridiculous sight in the world is a western rider with short stirrups. (sigh) ----