[HorsePlayyy]

Judy, no need to get tender. I was referring to how his "most straight" leg in each photo was the one on the far side, so it's hard to get a good look at the angles and to see if he is in fact under himself at the hocks or not. Also, I merely asked you his breeding, not claimed to be a professional eyeballer. Don't sound so insulted when someone throws out "quarter horse." =P

I'm not sure if I just missed the last part with his height or if you just added it, but that is one big boy. You're sure to get more solid inches!

[frugalannie]

Judybigredpony, thanks for beginning what I'm delighted to read will be a series. Good winter fun! It may even qualify an an on-line course.

[Isabeau Z Solace]

Anyone care to offer opinions on this one?

http://www.canterusa.org/plugins/con...a4371fb20f.jpg

http://www.canterusa.org/plugins/con...dace42b91f.jpg

http://www.canterusa.org/plugins/con...c3f33473fa.jpg

[Lauren12]

I'll bite. I like to start front to back.

His head is plain, but kind. He *looks* like he would be a quiet horse, and I've always found the ones that have a little bit of a lop-ear have a nice personality.

His neck is too short for his body. I like to see a nice "flow" over the topline from front to back, and the lack of length over the topline of his neck interrupts that flow. It may hinder him becoming really round and "through" from back to front.

The shoulder is my least favorite part - it's quite upright and heavy. Comparing the front end to the hind end does not give a nice impression of uphill lightness - he looks thick and heavy on his forehand. I'd like it more if his front legs were set more closely to his chest - he appears a bit pigeon breasted, but that is common in horses with big heavy shoulders. The trotting pictures also show that he is rather short up front due to the steep shoulder angle.

His front legs look straight, although he's a bit back at the knee. I like to see a bit shorter cannon bone, but he looks like he has nice bone substance. His pasterns are quite upright (which typically occurs concurrently with upright shoulders).

He looks like he has nice, well-spring ribs, and appears to have a relatively strong topline, but his back is just a *touch* long, although sometimes those 3 year olds grow into that.

His croup is a bit steep, and I'm not crazy about his hind end in general. I like to see an equilateral triangle between point of hip, point of buttock and stifle. His stifle is placed a bit high, and he is quite post-legged behind. Just overall, the hind end seems like it will be a limiting factor in future athletic performance. You can see in the trotting pictures that he's not really bending and using his hocks underneath him - he's keeping his hind legs pretty straight and letting his hocks trail out behind him. Yes, this can improve with some work, but only to a certain degree.

Still though, he looks like a kind, quiet, willing little project, and sometimes that's better than a super-fancy awesome mover!! I'm sure he will make someone very happy one day.

[Rallycairn]

Isabeau -- I'd go see that one; I like him!

Lauren, your comments are about the first horse, right? (you mentioned the trotting photos, etc., but I just wanted to clarify -- ) Thorough critique.

[Lauren12]

Yes! I was talking about the chestnut. The bay is cute. I like how uphill he appears.

[Napoles]

His pasterns are quite upright (which typically occurs concurrently with upright shoulders).

I see long, sloping pasterns with long, long toes?



Oops, ignore me - I thought you were referring to the bay!
Agree with everything you have said about the chestnut.

[Rallycairn]

I think my observations were in line with Lauren's almost exactly, except I don't pick up on the behind at the knee. And as I said in my first post on the thread, I'm one that's not as fussed about the somewhat short neck. I did worry a bit about the upright shoulder and of course the straight hocks. All in all, though, a willing-looking fellow who seems ready to try for you. Love his alert yet kind expression in the photos.

[baxtersmom]

I am not sure that a 55 degree shoulder would be considered "upright" for a jumper/ eventer. Over fences, there needs to be room for the shoulder to rotate back and the angle of the shoulder/humerus to open, so the forearm/knees can be brought above the horizontal.

[leahandpie]

The pics are always deceiving on shoulder angle. The first pics his shoulder (the chestnut) is lovely and laid back. The pic further down the page makes it look more upright.

I like this horse's shoulder, I just don't love his hind end. I like a big muscular butt and more hind leg angulation. (That Joe Vann horse is a perfect example of the hind end I adore) Just seen too many double hind suspensories + dropped pasterns on horses with straight hind legs. Yes, it makes them have a lovely canter and they can engage that hind end, but I don't like it! And yes the goose rump is a sign they can jump, but my non-goose rumped boy jumps like a rocket too

[Lauren12]

I can't figure out how to post pictures!!

For his shoulder: if you draw a line from the middle of the withers to the point of the shoulder (corresponding to the scapula) and draw another line from the point of the shoulder to the point of the elbow (corresponding to the humerus), you can see that the angle between the two is acute (less than 90 degrees). What I like to see is an obtuse angle between the scapula and humerus - that indicates greater maneuverability of the front end. When the angle is acute, as it is in the chestnut horse, I consider that a straighter shoulder than is desirable, and limits the range of motion of the front end.

[baxtersmom]

I can't figure out how to post pictures!!

For his shoulder: if you draw a line from the middle of the withers to the point of the shoulder (corresponding to the scapula) and draw another line from the point of the shoulder to the point of the elbow (corresponding to the humerus), you can see that the angle between the two is acute (less than 90 degrees). What I like to see is an obtuse angle between the scapula and humerus - that indicates greater maneuverability of the front end. When the angle is acute, as it is in the chestnut horse, I consider that a straighter shoulder than is desirable, and limits the range of motion of the front end.

A closed shoulder angle (<90 degrees) and a straight shoulder (scapula tending towards the vertical) are not the same thing. Each has different implications for how a horse moves.

[MandyVA]

Comparing the two it's pretty clear how much nicer the bay is! All the things wrong with the chestnut's hind end are oh so right in the bay. I wouldn't gamble on a horse with those post-legged hind legs. If his stifles aren't catching now, I would bet they will be.

[Lauren12]

A closed shoulder angle (<90 degrees) and a straight shoulder (scapula tending towards the vertical) are not the same thing. Each has different implications for how a horse moves.

When the shoulder angle approaches vertical, it anatomically forces the humerus into a position more parallel to the ground, thus closing the shoulder angle. They are tied together functionally.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Comparing the two it's pretty clear how much nicer the bay is! All the things wrong with the chestnut's hind end are oh so right in the bay. I wouldn't gamble on a horse with those post-legged hind legs. If his stifles aren't catching now, I would bet they will be.

I completely disagree. I think the Chestnut has a better hind end. The Bay looks much straighter through his stifles and angles tell me he may lack power---especially for jumping. The Chestnut will likely have a very good jump given his angles and stifle placement.

Between the two...while the bay is prettier to my eye, the chestnut is more of the athlete I would pick.

[Judysmom]

I completely disagree. I think the Chestnut has a better hind end. The Bay looks much straighter through his stifles and angles tell me he may lack power---especially for jumping. The Chestnut will likely have a very good jump given his angles and stifle placement.

Between the two...while the bay is prettier to my eye, the chestnut is more of the athlete I would pick.

So I agree with you about the hind ends, bay looks like it will be a better dressage horse than jumper.

But what about the feet?? The chestnut has serious long-toe-no-heel-itis. Very noticable in trot pics. Bay horse has similar foot also.

[Isabeau Z Solace]

I've been hemming and hawing over the bay for a while... I would prefer an 'easy going' type to a 'high powered' type if I could choose. He seems easy going, but there is no video, and I'm thinking his gaits might negate the temperament.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

So I agree with you about the hind ends, bay looks like it will be a better dressage horse than jumper.

But what about the feet?? The chestnut has serious long-toe-no-heel-itis. Very noticable in trot pics. Bay horse has similar foot also.

With OTTBs fresh off the track...I barely look at their feet. Most will be sucky. Not because of a bad foot but the way they they are trimed. It is VERY typically for them to be trimmed with a long toe and no heel. I expect to have to spend some time to fix their feet. Some times their hoof quality will be pretty darn good (even if the trim and angles are HORRIBLE)...but you absoultely can not tell a darn thing about hoof quality from a photo.

[Judysmom]

Oh don't worry I understand why some horses are shod that way. Bought a few OT over the years.

Not really thinking about hoof quality, and I agree many have good quality not shelly feet, looking more at foot conformation. I would (personally) prefer to to at least start with a horse who's heel tubules don't grow forward. That's all.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Not really thinking about hoof quality, and I agree many have good quality not shelly feet, looking more at foot conformation. I would (personally) prefer to to at least start with a horse who's heel tubules don't grow forward. That's all.

Trust me...I'm right there with you. But I only really look at their feet in person and with the xray at the PPE. If they have a nice foot and heel, I view it as a plus more than a view it as a ding aganist an OTTB without it.

Now if I'm paying 10K plus.....they need to have nice feet from the get go.