Note that I said "could," not "should." I also said "a growing horse" (whose height would increase from one week to the next), not a full-grown hunter or jumper.
And I do know that the official definition of the hand is 4 inches. However, I yield to your superior pedantry. <g> Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Behalf Of John S. Ward >Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 19:34 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:27083] RE: Drivers Licence > > >I, for one, would certainly NOT agree. A hand is already well defined and >unambiguous. Having two significantly different definitions >(total ambiguity >of about 2.5 cm for a typical hunter/jumper is significant) would create >exactly the sort of ambiguous situation that the metric system is >supposed to >be fixing. > >Fifty or a hundred years in the future, when the last inches >rulers and tape >measures are collectable antiques and only historians remember how many >inches are in a foot, horse owners will probably measure their >horses in cm. > >John > >On Tuesday 30 September 2003 18:13, Bill Potts wrote: >> For a growing horse, accuracy is not essential. One could agree >that a hand >> is 4 inches or 10 centimeters. >> >> However, there's some very good stuff on the subject at >> >http://www.gov.on.ca/OMAFRA/english/livestock/horses/fact>s/info_hands.htm. >> Note that it's a Canadian web site. >
