This is an instance in which my third point of U.S. metrication---that
metrication be applied rationally, without interfering with certain customs that
have little to do with trade---should hold. No pun intended, but "hands
off" metricating hands.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: 04 Jun 07,Monday 04:10
Subject: [USMA:30067] Horses and
hands
The problem we face switching
people from measuring horses in cm vs "hands" is not only tradition, but the
fact that there is some convenience in the "hands" method. As a horse
owner myself, I can tell readers that the height of a horse is an important
factor in deciding whether to buy a specific animal. It depends on the
height of the owner, but for many people a horse over "15.2" hands is too tall
to mount easily. The range of normal variation is usually only a couple
of "points", ie, "14.2" to "15.2", so there are only a few numbers to deal
with. No one actually thinks that a 14.3 horse is so-and-so feet
high. I wonder how measuring heights of horses in units of 10 cm would
work: The range would normally be just 145-155 cm. Horse owners would
not want to deal with individual centimeters (147, 148, etc) and would want to
just stick with the four inches in each "hand".
And in the US at least, many horse
owners are country people who don't want to be told what to do!
This is just info about what we
face--I am not defending the present system!
HARRY
WYETH
