draft horse/dressage

[Donella]

I find it almost funny how stating an opinion and using logic to support that opinion WHEN ASKED FOR IT is turned into "attacking".

I ride an off breed for the hundred millionth time. But that doesn't mean I am clued out as to what constitutes functional/ideal conformation in regards to upper level sport horses. She asked for the opinion...we gave it. Nobody is attacking anyone...we are simply having a discussion about form and it's relation to function...at least that is what I was doing.

[NoDQhere]

Well you know, Donella, if you don't tell people what they want to hear, you must be attacking them

For the record, there is a HUGE (pardon the pun) difference in the SHAPE of a Warmblood and a Draft / draft cross, regardless of size.

[Bravestrom]

For the record, there is a HUGE (pardon the pun) difference in the SHAPE of a Warmblood and a Draft / draft cross, regardless of size.

Really!!! I have a clyde hackneycross that I can't tell you how many people have thought is a dutch warmblood. There is not always a great difference.

And, if you don't like drafts in dressage thats fine but why would you all keep trying to dissaude people so vehemently, if not to attack.

[Ambrey]

I find it almost funny how stating an opinion and using logic to support that opinion WHEN ASKED FOR IT is turned into "attacking".

Donella, I can't speak for others but I didn't see you as attacking.

I think in a thread like this, it's hard to see what part of the discussion is annoying people and what part is just discussion. I do not agree with your assessment of drafts and dressage, just based on what I know, but the part of the thread that annoyed me were the snarky one-liners, not the considered opinions.

I do think saying "for the most part, drafts are not really built in a way that is suitable for dressage" is a much different message than "don't even try it, you'll just make the horse go lame." One message advises caution, the other is just dismissive and untrue for quite a few drafts out there.

And I agree with the poster who said most of us will never know whether our horse "could" get to GP, or how well it would do, through no fault of the horse I think for a lot of us, when we say "upper levels," we're talking about more the 4th/PSG/maybe schooling some upper level moves.

I can't speak for the OP, but when I bought my horse I never expected to get past 1st, so the talent he has shown has been wonderful- if he continues at this rate he'll fly through 1st in no time (whether I'll catch up is another matter!). After that, it's all icing on the cake. But on the other hand, my trainer says "never say never." Put your eye on the prize and go for it!

[Donella]

Ambrey,
Thanks for the post.
I agree with you on this...you never know right and as long as you are sensitive to how well the horse is handling it, all should be fine. Actually, my friesian mare is a good example of this. My trainer thinks the horse will likely breakdown past 2nd level. Yet I had a well known trainer and clinician come out a few weeks ago and she was fanatical about the horse, told me she had "8" gaits and "has what it takes". I just have to be really sensitive about it..if the work becomes hard at all..I will stop and be happy with how far we have gotten.

I was speaking in generalities..that is all.

[slc2]

Whenever anyone suggests any breed or type may have limitations in dressage, the hackles sure go up and people get VERY defensive, and the insults fly. They only don't win because of fads, judging is subjective and rides on fashion, etc etc.

Dressage is unusual in this sense that there are so many enthusiasts that will argue that any horse can excel at any level. I think it's wishful thinking to even suggest that all individuals of ANY breed can excell at all levels of any sport competition.

However, alot of denial goes into these arguments about how suitable draft horses are to any dressage endeavor. Fact is, even long before warmbloods came here and Thb's were the breed of choice for dressage in America, there were still very few draft horses excelling at the top levels. Even when the American cavalry provided purpose bred horses to their dressage team, they were lightly built saddle horses.

There is a reason there are draft horses and they are different from saddle horses. Draft horses were developed for pulling at low speeds. Their heavy bodies and legs are designed for pulling. Their hindquarters, back, shoulder and neck are conformed to be optimal for pulling. Their gaits were not developed to be those of sport horse type. Recently, with more emphasis on draft shows a 'hitchy' trot is preferred, but it is still different from the trot of a saddle horse.

At the same time, drafts and draft crosses HAVE proven that it is very possible for individuals of these types to do 'well' in dressage. Since most riders never ride at the upper levels, and since many compete little or not at all, 'well' is usually defined as being a pleasant, obedient companion and family horse. There are DEFINITELY individuals who have even done better at higher levels. SOME, a very few, have even done 'well' at showing at the FEI levels.

Warmbloods are not a mix of 'draft' and 'thb' or arab blood. Draft horses - heavy clydesdale, Percheron, Belgian, Ardennes, etc, were never used to develop them. There were, however, stronger built horses used in developing them - coaching and lighter types of horses.

"Warmblood" is not the term for any mixed breed horse. Before warmbloods were imported to America, these horses were called 'Draft crosses', 'Thoroughbred crosses' or 'Saddlebred crosses', not 'warmbloods'. They only got that name when warmbloods started to be sold here and threatened the marketing of cross bred horses. There are a number of European warmblood registries, and some American warmblood registries, not all are created equal, either. One American registry president informed me enthusiastically that they were licensing very poor quality mares because 'We have to build up the size of our registry'. The warmblood registry concept is based on examining, testing, licensing and rewarding animals that are successful in four sport horse events governed by the FEI - jumping, dressage, driving and to a lesser extent, eventing.

We make the mistake of thinking of there always having been ONLY two types of horses - very heavy and very light saddle horses. This is just not true. There were many intermediate types of agricultural and military animals all with different characteristics and types and different degrees of massiveness. There were also the ride and drive types such as several breeds in Holland that helped to refine warmbloods and figured strongly in their development. Even the Trakehner was developed with the help of a local type, the Schweiken, and refined and further developed.

These were used to develop warmbloods, and Thb and Arab blood has been put into warmblood pedigrees ever since warmbloods began. The warmblood is actually just a development and a refinement of a type that had already existed long before the modern warmblood registries began. Bennet suggested a prehistoric 'proto warmblood', and not too many other researchers support her in that. In fact I haven't found anyone else who backs the idea that her research on primitive equine skulls proves that.

There has never been a draft or heavier carriage breed horse that went to the world championships or the Olympics, to any major European competition. They are not represented in world class competition in noticeable numbers and have never been represented, regardless of which breed was popular at the time.

It is true that 'the average warmblood' does ALSO not go to the Olympics or World Championships. But also, the 'average quarter horse' does not go to the World Championships in reining, or cutting. This does not prove that the sport horse type is unsuitable for dressage any more than it proves that quarter horse types are unsuitable for cutting or reining.

There is a general refusal in these debates to define 'what sort of dressage' a horse is 'suitable' for. Almost any horse can give an owner a lot of fun at the occasional local shows. But I agree with others who express doubt that putting a heavy horse into what may be years of very rigorous sport horse training is wise.

I agree that not EVERY heavy horse goes lame when put into dressage work, especially when it's done very casually and slowly with the goal of reaching a lower level.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to that taking a heavy horse up the sport level ranks is without problems. I will not agree that NONE go lame when an owner tries to take them up the levels. Sorry, but a rather too high percentage of them DO go lame and have to be retired.

In some cases, I think they stay ok because their owners simply did NOT put them in a rigorous demanding program and because they bring the horses along slowly and are very very cautious. The Shire I showed with was showing at 2nd level at the age of 9, not at PSG, and the trainer told me he would refuse to work with the horse at the point when he felt it would be 'too much for him'.

It is (well, was, it will probably evaporate as a possiblity with qualification) very possible to work a horse quite lightly, teach him 'the tricks' and show him lightly locally up thru the levels - and easily win many awards at the 'all breed' level where there is little world class competition..without demanding much of him.

[FancyFree]

Excellent post slc.

[Lambie Boat]

yes, slc, you are correct. the challenge of training a draft for dressage past 1st level is changing the PULL into a PUSH. It's not easy, it's not what the horse is built for......but it's not impossible.

the question is: do you really want to get in the saddle every day and bang your head against the same walls, the same issues and ride until sweat drips from your nose for 50 minutes to get 4 or 6 good steps of collection, a few strides of sit, half circle of correct tracking up forward (never mind extension, good luck with that) on and on. When you get a certain age and look back to the energy you pour into one or two horses.......well, Cindy Sydnor wrote about this recently, but try to tell a 20 year old anything about her choices.

as I mentioned before, I rode/trained a Shire/TB cross 14 years and loved her to death. But now, I have a horse that is bred for the work. This mare shows more of everything, naturally, on the lunge and first time under saddle than my draftie did after years of training. Good thing too, because I'm old and tired now. Don't have the stamina, drive, strength, self-motivation to try to train a draft horse again. It's really, really hard. And for those of you who say a better rider could do it better, you're right. I'm not "ALL THAT". But my trainer IS!

[Ambrey]

One issue I have with the above post, SLC, is that by lumping all of the drafts together, you're perpetuating exactly the dichotomous thinking you're railing against. Percherons were not one of the "heavy" pulling breeds, and has been bred since the 8th century to be a versatile horse.

From http://www.percheron.ca/history.htm

Around the Middle Ages Spanish blood was introduced by the Comte de Perche and later the Comte de Rotrou imported Andalusian stallions, which were used on the Percheron mares. In the 18th century, Arabs and the new English Thoroughbreds were also imported and used. The Royal Stud at Le Pin made Arabian stallions available to breeders of Percheron horses in an effort to improve the breed. In 1820, two gray Arab stallions were imported into the Le Perche area and used extensively on the existing stock, and it is from these two that the present day gray colour on the Percheron stems. In 1823, a horse named Jean Le Blanc was foaled in Le Perche and all of today's Percheron bloodlines trace directly to this horse.

and

The Percheron is noted for its equable temperament, its intelligence, ease of handling and willingness to work. It is an elegant heavy horse due to the infusions for the Oriental-type blood throughout the centuries. Despite their great size, Percherons are active, showy and easy movers. Their stride is not as choppy as that of other heavy horses. Its action is stylish, long, free and comparatively low.

From the Wikipedia page on Hanoverians (feel free to argue if it's innacurate, I am only using it as a reference)

The Hanoverian is said to have descended from the warhorse of the Middle Ages. In 1735, George II, the King of England and Elector of Hanover, founded the state stud at Celle. He began a breeding program for horses for use in agriculture and work in carriages. Selected stallions, many privately owned, were available to the local farmers for breeding. The bigger of the local mares were refined with Holsteins, Thoroughbreds and Cleveland Bays, and later some Neapolitan, Andalusian, Prussian, and Mecklenburg stock. By the end of the 18th century, the Hanoverian had become a high-class coach horse.

So you can see that the origins are not so different. The Hanoverian was also initially a pulling horse, but has been bred more recently for sporthorse purposes- and some people are doing the same with Percherons. But the idea that the origins of the breeds make them fundamentally different is, I think, inaccurate. The differences are in more recent breeding programs.

[Ambrey]

as I mentioned before, I rode/trained a Shire/TB cross 14 years and loved her to death. But now, I have a horse that is bred for the work. This mare shows more of everything, naturally, on the lunge and first time under saddle than my draftie did after years of training. Good thing too, because I'm old and tired now. Don't have the stamina, drive, strength, self-motivation to try to train a draft horse again. It's really, really hard. And for those of you who say a better rider could do it better, you're right. I'm not "ALL THAT". But my trainer IS!

This is why I think it's so dependent on the individual horse. But if you're shopping for a dressage horse on a tight budget, you're going to have that issue anyway aren't you?

I know Cindy said take out a loan and buy a better horse, but I was damned lucky to get the one I got without my husband leaving me Luckily, for me dressage was just something I kind of fell in love with, not an all-consuming goal for my riding, so getting that perfect horse was never an issue. I was much more focused on getting a horse I could have a relationship with and enjoy over the long term.

And I can only say what my trainer says about my horse- that he's not what he expected, he's much lighter on his feet than he looks like he'd be, and he's very smart and willing and picks things up quickly. And maybe I got really lucky and got that "one in a million" horse, but Lewin's girl seems pretty similar so I have to think there are others out there, if you look for them.

As for why I'd want to beat my head against the wall- I'm pretty sure that this dressage learning thing is going to take more patience on his part than mine So not an issue, your horses would be wasted on me. Be glad you got them!

[Equibrit]

Percherons were not one of the "heavy" pulling breeds, and has been bred since the 8th century to be a versatile horse.

Now you're pushing the bounds of reason and entering the realm of fantasy!

[slc2]

THe origins are not so different? They are as different as different could be.

I will never understand WHY people have to do this with different breeds, try to make them all the same, obliterate their characteristics for the sake of being 'better than' someone else. Keepin' up with the Joneses!

Look at this gorgeous animal. Why does it have to be 'better' than anything else? Look at this sweatheart and how patient she is with her rider.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8JtyK_fYSs

I most emphatically did not lump all drafts together. I can only conclude that you must not have read what I wrote.

At the same time, I feel the history you quote dones't prove anything. Especially not that Percherons were a riding type horse because 2 Arab stallions were at one time brought in to a couple stud farms. Yes, some Arab blood was brought in, that's why Percherons are often so gorgeous around the head and have the grey color. In fact, at different points in history, Arabs, Thoroughbreds and Andalusian type horses were bred into just about every breed in existence.

They STILL do not resemble, and never have resembled, in general body type, size and mass, an Arabian horse.

A war horse? Ridden? Try to put one in the armor of the knights, even pre ceremonial jousting, even INCLUDING ceremonial jousting armor. You cannot. It will not fit.

It was used then for the same thing it's used traditionally for now - heavy draft. The horses that fit the medieval armor were nowhere near the Percheron's mass and heft. They were nowhere near the height nor the mass of the modern draft heavyweights.

They were stronger built horses, of course, and they trotted. But they were not Percheron like - not at all. This is a very popular thing to say these days, but has no truth in it at all. Read Barclay instead of the usual 'horse books'.

Heavy large drafts were mostly not ridden - they pulled heavy wagons and ploughs, and have since the time of the early Romans, who described seeing heavy horses in the Low Countries and commented on their suitability - for heavy draft. The very heavy large horses were developed for one purpose - for heavy draft on 'heavy' soils. The low countries, parts of England. In other areas, such as Eastern Europe, much more agricultural work was done with lighter horses, even ploughing. Many farmers could not afford to feed the heaviest, largest draft horses.

Draft horses, as well as all breeds of horses, do vary. Some percherons (or any draft breed) are less typical and follow their own breed standard and preferred traits much less than desired. I can find 15.1 1/2 hand Percheron stallions and 16.3 hand Percheron stallions. In that case the 15.1 1/2 hand stallion was as broad as a bus and weighed more than the tall one, lol, which was 'hitchier', taller and slimmer. I can find very tall narrow Clydesdales and very massive broad ones. Yet, I still find a general consistency with the way them move, whether they pick their knees up a little more or a little less.

Likewise, draft crosses can be bewilderingly different. Even the same sire and dam can give very different offspring.

That's the beauty of cross breeds - there is a lot of diversity among them and a person can pick and choose the type they like.

I can't agree with feisomeday totally either - that trying to train ANY draft or draft cross is 'beating my head against a wall'. I think quite a few of them bring a lot of pleasure to many owners. It depends on the person's goals and requirements.

I will continue to believe what experience has taught me over many years thru my own mistakes and other's mistakes, to choose the job for the horse, not the horse for the job.

[Donella]

Excellent posts SLC, I agree wholeheartedly.

Not only that, I feel like I am qualified to say this because I am not biased here. I have two draft crosses AND I breed friesians and Hanoverians. I really don't "dislike" or want to "attack" any of these breeds, and I do understand all of them fairly well.

The Hanoverian was never developed from a coldblooded draft breed. There is a world of difference between a "carriage" horse and a draft breed. A good example of this is the friesian. They are not coldblooded heavy pulling horses..they are a carriage/coach breed. This is the TYPE that was used to first start the Hanoverian and other wb breeds (for Dutch it was the Gelderlander..heavier, but certainly not a draft horse).

I was just reading about the influence of Absatz in Hanoverian breeding in the Verbands month mag and they had pictures of the typical hanoverian of pre 1950's and they looked about the same bone as a Gelderlander. They were big, strong horses BUT they were by no means draft horses..they still looked like saddle horses. They were used for many purposes, including sunday work on the farm, but again, not heavy pulling horses.

The amount of selection that has gone into turning the breed from a "mans cavalry mount" into a world class dressage/jumping horses has been significant over the last 50 years. Selected refining blood from Trakehner, tb and arabian was used. The Hanoverian of today is seriously different from the cavalry horse of the pre 50s AND YET even then it was STILL a saddle/light coach horse.

There really is no similiarity in the evolution of the Hanoverian breed and that of the "lighter percheron" or any other draft breed.

I can see if you want to take your drafty as far as it can go in dressage, but to tell yourself that they are really the same in evolution or conformation as todays modern sporthorse is just delusional.

[lewin]

[QUOTE=slc2;3143441]
A war horse? Ridden? Try to put one in the armor of the knights, even pre ceremonial jousting, even INCLUDING ceremonial jousting armor. You cannot. It will not fit.

[QUOTE]

I have never tried it, but I am quite sure the horses have changed quite a bit over that many centuries. A few 100 generations will do that to a breed. But there were always two types: Heavy pulling horses and diligence trotters. The lighter style trotting horses greatly decreased in numbers post WW2 as cars replaced them in the cities and the Amish kept the heavier ones for farming. The draft breeds have split into two types again and there are now "hitch" or modern drafts and working horses.

I have read quite a few different breed books. The older ones talk about the diligence horses or one book I have talks about the smaller, lighter "Percheron Postier".

Not every draft is suited for dressage but some of them are and they bring with them a different group of qualities to the table which often makes them more suitable as a dressage mount for some riders. Not all, but some.

[Equibrit]

The Percheron Horse originated in the area known as "Le Perche" in the north west of France. Here in 732 A.D. Arabian Horses abandoned by Moors after their defeat in the Battle of Tours were crossed with the massive Flemish stock and from this cross came the Percheron type which has endured for twelve centuries.
During the Crusades, further infusion of Arab blood was made; Arab sires procured in the Holy Land were bred to the Percheron. In the early 1800's the French Government's Stud at La Pin introduced further Arab blood into the Percheron breed by covering selected mares with two outstanding Arab sires. Now all contemporary Percheron's share this common heritage descending from the foundation stock that originated in Le Perche.
The Percheron Horse Society of France was founded in 1883, to safeguard the breeding of pure stock and from this small district of Le Perche. Pure-bred breeding stock has been exported all over the world with each nation except U.S.S.R., having an official Breed Association to ensure the preservation of the pure-bred Percheron, and so the Percheron Horse remains genetically pure with registered animals.

[FancyFree]

I will never understand WHY people have to do this with different breeds, try to make them all the same, obliterate their characteristics for the sake of being 'better than' someone else. Keepin' up with the Joneses!

This is really the heart of the matter, in a nutshell, isn't it?

[canticle]

the question is: do you really want to get in the saddle every day and bang your head against the same walls, the same issues and ride until sweat drips from your nose for 50 minutes to get 4 or 6 good steps of collection, a few strides of sit, half circle of correct tracking up forward (never mind extension, good luck with that) on and on. When you get a certain age and look back to the energy you pour into one or two horses.......well, Cindy Sydnor wrote about this recently, but try to tell a 20 year old anything about her choices.

Sorry you had a bad experience, but what do you suggest? For many people, owning a WB would be like banging their head against a wall. Honestly, I would feel like I was wasting my time. I would know that I am depriving myself of something better. Sorry, but I don't want that at all.

You're just going to have to accept that some people are genuinely happy with their choices. Why the desire to convince them that they made a mistake and should be riding something else? Why try to scare them into thinking that they are harming their horses? It's impossible for me to have any respect for the Sydnors of the world, just as I have no respect for the religious fundamentalists who feel it is their duty to "save" me. At the root of the desire to change others is CONTEMPT for them.

[Ambrey]

They were stronger built horses, of course, and they trotted. But they were not Percheron like - not at all. This is a very popular thing to say these days, but has no truth in it at all. Read Barclay instead of the usual 'horse books'.

Define "Percheron-Like?" The Percheron you are thinking of is a development of the last 150 years or so (about the same time as the Hanoverian you are thinking about, I guess). In fact, a lot of the "bulking up" of the Percheron occurred in the US (as they were so popular here as a farm horse).

Every history I have seen of the Percheron says the same thing. The history of this old breed is not an unknown. The breed changed as the need changed in the region in which it was bred. From war horse to coach horse and, only recently, draft horse.

Lewin, you know the study that the book you gave me talks about, the one that discounts the story of the two arabs? It's online! Really cool reading

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&...h_xA6I#PPA1,M1

Anyway, shifting the Percheron from a lighter coach type to a heavier draft type seems to have happened in the 1800s. There are still some of the lighter types out there, clearly

eta: Who is trying to make anything better than anything else? I think all Lewin and I have been asking is that the Percheron, and other drafts, be allowed to be what they are. Appreciate them for what they have to give, allow people who really like what these breeds offer to ride them, and even do dressage if that's what they want

[FancyFree]

Why the desire to convince them that they made a mistake and should be riding something else?

I don't see where anyone is trying to do that. The OP's question was can Shires do upper levels? Generally, no. I'm sure there is the exception out there. There's an exception for almost everything. That's all anyone has been saying. Generally speaking, a draft or draft cross is not a good choice to do upper level work. If your goal is to ride upper level dressage, you would be better off with a breed more suitable. They're not conformationally meant for this work, again generally speaking. People can stamp their feet all the live long day and say it isn't so, that won't change a thing. WBs dominate the upper levels for a reason. If drafts were the best choice, they would. But if you are happy with your horse, more power to you.

[Cielo Azure]

The Percheron Horse originated in the area known as "Le Perche" in the north west of France. Here in 732 A.D. Arabian Horses abandoned by Moors after their defeat in the Battle of Tours were crossed with the massive Flemish stock and from this cross came the Percheron type which has endured for twelve centuries.
During the Crusades, further infusion of Arab blood was made; Arab sires procured in the Holy Land were bred to the Percheron. In the early 1800's the French Government's Stud at La Pin introduced further Arab blood into the Percheron breed by covering selected mares with two outstanding Arab sires. Now all contemporary Percheron's share this common heritage descending from the foundation stock that originated in Le Perche.
The Percheron Horse Society of France was founded in 1883, to safeguard the breeding of pure stock and from this small district of Le Perche. Pure-bred breeding stock has been exported all over the world with each nation except U.S.S.R., having an official Breed Association to ensure the preservation of the pure-bred Percheron, and so the Percheron Horse remains genetically pure with registered animals.

Prior to 1883, the Government stud at Haras du Pin kept all the stud records. All breedings in Le Perche had to be approved and government studs were used. Records were kept back at least as far back as 1803. The Percheron Horse Society of France was established in 1883, but this is not the start of the breed. By no means at all. Prior to that, the Gov controlled it all. And prior to that? Remember that prior to the revolution (1799), the King was in charge and that all ended (and by some accounts a recalibration of the gov stud records occurred at that time). Were these earlier records (prior to 1803) recorded? I don't know. But the Perche Breed records were kept by the Gov up until 1883 and then turned over to the Society. Although, still today, the Gov has a big hand in the breedings and the breed in France (including re-writing the standard to include meat animals after WW11).

It has been well established the blood that was infused into the breed in the 1820s were not Arabs but a "barb" and a saddle horse. There was no Arab blood infused in the 1820s. There have been many, many other horses infused into the French lines but none have provided the controversy that the two "Arab" horses had. It started with the MC Weld book of 1886, which he wrongly interpreted the Gov. stud writings and the myth has been carried on since then. The 1917 Sanders book spends pages and pages on how false the Weld claims were and there are copies of the government stud book pages dating 1813 and 1819 (see pages 61 & 62) to support their counter claims in the 1917 book.

These were the supposed "Arab" horses and here is their descriptions (FROM THE GOV STUD BOOKS OF THE EARLY 1800s):

(from the Gov stud books of 1813). "Gallipoly, Turk; light speckled gray; height 1 meter, 50 cm: classification, saddle horse: sire, a Turk; dam, a Turk; born 1803; entered haras Nov 23, 1812. By whom bought: sent by the Minister. Observations: good blood horse."

"No. 20. Godophin; born 1802; height 1 meter, 54 cm. (about 15.1 hands); from the stable of Count de Maulke, Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Observations: good horse, but marked at the croup M.; inferior to the preceding horse in the list (also a Mecklenburg-Strelitz horse). Sire: Mock Doctor, English blood horse; Dam: Unknown English mare. When entered: 12 July 1807. Description: Saddle horse."