Is it time to change our minds...

[stolensilver]

Is it time for breeders to change their minds about what constitutes the perfect horse that they are striving to breed? Although science relating to the conformation of top horses is sparse what is out there brings out different aspects of conformation than most horsemen do. For example in dressage horses the angle between the humerus and the scapula is more important than shoulder angle and more top dressage horses have straight hocks than "ideal" ones. Although of course the most successful sire of dressage horses, the KWPN Jazz, has sickle hocks and passes them on.

Then there is size in showjumpers. Several of the top jumpers in the world at the moment are "small" and are listed as being around 16hh. Bearing in mind that there is a tendency to stretch horses who are under 16hh and shrink those that are over 17hh it seems likely that these "16hh" superstars are actually 15.2 or 15.3. The only data I know about size and horses is a link between increased height and increased unsoundness. So perhaps we should be breeding for smaller horses rather than the standard of 16.2hh?

What do you think? Is it time to change our minds about these things? Or are the traditional beliefs right?

[Fairview Horse Center]

Bumping this because it is an important discussion.

It IS time to take a hard look at these things that have been "standard operating procedure" because "THEY said so", and seriously ask, WHY?

[stolensilver]

Thankyou Darlyn. I hope this discussion gets going too as it could be very interesting. Were the things the old breeders bred for so right we cannot improve on them or were they mistaken in some places? Does this give modern breeders a chance to produce horses even better than before?

[Ajierene]

Not being a breeder, I can only speak from personal experience.

I owned a 16.1 thoroughbred that I bought when he was 19 and a bit broken down. Still very useable for the next 6 years. I retired him as much because I had another horse to ride as anything.

The 17.2HH Thoroughbred I owned for a few years was chalk full of issues, including arthritis and general joint issues. He was a rescue and kind of 'fell' into my ownership so I did not spend thousands diagnosing the problems of a horse that was worth about $300. Most bigger horses I have known, of the lighter breeds, have had confirmation issues and arthritis at an earlier age.

The draft horses tend to handle their size better, but that may change now the people are using them for disciplines that they are far from bred for.

I own a a 15.2HH mare that I want to breed. I want a 15.3, 16HH (tops) baby. I want to breed her to a warmblood not exceeding 16.1HH, which narrows my search greatly. I don't understand the need for bigger horses. I have seen plenty of ponies that jump higher than my mare and enough of the bigger horses I have known had much less jumping ability.

What irritates me the most is false advertising. Why aren't people proud that their 15.3HH stallion can jump the moon? I looked at a stallion a few months back that just moved to a big stallion farm. I was told his height is 16.1 and he looks a small 16.1. The ad with the new place lists him as a big 16.2. If I had seen that without going out, I likely would have cross him off my list. How many '16.3' stallions are really smaller and would suit my needs?

[RiddleMeThis]

Not a breeder either but thought I would put my 2 cents in.

Breeding for the bigger horses is because its what the market wants. Right or wrong the biggest market for sporthorse breeders wants a BIG horse normally right around 16.3 hands. Will the BEST horses be that size?

Who knows, but the market right now wants 16.3 horses. To produce smaller horses and expect them to sell especially in this market is not the greatest idea.

[Molly Malone]

I'm wondering if certain aspects of conformation are trade off between performance and 'sturdiness'. Whilst sickle hocks may, for example, enable a horse to collect more easily, does it also predispose them to requiring hock injections at an earlier age? Or do sickle hocked smaller horses stay sounder than sickle hocked larger ones?

I'm not sure how you could do a study. Maybe if everyone sent data gathered over, say 5 years, on what their horse cost in feed and vet bills along with a conformation picture to a central point, then you could calculate an inch by inch cost/conformation graph.

[EqTrainer]

I don't know how you could ask breeders to not be producing what sells the easiest - and that is, as a rule, horses over 16 hands. The other way to go about it, IMO, would be to *specialize* in smaller horses and be known for that, so when people are looking for a smaller horse of quality they think of you first.

[Daydream Believer]

I remember a conversation I had with Denny Emerson some years ago about size of event horses. He commented that some of the worlds best eventers were under 16 hands...ie Charisma, and now even a true pony in Teddy. He also commented that the smaller horses were handier and sounder.

I sincerely doubt an extra inch or two at the withers makes a horse jump any higher or move any better. It's all about how they use the body that they've got and what's between their ears.

[siegi b.]

Before this ends up in another smaller is better than taller or vice versa thread, let me tell you that as a long-time breeder of warmbloods I am continually evaluating my program in order to have better and better results. I also think that the majority of folks that are serious about their breeding business always strive for improvement, whether it be in conformation or movement. This is borne out by the fact that today's American bred warmbloods are very much on par with their European counterparts. And no, the Europeans don't stand still, either - they're always trying to breed a better horse.

[NoDQhere]

Before this ends up in another smaller is better than taller or vice versa thread, let me tell you that as a long-time breeder of warmbloods I am continually evaluating my program in order to have better and better results. I also think that the majority of folks that are serious about their breeding business always strive for improvement, whether it be in conformation or movement. This is borne out by the fact that today's American bred warmbloods are very much on par with their European counterparts. And no, the Europeans don't stand still, either - they're always trying to breed a better horse.

Very well said!

[stolensilver]

But what constitutes "better"? The findings from the small amount of research on conformation and performance don't square with the old traditional values. Would following the research findings help in a breeding programme or is the research wrong? Or is the research skewed?

[Daydream Believer]

siegi...I think that is true of every good breeder. In my own world of Colonial Spanish horses I'm always striving to add the right bloodlines or cross the right horses to achieve my breeding goals yet stay well within the boundaries of our breed standard. It's a bit more limiting when you are in a closed book breed and trying to preserve a rare breed but results can be a bit more predictable also.

I was only relaying what I was told by a highly respected breeder and competitor and I do think in 3 Day eventing, the trend went larger for a while but migrated back to medium to smaller horses with the evolution of more technical trappy courses in the 1990's. The really big horses had a bit more trouble with the tight spots yet the very small (with exceptions like Teddy) tend to have trouble with the longer distances. In eventing it's not about taking a rail either but about being safe also.

As for soundness, there are plenty of exceptions where very large horses held up just as well as the smaller ones, but I think most people would agree that the mid size or smaller horses are easier on themselves in the long run than the very large ones in jumping in particular.

[grayarabpony]

Of course it's time for people to change their minds.

It's more difficult to keep a behemoth horse sound. Most are less handy. Plenty of smallish horses have a big stride and a lot of scope.

[tri]

Top show jumpers are often sickle hocked and are known to pass it on. Most jumper people don't find that an issue.

For decades, event people have always said that a large size is a hindrence on the cc course but now that dressage is more and more important, that is changing.

But I want to caution you against the acertation that "Several of the top jumpers in the world at the moment are "small" and are listed as being around 16hh." " so we should breed them small" is almost like saying, because several of the top jumpers are bay, we should breed them bay.

Not too long ago, there was a lot that were big. Remember Big Ben among others. Baloubet de rouet is 16.3. I think if you do some research, you'll find that int'l show jumpers in general are all mostly well over 16 hands.

[TrueColours]

I started a thread a few weeks back about "are people buying more "normal" sized horses now, as I sell a product that is sized according to the heights of the horses and I am finding in 2008 I am selling 4 times more of the "Medium Full" size (which is for horses 15.2-16.1hh) whereas in the 3 years previous, the Large Full (16.1-17hh) and Super Size (+17hh) sizes were my best sellers by about 3:1. So in my VERY unscientific, unsubstantiated observations, there are in fact more "normal" sized horses being purchased right now ... and these are not just pleasure horses either - they are show hunters and jumpers that are down in Wellington now getting ready for the shows

Interesting discussion.

What I breed for is totally and completely different than what Breeder "A" and "B" and "C" breeds for. Excellent conformation (specifically for the Hunter Breeding and Conformation Hunter markets) is what I strive to achieve. The parts that all flow together, the pretty head, the beautiful topline, the early maturation and the beautiful, flat kneed trot are all components that have to be there for me to consider that early foal a success and then in later years, the ability to jump in beautiful classic hunter form allows me to know that I did my job as a breeder and have produced a winner

Obviously many of what *I* am seeking is totally not important to the jumper breeders who quite honestly dont care if it has a pretty head or a beautiful flat kneed trot or perfect "hunter type" conformation either ...

I dont believe that "its time to change our minds" as much as it is for us breeders to solidify the traits WE are trying to produce in our offspring and seek out mares and stallions that will achieve that goal on a consistent basis for us and what I am looking for is probably NOT what a breeder of jumper or dressage offspring is looking for either ... :)

[NoDQhere]

I think people need to breed for quality, regardless of size. If you are breeding for "big" and end up with a clod that steps on himself and falls down, then obviously that isn't a good big horse. By the same token if you breed for smaller and end up with a weedy little weakling, that is not a good smaller horse.

Good quality, type and pretty will always sell regardless of size provided the performance ability is there.

[Edgar]

Quality comes in all heights and height alone does not guarantee anything. It is also not true that the majority of Grand Prix horses are 16 hands or under. I think extreme height (17.1hh on up) may ad to unsoundness risk all other things being equal. The problem with that kind of thinking is that all things are not equal. The bigger factor is environment, (footing , training, habits) overall weight, conformation and biomechanics. BTW the majority of jumpers tend to be a bit straight behind, not sickle hocked. Some horses are hard on themselves and some are not. I have nothing against a smaller horse and yes they do come with big stride and big jump also. Plenty of smaller horses have soundness issues as well and the only difference is that you can not blame it on their height.

[tri]

I think some of you might be thinking that there are a lot of under 16 hand bigtime showjumpers because you have heard some hoopla about some recently. But the reason you hear about them is because there aren't as many of them so it is a curiosity. You don't hear about the plethora of ones like, "oh my gosh, he is ONLY 16.3 hands!!" Because so many ARE 16.3/2/1 hands.

[goodmorning]

BTW the majority of jumpers tend to be a bit straight behind

That's what I thought too - and have been finding, which is a real pain when you have a mare with a the jump but is a tidge straight behind - you don't want to end up with something too straight but finding a stallion with better angles and all the other parts for your mare is not an easy task. How do jumper breeders deal with this?

[Fairview Horse Center]

I think if you do some research, you'll find that int'l show jumpers in general are all mostly well over 16 hands.

But don't you think that is largely due to the fact that smaller horses are rarely given an opportunity to prove their talent? A smaller horse pretty much has to be a LOT better for a rider to take them seriously. When a smaller horse does find someone that believes in him, he/she often rises to the very top. Charisma, (both the Jumper HOTYand the eventer) Touch of Class, Teddy, Hickstead, Seldom Seen, etc.

I remember being with a group talking to an upper level dressage rider (5'9") that was showing a 15.2h stallion. When someone mentioned his size, she said, "Hey, trust me, I didn't go LOOKING for a smaller horse. He just found me, and I finally couldn't ignore him." How much more do they have to be, to not be overlooked?

The smaller horse is handier, more cat like, easier to turn, can more easily fit strides in, less punishing on their bodies, etc. In dressage, the tests become much easier when you have more "space" to ride them, fit in the tempi-changes, etc. That said, a tall rider will just not look as nice on a smaller horse, and their aids will have to be adjusted. I think it does take more convincing for a rider to want to learn to ride a horse that their legs fit differently on.

I think we need all sizes, but I think it is important to know the contributions that smaller horses have made. One year the Hanoverian yearbook had blurbs on important stallions of the breed. I believe they listed about 10, and of those, 5 were 16h or under.

I hope this thread can be more than about size. Quite a while ago, the European theory was that if you don't specialize, you will end up with mediocre. Then later, Christmann wrote that dressage breeders need to cross their mares to jumper stallions to improve the quality. We have seen quite a few of the registries split their breeding goals, then change their minds. One will do it, then a few years later, a different one tries it, not seeming to learn from each other.

We see the horses getting lighter and lighter, and breed for that, and then we hear from our German posters that they expect the pendulum to swing. That IS marketing. In the early to mid 80's, we saw a huge change in the Hanoverian Verband to focus more on marketing. It changed the breed. They always want to have what we do not.

Some of their marketing push may not be what is best for riding goals. That lighter horse is pretty, and flashy, but not known for elasticity. (Why is elasticity not an important goal, esp. for dressage?!?!) I think in many cases, our breeders were kind of caught in the headlights when they hear an incredibly popular horse is NOT elastic. They had kind of developed their eye and terminology based on success, rather than a "description". (As in he is so popular, he MUST be elastic).

Investigation showed that a straighter hind leg was more common in FEI dressage horses, when we had been taught more angle. We are taught long neck, when shorter is easier to connect. We are taught short back, when the most successful are longer. We are taught lighter and refined, when by far, the highest percentage of upper level dressage horses are not light. We are taught to breed for leggy, and now hear that is being re-thought.

Not only do we need to change our minds, but maybe we need to just plain think more, use common sense, and realize that the Europeans don't have perfect insight. We can be a follower, but that will generally lead us to start down the path, when they are beginning to think maybe that path is not the right one after all.

[not again]

Trainers and riders are looking for adjustability. A few years ago I schooled a 17.2 mare through a course of 4 ft. plus jumps. The clinician has set the in and out at 18 feet. That clever mare compressed at the in and then jumped though on the diagonal to lengthen the line and make it look and feel easy. I only had to stay out of her way. Good horses make the rider look good. Her size had nothing to do with her courage or sense.

[grayarabpony]

The smaller horse is handier, more cat like, easier to turn, can more easily fit strides in, less punishing on their bodies, etc. In dressage, the tests become much easier when you have more "space" to ride them, fit in the tempi-changes, etc. That said, a tall rider will just not look as nice on a smaller horse, and their aids will have to be adjusted. I think it does take more convincing for a rider to want to learn to ride a horse that their legs fit differently on.

I hope this thread can be more than about size. Quite a while ago, the European theory was that if you don't specialize, you will end up with mediocre. Then later, Christmann wrote that dressage breeders need to cross their mares to jumper stallions to improve the quality. We have seen quite a few of the registries split their breeding goals, then change their minds. One will do it, then a few years later, a different one tries it, not seeming to learn from each other.

Investigation showed that a straighter hind leg was more common in FEI dressage horses, when we had been taught more angle. We are taught long neck, when shorter is easier to connect. We are taught short back, when the most successful are longer. We are taught lighter and refined, when by far, the highest percentage of upper level dressage horses are not light. We are taught to breed for leggy, and now hear that is being re-thought.

Not only do we need to change our minds, but maybe we need to just plain think more, use common sense, and realize that the Europeans don't have perfect insight. We can be a follower, but that will generally lead us to start down the path, when they are beginning to think maybe that path is not the right one after all.

Amen to all of this.

These days I am seeing pics of horses with a good length of back declared pathologically long-backed. It's ridiculous. A decent length of back is important for scope.

I think the problem with a lot of these lighter horses is that the back is TOO short.

[Daydream Believer]

That said, a tall rider will just not look as nice on a smaller horse, and their aids will have to be adjusted. I think it does take more convincing for a rider to want to learn to ride a horse that their legs fit differently on.



On that same note, I think a petite little rider mounted on a massive horse looks just as bad perched up there like a jockey as someone too big and long legged for a smaller horse. I hear women that are shorter than I am (5'4") stating that they feel "too big" on anything under 16 h. I think a large part of that is perception rather than reality...and many shorter horses can really take up your leg if they are well built. In western events 6 foot tall men ride 14:2 hand cutters and reiners and think nothing of it. I think English discipline riders have it in their heads somehow that bigger is "normal" or better than the medium sized horses. I am glad to see the pendulum swinging back to more normal sized horses.

I also agree with Fairview that many smaller horses are passed over by competitors because they are perceived as too small which is one reason why you see fewer of them in the top levels of the sport...they never get a chance. Teddy would have never gotten his chance to excel if not for his owners belief in him and that she got him to the right trainers.

[stolensilver]

I've been lucky enough to have the lower popularity of smaller horses work in my favour. 4 years ago I was able to buy the full sister to 3 graded stallions, 2 of them are graded in WBFSH studbooks and one has been national dressage champion and trained up to Grand Prix. She a very reasonable price because she was under 16hh. Fortunately dressage judges are judging this horse based on her merits not her size and she's been to the finals of the national 6yo dressage horse championships and scored up to 75% in tests.

I truly believe it is necessary to think outside the box sometimes especially if you want top quality but don't have a massive budget. However I often wonder if we really know what the optimum competition horse looks like which is why this thread was started. We all know of top horses who have "conformation flaws" and are said to have got to the top in spite of these flaws. Yet do these horses have conformation flaws or do they just deviate from our unproven perception of what ideal conformation should look like?

[Daydream Believer]

I truly believe it is necessary to think outside the box sometimes especially if you want top quality but don't have a massive budget. However I often wonder if we really know what the optimum competition horse looks like which is why this thread was started. We all know of top horses who have "conformation flaws" and are said to have got to the top in spite of these flaws. Yet do these horses have conformation flaws or do they just deviate from our unproven perception of what ideal conformation should look like?

I'm convinced that much more important to a top level horse is what is between their ears and that is why so many "perfect" horses do not make it while so many less than ideal ones do. I'm not sure if it's all temperament but I think that desire to work with a person as a partner and to give 100% effort is more important than anything else in a working horse in any discipline.

[stolensilver]

I'm convinced that much more important to a top level horse is what is between their ears and that is why so many "perfect" horses do not make it while so many less than ideal ones do. I'm not sure if it's all temperament but I think that desire to work with a person as a partner and to give 100% effort is more important than anything else in a working horse in any discipline.

Daydream Believer I completely agree with you. :)

[stolensilver]

I think this paper is very relevant to this discussion:

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2007/12/20/the_nature_nurture_mix_for_racehorses

It basically says that in racehorses only 8.5% of their winnings can be attributed to their genetics. The rest his how they are raised, trained and ridden.

So does that have any bearing on the breeding of sports horses? We all know that an outstanding horse without an outstanding rider is never going to get to the top. Is the way a horse is trained in showjumping or dressage or eventing even more important than in racing? Should breeders in fact be putting money aside to have their best horses trained right rather than just investing in stallion fees? Is it a coincidence that many famous sports horse studfarms are either owned by top class riders or employ top class riders to work for them.

Food for thought at any rate!

[andy.smaga]

Should breeders in fact be putting money aside to have their best horses trained right rather than just investing in stallion fees? Is it a coincidence that many famous sports horse studfarms are either owned by top class riders or employ top class riders to work for them.

I think that this is the key element to have a successful horse.
Being a breeder or an owner, top class rider/trainer is the most decisive piece to bring a talented youngster all the way to the top.
And the investment, my side of the pond, is paying good $$$.

[EqTrainer]

Darlyn, I am always impressed by the way you think.. now I am wowed. :D