Percieved vs real conformation issues [Archive]

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 10:04 AM

When evaluating all horses not just young colts (ahem) it is important to note not only the degree of desirability in each part of the animal's conformation but also the effect these faults (or lack there of) will have on the future ability of the animal. We can never determine the mind of the horse, so when predicting future talents you have to take your best bet from both the foals parentage as well as body and movements.

For instance, the long back. You can not simple chop your horse into pieces (metaphorically) and then declare this horse has a long back and thus will never be able to compete. You have to look at the entire picture. It is far more important to look at the loin-coupling, the bone-structure and joints, to see the strength in the back. When horses are bred out of proven performers, they don't always come out looking right - but frequently they have funny little twists of conformation that correct things that don't, at first, appear correct.

There are many instances were glaring faults can be a supreme advantage. Horses with very downhill physics are natural sprinters, but you wouldn't want to use them in dressage. Others, like base-wide, are not only quite common, but not something most people would necessarily notice while you're horse was blowing past them in the show ring. Still there are other faults that will cause irreversible damage to the horse and render it useless in a competitive career - these are the faults we need to concern ourselves with most.

When choosing an equine partner it is important to approach conformation with complete understanding of the way horses work and how the muscles and bones complete the picture. There is no such thing as the perfectly conformed horse - every top stallion (or mare) have their issues, and this is why, as breeders, owners and trainers, we have to make informed decisions about the way we train, what disciplines we endeavour and to whom we breed our animals.

If you don't know enough about conformation to impart unbiased and helpful advice keep it to yourself. If you want more information on critiquing horses conformation I strongly suggest any thing by Deb Bennet (genius!), or Heather Smith Thomas, both experts in their field. I'm very disappointed over our collective inability to carry on a civil conversation about specific horse's conformation because it is a topic I find personally fascinating.

Anyway, I would like to start a discussion about real vs. perceived conformation issues because it's an area I've been endeavouring to further my education. I'd love it if some others could come up with examples of conformation faults that are more of a perceived issue then a real one, or could actually assist the horse in their sport. I suppose it would be best to stay off individual horses as examples.

Tilted pelvises anyone?

EqTrainer

Jun. 25, 2009, 11:33 AM

Good luck w/that. IMO, as long as most people begin their critique with a comment on the horses head or color, intelligent conversation about conformation is not ever going to happen.

grayarabpony

Jun. 25, 2009, 11:51 AM

What would be most interesting is to post the pictures of horses competing at high levels, sans names. Could be amusing too.

What does a tilted pelvis refer to anyway? Tipped forward? Tipped backward?

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 11:51 AM

A few people could use a dose of 'it's better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone thing you're a fool, then to open it and prove them all right'... Although sometimes "she has a nice head" is a good cover for "man that thing should not be alive it's so ugly!".

Honestly I don't see why people get so upset of conformation critiques (in exception of being personally attacks over it :rolleyes:), I know my mare have faults and couldn't care less when people point them out, unless they are incorrect. I already know what her weak points are.

I'm still amazed when people bring things like bone spavins into conformation discussions. Obviously a bone spavin in a young horse can be an indication of incorrect conformation (which should be obvious on it own), but if you trot your horse up and down the road, even with perfect hocks, they are likely to develop them. That is a good example of a real vs. perceived fault.

Jun. 25, 2009, 12:41 PM

Anyway, I would like to start a discussion about real vs. perceived conformation issues

Well, a great one we've just been discussing is the physical ewe neck vs the muscular "ewe neck".

Another is looking at how a horse is stood up for a picture. Many times someone tries to get the "looking through the bridle" look, especially of a Hunter, and they end up causing the horse to stand over his front end. This straightens the front pasterns and straightens the shoulder.

A horse gets stood up with a hind leg out behind him, and he's declared camped out. Or a leg slightly in front, or he's standing on an incline, and he's declared sickle-hocked. Vertical cannon bones people, or get the point of the hock under the point of the butt and see if the cannon bone CAN go vertical.

Or someone goes "omg, his pasterns are so upright!!" and they never even notice that the heels are sky high.

vineyridge

Jun. 25, 2009, 12:45 PM

The Canadian pedigree and conformation guru Judy Wardrope runs clinics and is apparently absolutely wonderful. She has a very informative website that makes the viewer beg for more.

LaurieB

Jun. 25, 2009, 12:49 PM

I think this is an interesting discussion.

In the racehorse world, horses that toe in are often successful at the races. Theories abound: is it whether they grip the track better or get out of the gate faster? But there are very few trainers who would pass on a pigeon toed horse.

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 12:52 PM

Laurie that is very interesting I've actually never hear that. Racehorses are built so strangle though! I'm often surprised how popular they are OTT.

selah

Jun. 25, 2009, 01:01 PM

Good luck w/that. IMO, as long as most people begin their critique with a comment on the horses head or color, intelligent conversation about conformation is not ever going to happen.

In a head-to-toe assessment, where would the logical starting point be? And in an assessment of anything, isn't it intelligent to look at the whole picture first, and then proceed to the details?

Montanas_Girl

Jun. 25, 2009, 01:01 PM

IMO, as long as most people begin their critique with a comment on the horses head or color, intelligent conversation about conformation is not ever going to happen.

I do agree with your point. "Pretty" is easier to judge than function. Some of us, though, just start with the head out of convenience. I usually go head-to-tail and then discuss the legs, just because that's the way I've always done it!

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 01:06 PM

I believe eq was referring more to the "he's swo pweety!" type of comments. There is nothing wrong with like a horse but when we're discussing conformation you should be able to back it up.

And while there is merit in breeding a horse for colour, colour alone isn't going to pay the bills if the horse is butt-backwards.

rainechyldes

Jun. 25, 2009, 01:33 PM

And while there is merit in breeding a horse for colour, colour alone isn't going to pay the bills if the horse is butt-backwards.

I breed Appaloosa's mainly. Although I've left my mares open the past two years, simply due to economics in NA atm. While color is a bonus, I don't breed for color.

I breed/raise/train and ride appaloosa because I enjoy their toughness (mental and physical) their patience, and their never quit attitude. So in a word I agree. Color isn't something that should be bred for in of itself.

Conformation is always a nit pick fest. Someone will always find something faulty and say eh, that horse is no good. Period. 2 horsepeople, 3 opinions:

Breeding is a crap shoot, even with the best of the best. The only way I work to improve that, is I seriously seriously consider whether a animal has the traits and the best(better?) conformation - (is it worth passing on?) I try to be objective, and hopefully I only choose to breed the right animals. The rest- riding careers only.

I've had a 4ft jumper with a nested neck and cowhocks, I have successful endurance horse with a hammerhead from hell and a weak loin, my old horse trials horse looked like a giraffe, and turned like a semi truck but he was good at his job. (I didn't breed these, I purchased them)
Point being, it's rare to find horses that have absolutely no conformation faults anywhere. 80% of the population has some form of vargus, so.. eh.

caffeinated

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:00 PM

One of my "favorite" perceived/real conformation issues has to do with shoulders.

On a recently closed thread, even, someone mentioned that a horse 'might' jump knees to eyeballs 'despite' a straight shoulder. Which confuses me a bit, because functionally, a more upright shoulder often corresponds to higher knees (both in movement and in jumping). Though the whole picture depends on more than the angle of the shoulderblade anyway, and the connection point and length of the humerus may be more important than the angle of the shoulder. But everybody always talks about straight vs. sloped shoulders as if that's the whole picture.

Sorry, it's a pet peeve, even though I'm not the most knowledgable person out there :)

Anyhoo. Anyone have Judy Wardrope's "ten conformation myths" book? I've been thinking about purchasing it...

grayarabpony

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:07 PM

One of my "favorite" perceived/real conformation issues has to do with shoulders.

On a recently closed thread, even, someone mentioned that a horse 'might' jump knees to eyeballs 'despite' a straight shoulder. Which confuses me a bit, because functionally, a more upright shoulder often corresponds to higher knees (both in movement and in jumping). Though the whole picture depends on more than the angle of the shoulderblade anyway, and the connection point and length of the humerus may be more important than the angle of the shoulder. But everybody always talks about straight vs. sloped shoulders as if that's the whole picture.

Sorry, it's a pet peeve, even though I'm not the most knowledgable person out there :)

True. I saw a picture of Gem Twist that shows a very upright shoulder. The key is the relationship of the scapula and humerus.

I start at the feet, then the loin connection, then go from there. or perhaps I should say to where? lol Mostly I want to see what the horse can do with what he has.

LaurieB

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:16 PM

Laurie that is very interesting I've actually never hear that. Racehorses are built so strangle though! I'm often surprised how popular they are OTT.

I don't think racehorses are strangly built--I think that often when you see them they are scary fit and that look takes some getting used to. But many, if not most, are beautiful. :)

tuckawayfarm

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:29 PM

I prefer to see jumpers cowhocked rather than straight. In the ones we've owned, those with cowhocks have stayed sounder behind with much less maintenance. I've wondered if the extra angle somehow dissipated the amount of concussion on the joints.

Interesting thread :)

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:34 PM

I don't think racehorses are strangly built--I think that often when you see them they are scary fit and that look takes some getting used to. But many, if not most, are beautiful. :)

They are just very specialized, there are lots of different adaptations that thoroughbreds have that make them run just a little faster then the average equine. It is beautiful to watch them go though!

I've always started at the loin when evaluating horses, it's really what I consider the most important, then to the shoulders, legs, back etc.

Caffs. very right there is allot of confusion surrounding shoulders as well as how to measure the angle properly. Really the trick is you measure from the point-of-shoulder to any part of the whithers, but have to accept you're going to get different values from the front to back of the whithers and you have to compare those to the ideal. I personally choose to go from the point of shoulder to peak of whithers because it's easiest.

grayarabpony

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:34 PM

Well, a great one we've just been discussing is the physical ewe neck vs the muscular "ewe neck".

Another is looking at how a horse is stood up for a picture. Many times someone tries to get the "looking through the bridle" look, especially of a Hunter, and they end up causing the horse to stand over his front end. This straightens the front pasterns and straightens the shoulder.

A horse gets stood up with a hind leg out behind him, and he's declared camped out. Or a leg slightly in front, or he's standing on an incline, and he's declared sickle-hocked. Vertical cannon bones people, or get the point of the hock under the point of the butt and see if the cannon bone CAN go vertical.

Or someone goes "omg, his pasterns are so upright!!" and they never even notice that the heels are sky high.

All of this is so true. You see people on here pronouncing a death knell on horses when who knows what reality is. If a horse that's built very well (whatever that means), if he's standing a certain way, he can be ripped on a critique for all sorts of things.

Something I am curious about -- how do people here judge loin coupling. I read in the article linked to COTH perhaps about a year ago, judging the conformation of Winsome Adante and another 4* event horse.

http://www.jwequine.com/pdf/conformation_for_an_eventer.pdf

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:45 PM

That was a great article, there is one on jumpers and dressage too - they in my magazine file somewhere.

Look at the last two horses posted for conformation and you'll see a big difference in their loin coupling, or as I explained it in the colt thread:

So you want to look both at the point of croup (the bit on top that sticks up, and where the back and croup both slope downwards from), and the point of hip (the knobby bit that sticks out). You can see how one this guy his POC is actually a tiny bit ahead of his POH. His loins have very strong, short muscles which will help him collect.

http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu269/knitness/rocky.jpg (http://i654.photobucket.com/albums/uu269/knitness/rocky.jpg)

The best way to look at your horses loins is actually to stand above them, you can see a triangle formed by their points of hip then to the dip in the back.

You can actually see both POHs and POC very well on his dame in this picture of Rocky & his dame http://bookendfarm.com/May2ndPic3web.jpg

You can see how his dame displays a decent loin-coupling but a weak loin due to condition and foaling. Unforunatly my mare's dame suffered permanent ligament damage due to poor conditioning and too many foals, and thus was unable to be ridden.

Jun. 25, 2009, 02:48 PM

Ok, let's play this game for real:

Have a critique based on what you see here (http://equestriangardener.homestead.com/files/rio/rio4yonsh.jpg)

grayarabpony

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:05 PM

1) He's underweight
2) His back legs are stretched so far out behind him, it's hard to tell anything!

EqTrainer

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:09 PM

Ok, let's play this game for real:

Have a critique based on what you see here (http://equestriangardener.homestead.com/files/rio/rio4yonsh.jpg)

:lol: you are never going to pass that one off as half Arab...

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:15 PM

*head desk* Nice picture JB!!!

Flat quarters actually isn't all that detrimental, although it does look interesting (in this case grossly exaggerated by an outstretched leg), it can actually be helpful in letting the horse swing their legs further under their body. Lots of Arabians and walkers are built with a tilted up pelvis, and it works because the other joints in the leg compensate for the pelvis' angle.

high tail placement/tilted pelvis (http://ultimatehorsesite.com/images_breeds/walker_generatorscharmer.jpg)

If he'd stand up, you'd see he's a nice boy, other then his neck (although the shadow is hiding his chest, so it may not be that bad) which looks a little goose - good legs! I don't think he's too skinny, he looks racing condition to me.

Melelio

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:16 PM

JB, I like him, though his shoulder angle is a bit more open than is touted to be ok, but whateva. I wouldn't pass this guy up, but then again I'm not looking at top level hunters and jumpers either. He looks pretty soundly built, sturdy bone, and not too far off from being in that nice body trapezoid that's becoming popular. Reining trainers used to use that measurement, now I can see it in horses better from studying what they liked.

FriesianX

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:33 PM

I think sometimes people put too much emphasis on conformation before seeing how a horse uses himself. A few years ago, in an education setting, a high level judge (highly respected) almost fell out of his chair he was so in love with one of the demo mares - he hadn't seen her move yet. She was a lovely Hanoverian mare, almost conformationally perfect, and she moved like a bad sewing machine. A pretty one though :lol:

I've seen that happen more than once. Also horses that didn't look like much just standing - upright shoulders, short croups, weak loins, whatever. Until they tucked their pelvis and took off - and you just went WOW, where did that come from! I just saw one a few weekends ago at a clinic - he came in and you just kind of groaned. Horrible neck, horrible loin, bad hip, shoulder wasn't great, there was just not much to like. Until he cantered - gasp, where did that come from? And turns out he was by a big name Dutch stallion.

I've got a Dutch mare that is a bit croup high herself - and all her babies are incredible, and several dressage judges declared her the nicest mare they've ever seen - because they saw her moving - three fabulous gaits, and a natural ability to sit (in spite of not being uphill).

Another recent example - a DSHB judge pointed out a horse that was a bit out behind in the way he was built, and moved with is hocks "ticking up" - and said those horses are very difficult to collect. That same horse (a young stallion) is scoring big time at 3rd level and climbing the levels quickly.

I went through the USDF DSHB Judging Symposium a few years back - and saw many examples of horses who didn't move the way you would expect based on their conformation. It was surprising. And some lovely (LOVELY) horses who were picked apart yet were actually premium horses from Germany.

So - while I'd be cautious of conformation that might result in real soundness problems, when evaluating a riding horse, I have become much more interested in how a horse uses himself (or herself), and what kind of mind that horse has.

Catsdorule-sigh

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:42 PM

Judging:
Overall impression of balance- is it there or not?
Any faults
Watch the horse move

Reality:
Once got to ride on the trail a horse I just drooled over, had the most perfect conformation I ever saw, and couldn't get out of her own way on a clear trail let alone step over a little twig. Couldn't wait to get off her and back on my, really a bit steep in the shoulder, too heavy neck, big bodied but kinda short legged horse. (The one I had as a kid) She had her faults but was overall, balanced, good coupling, great legs, and very good trail horse. Lesson learned- great conformation doesn't always mean a horse you want to ride.

More recently:
Gelding with a kind of long back but again, long enough neck to balance it out. Great, broad loin coupling. Broad back in general and the "sausage" look- barrel almost same depth from front to back. In fact, good coupling with good depth in loin negates a tad long back.
But, with this one I learned that you would want to avoid elbows too tied in. Still a good mover (not warmblood or TB) but limited in front by that more than anything else.

Balance, good coupling, decent legs.

I did compete against a horse when I was a kid in 4-H that was big, ugly, and as toed in as they come- and this horse would literally canter in place for its rider. Canter while other horses walked and never outpaced them. Now that I "think" I know more, that was something. (Western, too) Horse would usually place very, very well in our 4-H shows but never as well as it should have due in part, I believe, to judges bias against those toed in front legs-which should have had nothing to do with performance events but there you go.:no:

Outside of glaring faults and faults that will, sooner or later, cause soundness issues, the horse will really decide whether it feels limited by its faults or not.:winkgrin:

twofatponies

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:46 PM

Home Again Farm

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:54 PM

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 03:57 PM

TFP - it's about the skeletal structure, so you have to imagine what is underneath the horse's skin.

http://www.horseracinghistory.co.uk/hrho/images/education/horse_skeleton.gif (http://www.horseracinghistory.co.uk/hrho/images/education/horse_skeleton.gif)

This is a great example. Here you can see the bones in motion :D It is the angles at which it pelvis, femur and tibia (and downwards) collect together then stretch out that provide the motion of the horses legs (and the muscles that provide the power). To see the angle of the pelvis you want to look roughly from the point of croup to the point of buttock on the outside of the horse. Deb Bennet's books are fantastic for explaining this!

However, if your horse is standing with it legs splayed out in different directions because you snapped the picture as they turned, or you didn't line them up squarely to the camera - it becomes very difficult to accurately measure the angles across the horse.

Jun. 25, 2009, 04:01 PM

1) He's underweight
2) His back legs are stretched so far out behind him, it's hard to tell anything!
*giggle*

exactly. But do you realize how many people would give a real critique based on a poorly stood up horse? That was my point :)

:lol: you are never going to pass that one off as half Arab...
Are you SURE???

*head desk* Nice picture JB!!!

Hehe - at first I was like "dangit Mr JB, why did you let him do that!" but I've come to cherish the value of the pic :cool:

I don't think he's too skinny, he looks racing condition to me.
*giggle* again

JB, I like him, though his shoulder angle is a bit more open than is touted to be ok, but whateva. I wouldn't pass this guy up, but then again I'm not looking at top level hunters and jumpers either. He looks pretty soundly built, sturdy bone, and not too far off from being in that nice body trapezoid that's becoming popular. Reining trainers used to use that measurement, now I can see it in horses better from studying what they liked.
Thanks - interesting ;)

Ok, here's the same horse on the same day (http://equestriangardener.homestead.com/files/rio/rio4yoconf.jpg)

Yeah, he's standing a little downhill, sorry.

Here is is the same day standing a little uphill (http://equestriangardener.homestead.com/files/rio/rio4yoconf3.jpg) though not as nicely posed.

He's an Oldenburg with no TB until gen 5. He was 4 at the time.

I'd have loved it if he'd stayed that size/density but he got thicker (http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d701b3127ccec27c4e22e05700000010O00AZtmzRs2ct2 IPbz4Q/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/)- oh well!

So the point is that HOW a horse is stood up makes a very big difference in what you see as far as certain angles go :)

Jun. 25, 2009, 04:06 PM

I think sometimes people put too much emphasis on conformation before seeing how a horse uses himself.

Sure, which is why a confo critique is just that - a critique on how he's put together. Not on how he moves, not on his temperament, just on the connections and lengths of his bones.

People say "wow that's an upright shoulder, bet he's uncomfy to trot" and then the see a very free shoulder and a very long stride. Vice-versa too. There more to just single parts - there are relationships between angles.

The confo is just a place to start.

There ARE generalities you can talk about because those who have studied far more about form to function than I have have seen that if a horse does this, or does well at that, they tend to have a certain shoulder angle, or certain relationship between height of elbow to height of stifle, or a pretty predictable relationship between the hip-butt and butt-stifle angle (since that's mostly pure physics). But any given horse can buck the system and do better than or worse than his confo would seem to dictate.

Even then it's not like "well, he's like that because of his confo", because there are other physical issues that many folks don't even know about, much less know how to fix, that can keep that nicely sloping shouldered horse from having a long(er) stride :)

SilverSpringFarm

Jun. 25, 2009, 04:12 PM

I'd have loved it if he'd stayed that size/density but he got thicker (http://im1.shutterfly.com/media/47b7d701b3127ccec27c4e22e05700000010O00AZtmzRs2ct2 IPbz4Q/cC/f%3D0/ps%3D50/r%3D0/rx%3D550/ry%3D400/)- oh well!

You know I think he's a hunk!

I could show you pictures of Bella that would make you scream. The worst pic of all is the one APHA decided to put on her papers... Some day I will cough up the money to have that changed. (Along with her horrendus registered name.)

FriesianX

Jun. 25, 2009, 04:26 PM

I really love learning to see more in conformation. Great thread (if we can keep it sane!).

One of the hardest things for me is seeing past the POSE of the horse. Like that Arab or the TWH - what would the croup look like if they were standing up square instead of stretched? I can't "undo" the pose in my mind to figure it out. It would be great to see some photos of the same horse is "good" and "weird" poses to compare what you see. I'll look at my photos and see if I have some examples to share.

Oh, that is actually an excellent point! When looking at PICTURES... It is not just the POSE, but the angle of the photographer - you can make a horse's legs look longer or shorter by shooting from below or above the mid-barrel height. You can make a horse look stronger or weaker depending on whether you shoot from in front or behind. Photos can be awful! A great example - FUGLY Horse of the Day - often pics "fugly" horses based on awful pictures. Yet I think you could take some of those horses, clean them up, stand them properly, and shoot the picture from the correct angle, and the horse would look so much better.

A good judge will walk around the horse and look at it from several angles for exactly that reason. And a good handler will set the horse up so he looks good. We've all seen horses that are stretched too far forward - look what happens to the angles in their hind end - oooops, suddenly they are very straight behind. Do the opposite and get them to "sit down" and their neck can shrink inside their body :lol: And pictures where the horse has turned to look at the photographer? Can you say HUGE HEAD?

Taking good conformation photos is a skill in itself - and learning to look through bad ones takes years of looking at a lot of horses!

DLee

Jun. 25, 2009, 04:34 PM

Laurie that is very interesting I've actually never hear that. Racehorses are built so strangle though! I'm often surprised how popular they are OTT.

Well, you lost me there. I do not feel for the most part that "racehorses are built so strangely". What are you referring to exactly?

Jun. 25, 2009, 04:53 PM

Oh, that is actually an excellent point! When looking at PICTURES... It is not just the POSE, but the angle of the photographer - you can make a horse's legs look longer or shorter by shooting from below or above the mid-barrel height. You can make a horse look stronger or weaker depending on whether you shoot from in front or behind. Photos can be awful! A great example - FUGLY Horse of the Day - often pics "fugly" horses based on awful pictures. Yet I think you could take some of those horses, clean them up, stand them properly, and shoot the picture from the correct angle, and the horse would look so much better.

A good judge will walk around the horse and look at it from several angles for exactly that reason. And a good handler will set the horse up so he looks good. We've all seen horses that are stretched too far forward - look what happens to the angles in their hind end - oooops, suddenly they are very straight behind. Do the opposite and get them to "sit down" and their neck can shrink inside their body :lol: And pictures where the horse has turned to look at the photographer? Can you say HUGE HEAD?

Taking good conformation photos is a skill in itself - and learning to look through bad ones takes years of looking at a lot of horses!
Amen to all of this! That is exactly what makes a picture so hard to take, and so hard to judge, and any critique on a picture should be taken with a grain of salt. I saw a pic of a gray stallion - looked like a great confo pic, as he was standing relaxed, legs all situated right, etc. I thought "wow, where do you put the saddle (literally!), his back is so SHORT!!!!" But then I saw video of him, and he was long-ish in the back! WTH?? I never did figure out how the pic could have been taken to make him look so short-backed without it being obvious the camerman was so far in front of or behind his barrel.

Perspective is a big deal. A cheap camera cannot get far enough away to get a close enough picture to put things in the proper perspective. Standing farther away with a zoom lense keeps the proper perspectives - then it's up to you to be angled correctly to show or hide what's appropriate.

I cannot stand fugly's critiques because of this. On so many of them it's painfully obvious that it's a really crappy picture of a poorly muscled horse and she rips into his "conformation" :rolleyes:

Jun. 25, 2009, 04:57 PM

Well, you lost me there. I do not feel for the most part that "racehorses are built so strangely". What are you referring to exactly?

I'd be interested to know this too - missed it first time around :confused:

If you aren't used to looking at a racing-fit TB, it can indeed seem like an odd creature. Most of what you see on CANTER are young - 4 or less. They are very lean, very tucked up like a greyhound, often butt-high, too often with long feet. They have a good set of under-neck muscles and none on top. They have muscles developed in places that aren't suitable for regular riding horses. They DO look "different", but it's their muscling.

If you've never had the chance to compare a racing TB in his fit days with him as a mature horse not racing anymore, you can't really appreciate why they look like they do when racing. Secretariat would be an easy one to compare - tons of winning circle pics (decent enough as a "confo" shot) and lots of him as a nicely weighted, mature horse in similar poses.

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 05:00 PM

There was a mention of racehorse being bred to be intentionally toed-out to give them a better grip on the turf. They are also frequently bred to have longer quarters (more back-end power like a race car). Sprinters are intentionally built downhill to help them run.

I corrected myself later saying that it wasn't that they were "so strange" but that they were bred to be very specialized. It the same as the difference between a team-penner and a dressage horse.

grayarabpony

Jun. 25, 2009, 05:32 PM

Actually, Thoroughbreds are not that specialized. My horse was aimed toward 6-8 furlong races. Her sire won the Santa Anita Derby, and her damline were distance runners. Her sire also sired a horse who held the world record for 3 1/2 furlongs for years. Many times sprinting lines are crossed with staying lines. Look at Secretariat. Steeplechasers come from flat course runners. National Hunt horses are usually sired by middle distance runners...

Sure, TBs can look way underweight coming off the track, with long toes that are atrocious. Once weighted and muscled, they are a thing of beauty. They make up the majority of the eventing ranks. Not sure how much hunter/jumper, although there are probably still a lot. They used to be the mainstay.

grayarabpony

Jun. 25, 2009, 05:35 PM

JB :lol: that's an excellent park out. I thought that was Rio...

Did he win the Oldenburg Derby? :)

Jun. 25, 2009, 05:44 PM

Teehee, the only race Rio wins is the one to the feed bucket :lol:

He really did look underweight there didn't he!

Tornado Run Farm

Jun. 25, 2009, 06:26 PM

Okay, since conformation experts are congregated on this thread, I have a question. What is the significance of the "dip" in front of the wither and how does it impact performance?

I have seen conformation photos of stallions (and mares/geldings for that matter) with a crested neck and the "appearance" of a dip, horses with pronouced high withers (which again makes the "appearance" of a dip), and some with smooth neck/wither connection, but then a steep drop off behind the wither. Yet, these oft cited conformation "flaws" can be seen in some very high performing horses. Again, what are you looking for to evaluate this as a true flaw?

selah

Jun. 25, 2009, 06:28 PM

Means you're probably looking at a TB:D

Nes

Jun. 25, 2009, 06:47 PM

High withers are much better then low because they provide a better connection for the muscle (and keep your saddle for falling off).

The high whithers then steep drop off could give the appearance of the sway back.

Jun. 25, 2009, 06:57 PM

In general, the dip takes away some of the ability for the horse to really elevate his front end. If it's not there because of a tall wither, but because of an actual dip, that means the top of the neck is set on a little on the low side. The higher that top connection (to some extent) the easier a time the horse has lifting his whole neck and withers to achieve the higher degrees of collection.

But a horse can have a higher Dressage-type neckset and still have a dip.

A horse can have mutton withers, no dip, but his whole neck is set on the low side, and he's more likely to be a better WP or HUS horse than Dressage (of course there are other factors going into those disciplines, but we're just talking necks here).

in and of itself, the dip is not a "true" flaw, except perhaps in the cosmetic department. JMHO of course :) But the greater the dip, the more of an issue the horse will have raising his neck for more collection (and "more" is all relative).

As for the drop-off behind the withers, it again depends on the degree. Some dropoff is good - makes for a good saddle position :) Little to no drop-off = mutton withers which can make for difficult saddle issues. Steep drop-offs, with a normal neck-wither tie-in (meaning the issue is really with the back) either makes a horse really uphill (and just because a little is good doesn't mean more is better) or means he's got a deep(er) dip in his back. That also makes for saddle fitting issues, as well as makes for a structure (the back) which is even weaker than it should have been.

There are probably other issues and consequences that I'm not thinking of at the moment :)

selah

Jun. 25, 2009, 06:59 PM

I have always been told that the higher withers means more ability to reach in the stride. Makes sense when you look at a stock-type QH that is flat, or "mutton withered" (another sheepish term...like ewe neck!) Anyway, the desired gait for the stock-type QH would be the little short jog that they can do all day, as opposed to a longer stride that would beat them to death or have 'em posting in self-defense. A lot of people don't like the look of those high withers, but they are very functional, and you don't notice them under tack (once you have purchased a saddle to fit them!)

spotsinabox

Jun. 25, 2009, 07:19 PM

FriesianX

Jun. 25, 2009, 07:53 PM

Great thread . . . what about knees and hocks . . .I always hear certain terms used and never really understood exactly what they meant . . .

"flat kneed" . . ."low hocks" . . . (this was usually in reference to western pleasure horses or reining horses)

You all have me hooked . . . please tell me more:)

Low hocks - well, high hocks are actually considered a bad thing in a dressage horse - it generally goes along with a long cannon and shorter upper leg, thus the horse is more likely to have problems coming under in his movement AND in engaging (bending the joints in the weight bearing phase). It is desirable to have a shorter cannon bone - more likely that the horse will stay sound, and you want a longer forearm in front - it makes it easier for the horse to reach in its gaits (and such a forearm will make the extended trot appear more reaching and scopey).

Generally, with the knee, you want it to be flat - not over or under, and you want all the joints to be well defined (i.e. not too small).

I'm not sure if the Western halter people use the same exact terms in the same way?

Jun. 25, 2009, 08:06 PM

"Flat kneed" in the context it was used likely refers to the horse's movement, not the conformation (ie over at the knee or calf-kneed).

It refers to the majority of the front leg movement coming from the shoulder, with the leg bending only enough to clear the ground. In the Hunter world it's the daisy cutting movement that is (or used to be) the ideal for the Show Hunter. "Flat kneed" as in not a lot of knee action.

selah

Jun. 25, 2009, 08:52 PM

Sorry, but I'd like to go back to neck/withers for a second. I had always looked at how the neck ties in to the body from the top...but have since learned that it should be scrutinized from the bottom up, as in, how high above the front legs does bottom of the neck sit. That is where the horse needs the room to get the front end up and over a fence, or to get the front end up for elevation in dressage movement. A neck can look well set by virtue of a nice topline, but when viewed from the bottom up, may leave little room, and therefore could be considered to be low set. Conversely, a neck viewed from the top may have the aforementioned high withers and accompanying "dip", and might be thought to be low set. But again, when observed from the bottom up, may give more than ample space from the top of the leg to where the neck is attached, and therefore be considered to be adequately well-set for sport.
Again, the with example of the stock-bred QH...one might desire, and therefore purpose-breed for a lower set neck to achieve a lower carried head, and a more on-the-forehand movement.

Nes

Jun. 26, 2009, 09:27 AM

You want to the neck to tie in at or above the point of the shoulder (any lower is too low). You don't ever want the horse's neck to be set low because that will inhibit shoulder movement, and throw the horse off balance (forward). If you want your horse built with more on-the-forehand movement you build them downhill.

http://books.google.com/books?id=krD1bAEqypcC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=throatlatch+conformation&source=bl&ots=k0Lz4s0bUB&sig=TU3-0mJLNQlVXcioH4mOtApmFak&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA72,M1
(tried to find my own photos but this was easier :D).

When evaluating the base of the neck be cautious when you are also looking at a horse with an upright shoulder, this can give them the appearance of tying in too low because of the difference in the shape of the chest.

GAEventer

Jun. 26, 2009, 11:39 AM

Viney, I was going to post the same thing prior to seeing you already had. I was trying to find Judy's website but it alludes me....

I've gone to three of her clinics (all hosted by the ACPS) and she really is quite good. However, sometimes I think she gets a bit overly dramatic and carried away. She came to one of our Connemara inspections last year and I felt like she expected every pony to be of a quality capable of competing at the upper eschelons of "fill in the blank" discipline. Thing is, not very many adult amatuers or children can ride such a pony!

Her big thing is the placement of the LS.....

DMK

Jun. 26, 2009, 12:31 PM

all the joys of geeking out over conformation aside, the biggest issue I have seen is people don't know how to prioritize what they do see, even when they see it correctly or worse yet, they think there is a perfect horse out there (might be, I haven't seen him yet, and here's betting when we find him the gods will whimsically make him/her a complete dud and infertile to boot). And even then they don't always recognize there is no hard and fast rules.

For instance I love a long swan neck, but recognize that the price you almost always pay for this is a horse that is correspondingly long in the back. If he has a big hip/loin to support it, I happen to prefer the jumping style of most long backed horses. I suppose if I was more into dressage a short coupled horse with a correct but shortish neck would be preferable, but my discipline permits me to favor the other type.

I'm also not hysterical over a few leg faults, because everyone has 'em. A little toed out is OK just recognize that splints are in your future, slightly cow hocked is also fine, it's generally considered an asset in jumping although I suspect that is unproven at best. Straight through the pasterns, hocks and stifles bothers me even though a lot of WBs are straighter than I prefer (and effective athletes). Toed in on a young (unstarted) horse bothers me because the likelihood that they become more toed in as they are growing, becoming more fit and spreading their ribcage is likely. I'd evaluate it on a case by case basis, but all things being equal, I'm less critical about toed out over toed in.

To me that is a much more useful discussion - what are the choices you make and why? Because recognizing the perfect horse is all well and good should you ever actually find it.

Nes

Jun. 26, 2009, 12:38 PM

Good point DMK, I can say that my horse is very 'in' on the back legs, but it's even down her legs and she doesn't clip when she walks so I couldn't care less :). I may try to improve this when I breed, but as you metioned, and I have certainly never seen a horse with perfect legs.

I'm h/j but prefer a shorter back, with long sloping shoulder, tight coupling and long legs. However, you're very right, jumping does require a long neck to balance the horse as they go over the fence - guess your horse is going to jump higher then mine! Although mine may do it with more style :D.

DMK

Jun. 26, 2009, 01:09 PM

Nes, look at my profile pic and see if that long back is stylin' enough for you? ;)

Which leads me to another point. Horses rarely read the manual. That horse when stood up does look lie he should have some talent over a fence, but he also stands up looking like he should be respectable in the hack. Ummm, no. The joke about Robbie is that he adores his knees. He adores them so much he constantly has to look at them close up. This explains why his eyeballs are between them over jumps, and it explains his credible impression of a hackney in the hack!

So look at the horse standing up all you want, make well thought out observations and then be prepared to be made a fool of as soon as he starts moving is my motto. :D

Nes

Jun. 26, 2009, 01:25 PM

He's very cute, I don't mind a long back as long they jump together like their one animal - it's when you get the front end (pause) then the back end that is NOT pretty.

I very much agree with you that you have to see the horse move, however, when geeking out on conformation you frequently see why and how the horse is going to move. I was looking at a stallion video today of a lovely young boy, beautiful leg action, until I realized half way through he's dragging his back end around like a tractor trailer :p YUCK! In the stills of his it was pretty apparent why that was happening (although they did a good job of trying to hide it).

I am forever suspicious of stallions with out proper conformation shots.

DMK

Jun. 26, 2009, 03:03 PM

yup, although to be fair when I am talking about a horse with a long back I am picking it apart with a fine eye, an eye that has stood horses up on the line for a few years. So a "long back" doesn't mean a "seats a family of four" back, but one that is not particularly short coupled. As it happens most people look at him and don't see a "long back" but that is because it is deceptively offset by a decent hip, and spectacular neck and front end and a correctly muscled topline that helps hide that telltale weakish loin connection that is the bane of most long backed horses. But then I've noticed a lot of people get distracted by fat and muscle and stop looking at the underlying bone structure. Of course if the horse is eye catching, I'll admit to that weakness as well!

Photos are always such a mystery when it comes to evaluating the horse. I bought a yearling last summer and I saw his picture and it was Wowza Wowza. Since it was a farm that knows how to turn out TB sales yearlings, I figured they had the expertise to get the picture of a lifetime and was prepared to be disappointed by the real deal. Since I was about 700 miles away I sent a friend whose eye I trust and happened to be about 625 miles closer to look at him. When she called back I was amazed to hear that he looked BETTER than the picture, although that was mostly the difference 45 days of sales prep makes, not that the photo was misleading. That's about the only time I haven't been surprised by the difference in a a photo and then seeing the real thing.

Usually i like to look at the horse, then look at photos for a less emotional look at conformation, because I can stop being in love with the individual AND filter out things that i know aren't really there and then look at the photo in light of the horse that really exists. Same idea as recording the horse hacking and jumping after you watch him. You can get a little more crystal in your assessment with the distance, but not lose sight of what you saw with your eyes.

FriesianX

Jun. 26, 2009, 04:45 PM

DMK, the other thing this discussion does is shows some of the differences in the sports! In dressage, I'd much prefer a slightly SHORT neck because a long "swan" neck is very difficult to ride correctly in the dressage discipline. I agree on slight cow hocks - it is actually desireable in many sports - tends to make for a better mover.

Slight toe in, slight toe out, doesn't bother me, as long as it is slight. What I can't stand is very straight in the hindquarters - generally makes a horse much harder to collect.

Now - pasterns... I've heard that very upright pasterns make for a REALLY rough ride, but... I got a project horse a few years back - one of those "free" horses - and he was about as upright as you can get. And it was like riding the magic carpet, so soft, yet tons of impulsion and reach, a really, really lovely mover. I think he may have been one of those exceptions to the general rule. He did have that long, swan neck though - and no one could ever really keep him from breaking over too early. Lax or soft pasterns seem to go along with great movement - but also with early tendon problems - so generally, I am cautious with a horse with soft pasterns.

Long back, short back, I've had good luck with all kinds of backs - as long as the horse had decent movement and a good mind. But a long back and a huge wither - makes for a hard to fit horse. Plan on investing a lot in a custom saddle :no:

The other thing to be aware of - once you've ridden a lot of horses - is width of the back. Some people are much more comfortable riding narrow horses, other on wider horses - seems silly, but it is hugely relevant for some riders!

bort84

Jun. 26, 2009, 06:15 PM

What I can't stand is very straight in the hindquarters - generally makes a horse much harder to collect.

So, did anyone else notice the Winsome gelding's hind end in this link: http://www.jwequine.com/pdf/conformation_for_an_eventer.pdf

His hind end would generally turn me off. But he's been quite successful. In the article, she even says that his straight hind legs would make him more suited for dressage because they are often easier to collect... Interesting.

I honestly saw those hind legs and thought, wow! Was anybody else slightly amazed at how straight they are? I must say, I was a bit shocked to see hind legs like that on a sound and successful eventer... Perhaps straight hind legs are one of those personal issues for me?

FLIPPED HER HALO

Jun. 26, 2009, 06:30 PM

What about narrow chests.....I've seen quite a few horses that look like they have two front legs with not much space between them. I think I remember something on Fugly once with a picture calling the horse Snuffaluffagus . . .

How do you view chests?

FriesianX

Jun. 26, 2009, 06:52 PM

Mythology

Jun. 26, 2009, 07:45 PM

I agree with the dressage riders- Straight legs are harder to collect. I've found that since eventers (even 4*) do almost exclusively lower level dressage movements ( ie: no tempi changes, pirouttes, piaffes, etc.) and lower level jumpers ( under 4'1) they can afford to be a bit more inclusive in their conformation standards since the horses arn't asked to do the 5'3 jumpers or GP Dressage. And eventers prefer horses with a high percentage of TB blood where as Jumpers and Dressage prefer more WB. With that breed variation will come differences of conformation. Note: I am not saying that eventing is a Lower Level Sport- I'm just sub dividing it in to it's parts and comparing them to Grand Prix's. :)

bort84

Jun. 26, 2009, 08:09 PM

Yes, I must say that I would not care for legs that straight, dressage, jumping, eventing, or whatever, haha. They just look STRANGE! (And I'm one that can forgive many conformation faults depending on each individual) And I was very surprised to read that the author felt the straight legs would make collection easier... I thought it was odd that she just mentioned them in passing, like, oh, and his straighter hind legs will make dressage easier... wha? I would have expected some sort of comment like - well, his hind legs are quite straight, but this is an example of a horse that doesn't have perfect conformation that can still do his job extremely well = )

titansrunfarm

Jun. 26, 2009, 09:20 PM

Mythology

Jun. 26, 2009, 09:52 PM

Jun. 26, 2009, 10:55 PM

So, did anyone else notice the Winsome gelding's hind end in this link: http://www.jwequine.com/pdf/conformation_for_an_eventer.pdf

His hind end would generally turn me off. But he's been quite successful. In the article, she even says that his straight hind legs would make him more suited for dressage because they are often easier to collect... Interesting.

I honestly saw those hind legs and thought, wow! Was anybody else slightly amazed at how straight they are? I must say, I was a bit shocked to see hind legs like that on a sound and successful eventer... Perhaps straight hind legs are one of those personal issues for me?
Yes, I was quite shocked, and still do not understand how that makes it easier to collect "confused" Not one bit. *I* would take Winsome's hind leg to be an exception to the general rule of hind end angulation.

What about narrow chests.....I've seen quite a few horses that look like they have two front legs with not much space between them. I think I remember something on Fugly once with a picture calling the horse Snuffaluffagus . . .

How do you view chests?
I was one told that having a more narrow chest makes it easier for lateral work, since there is less body mass to get the legs across. Obviously there is too narrow, and probably having the front legs come out of the same hole is too narrow :lol: But if you think about a human body builder, with a thick chest and lots of muscle mass, they are limited in the cross-body movements their arms can make because muscle and "stuff" just gets in the way.

ms raven

Jun. 27, 2009, 05:07 AM

I prefer a horse whose neck is slightly too long versus one whose neck is too short. The length of the neck should be proportionate to the length of the back and in my opinion a longer back can contribute to a horse achieving more "swing" and having less chance of interference issues.

I ride a mare that is on the longer side. She certainly has a gift for contorting herself, but she is generally well balanced and has had a very natural headset since day one of her training. When I ride her I feel as though I am well placed at her center of gravity and like that there are equal parts horse in front and behind me.

I can see the difference plain as day in the flesh but I have the most difficulty evaluating photos of horses and determining for certain whether they are "sickle hocked" or "camped out". Sickle hocked is a fault that I would walk away from without hesitation. Camped out, if not extreme, is not terrible as far as i'm concerned. I would choose a horse that is slightly camped out over one that is too straight and prone to concussion problems.

A camped out horse will often have a longish gaskin, a long hind limb and long swinging stride behind. If they are decently angled in the hindend otherwise you should have a horse that can track up very well in the walk and trot at the very least! They may not always be driving off their hind end as well as they could be but there is often an illusion of it simply based on the angles at which their limbs move.

If camped out coincides with a weak topline and poorly placed stifle, good luck!

ms raven

Jun. 27, 2009, 05:16 AM

I had not heard of racing trainers preferring horses that are pigeon toed (interesting!) but I have heard of them preferring horses that are slightly offset at the knee. Any thoughts?

FriesianX

Jun. 27, 2009, 11:39 AM

I was one told that having a more narrow chest makes it easier for lateral work, since there is less body mass to get the legs across. Obviously there is too narrow, and probably having the front legs come out of the same hole is too narrow :lol: But if you think about a human body builder, with a thick chest and lots of muscle mass, they are limited in the cross-body movements their arms can make because muscle and "stuff" just gets in the way.

Actually, for higher level dressage work, you want a BASE narrow horse - it is easier to influence them, thus to improve the gaits and the lateral work. Of course, that is for a skilled rider :winkgrin: of course, a very wide chested horse is harder to make "base narrow".

I think, in general, too much of anything is a bad thing - too wide, too narrow, etc...

bloomingtonfarm

Jun. 27, 2009, 11:44 AM

Sickle hocked is a fault that I would walk away from without hesitation.

Then you would have walk away from great stallions such as Houston, Indorado, Jazz and so many many more. And Flemming was a good jumper before he became popular as producing dressage offspring and he sure has the weakest loin possible.

But I am certainly not judging you as I know each one of us have our own
‘ deal breaker’ . There are some flaws which we have more difficulties to deal with and we just don't want to look further. I have my own and it is usually linked to past bad experience.

I feel you have to look at the overall picture and accept some flaws as the perfect horse (conformation, temperament and way of going) has yet to be born.

camohn

Jun. 27, 2009, 11:50 AM

As the OP noted....a fault for one disipline is not so bad for another....depends on your needs. For example while a too straight shoulder and upright hocks is not ideal I have seen plenty of good jumpers tooling around with these faults. Ditto for cow hocked. They won't win the hunter hack, but they jump fine! I can live with a bit over at the knee but not back at the knee.

grayarabpony

Jun. 27, 2009, 12:26 PM

Flemmingh didn't look like he had a weak loin to me, certainly not the weakest possible...:confused:

ms raven

Jun. 27, 2009, 12:29 PM

Thank you Suzanne. I am sure there are plenty of exceptions to the rule but that is just my own personal preference. There is far more potential for problems relating to sickle hocks than any other conformation flaw in the hind limb, IMO.

DMK

Jun. 27, 2009, 01:03 PM

I had not heard of racing trainers preferring horses that are pigeon toed (interesting!) but I have heard of them preferring horses that are slightly offset at the knee. Any thoughts?

That's what I always heard, but I will give LaurieB a major edge over me in knowing what the active race horse trainers prefer these days. ;)

DMK

Jun. 27, 2009, 01:07 PM

I can live with a bit over at the knee but not back at the knee.

ditto, and I can deal with a horse who is mildly to moderately hi/low in the feet, but am immediately turned off if he is tied in poorly at the knee or his knees/hocks are not set low enough. Other people cannot deal with hi/low and can forgive a bit of length in the cannon bones.

Fairview Horse Center

Jun. 27, 2009, 02:41 PM

Flemmingh didn't look like he had a weak loin to me, certainly not the weakest possible...:confused:

Different Flemming. Anone have a photo of this one? Flemming

Fairview Horse Center

Jun. 27, 2009, 02:49 PM

Toed in horses will never interfere, so maybe that is a plus for racing.

I totally worry about the high/low heel, especially if they developed due to grazing pattern of one leg always forward. I have seen these develop many permanent lameness issues with no clinical problems found. I will have to say that in over 30 years of managing large boarding barns, that has been the ONLY thing that has been a lameness issue that we could not get them sound. Their soft tissue development changes to make their movement very uneven. Horses with navicular, ringbone, sidebone, fractured coffins, bone spavin, bowed tendons, suspensory and ligament injuries, fractured pelvis, fractured fetlock, etc. None of that scares me like a high/low heel. I guess it is just what each person has dealt with.

Jun. 27, 2009, 08:13 PM

Actually, for higher level dressage work, you want a BASE narrow horse - it is easier to influence them, thus to improve the gaits and the lateral work. Of course, that is for a skilled rider :winkgrin: of course, a very wide chested horse is harder to make "base narrow".
Hmmm, trying to figure that out. How does being base narrow - wider at the chest, but the legs angle in - make it easier to be influenced? Not arguing, just trying to understand :)

I would not want to breed for a horse whose legs were anything but straight up and down. A little deviation here and there is often acceptable. But the more off-center things land, the more force there is on the edges of joints, and that's not a good thing.

I think, in general, too much of anything is a bad thing - too wide, too narrow, etc...
:yes:

Waterwitch

Jun. 27, 2009, 09:33 PM

Hmmm, trying to figure that out. How does being base narrow - wider at the chest, but the legs angle in - make it easier to be influenced? Not arguing, just trying to understand :)

I wonder about this...one object of dressage training (like ballet) is to be able to balance within an ever more narrow base of support.

I don't think starting out base narrow conformationally is the same as being able to narrow the base of support through core strength training.

Will a base narrow horse find it easier to perform higher level dressage movements or will it find it harder to balance due to the decreased base of support starting out, or both? Interesting to think about.

Jun. 27, 2009, 10:33 PM

I wonder about this...one object of dressage training (like ballet) is to be able to balance within an ever more narrow base of support.
I'd agree there

I don't think starting out base narrow conformationally is the same as being able to narrow the base of support through core strength training.
I'd agree there too :)

Will a base narrow horse find it easier to perform higher level dressage movements or will it find it harder to balance due to the decreased base of support starting out, or both? Interesting to think about.
Yep, that's what I'm pondering :) It's one thing to be more narrow to begin with. It's another to be wide up top and narrow(er) down below.

bloomingtonfarm

Jun. 27, 2009, 10:39 PM

Flemmingh didn't look like he had a weak loin to me, certainly not the weakest possible...:confused:

Yes he does. And in average his offspring have also this weakness which certainly doesn't seem to prevent them from being at the top, such as Krack C and Lingh.

Flemmingh conformation scoring for his loin indicate a deviation rate to 128 (this has the be a record high) 100 being the 'normal' in a way.

Krack C and Mooiman own offspring's conformation index for the loins score a very high 113 and Lingh 114.

Great horses are not perfect but despite their flaws and weakness with proper training and muscling they can reach the top.

grayarabpony

Jun. 28, 2009, 12:09 AM

The point of hip and LS joint look to line up on Flemmingh, which according to the article I linked to earlier, makes for a strong coupling.

Sorry, I'm not buying it, regardless of an inspection score. I'm certainly not buying it for Krack C.

bloomingtonfarm

Jun. 28, 2009, 12:53 AM

No problem Grayarabpony, you don’t have to buy anything from me. It is just a well known fact about Flemmingh and don’t forget, a picture can be deceiving.

I certainly don’t want to put him down, in fact I love Flemmingh. I really think he is a great stallion, one of my favorite. I leased a mare by this stallion and she gave me a wonderful colt by Rousseau that got First Premium and was selected for the Championship class at Iron Spring Farm keuring. He is really fantastic.

titansrunfarm

Jun. 28, 2009, 08:04 AM

I've read this whole thread with great interest. Can you tell a horse's propensity from a pic? So would you say this is a dressage type horse an eventer or a hunter/jumper? Same horse different pics:

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t17/titansrunfarm/PT/000_0224.jpg
http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t17/titansrunfarm/PT/000_0225.jpg

I'd have to see movement to make a decision where I would put him, but based on pics alone I would go eventer or jumper. He's a cute guy anywhere you put him though. Is he TB?

She is my 7 yo DW/TB mare, that loves dressage but appears to have the bloodlines and body for jumping also, so I am considering finding someone experienced to train her over fences for/with me. Also curious how she'd be rated for breeding?

FriesianX

Jun. 28, 2009, 08:56 AM

Hmmm, trying to figure that out. How does being base narrow - wider at the chest, but the legs angle in - make it easier to be influenced? Not arguing, just trying to understand :)

:yes:

Oh, but read the entire posting - no, you don't want a horse that starts out quite wide, then comes to a narrow point down below, but in response to your post about dressage people preferring a narrow chest, no, they want a horse that can be made base narrow. A very narrow chest or very wide chest does not help with that final goal of creating a base narrow horse.

The goal of dressage is to make an easily influenced horse (and to influence them in a way that improves their way of going, instead of screwing it up).

FriesianX

Jun. 28, 2009, 09:01 AM

Will a base narrow horse find it easier to perform higher level dressage movements or will it find it harder to balance due to the decreased base of support starting out, or both? Interesting to think about.

Right now, the theory is, if you have to pick between one who naturally goes wide versus one who naturally goes a little narrow, tend toward the narrow. But, like all the other discussion - you don't want any extremes! You need to influence the horse in your riding, so if they are already naturally quite narrow at the base, you don't have anywhere else to go! If they are very wide at the base, you probably won't ever get them where you want them either. ESPECIALLY if they are very wide behind.

On the other hand, I think many of the jumpers would prefer a horse that is a little bit base wide - because they are more stable in their balance. At least that is what the jumper breeder I know tells me.

In all these, we are not talking extremes - a little base wide. A little base narrow. Any extreme in conformation is probably going to be a problem.

Jun. 28, 2009, 09:51 AM

Oh, but read the entire posting - no, you don't want a horse that starts out quite wide, then comes to a narrow point down below, but in response to your post about dressage people preferring a narrow chest, no, they want a horse that can be made base narrow. A very narrow chest or very wide chest does not help with that final goal of creating a base narrow horse.

The goal of dressage is to make an easily influenced horse (and to influence them in a way that improves their way of going, instead of screwing it up).
Oh, but I did read it all :)

The definition of a horse who *is* base-narrow means the space between his legs at the ground is less than it is at the chest. That's different from the rider influencing the horse to move in that manner. Sure, a little base-narrow, or even a little base-wide, isn't an issue, and I can see the one who's slightly bn being a little easier than the one who is slightly bw, assuming the width at the chest is the same to begin with.

Nes

Jun. 28, 2009, 09:52 AM

FriesianX

Jun. 28, 2009, 10:23 AM

Oh, but I did read it all :)

The definition of a horse who *is* base-narrow means the space between his legs at the ground is less than it is at the chest. That's different from the rider influencing the horse to move in that manner. Sure, a little base-narrow, or even a little base-wide, isn't an issue, and I can see the one who's slightly bn being a little easier than the one who is slightly bw, assuming the width at the chest is the same to begin with.

And that is really what we look for in a dressage horse - the narrow chest is not desirable. Now I'm kind of curious - is that a trait desired in any discipline? The one place where I do see a lot of narrow chests are the Saddlebreds - and NOT the older style ones that are actually really nice sport horses, but some of the park and pleasure bred horses are quite narrow. I'm not sure I've seen that very narrow chest as a common trait anywhere else. So this thread has me curious...

FraggleRock

Jun. 28, 2009, 03:13 PM

i dont know anything about TBs but i have been around standardbred race horses for a while.

the idea behind liking peigon toes for STBs is that they wont hit there knees/ shouldnt need to wear any boots.

i have been told by many people how what a nice shape my mare is. and how she should never hit her knees, shouldnt need to wear a boot....nice comments on her (about her conformation anyways). but shes very downhill, and suuuuper peigon toed. peigon toed to the point of thats why we think she broke a sesamoid. she hit her knees bad and wore knee/shin boots. she may have been peigon toed, but that doesnt mean anything when they have a SUPER narrow chest, which no one ever seemed to notice :lol:

Forte

Jun. 28, 2009, 03:25 PM

titansrunfarm

Jun. 28, 2009, 04:29 PM

T - you may find she is a better jumper then dressage :) I think she's certainly an acceptable mare if you want to breed her in the future.

Can I ask, is that an odd shadow, or an old injury to her neck?

huh? - Oh, I see it now! it is just a shadow, she has no injury to her neck :)

grayarabpony

Jun. 28, 2009, 05:46 PM

I think the issues about Flemmingh and his loin connection are pretty much common knowledge amongst anyone breeding KWPN horses. He is still a great stallion, you just need to make sure your mare is good strong in that area if you want to breed to him. I did see one Flemmingh mare that was practically sway backed at age 3 though. No stallion is perfect.

So what's the issue with the loin? Weak loin coupling is not going to make a horse sway-backed anyway. As I said, the picture makes it look like the hip and LS joint do line up, although it is difficult to see just where the hip bone is? Or does he have a long loin?

sid

Jun. 28, 2009, 06:03 PM

I've only read a few posts and the last few.

Getting Hilda Gurney's video "Selecting the young dressage horse" that was released about 15 years ago is about as technical as one could get and will provide a wealth of knowledge. Lots of physiology of all breeds (not just dressage horses).

I still think it is one of the very best educational tools in assessing "form and function" (as well as the longevitity issues of choosing a discipline for which a horse may peform well initially, but may break down early BECAUSE of the conformation).

Just popping in with a suggestion for those who want to learn more ;)

bloomingtonfarm

Jun. 28, 2009, 08:26 PM

So what's the issue with the loin? Weak loin coupling is not going to make a horse sway-backed anyway. As I said, the picture makes it look like the hip and LS joint do line up, although it is difficult to see just where the hip bone is? Or does he have a long loin?

Well Flemmingh has also a weak back, sloping croup and weak pasterns… How come he was so popular you would ask, how come he became Keur and later on Preferent? Well because DESPITE his flaws he has produced magnificent offspring with excellent temperament.

And again some of his offspring … DESPITE once again their own flaws have performed at the highest level in sport. As a breeder you want to be very critical and as Forte pointed out, you just have to be careful not to breed a mare with the same issues, hoping for the foal to inherit his tremendous qualities.

Every stallion has his own issues, we are discussing Flemmingh right now but we could name other very successful stallions with their own issue.

And if you want to choose the stallions with very little conformation issue ...big chances that their offspring don't perform. Strange indeed...

grayarabpony

Jun. 28, 2009, 09:26 PM

Flemmingh does have a rather TB-like topline -- I don't see a problem with a sloping croup, as long as the length of bone and angulation is good. I have to admit, I'd rather see a sloping croup than a flat one.

Frankly, I think there's a lot that's not understood about conformation and performance, because of all of the varying opinions out there!

grayarabpony

Jun. 29, 2009, 09:27 AM

Looking at the scoresheets for inspections, it looks like they judge line of loin, which is the course of the loin from back to croup, which may not be as important as the relationship of hip to LS joint.

Fairview Horse Center

Jun. 29, 2009, 12:59 PM

The loin connection is judged 2 ways.

How it is muscled - it should buldge up, almost a bit like a roach back, and not have a hollow hole behind the saddle area. This should be evalauated with a horse in good weight - not fat or thin as weight can make it appear somewhat different.

Also, how it connects the hindquarters to the front, ie, overbuilt behind with a downward slope to the withers that is flat like a table.

grayarabpony

Jun. 29, 2009, 01:24 PM

Thanks Fairview. :)

FLIPPED HER HALO

Jun. 29, 2009, 03:21 PM

Just for fun, thought I’d toss one out you all can critique. 8 year old TB mare (http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i131/TBJMPR2/Hailey/IMG_7396_1.jpg) that is built like a tank.

titansrunfarm

Jun. 29, 2009, 03:46 PM

T - you may find she is a better jumper then dressage :) I think she's certainly an acceptable mare if you want to breed her in the future.

Can I ask, is that an odd shadow, or an old injury to her neck?

FYI, I have started a thread for PT here:

http://www.chronicleforums.com/Forum/showthread.php?t=211738

bort84

Jun. 29, 2009, 05:16 PM

And that is really what we look for in a dressage horse - the narrow chest is not desirable. Now I'm kind of curious - is that a trait desired in any discipline? The one place where I do see a lot of narrow chests are the Saddlebreds - and NOT the older style ones that are actually really nice sport horses, but some of the park and pleasure bred horses are quite narrow. I'm not sure I've seen that very narrow chest as a common trait anywhere else. So this thread has me curious...

Well, it's not desired in the saddlebred world, but there are some careless breeders these days... If it has a long neck with a hinge and the ears to go with it, they may forget that the back is days long or the front feet are toed out to the point of interfering every stride. Or, if it can hit its chin with its knees, they may also ignore a weak loin, weak long pasterns, or short stubby pasterns. I see a lot of this these days, and it drives me batty because people assume that's how all saddlebreds look because a lot of them are looking like that now... It's not really useful for saddle seat performance, but judges can be wooed by a wow front end or neck and forget about the low back or weak loin... So after a show career they retire it and breed it!

I never liked to see a narrow chested horse for saddle seat, but I think you may see it more often there because of careless breeding (oh how I wish the warmblood breeding standards could take hold in the show horse world). A narrow chest doesn't make it impossible to have a good saddle seat horse, but often they aren't as talented and don't have as much motion as you'd like. I generally steer clear of that fault because those horses often move in a rather constricted fashion (obviously this is less severe depending on the narrowness of the chest). A wide chest can also create a wobbly looking mover. We had one little arabian that was so cute, but his chest was so wide that he bobbled from side to side in the trot.

Faults I can live with: cow hocks, over at the knee, dip in front of the wither (don't love it, but it often doesn't affect performance), slight toe out (as long as they don't interfere), slightly long back.

Really long angled pasterns or very short upright pasterns really freak me out though. I've seen too many break down or get ringbone. Behind at the knee tends to be pretty bad for long term soundness as well. I'm also very picky about the throatlatch area - I like it to be clean and fine, and I like it to be matched with a nice length behind the poll - adds a lot of flexibility in the bridle.

Digby

Jun. 30, 2009, 04:41 PM

I've been following this thread with a lot of interest. I'm learning a ton and supplementing what I already knew! Thanks very much everyone!
As an exercise for myself, and more pictures for everyone else to view (cuz that's how we all improve our eye right!), I am volunteering pics of my guy. Please feel free to give your own critiques, and comment on mine. I can't get better if I don't know where I went wrong!
His history:
I bought him last summer as a yearling (sort of a rescue). I got him *almost* free, and bought him because I wanted to start my own for the first time without throwing in a lot of cash. As for breeding, I have no solid proof, but I have an idea.
These pictures were taken in August. He was castrated about 3 days before, so bear in mind his sheath is rather swollen.
http://picasaweb.google.com/Digby0000/Sherman#5353219746833148978
http://picasaweb.google.com/Digby0000/Sherman#5353219746026794130

What I see:
His LS connection looks well placed to me. Quite steep through his croup with a low-set tail. His stifle might be a tad high, but he's got good length of bone in his gaskin and forearm. His back looks short and strong. Now to the front... I would not say he's built downhill, based on the line up his leg landing in front of the wither. His neck set looks alright to me, both on top and bottom. Bit bullish, and thick through the throat. High point of shoulder with good angle. Longish humerus (??).

So am I close?

Nes

Jun. 30, 2009, 06:29 PM

He's got nice front legs, but a bit over at the knee (and his knees are a little large, may well be his age). You measure the balance of the horse from the widest point of neck to the point-of-hip, but yes he is slightly downhill. His chest looks funny to me, it's too flat. Yes, he has a long but strong back. His neck is a little short which is why it looks bullish, yes his throat latch is a little heavy. Goose-rumped which is what leads to the steep croup and low tail-set. His hind cannons are a little longer then I'd like to see (like inches though).

Once he matures (part draft?) he looks like he'd make a nice low-level jumper and all around horse :)

Hi Profile

Jul. 19, 2009, 02:31 PM

Anyone have Judy Wardrope's "ten conformation myths" book? I've been thinking about purchasing it...

Yes, I have it for about 2 years and love it. Even after reading it, I find i refer to it regularly. I also purchased the online magazines, which make sense. I also refer to them when trying to understand why a horse does this or that or what I like or not. After studying the information in her articles and purchased downloads how I look at horses has changed. more things make sense to me now. And when I saw her speak at Equine Affair i was hooked on her way of examining horses.
A lot of information for the price and I'm on my way to doing it for myself with more confidence.