# Horse conformation ratings



## blue eyed pony

subscribing to learn 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kitten_Val

What about not-so-excellent ones?


----------



## MIEventer

I think TheLastUnicorn has posted a great conformational thread on how to judge conformation. It's a sticky.


----------



## blue eyed pony

Yes but horsegears might see things that I miss in that thread. So it's a learning experience anyway


----------



## Speed Racer

What qualifications does the OP have to rate anyone else's horse? 

I know what my horses' conformation flaws happen to be. Don't need some self proclaimed 'expert' to point them out. :?

Plus, people aren't looking for anyone to 'rate' their horses, even if they're trying to learn about conformation. Pointing out obvious flaws is one thing, but putting some silly 'rating' on an animal is another.


----------



## DuffyDuck

Speed Racer said:


> What qualifications does the OP have to rate anyone else's horse?
> 
> I know what my horses' conformation flaws happen to be. Don't need some self proclaimed 'expert' to point them out. :?



Perhaps it for persons that aren't so well informed? And as its in an open thread, persons can read, debate or agree.


----------



## bubba13

Can you critique my gray girls? 

Bones:



















Bella:


----------



## kitten_Val

bubba, those are not _excellent _confo shots (esp the 1st one)... 

SR, just admit you are scared for your horse to be rated... 

:rofl: 


OP, I'm happy to post mine for "rating", but only if you are OK with _not-so-excellent_ ones... Unfortunately I never can make my horse to stand squared (shame on me!)...


----------



## paintedpastures

Speed Racer said:


> What qualifications does the OP have to rate anyone else's horse?
> 
> I know what my horses' conformation flaws happen to be. Don't need some self proclaimed 'expert' to point them out. :?
> 
> Plus, people aren't looking for anyone to 'rate' their horses, even if they're trying to learn about conformation. Pointing out obvious flaws is one thing, but putting some silly 'rating' on an animal is another.


I'm with you on this one,I'm aware of my horses shortcomings.I'll leave the conformation critiques to the qualified judges & my peers I trust that share common knowledge of the breed & discipline my horse is bred.


----------



## equiniphile

Go for it on these guys. I'm aware of their flaws, but am curious as to what a "rating" entails....

First two are Thoroughbreds, third is a Paso Fino, fourth is a Percheron.


----------



## Horsegears

kitten_Val said:


> What about not-so-excellent ones?


All horses have traits that can be put to good use when well placed. I don't rate so much good or bad. You can post without fear of your horse being slandered.


----------



## Horsegears

equiniphile said:


> Go for it on these guys. I'm aware of their flaws, but am curious as to what a "rating" entails....
> 
> First two are Thoroughbreds, third is a Paso Fino, fourth is a Percheron.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thoroughbred considered.
> 
> Pasterns a little upright. Leggy type with longer fore
> cannons. Elongated ever lasting muscle type. Shoulder
> blade perhaps a touch shorter with slightly forward
> set wither. Back is OK. Hind is strong/reasonable with
> a splash of good extra length to femur. Nice moderate/smaller
> head from what I can see. Overall a taller- rather than
> longer type. Dressage, eventing.


----------



## NdAppy

What skipping the greys on the first page?


----------



## equiniphile

Horsegears said:


> Pasterns a little upright. Leggy type with longer fore
> cannons. *Elongated ever lasting muscle type*. Shoulder
> blade perhaps a touch shorter with slightly forward
> set wither. Back is OK. Hind is strong/reasonable with
> a splash of good extra length to femur. Nice moderate/smaller
> head from what I can see. Overall a taller- rather than
> longer type. Dressage, eventing.


 Hmm, what do you mean by the bolded part?


----------



## Horsegears

Further slope to pasterns than expected. Shorter but fairly 
refined limbs (Perhaps a touch more muscle shape considering 
bred). Shoulder blade has good length. Wither a touch set 
forward. Back length is OK and is well supported by a very 
deep girth. Croup is reasonable and leads into a nice stifle set.
A little more chunky and western oriented than I would expect 
breed considered - not that that's a negitive from a riding 
viewpoint. Some good versatility although dressage best go 
considering slope to pasterns.


----------



## Horsegears

equiniphile said:


> Hmm, what do you mean by the bolded part?


Long and lean muscles.


----------



## Horsegears

Pasterns have extra natural slope - not sure about trimming.
Shorter limbs. Very nicely sloped blade with extra length.
Thick but nicely higher set neck. Higher head carriage.
Perhaps a slightly longer body with a touch shorter neck.
Good even back length - and very deep girth adding core 
strength. The croup is very reasonable. Forequarters the 
strength of a good topline. Nice one.


----------



## equiniphile

Thanks for the critique; you mentioned a few things I wouldn't have seen. I think the Perch's neck seems shorter because she's angling it towards the camera, as it's pretty decent in length.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

I'll play. Here's Soda. Pics are a couple years old, but he was mature (8 yrs old) in the pic, so nothing has changed.

ETA - He's a QH


----------



## Horsegears

Slightly upright pasterns and shorter limbs with strong muscle shape.
Shoulder joint a touch open which leads co-joins the blade which may 
be slightly upright. Very good back length and deep girth adding plenty 
of core strength. Large barrel. The upper hind is very strong with both 
good croup and femur lengths. Plenty of power from the hind on this 
one. Rear cannon lines not quite 100% and is perhaps a little finer 
than preferred. Overall a very good type that may be ideally suited 
to western disciplines.


----------



## DuffyDuck

I'd be interested in what you think of my mare.


----------



## Horsegears

DuffyDuck said:


> I'd be interested in what you think of my mare.


This one does not appear text book perfect 
but has some very good strengths never-the-less. 
Really need a very good side on photo thou as
its hard enough rating off a good square shot, 
let alone an angled one, even if it is just a slight 
angle. Thanks.


----------



## DuffyDuck

Will try- no, she is definetly NOT text book perfect, bum like a girrafe, pigeon toed and skinny to boot. But heck, low level dressage and jumping (maybe) are our aims for now.


----------



## Golden Horse

I keep checking in to see what you make of the grey girls, are the pics not good enough??


----------



## Horsegears

Golden Horse said:


> I keep checking in to see what you make of the grey girls, are the pics not good enough??


Not quite good enough for me personally.


----------



## NdAppy




----------



## 2horses

*What do you think of my 2-year-old Half-Welsh?*

Well since I accidentally posted conformation photos in the wrong section today, I'll try here. He had just turned two in these pictures. He has filled out a little more since then.


----------



## Rachel1786

I'll play too 
Bella 14 year old TB









Legacy-15-20 year old Appy(assuming, he's an auction horse)









And last, My baby, Blue He's a 35-41 year old arab/QH


----------



## Horsegears

Shorter limbs. Pasterns a touch extra slope type 
considered. Evenly/good sloped blade. Nice length back 
(considering longer body type) which is well supported by a 
strong and deep girth. Large barrel capacity. The upper 
hind is very strong with both good croup and femur lengths. 
Nicely set neck which may be a touch shorter in length. 
Some versatility but overall perhaps a bias towards strength 
and western disciplines.


----------



## boomboom

10 year old Appendix Gelding








3 year old tb gelding


----------



## Horsegears

Legacy-15-20 year old Appy(assuming, he's an auction horse)









Sloped pasterns perhaps on the shorter side. Good
short cannons and shorter limbs overall. The shoulder
joint is very nicely closed and the blade slope is reasonable.
The blades extra length is a positive. The back is longer
and it looks like we are getting a bit of a dip here with age.
The croup is short but gains some strength from a longer 
femur. Larger barrel and longer overall body type. 
Likely smooth ride at his peak. Dressage probably 
best shot here.


----------



## kitten_Val

Horsegears said:


> All horses have traits that can be put to good use when well placed. I don't rate so much good or bad. You can post without fear of your horse being slandered.


OK. Will do now then!


----------



## kitten_Val

DuffyDuck said:


> I'd be interested in what you think of my mare.


Geez, Duffy. Now YOURS is really squared! :lol:


----------



## Horsegears

Appears leggy, even TB considered. Good moderate muscle type
with nice portions of both strength and flexibility. Slightly closed 
shoulder joint. Shoulder blade is perhaps a touch shorter. Longer
through the back. The hind is functionally probably quite strong,
and this also adds strength to the loins. Dressage and jumps 
may suit this one.


----------



## kitten_Val

OK, folks... I'm ashamed because I don't have true "critique" ones, just those with me on... 

Here are mine from year+ back (I switched to mostly videos ever since)... I wonder what you think about using them in dressage and jumping...


----------



## Horsegears

Kitten Val, I can work with the majority of horses but can really only work with excellent conformation shots.


----------



## csimkunas6

If these work for you, you are more than welcome to critique my yearling! He is 20months old this month, these pics are from about a month or so ago. If they dont work, no biggie, Im planning on getting some shots in the next few days or so.


----------



## bubba13

bubba13 said:


> Can you critique my gray girls?
> 
> Bones:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bella:


OK, here's another picture of Bella to help:










And Bones:


----------



## New_image

Can someone explain slightly closed shoulder joint/open shoulder joint to me? I haven't heard this "term" before? I can make an educated guess but...?

Oh and here is one... 

















And two (if you can work around the baby)...

















And three...



















Happy to hear your thoughts on any one of them if the pictures suit you.


----------



## crimson88

Here's Frank. He is pictured as a 4 yr old here, he's 7 now, but these are the only confromation shots I have, he's a bit more bulky looking now  Oh and he's a paint of course. 

















and Crimson, 5 yr old miniature.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

You should really be specifying what level of dressage you think some of these horses are suited to, because honestly none of the horses save the first TB you have labelled as a "dressage type" horse would I even look at for a prospect for the upper levels of dressage. If it's conformation is as such it would be more appropriate to label a horse as a "pleasure" or "english flat" horse than a dressage horse... JMO. While everything can do dressage, only horses with a specific conformational type will excel at it and stay sound at the upper levels.


----------



## InStyle

Subbing, will be adding pics this week.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

csimkunas6 said:


> , Im planning on getting some shots in the next few days or so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfer to have to camera a little lower, at approx
> horses elbow height, and will give so very brief
> comments on this one pending new pics.
> 
> Very strong hind always likely to be the strength
> of a good top-line. OK shoulder slope although the blade
> is shorter even yearling considered - and it can be expected to lengthen somewhat with maturity. Waiting on new pics.


----------



## Horsegears

And Bones:










Touch shorter limbs which are well muscled. The shoulder 
blade is long and has reasonable/good slope. The back is 
a good length and nicely matches the deeper girth and 
larger barrel. The hind is also strong. Nice neck set and 
a higher head carriage likely. perhaps a longer body 
shape with slightly shorter neck. Very nicely balanced
between fore and hind and has obvious versatility. I do see
perhaps a slight bias to western, although English is fine 
as well. Very standard text book and easy on the eye
for potential buyers if need be.


----------



## Horsegears

Would not be surprised if this one has some Thoroughbred 
in the mix.

Short and finer fore cannons with a longer and well muscled
forearms. The blade has OK/good length and good slope. The 
back is probably a little longer. Good strong deeper girth. 
The upper hind is strong with good lengths to croup and 
femur. The rear cannon is probably shorter which nicely 
matches the fore cannons. Longer overall body and nice 
even head carriage. Probably only fully stretches out 
and extends at the faster paces. Well sloped pasterns that 
are not too long. Perhaps a touch bum-high which is OK for 
western Good straight line speed and not too keen on sharp
turns at higher intensity.


----------



## Wallaby

Just for funnsies:

Lacey, 26 year old mare


----------



## Horsegears

Battling to get a good view of this one.

Pasterns are well sloped and this one is very leggy. 
Some scope for added muscle. The wither set 
appears a little forward. The back is on the longer
side. The girth is shallow which in this case may help 
stride extension and goes with the type. The hind is a 
little leaner. Lacks a little prime moving strength
at both ends but may have some good flexibility
and natural fitness. English and/or Dressage best 
shots for this one based on type only.


----------



## Horsegears

Based on this photo only.

Well sloped pasterns with longer fore cannons.
The shoulder is fairly good/text-book. Back is a 
good length. The croup is also functional strong
and completes an above average top-line that
is also nicely balanced between the fore and 
hind. Slightly longer overall body with a shorter
neck. Deep girth and large barrel. Some sharp 
muscle shape indicating strength/speed. Fairly 
versatile across disciplines with some athleticism
and dressage/eventing would appear to suit ideally.


----------



## bubba13

I appreciate the evaluation, horsegears--enlightening. A question for you, while I've got your attention, if you don't mind: How much do you feel a horse's conformation can change as it ages? Will you see significant differences, or is it pretty well defined from birth for the educated eye? Or at what age is conformation "set?" Thanks so much!


----------



## trailhorserider

Yearling grade gelding.


----------



## trailhorserider

17 yr old Mustang gelding.


----------



## Horsegears

bubba13 said:


> I appreciate the evaluation, horsegears--enlightening. A question for you, while I've got your attention, if you don't mind: How much do you feel a horse's conformation can change as it ages? Will you see significant differences, or is it pretty well defined from birth for the educated eye? Or at what age is conformation "set?" Thanks so much!


Thanks for the positive feedback. 

Regarding growth rates, it is certainly not set.

In my opinion.

The foal/weanling can provide a false impression 
of an English type with its leggy appearance and
often well sloped shoulder and closed shoulder
joints. Then the yearling can look overly western
with the strong hind in comparison to the
forequarters which generally lengthens later.

The 2yo going through its education often goes 
through the final growth spurt where the wither
heightens (although overall growth continues). 
This generally provides the first realistic view of
the likely matured type 'as is'.

Signs of an immature horse include a shallow girth,
leggy appearance, forward set wither, higher hind, 
very lean neck etc.

Although in theory all breeds mature
at the same rate some further refined breeds 
have reputations for even growing up 
until 7 or even 8 years on occasion.


----------



## trailhorserider

16 yr old Missouri Fox Trotter mare (pregnant).


----------



## bubba13

Horsegears said:


> Signs of an immature horse include a shallow girth,
> leggy appearance, forward set wither, higher hind,
> very lean neck etc.
> 
> Although in theory all breeds mature
> at the same rate some further refined breeds
> have reputations for even growing up
> until 7 or even 8 years on occasion.


This makes perfect sense and is quite demonstrable, even from this thread. :wink: I would have to agree from personal experience. You see, Bella is the four-year-old mare I bought to break and train for barrels. I promptly renamed her Bones. She is now nine, a proven winning barrel horse, and a hopeless broken-down cripple suffering from repeated tears to the left fore deep digital flexor tendon. Now you weren't working from the absolute best photos, perhaps, but interesting how you rated the same horse (just with a five-year age difference) so differently....

With my two mares, the turning point for final growth and maturity was six.


----------



## Horsegears

As per above post regarding growth rates here
we have a fairly typical yearling.

Not the higher hind and appearance of a leaner 
fore with a shorter shoulder blade.

Lower hind lines not quite 100% at this stage of 
growth.

Nice head. Will probably mature with a reasonable 
hind - rather than a strong hind.I would say 
considering likely improved wither set etc on 
maturity, that English may potentially 
be on the cards. 
.


----------



## Horsegears

Quick look at photos not ideal.

Shorter upright pasterns, stocky limbs.
Fairly well balanced fore and hind.


----------



## Horsegears

Preferred short cannons, strong limbs that remain
with reasonable length. The shoulder has good 
slope although the blade may be a touch shorter 
than preferred. A longer back and shallower girth 
may indicate some loins weakness - although this
one appears fine, even more so considering age.
The croup and hind is also very adequate. Nice
head carriage. Certainly appears to have a longer 
body coupled with a shorter neck which matches
fine. Slightly upright pasterns. Of course all 
comments are based on the shape of an older 
horse which may have change some. Looks 
versatile with a slight bias to western. Likely 
fast stride at its peak.


----------



## trailhorserider

Horsegears said:


> As per above post regarding growth rates here
> we have a fairly typical yearling.
> 
> Not the higher hind and appearance of a leaner
> fore with a shorter shoulder blade.
> 
> Lower hind lines not quite 100% at this stage of
> growth.
> 
> Nice head. Will probably mature with a reasonable
> hind - rather than a strong hind.I would say
> considering likely improved wither set etc on
> maturity, that English may potentially
> be on the cards.
> .


Thank you! Perhaps I should have given you the following photos as well. Here he is 16 & 17 months. But he was so muddy and dirty and hairy I was kind of embarrassed.  I agree on his hind end. He gets that from his mother- she's a Fox Trotter. Dad was a Quarter Horse, but he definitely didn't get the QH hind end. :lol:


----------



## trailhorserider

Horsegears said:


> Quick look at photos not ideal.
> 
> Shorter upright pasterns, stocky limbs.
> Fairly well balanced fore and hind.


All my decent photos of him are saddled. Sorry about that. I don't know if these are better or worse.


----------



## trailhorserider

bubba13 said:


> This makes perfect sense and is quite demonstrable, even from this thread. :wink: I would have to agree from personal experience. You see, Bella is the four-year-old mare I bought to break and train for barrels. I promptly renamed her Bones. She is now nine, a proven winning barrel horse, and a hopeless broken-down cripple suffering from repeated tears to the left fore deep digital flexor tendon. Now you weren't working from the absolute best photos, perhaps, but interesting how you rated the same horse (just with a five-year age difference) so differently....
> 
> With my two mares, the turning point for final growth and maturity was six.



Wow, I thought they were different horses too. When Bones was Bella, she looked more like an appendix or TB. She really filled out as she matured. I'm sorry to hear she isn't sound, but she's a really beautiful horse. I love her build!


----------



## Horsegears

Muddy photos no problem. 

A little hard to work out which way his heading.
probably the cross breeding does not add to his type
consistency therefore clouding the issue. Nice shoulder 
and pasterns slope and looking above average athletic
wise in this image.


----------



## trailhorserider

Horsegears said:


> Muddy photos no problem.
> 
> A little hard to work out which way his heading.
> probably the cross breeding does not add to his type
> consistency therefore clouding the issue. Nice shoulder
> and pasterns slope and looking above average athletic
> wise in this image.


Thank you for your insights.  Glad to hear you don't think the pastern slope is too excessive. I would rather have slope than not, but sometimes I wonder if he is going to be too slope-y like his mother (the pregnant gray I posted earlier).


----------



## Horsegears

Looking very western here.

Short upright pasterns, forward set wither,
longer back, OK hind. Speedy muscle type. 
Very deep girth. Longer overall body type. 
Nicely balanced between fore and hind thou. 
Strong type, quick off the mark with higher stride
rate turnover.


----------



## Horsegears

trailhorserider said:


> Thank you for your insights.  Glad to hear you don't think the pastern slope is too excessive. I would rather have slope than not, but sometimes I wonder if he is going to be too slope-y like his mother (the pregnant gray I posted earlier).


People look at pasterns in isolation, but I 
believe they can either be straight and short,
or long and sloped provided they suit the
horse's overall type. If your looking at English
I think the pasterns will be closer to ideal,
than a possible issue.

Keep in mind that most horses with the genuinely
much sought after sloped and long shoulder
blade, also have longer and sloped pasterns to 
boot!


----------



## trailhorserider

Horsegears said:


> People look at pasterns in isolation, but I
> believe they can either be straight and short,
> or long and sloped provided they suit the
> horse's overall type. If your looking at English
> I think the pasterns will be closer to ideal,
> than a possible issue.
> 
> Keep in mind that most horses with the genuinely
> much sought after sloped and long shoulder
> blade, also have longer and sloped pasterns to
> boot!


Cool! 

I don't want to hog your time, but what do think of his mom? She is probably a couple pages back by now. :lol:


----------



## missnashvilletime

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...6343657472.386991.558597471&type=3&permPage=1 snowy pic ok?


----------



## Horsegears

trailhorserider said:


> Cool!
> 
> I don't want to hog your time, but what do think of his mom? She is probably a couple pages back by now. :lol:


You may have to post it again as quite a herd back there.


----------



## missnashvilletime




----------



## missnashvilletime

Why is it so big


----------



## Horsegears

Rating as yearling.

Based on this photo which is not at an ideal angle.

Looks like progressing towards a chunkier and strong type.


----------



## smrobs

Hmmm



















And....


----------



## faye

Here you go try my lad


----------



## Horsegears

Pose perhaps not quite natural so allowances made.

Nicely sloped pasterns that are a good length without 
being too long. Perhaps an upright humerus - open
shoulder joint and slightly upright blade in standard pose.
The back is a pretty good even length and the girth shallower
which helps provide a free stride. Smaller 'brick type' barrel. 
The croup and overall hind is on the leaner side - but like 
the shallow girth this also suits his type. Nice height:length 
ratio. Leaner and looser striding type over all. Type is English 
and dressage, while some endurance certainly does not appear 
out of the question based on type only. Lower hind lines not 
quite 100% although this seems to be an ever increasing 
traits in todays horses so not a disaster by any means. 
Flashy shading and a likely elegant and expressive type 
all considered. Good one.


----------



## Clava

Here's my ex-racer Belle.


----------



## Horsegears

Here we have a rarer taller - rather than 
longer type with attractive markings.
Longer cannons but good/even length 
limbs overall. The blade also possesses
good/even slope. I see the back as
being a touch longer. The croup is 
slightly leaner with slightly shorter pelvis 
and femur bones. Good depth girth. 
Lots of text book about this one, and evenly
balanced between fore and hind.
Rather than being a flat stick sprinter - 
I see this one improving over further distance. 
Very nice head. No doubt an eye catcher.
Dressage and possibly some endurance 
pending race record indicators of distance 
falling in line with type. One to be proud of.


----------



## Clava

Thank you, I am proud of her She ran 4 times flat racing (a couple of mile? I think? I will check), but although she came 2nd once after that shemostly came last. I generally hack her (but we have gone over 37mph! which was great fun), we do dressage, some jumping and we have a great time together. I have shown her and she has won ex-racehorse classes and the judge told me that she would do well at County Level

Her record Adam's Belle | Racing Post


----------



## iridehorses

I would love to get an opinion on Bonnie. 14 years old, APHA, 15h, ~1,200lb.


----------



## Horsegears

A photo on an even surface may help.

Touch shorter and upright pasterns which are fine.
Fairly leggy with good moderate muscle shape.
Blade a touch upright and the wither appears to 
be set forward. The girth is a little shallower and with 
the longer back indicates some loins weakness - although
the coupling appears sound in reality. We come to the hind 
and we have a longer croup and strong hind which certainly 
appears as the strength of the top-line. Longer barrel and 
body type with a western bias - although some English also 
OK. Eye catching shading and sure to look good under saddle. 
Some quick straight line speed not out of the question.


----------



## 2horses

Horsegears, can you look at my two-year-old on page 3? He must have gotten skipped with all the pictures that got posted about the same time.

Thank you


----------



## Horsegears

Even for a 2yo I think this one has plenty 
of scope for growth, particularly through the fore.

Long and lean limbs. Nicely angled shoulder
although it appears to be still lengthening and
therefore results in a slightly set forward wither. The
girth is shallower and the back a touch longer.
The croup and hind is very reasonable and at 
this stage is the top-lines strength. Not a long neck
which indicates body may significantly lengthen
IMO. Taller body type at this stage. Likely potential
English type ATM and will be interesting to see
how this one matures.


----------



## NdAppy

Answer me this... How are you coming up with these "ratings?" A lot of what you are saying for a good portion of these horses makes me seriously doubt what you are seeing.


----------



## trailhorserider

Reposting this girl since she got lost in the shuffle earlier.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> You should really be specifying what level of dressage you think some of these horses are suited to, because honestly none of the horses save the first TB you have labelled as a "dressage type" horse would I even look at for a prospect for the upper levels of dressage. If it's conformation is as such it would be more appropriate to label a horse as a "pleasure" or "english flat" horse than a dressage horse... JMO. While everything can do dressage, only horses with a specific conformational type will excel at it and stay sound at the upper levels.





NdAppy said:


> Answer me this... How are you coming up with these "ratings?" A lot of what you are saying for a good portion of these horses makes me seriously doubt what you are seeing.


My thoughts EXACTLY nd!!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## equiniphile

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> You should really be specifying what level of dressage you think some of these horses are suited to, because honestly none of the horses save the first TB you have labelled as a "dressage type" horse would I even look at for a prospect for the upper levels of dressage.


 Assuming you're referring to Excel, you're welcome to take him for a while and put some dressage miles on him! :lol:


----------



## Clava

NdAppy said:


> Answer me this... How are you coming up with these "ratings?" A lot of what you are saying for a good portion of these horses makes me seriously doubt what you are seeing.


Why don't you comment on the horses yourself so we can see what you mean rather than attacking the OP, a discussion on conformation should be very interesting, espcially with more than one point of view.

The comments on Belle are very similar to those others have made about her.


----------



## Faceman

Clava said:


> Why don't you comment on the horses yourself so we can see what you mean rather than attacking the OP, a discussion on conformation should be very interesting, espcially with more than one point of view.
> 
> The comments on Belle are very similar to those others have made about her.


I don't believe NDAppy is "attacking" the OP. The OP is making assessments based upon his own personal judgement. Many of his judgments are extremely arguable. He is giving the impression of a "full assessment", yet there are factors such as hooves, joints, muscle composition, tie-ins, and others, that he is not addressing. Some of those factors, including joint and hoof soundness and strength, hoof quality, and others, are critical in determining what a particular horse's ability may be. A horse with otherwise excellent conformation with weak joints, for example, would hardly make a good cutter or reiner, and joint soundness and quality are completely transparent in a picture.

There is nothing wrong with him making his assessments, but in particular novices and beginners should not take them for more than what they are - one person's opinion. NDAppy's question was merely how was he coming up with the assessments...there is nothing resembling an "attack" about questioning one's methodology.

The true fact of the matter is, for a complete and accurate assessment of a horse, it has to be done in person, and hands-on. Anything less is an opinion based upon a few pictures without being able to verify, with your hands in person, what you think you see in the pictures. That is not a slight against the OP, it is merely stating that his assessments are just that - his, and they are not necessarily right or wrong...they are guesses made by looking at a few pictures, just as I or anyone else would do. To be redundant, a horses's conformation cannot be fully assessed except with a physical inspection - and anyone that says otherwise is a legend in their own mind. 

Don't misunderstand me - it is still fun and interesting to get conformation critiques from pictures - I even critique a few I find interesting myself...just so the owner understands that the critiques are the best that can be done by that particular person from pictures, and the critiques, even by someone like me with over 50 years of equine experience and a substantial A & P education. We can only make a "best guess" without physically inspecting the horse...


----------



## Clava

Faceman said:


> I don't believe NDAppy is "attacking" the OP. The OP is making assessments based upon his own personal judgement. Many of his judgments are extremely arguable. He is giving the impression of a "full assessment", yet there are factors such as hooves, joints, muscle composition, tie-ins, and others, that he is not addressing. Some of those factors, including joint and hoof soundness and strength, hoof quality, and others, are critical in determining what a particular horse's ability may be. A horse with otherwise excellent conformation with weak joints, for example, would hardly make a good cutter or reiner, and joint soundness and quality are completely transparent in a picture.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with him making his assessments, but in particular novices and beginners should not take them for more than what they are - one person's opinion. NDAppy's question was merely how was he coming up with the assessments...there is nothing resembling an "attack" about questioning one's methodology.
> 
> The true fact of the matter is, for a complete and accurate assessment of a horse, it has to be done in person, and hands-on. Anything less is an opinion based upon a few pictures without being able to verify, with your hands in person, what you think you see in the pictures. That is not a slight against the OP, it is merely stating that his assessments are just that - his, and they are not necessarily right or wrong...they are guesses made by looking at a few pictures, just as I or anyone else would do. To be redundant, a horses's conformation cannot be fully assessed except with a physical inspection - and anyone that says otherwise is a legend in their own mind.
> 
> Don't misunderstand me - it is still fun and interesting to get conformation critiques from pictures - I even critique a few I find interesting myself...just so the owner understands that the critiques are the best that can be done by that particular person from pictures, and the critiques, even by someone like me with over 50 years of equine experience and a substantial A & P education. We can only make a "best guess" without physically inspecting the horse...


If his assessments are "arguable", then surely the best thing is discuss them and so enrich this debate rather than just vaguely pointing out that things have not been addressed. I'm sure all readers are fully aware that this "rating" is only based on one persons view and a photo and of course a true assessment would require a hands on approach, but this is an internet forum and we can only deal with it's limitations. 
I personally would prefer that people with other views on the horses posted actually stated them so we could talk about things in detail rather than pointing out the limitations of this process and on the OP. I think to "seriously doubt" what some is seeing is a bit of an attack.


----------



## faye

NdAppy said:


> Answer me this... How are you coming up with these "ratings?" A lot of what you are saying for a good portion of these horses makes me seriously doubt what you are seeing.


Ditto this, the one you've done on my lad is very questionable.



Horsegears said:


> Pose perhaps not quite natural so allowances made.
> 
> Nicely sloped pasterns that are a good length without
> being too long. Perhaps an upright humerus - open
> shoulder joint and slightly upright blade in standard pose.
> The back is a pretty good even length and the girth shallower
> which helps provide a free stride. Smaller 'brick type' barrel.
> The croup and overall hind is on the leaner side - but like
> the shallow girth this also suits his type. Nice height:length
> ratio. Leaner and looser striding type over all. Type is English
> and dressage, while some endurance certainly does not appear
> out of the question based on type only. Lower hind lines not
> quite 100% although this seems to be an ever increasing
> traits in todays horses so not a disaster by any means.
> Flashy shading and a likely elegant and expressive type
> all considered. Good one.


Lol some of that is laughable. Reeco's legs (both front and back) and shoulder are as close to perfect as a horse can get. He was bought because of them and judges throughout the UK agree with me.

He has a good depth of girth (he takes up my leg very well)

His back is one of his faults it is not a good length, it is infact far too short being that you can only just get a 16.5 inch saddle on him and he is 15hh.

He certainly would be absolutly useless at endurance since his expressive dressage paces have him knackered after and hour and a half at walk (and yes he is reasonably fit)

Anyone who actualy knew what they were looking at would not be thrown by his high head carriage (that is normal for him BTW)



Clava said:


> If his assessments are "arguable", then surely the best thing is discuss them and so enrich this debate rather than just vaguely pointing out that things have not been addressed. I'm sure all readers are fully aware that this "rating" is only based on one persons view and a photo and of course a true assessment would require a hands on approach, but this is an internet forum and we can only deal with it's limitations.
> I personally would prefer that people with other views on the horses posted actually stated them so we could talk about things in detail rather than pointing out the limitations of this process and on the OP. I think to "seriously doubt" what some is seeing is a bit of an attack.


Clava, see the above assessment of horsegears oppinion on my horse. Concidering my horse has won inhand all over the country and under some very notable judges I don't think there is much wrong with his legs and shoulder!


----------



## Clava

faye said:


> Di
> 
> 
> Clava, see the above assessment of horsegears oppinion on my horse. Concidering my horse has won inhand all over the country and under some very notable judges I don't think there is much wrong with his legs and shoulder!


 
But your response is exactly what is needed for a debate rather than simply questioning it  Personally the slightly weak hind leg of your horse is the only thing that leapt out at me. Belle is actually slightly tied in at the knee but she has also been praised by judges - it all depends upon the judge and the competition on the day.


----------



## bubba13

Clava said:


> But your response is exactly what is needed for a debate rather than simply questioning it  Personally the slightly weak hind leg of your horse is the only thing that leapt out at me. Belle is actually slightly tied in at the knee but she has also been praised by judges - it all depends upon the judge and the competition on the day.


How do you regard the "interesting" fact that two photos of the same horse, presented as different individuals, were critiqued and found to be almost exact opposites in each category (go back and reread, if you doubt)?


----------



## Clava

bubba13 said:


> How do you regard the "interesting" fact that two photos of the same horse, presented as different individuals, were critiqued and found to be almost exact opposites in each category (go back and reread, if you doubt)?


Will have a look, I missed that


----------



## Clava

bubba13 said:


> How do you regard the "interesting" fact that two photos of the same horse, presented as different individuals, were critiqued and found to be almost exact opposites in each category (go back and reread, if you doubt)?


 
No biggy really, a grown horse is very different to a baby and a bit of an unfair challenge and not really in the spirit of a discussion thread on conformation. I think age and some details would great help the assessment of a horse's picture. I could post pics of my rescued haffy and what she looks like now and no way would she be assessed as the same horse - I was convinced she had a roach back until she gained some weight.


----------



## bubba13

A four-year-old is really a mature horse, though. Bone structure is not going to change, angles and such. She was post-hocked, steep-crouped, long-backed, calf-kneed, ewe-necked, straight-shouldered, and mutton-withered then....and she still is now. The only difference is that she gained loads of muscle and fat--but those have no real bearing on conformation or suitability for a particular discipline, save where it concerns fitness.


----------



## Clava

bubba13 said:


> A four-year-old is really a mature horse, though. Bone structure is not going to change, angles and such. She was post-hocked, steep-crouped, long-backed, calf-kneed, ewe-necked, straight-shouldered, and mutton-withered then....and she still is now. The only difference is that she gained loads of muscle and fat--but those have no real bearing on conformation or suitability for a particular discipline, save where it concerns fitness.


 
A 4 yr old is not a mature horse by any regard. Most horses carry on growing until they are 6 or 7, and yes muscle tone will of course have an enormous impact on conformation! A ewe neck can change to a beautiful topline with correct work and a muscle wasted back can develop muscle, a roach back can be fill so the spine is nolonger showing (with my haffy) and disappear. Yes it does make a huge difference to conformation which is certainly not just about bone structure.


----------



## equiniphile

Clava said:


> A 4 yr old is not a mature horse by any regard. Most horses carry on growing until they are 6 or 7, and yes muscle tone will of course have an enormous impact on conformation! A ewe neck can change to a beautiful topline with correct work and a muscle wasted back can develop muscle, a roach back can be fill so the spine is nolonger showing (with my haffy) and disappear. Yes it does make a huge difference to conformation which is certainly not just about bone structure.


 A 4-yr old is considered a mature horse. There are some growth plates that have still not closed by then, but the fact is that these small changes are not going to change the horse's comformation. Muscle tone does not change conformation, either. It may make a bad horse look nicer, but the fact remains that the horse's bones have not changed with the added layers of muscle. A ewe neck is a ewe neck and does not change shape. You can add muscle to the neck in the right places to make it appear less "off," but it does not change the conformation or get rid of the ewe neck. 

Conformation IS about bone structure--it is about how the bones are put together.


----------



## bubba13

> A 4 yr old is not a mature horse by any regard. Most horses carry on growing until they are 6 or 7, and yes muscle tone will of course have an enormous impact on conformation! A ewe neck can change to a beautiful topline with correct work and a muscle wasted back can develop muscle, a roach back can be fill so the spine is nolonger showing (with my haffy) and disappear. Yes it does make a huge difference to conformation which is certainly not just about bone structure.


If that were the case, any horse could do any discipline, really, with proper conditioning and muscle-building.

The only growing Bones did after the initial photos were taken was in the outward direction....

Muscling can change the appearance, but the athletic potential is set by genetics and early nutrition/development. A crooked-legged horse is always going to have crooked legs, barring very early veterinary and farrier intervention. And things like shoulder angle, back length, and pastern slope are simply not going to change drastically, if at all, by the time a horse is four of not much sooner.


----------



## Clava

bubba13 said:


> If that were the case, any horse could do any discipline, really, with proper conditioning and muscle-building.
> 
> The only growing Bones did after the initial photos were taken was in the outward direction....
> 
> Muscling can change the appearance, but the athletic potential is set by genetics and early nutrition/development. A crooked-legged horse is always going to have crooked legs, barring very early veterinary and farrier intervention. And things like shoulder angle, back length, and pastern slope are simply not going to change drastically, if at all, by the time a horse is four of not much sooner.


Back length will change on a late developer, pastern angle changes with poor farriery (unfortunatley), things do change (but obviously not a crooked leg or similar) and athletic potential might not be percieved if the horse in the photo does not seem to be developing any muscle, athletic potenial is of course a personal guess given what is presented and not really a conformational issue which is more a matter of fact. Belle dishes slightly, but this isn't going to be seen from the static photo.


----------



## Clava

equiniphile said:


> A 4-yr old is considered a mature horse. There are some growth plates that have still not closed by then, but the fact is that these small changes are not going to change the horse's comformation. Muscle tone does not change conformation, either. It may make a bad horse look nicer, but the fact remains that the horse's bones have not changed with the added layers of muscle. A ewe neck is a ewe neck and does not change shape. You can add muscle to the neck in the right places to make it appear less "off," but it does not change the conformation or get rid of the ewe neck.
> 
> Conformation IS about bone structure--it is about how the bones are put together.


Actually t would depend if the ewe neck was developed from muscle under the neck instead of above or from it's configuration - both produce a ewe neck but one is not set in stone. A 4 yr old horse is still a baby and far from mature, and good conformation is about how the horse is put together but that includes muscle as well as bone. You would not say a horse presented as a saggy bag of bones had lovely conformation, but you might when it had been improved. Poor topline and lack of correct muscle are conformational faults, but not permanent ones.


----------



## bubba13

I disagree. You might familiarize yourself with the teachings of Dr. Deb Bennett, who at least claims to be able to see through everything from injuries to poor conditioning to completely inappropriate muscling to emaciation/obesity. All she cares about are the non-human-derived elements of a horse's physical makeup, because those are the only static things, anyway. All else is dynamic and thus largely inconsequential when it comes to evaluating potential for performance or breeding quality.


----------



## faye

There is a distinct difference between an under developed neck, an upside down neck and a ewe neck. The difference is that the under developed and upside down necks are muscle difference and can be corrected a ewe neck cannot.

Clava, my horse has been judged by those who regularly judge at HOYS and RIHS. This season we have never come away without a rosette even at top level county shows (4th at Derbyshire fetival of showing, every horse above us had been placed at hoys and is far older then Reeco)! concidering Reeco is 3 in those photo the weaker back end is not unexpected as it hasnt had the hill work to build up the muscles. 

A horse is mature at 4yrs old when it comes to bone structure, yes they often continue to fill out untill 7 yrs old but bone structure will not change. Infact it is very rare that you get any major boney change after 3 yrs old (normaly only in recue cases). I bought Reeco at 3 yrs old knowing he had a short back and it wasnt going to change.

A person who is good at judgeing conformation can see through muscle or fat and see the "true" horse underneath it. Heck a realy good judge of conformation can look at a gangley 2yrold in its ugly duckling stage and think "this is going well/ill conformed when it grows up" and be correct. I know a few producers who have bought ugly duckling 2 yr olds that you wouldnt look twice at and have ended up with horses that have won at HOYS several times!

Good Conformation will also depend on breed and to some extent sex as mares can have a slightly longer back then the boys and still be concidered to have a good length of back.


----------



## smrobs

I am wondering about the complete opposite critiques the OP gave of the exact same horse. Sure, her fitness looks drastically different, but her bone structure hasn't changed.

I am also wondering why the op seems to be picking and choosing only the horses they want to do and simply ignoring the rest. Lack of proper photos isn't a legitimate excuse either as some of the photos he/she has already critiqued are worse than some he/she skipped over.


----------



## DuffyDuck

OKay- just a quick question. I know little about horse confirmation.

Would it be a pure fault that the OP is looking at ONE or maybe TWO pictures of these horses and judging, and we know our horses better, and Faye (drooling over your boy) you obviously have a LOT of experience as thats your thing, as well as others, and we see them daily so if we know how, we're the best judgers?

Or is whats being said in regards to the pictures shown completely out of the blue?

TIA! hope to get more pics of Duffy tomorrow all primp and proper!

PS Val she had just free lunged lovely and I think that helped, and I backed her up because she kept trying to follow me (bless her) when I tried to take the picture.


----------



## DuffyDuck

Like I said, I'm no expert so I wouldn't be able to tell a good person from a bad person... but if anyone wants to crit Duffy on the 1st or 2nd page please crack on


----------



## Clava

faye said:


> A horse is mature at 4yrs old when it comes to bone structure, yes they often continue to fill out untill 7 yrs old but bone structure will not change. Infact it is very rare that you get any major boney change after 3 yrs old (normaly only in recue cases). I bought Reeco at 3 yrs old knowing he had a short back and it wasnt going to change.
> .


A true ewe neck you are right, but I was stupidly talking about the many that appear that way and are actually a product of poor developmemt as you say. I do disagree that 4 is mature though as the plates in the back do not fuse until 5 and half (although breeds vary).

Musculature is a part of conformation and conformation is basically the best shape of the horse to perform a function. I only got involved in this as it seemed a shame to slate the OP (who could be anyone) instead of taking the thread and allowing for a more varied discussion.


----------



## csimkunas6

Got some more of my long yearling if your still interested in critiquing him some more. Not sure if I mentioned it in my previous post, but he is a Paint/TB cross, 20months old. 14.2at the withers, 15.0at the butt.


----------



## Horsegears

Mainly based on this photo.

Well sloped fore pasterns, touch extra slope to rear 
cannons than expected so perhaps keep an eye on
them. The limbs are moderate or with a touch extra 
length. Flexible muscle type. The humerus (arm) is 
probably flatter with a closed shoulder joint which
leads to a slightly upright blade. The back length is OK 
and the hind good/reasonable - although the coupling may
ideally be shorter. Good height:length ratio - growing
to be perhaps slightly on the longer side but not a
problem. English dressage looking apt at this early 
stage.


----------



## equiniphile

Hmm, I think you forgot my other TB. Bursitis (capped hock) in one hock, slab fracture in one fore:


----------



## csimkunas6

Horsegears said:


> Mainly based on this photo.
> 
> Well sloped fore pasterns, touch extra slope to rear
> cannons than expected so perhaps keep an eye on
> them. The limbs are moderate or with a touch extra
> length. Flexible muscle type. The humerus (arm) is
> probably flatter with a closed shoulder joint which
> leads to a slightly upright blade. The back length is OK
> and the hind good/reasonable - although the coupling may
> ideally be shorter. Good height:length ratio - growing
> to be perhaps slightly on the longer side but not a
> problem. English dressage looking the go at this early
> stage.




Thanks so much! Really appreciate it! Always love what other people can see


----------



## Horsegears

csimkunas6 said:


> Thanks so much! Really appreciate it! Always love what other people can see


Thanks, appreciate the feedback


----------



## Faceman

Clava said:


> Musculature is a part of conformation and conformation is basically the best shape of the horse to perform a function.


Musculature is indeed part of the conformation of a horse, but not as you eluded to it earlier. Muscles, bones, tendons, and ligaments work synergistically to determine the mechanics the entire system will dictate, and the joints, bone density, and other variables help to dictate the efficiency of the mechanics.

The considerations for analyzing muscle are its composition, specifically the ratio of fast to slow twitch muscle, its balance in relation to the horse's structure, and the location of where the tendons tie the muscles to the bones they manipulate, which helps to determine the more subtle mechanics the musculoskeltal conformation will dictate.

Whether a horse is thin, lacking muscle, or bulked up as a halter horse might be, is of no consequence to the mechanics - until such point, of course, where the halter horse is so restricted by its bulk it can only waddle, or a thin horse is so weak it doesn't have the strength to function normally. But within the extremes, the amount of muscle mass is not relevant to function. A horse with an optimjum weight of 1,100 pounds, has the same musculoskeletal conformation at 900 pounds as it does at 1,300 pounds. As a matter of fact, it is much easier to assess conformation in a horse in a condition of 4 than it is one in a condition of 6. An overly fat or muscular horse can hide, or at least attenuate, a number of conformational issues...


----------



## Rachel1786

Rachel1786 said:


> I'll play too
> Bella 14 year old TB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And last, My baby, Blue He's a 35-41 year old arab/QH


You skipped Bella and Blue, the 2 most important!


----------



## Horsegears

Faceman said:


> Musculature is indeed part of the conformation of a horse, Muscles, bones, tendons, and ligaments work synergistically to determine the mechanics the entire system will dictate, and the joints, bone density, and other variables help to dictate the efficiency of the mechanics.
> 
> The considerations for analyzing muscle are its composition, specifically the ratio of fast to slow twitch muscle, its balance in relation to the horse's structure, and the location of where the tendons tie the muscles to the bones they manipulate, which helps to determine the more subtle mechanics the musculoskeltal conformation will dictate.
> 
> .


Absolutely, as the ratios of twitch fibers can also effect 
speed, endurance, flexibility etc. (Western & English orientations). 
A muscle that is under-developed due to lack of feed etc, can 
certainly be misleading in regard to its type and capabilities. 

Of course if someones knowledge is lacking on muscles, or 
if one does not know how to judge the likely muscle type etc, 
they may be left somewhat in the dark.

Some may have noted with the horse in question a comment 
was included indicating further scope for muscle growth was 
possible - which was based largely part on some of the above theory.


----------



## Horsegears

Do need better photos so use as a guide only
and don't quote me on this.

long lean limbs and muscle type. Slightly upright
shoulder. Touch longer back and shallower girth
possible leading to some core weakness and possible
forming roach back here which may or may not be an
issue. Probably a little leaner through the hind. Nice
English dressage type with a relaxed stride and good
endurance at a slightly lower level work intensity.


----------



## 2BigReds

If you're still going and the photos are good enough! My phone's camera sucks lol.

Cutting bred QH.


----------



## Horsegears

2BigReds said:


> Very much true to breed and type.
> 
> Reasonably sloped and length pasterns. Probably
> slightly shorter cannons and limbs. Shoulder blade is
> slightly upright and leads to a forward set wither.
> Back longer as expected per type. The croup and
> hind certainly appears strong providing plenty of
> western oriented power. Strong muscle shape
> suits type and purpose. Overall a slightly longer body
> which is well matched by a shorter neck which
> helps maintain a strong and quick stride turnover.
> Good deep girth and large western river barrel.
> Very good functional western type all considered.


----------



## Horsegears

Faceman said:


> The true fact of the matter is, for a complete and accurate assessment of a horse, it has to be done in person,
> 
> Don't misunderstand me - it is still fun and interesting to get conformation critiques from pictures - I even critique a few I find interesting myself..


Absolutely agree.

Lets not get knotted knickers
and personal from what should a 
fun learning process!


----------



## farmpony84

bubba13 said:


> How do you regard the "interesting" fact that two photos of the same horse, presented as different individuals, were critiqued and found to be almost exact opposites in each category (go back and reread, if you doubt)?


Not to defend or argue a point but I thought I would post a couple pictures of Blue.

In he is at about 4 years old. The next picture places him at around 8 and the last is just a facial shot of 11. Each picture could pass as a different horse in my opinion...


----------



## Horsegears

Really need an improved photo.

Photos that clearly display a square side on view
from a distance to reduce distortion, and 
that are true/ typical of the actual horse - will 
gather further accurate comments.


----------



## grayshell38

23 year old Arabian mare-














2 year old Arabian colt-


----------



## Spyder

How about this guy. He is Hanoverian cross about 6 years old in this picture.


----------



## Rachel1786

Horsegears said:


> Do need better photos so use as a guide only
> and don't quote me on this.
> 
> long lean limbs and muscle type. Slightly upright
> shoulder. Touch longer back and shallower girth
> possible leading to some core weakness and possible
> forming roach back here which may or may not be an
> issue. Probably a little leaner through the hind. Nice
> English dressage type with a relaxed stride and good
> endurance at a slightly lower level work intensity.


Is this one any better? It's from back in April.


----------



## Horsegears

.

Longer and refined limbs with some good
muscle strength. Upright arm and shoulder
forming a forward set wither, but good/reasonable
stride extension likely regardless. Shallower girth
allowing a free stride and lighter upper body.
Because the girth is shallow the back may 
*appear longer and weaker - but in reality it
appears to be a good length. The hind looks
very strong with a good croup length and 
longer femur adding depth to the upper hind. 
This is a good and rarer trait for this type in 
general. 

English and high jumping not out of the question,
and perhaps some gallops speed to boot..


----------



## Horsegears

Thanks for the update. Similar traits again.


----------



## Horsegears

Well sloped pasterns that are not too long.
Longer forearm. The arm may be a touch flatter
and leads into a slightly closed shoulder joint
and slightly upright blade (Not uncommon in 
arabians). The back is on the longer side and the hind
a touch leaner which helps provide an efficient stride.
The preferred longer femur adds some strength to the 
hind. Shallower barrel as per breed. natural lean type
muscle wise. Not a long body which is a positive
breed/type considered. Overall a nice type that is
generally true to breed with plenty of typical traits. 
Attractive shading another positive.
Dressage and possibly endurance.


----------



## Lins

Could u critique my gelding? I have a thread for his critique. I can post pics on this thread because I don't have internet
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bubba13

farmpony84 said:


> Not to defend or argue a point but I thought I would post a couple pictures of Blue.
> 
> In he is at about 4 years old. The next picture places him at around 8 and the last is just a facial shot of 11. Each picture could pass as a different horse in my opinion...


In terms of color, sure, he's a gray. Grays change, and at the same time, all grays tend to look a lot alike. But do you have conformation shots at each age? Because that's what is under consideration here.


----------



## blush

I'll play. 
This is my guy, Robbie: now 6 turning 7, 16.2hh Dutch Warmblood gelding.

When I first got him at the age of 4. 










Last year when he was 5.


----------



## AlexS

Let's see what you think about Lucas.


----------



## Horsegears

Last year when he was 5.









Appears as a standard good text book type.
Perhaps slightly upright pasterns type considered.
Nice short cannons, perhaps a longer arm
and slightly shorter blade which has ample slope.
The back is a good length. The hind is strong
including good croup and femur lengths. Nice
head carriage and slightly longer body overall 
if anything. Long lasting muscle type with some
natural fitness in hand. The top line is also 
both strong and well balanced. Classy type
with versatility via Sport horse disciplines. Color
to boot. Don't leave the gate open


----------



## Horsegears

Not an ideal photo although this 
one looks 'jumper', eventer.


----------



## Spyder

Horsegears said:


> .
> 
> Longer and refined limbs with some good
> muscle strength. Upright arm and shoulder
> forming a forward set wither, but good/reasonable
> stride extension likely regardless. Shallower girth
> allowing a free stride and lighter upper body.
> Because the girth is shallow the back may
> *appear longer and weaker - but in reality it
> appears to be a good length. The hind looks
> very strong with a good croup length and
> longer femur adding depth to the upper hind.
> This is a good and rarer trait for this type in
> general.
> 
> English and high jumping not out of the question,
> and perhaps some gallops speed to boot..



Thanks.

It took forever for him to fill out and it wasn't until he was about eight before the neck and body deepened and filled out.


----------



## Horsegears

Lins said:


> Could u critique my gelding?


Image too dark for me. :-(


----------



## smrobs

If you're looking for more horses to do, why don't you go back through and do some of the ones you skipped over the first time?


----------



## Golden Horse

equiniphile said:


>


Sorry not helpful I know but WOW shiny horse


----------



## ladybugsgirl

I think this is a very interesting thread. Id post but don't have time at the moment to get excellent photos
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

bubba13 said:


> I appreciate the evaluation, horsegears--enlightening. Thanks so much!


Your welcome


----------



## faye

Clava said:


> A true ewe neck you are right, but I was stupidly talking about the many that appear that way and are actually a product of poor developmemt as you say. I do disagree that 4 is mature though as the plates in the back do not fuse until 5 and half (although breeds vary).
> 
> Musculature is a part of conformation and conformation is basically the best shape of the horse to perform a function. I only got involved in this as it seemed a shame to slate the OP (who could be anyone) instead of taking the thread and allowing for a more varied discussion.



actualy the last growth plate in the spine does not seal untill 7 yr old (and it does not vary by breed depite what the racing people would have you think) however no drastic changes to a horse will happen after age 3. hence it is concidered mature. Just like an 18 yr old lad will generaly be as tall as he will ever get but will continue to fill out untill around 25.

Musculature is a very small part of conformation in that you want a horse to have muscles of good strength in the right place, however a horse that i skelataly thin can still have excellent conformation. 99% of conformation is bones!

an upside down neck is not a conformation fault it is a training fault and is very very easy to see the difference between it and a ewe neck when you actualy know what you are looking at!

I've bought horses that were skelatal because they have had excellent conformation and they have turned into show horses.
It's very easy to see which ex race horses (who are generaly as lean as possible) will have the correct conformation to excell in the show ring and which ones should stick to other disciplines. 

Reeco's back will not get any longer then it is now so I will have to disguise it in the show ring. I put that perticular picture of Reeco up because the short back is very clear to someone experianced in judging conformation. I wanted to see how good horsegears is. So far I'm unimpressed.


----------



## Clava

Faye - as I already said, you are of course quite right about the neck and it was a poor example on my part. I had read that the bones fuse at 5 and half, but I'm more than happy to be corrected. Given that some horses often do a lot more growing in height than just filling out I still will disagree that they are mature at 3 and would agree that most have reached maturity at 7.

I had hoped that the conformation of these horses would be discussed and so my limited knowledge could be improved!


----------



## Horsegears

faye said:


> actualy the last growth plate in the spine does not seal untill 7 yr old (and it does not vary by breed depite what the racing people would have you think) however no drastic changes to a horse will happen after age 3.


Anyone can pick up a text book and read such. In reality it is possible for horses to grow significantly from 3 to even 6 or 7 years, its just not in the text books. Keep in mind the shoulder blade is one of the last bones to obtain full length. The ones that do go through these late growth spurts certainly do appear to come from certain breeds - again against text book theory.

The horse below clearly has longer limbs and a shallower girth. Anyone who effectively suggests it has shorter limbs and a deep girth certainly appears deeply flawed in conformation assessment. Please kindly consider refraining from arguing the obvious.











And a deep girth. (Note the corresponding shorter fore limbs by comparison)


----------



## Horsegears

Clava said:


> . Given that some horses often do a lot more growing in height than just filling out I still will disagree that they are mature at 3 and would agree that most have reached maturity at 7


Correct, especially through some of the refined uphill breeds.

Growth spurts can also be related to feed and work/education - rather than solely age.


----------



## Horsegears

faye said:


> Musculature is a very small part of conformation in that you want a horse to have muscles of good strength in the right place, however a horse that i skelataly thin can still have excellent conformation. 99% of conformation is bones!.


This appears to be based on a lack of education and knowledge.

Functional conformation (Modern conformation) is about the levering effect. Muscle type can certainly affect levering. It does not only relate to looks (Text book conformation), but directly relates to movement stride type and strength/endurance (Western/english) levering or gearing. 

Put the Quarter Horse muscle type on a refined arabian and much of the flashy movement will be gone, so too will the majority of its endurance. Again you wont read this in your text books or learn it from your judges - but that's how it is.


----------



## Clava

I have a photo of my rescued haflinger where you can count the bones, I was worried that she had a roach back given the shape of her spine, but I was quite surprised that with weight on this was not the case.

day she arrived









A year later - sorry rubbish conformation pics.


----------



## Horsegears

The horse below may have a shorter back in isolation, but when one considers the horse is a taller-rather than longer type - the top-line also has to be shorter (In comparison to the height), and so too all the measurements included within the top-line including not only the fore and hind, but the back. A good conformation analyst will consider this, and not measure the top-line sections in isolation - and rather measure each in proportion to the other, as the proportions (and not isolated measurements) determine how the line functions as a whole, and with the whole horse. Because of such to measure the back length solely by a saddle is clearly isolated and wrong as far as functional conformation goes.

Likewise a longer bodied horse will have a longer top-line, and again a text book person may rate the back as being long, yet in reality it may be fine considering its functional proportions within the longer top-line.

Always keep in mind functional conformation is about proportions, and not isolated measurements.


----------



## Horsegears

I'm not here as an educator and much prefer to rate horses. Please feel welcome to list any that may have missed, thanks.


----------



## Horsegears

Clava said:


> I have a photo of my rescued haflinger where you can count the bones, I was worried that she had a roach back given the shape of her spine, but I was quite surprised that with weight on this was not the case.
> 
> day she arrived
> 
> 
> A year later - sorry rubbish conformation pics.


A good job with this one no doubt, congrats.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

How about Lily? I'll give you a couple pics as none of them are ideal. She's a 9-10 yr old grade Welsh.

About a year before I bought her, probably 7 yrs old?








Day I brought her home.








Right after I got her 8 yrs old?








This spring.








None of these are great, we're still working on ground tying and I rarely have a helper.


----------



## bsms

Horsegears said:


> Anyone can pick up a text book and read such. In reality it is possible for horses to grow significantly from 3 to even 6 or 7 years, its just not in the text books...
> 
> The horse below clearly has longer limbs and a shallower girth. Anyone who effectively suggests it has shorter limbs and a deep girth certainly appears deeply flawed in conformation assessment...


I'll say at the outset that I know nothing about conformation. I normally refuse to make any comments on horse conformation threads. However, this doesn't ring true to me. And while I've read textbooks I disagreed with, it is up to me to present the evidence. Otherwise, argument from authority says an acknowledged expert is more likely to be right than I am.

First, I doubt that a horse's structural conformation changes after 6-7 years, unless an injury or illness destroys the original conformation. At 53, I've added both muscle and fat compared to when I was 20, but my bones haven't changed. At 5'7" & 130 lbs, I looked a lot more like a runner than at 165-175 lbs, but the only real change in my running times came when I was hurt in a horse riding accident & stopped running for 3 years. And I'll add that starting up again in my 50s is NOT fun!

Second, a deep or shallow girth shouldn't have much to do with leg length. Girth is what it is.

I have short legs for my body size. That is obviously bad for running, and helps explain why I never ran competitively. But my chest size is what it is. If you added a couple of inches to my legs, I'd be a better runner because my strides would be longer, but my chest capacity would remain the same.

Now...why am I wrong? I said up front I know nothing about conformation in horses.


----------



## MN Tigerstripes

What about Flame? She was 29 in these pics.









Ooops wrong pic, try this one.


----------



## Clava

bsms said:


> Second, a deep or shallow girth shouldn't have much to do with leg length. Girth is what it is.
> 
> I have short legs for my body size. That is obviously bad for running, and helps explain why I never ran competitively. But my chest size is what it is. If you added a couple of inches to my legs, I'd be a better runner because my strides would be longer, but my chest capacity would remain the same.
> 
> Now...why am I wrong? I said up front I know nothing about conformation in horses.


Surely it would be a deep or shallow girth in proportion for that horse which is why leg length might matter. A deep girth on a shetland would not be a deep girth on a welsh D.


----------



## farmpony84

bubba13 said:


> In terms of color, sure, he's a gray. Grays change, and at the same time, all grays tend to look a lot alike. But do you have conformation shots at each age? Because that's what is under consideration here.


I don't think I have any conformation shots of him. I was merely pointing out that his appearance changed quite a bit over the years.


----------



## Horsegears

bsms said:


> I'll say at the outset that I know nothing about conformation.
> 
> Second, a deep or shallow girth shouldn't have much to do with leg length. Girth is what it is.
> 
> Now...why am I wrong? I said up front I know nothing about conformation in horses.


its good that your question questions in a mild manner instead of jumping to assumptions. Thank you.

Girth depth is relative to limb length in an opposing manner - as the position of the elbow height is generally reliant on the depth of the girth.

Therefore any extra depth to a girth will generally also lower the elbow and shortern the limb length of the horse etc, and vice versa.

In this way for the human this is similar to the hip joint. A lower hip joint must result in shorter limbs and a larger upper section (measured hip to head) and vice versa. (Not saying that the human hip-joint is equivalent to the equine elbow joint - rather the proportions effect is similar in this instance)

Keep in mind that horse conformation is prominently about proportions and balance, rather than lengths in isolation.


----------



## tbrantley

I know that this is not a good pic. but please try.

He is a 7 year old TWH.


----------



## Sahara

bsms said:


> I'll say at the outset that I know nothing about conformation.
> 
> Second, a deep or shallow girth shouldn't have much to do with leg length. Girth is what it is.


When one considers the conformation of anything one must remember what conformation really is:

*Equine conformation* evaluates the degree of correctness of a horse's bone structure, musculature, and its body proportions in relation to each other.

So, while a girth is what it is, it can be considered deep or shallow in relation to the horse's other body parts. Just as a neck can be considered long or short, or a back can be considered long or short.


----------



## banman

these are not the best pictures but i hope you can tell me something with them.

dooly









julie
she is standing funny here, she does not actually stand that under self.
she is just over a year here.


----------



## tbrantley

Here is another view. What do you think?



Thank you in advance.


----------



## wild_spot

Would love one on Lucy - 5yo, 14hh Australian Stock Horse Mare.


----------



## NdAppy

tbrantly - like was said in all your other threads with the exact same pictures, those pictures are not good enough/correct type of pictures to judge conformation off of.


----------



## tbrantley

I know, but I am hoping that horsegear will be able to tell me something. You can't blame a gal for trying. Do you remember how excited you were when you got a new horse and you wanted others opinion on him/her?


----------



## Horsegears

wild_spot said:


> Would love one on Lucy - 5yo, 14hh Australian Stock Horse Mare.
> 
> 
> 
> Brief comments to be used as guide only as photos
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brief comments to be used as a guide only as images
> are not ideal.
> 
> Quite refined through the limbs. Forward set wither.
> Slightly longer back. The hind appears reasonable.
> Nice head and gives a good vibe. Good and handy
> 'bit of everything' type.


----------



## Horsegears

Super shading but cant get much from
these angles levering wise.


----------



## tbrantley

Thank you horsegears for trying.


----------



## Clayton Taffy

tbrantley your horse is b-e-a-u-t-f-u-l-l, what a color and those dapples, WOW!!!!


----------



## Clayton Taffy

I mean B-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l. What a mane too!!


----------



## tbrantley

Thank you Taffy, I appreciate you saying he has beautiful dapples and mane. It makes me feel better.


----------



## bsms

Bear with me as I ask a follow up question. Again, when I've seen conformation stuff before, I've concluded that a horse's value is inversely proportional to what I think of him...



Horsegears said:


> ...Girth depth is relative to limb length in an opposing manner - as the position of the elbow height is generally reliant on the depth of the girth.
> 
> Therefore any extra depth to a girth will generally also lower the elbow and shortern the limb length of the horse etc, and vice versa...
> 
> Keep in mind that horse conformation is prominently about proportions and balance, rather than lengths in isolation.


Now I'm going to ask a dumb question, but it makes sense in a strange way:

Does a dachshund have a deep girth, or short legs?










To my way of thinking, it has a normal to slightly shallow girth, since the rectangle formed by its body is just a bit shallower than most dogs. However, it also has short legs.

Now, here are the two pictures from the post that got me thinking:


















When I look at the top horse, I see a body that has fair depth for its length, which I would consider good girth. When I look at the lower horse, I see equal or if anything a shallower girth for its size body.

If the goal is a horse with good heart/lung capacity for its size, then it seems it should be measured against the weight of the body it needs to move, which is determined more by body height x length x width than it is by leg length.

Here is one of my horses. He is 3/4 Arabian by breeding, and 1/4 Appy:










Please ignore the white spots from a poor fitting saddle, and the spur scarring on his side. Those happened before we got him. He looks to me like he has good 'girth depth' for his body, irrespective of his legs.

Again, why am I wrong?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone, but to understand how horses are judged - even though I have no desire to ever buy another horse. The 3 I've got should last me until I'm 70 or so...


----------



## Horsegears

bsms said:


> If the goal is a horse with good heart/lung capacity for its size, then it seems it should be measured against the weight of the body it needs to move, which is determined more by body height x length x width than it is by leg length.
> 
> Again, why am I wrong?


Girth depth or barrel size does not collate with a larger heart, as recent 
studies have shown their is actual no connection. The greatest endurance 
horses also have the smallest barrels indicating a large barrel *may not 
relates to functional lung capacity. The jury remains somewhat out on this
but nature generally has the last say.

The actual girth depth does certainly indicate prime moving power of the 
upper fore (Deeper girth = longer humerus and scapula all being equal) 
and effects limb length proportions/levering etc. This is all levering related 
between strength and speed (Upper body - lower body) which is getting
too technical so I wont go there.. However, girth depth generally serves 
as being a more useful measurement than barrel size. 

The back length is a functional measurement which better measures the 
horizontal core strength.


----------



## Horsegears

bsms said:


> Now I'm going to ask a dumb question, but it makes sense in a strange way:
> 
> Does a dachshund have a deep girth, or short legs?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To my way of thinking, it has a normal to slightly shallow girth, since the rectangle formed by its body is just a bit shallower than most dogs. However, it also has short legs.


This is another reason why you don't measure girth depth in relation to
length. If this dog had a reasonable girth by your measurement of being 
approx square with its length - its feet may not even have enough length
to touch the ground. Further if it had a squarish barrel this woudl indicate 
a deep girth - yet it may be square and only measure 1" x 1" which in reality 
would be a tiny barrel!


----------



## bsms

^^ Thanks. It may be a good thing I'm not in the horse market! Or dog - 3 is enough of them, too!


----------



## Horsegears

Photos lacking so brief comments only.

Leaner muscle type, forward set wither and
a leaner hind. English type and handy 
'bit of everything' type.


----------



## banman

these are not the best pictures but I hope you can tell me something with them.

Dooly










Julie
She is standing funny here, she does not actually stand that under self.
She is just over a year here.









Read more: http://www.horseforum.com/horse-con...ormation-ratings-106607/page16/#ixzz1hH65ti7b


----------



## Faceman

Horsegears said:


> its good that your question questions in a mild manner instead of jumping to assumptions. Thank you.
> 
> Girth depth is relative to limb length in an opposing manner - as the position of the elbow height is generally reliant on the depth of the girth.
> 
> Therefore any extra depth to a girth will generally also lower the elbow and shortern the limb length of the horse etc, and vice versa.
> 
> In this way for the human this is similar to the hip joint. A lower hip joint must result in shorter limbs and a larger upper section (measured hip to head) and vice versa. (Not saying that the human hip-joint is equivalent to the equine elbow joint - rather the proportions effect is similar in this instance)
> 
> Keep in mind that horse conformation is prominently about proportions and balance, rather than lengths in isolation.


This response, which was in answer to bsms's question, I must disagree with. Girth depth is not relative to limb length in ANY manner, and there is certainly no relationship between girth depth and elbow height. I have no idea where you have come up with that concept. Girth is a function of the rib cage. Leg length is a function of the length of the bones in the leg and of course the angles of the joints. The only way the legs or elbows could have a relationship with the girth is if they were attached to the rib cage, which of course they are not. You are somehow trying to tie together two completely different sections of the skeleton that are not only unrelated but unattached. What you are saying is no different than saying there is a relationship between a person's chest size and arm length, which there of course is not.

bsms, your Araloosa has good chest depth, although not any larger than would be expected in a reasonably well conformed Araloosa. Remember though, that with endurance bred horses, because of their muscle composition and lower mass they are more efficient oxygen burners and have less mass to move, and although a deep chest is desired, it is not as critical to oxygen uptake as it would be in a performance horse...that is assuming there is a relationship not necessarily in lung size, but in lung capacity, and the size of the rib cage, which is the consensus of most people...


----------



## thesilverspear

Trying this just for the craic. These photos aren't very good due to low light and my mobile phone camera, so they may not be good enough. Apologies for that but they're the best I can do at the moment (you have to imagine she has hocks  Black legs are just not on).

18-year old Shire-TBX mare.


----------



## Horsegears

banman said:


> these are not the best pictures but I hope you can tell me something with them.


Could not be confident of accuracy from
those photos. If you did sometime
obtain better photos i could have 
another look.


----------



## Horsegears

I really do require good square photos. Thanks.


----------



## Horsegears

Faceman said:


> The only way the legs or elbows could have a relationship with the girth is if they were attached to the rib cage.


Equine conformation is about proportions. Parts do not have to be connected to be considered proportionate or related to each other. The shoulder blade and pasterns corrolation is a classic example (The slope generally match on both, and for a reason)

Also a shallower girth (By general standards) is certainly preferred for elite endurance horse. It even relates to the soundness of the lower limbs which again may appear unrelated to the under-educated. It also relates to strength/speed ratios and many more factors....

And a deep girth may indicate lung capacity, but significantly not 'effective lung capacity', as horses with deep girth generally have a varied muscle type that gathers less energy from air intake regardless of the technicalities of its lung capacity.

Text book knowledge - been there done that.....

If your open to natures ways you may have plenty of scope for further knowledge, good luck!


----------



## Spyder

Very interesting HG

Could you try this guy.

Hanoverian cross also


----------



## Horsegears

Spyder said:


> Very interesting HG
> 
> Could you try this guy.
> 
> Hanoverian cross also


Obviously a nice warmblood type but cant get anything definitive from this image.


----------



## Spyder

Horsegears said:


> Obviously a nice warmblood type but cant get anything definitive from this image.



Is it because he is at a slight angle ?

I was hoping for something a bit more. Jumper--dressage?


----------



## Horsegears

Spyder said:


> Is it because he is at a slight angle ?
> 
> I was hoping for something a bit more.


Yeah i know. I look at the levering lengths etc, and the angles do need to be pretty much spot on for me.


----------



## Spyder

Horsegears said:


> Yeah i know. I look at the levering lengths etc, and the angles do need to be pretty much spot on for me.



Which would you think...jumper--dressage?


----------



## Horsegears

Spyder said:


> Which would you think...jumper--dressage?


I really cant say from that image, but if you get an improved image I may be able to help.


----------



## Spyder

Horsegears said:


> I really cant say from that image, but if you get an improved image I may be able to help.



Will look around but could you do this one

A 2 year old TB cross


----------



## Horsegears

Spyder said:


> Will look around but could you do this one
> 
> A 2 year old TB cross


Certainly appearing as a English Sport Horse type but again image not good for anything definitive.


----------



## NdAppy

Interesting that you keep saying that but you CLEARLY used angled photos of horses previously in this thread to assess.


----------



## Faceman

NdAppy said:


> Interesting that you keep saying that but you CLEARLY used angled photos of horses previously in this thread to assess.


Amusing, isn't it?


----------



## Golden Horse

Can you make anything of my new guy, 9 years old, Perch/TB x Standardbred


----------



## Horsegears

Golden Horse said:


> Can you make anything of my new guy, 9 years old, Perch/TB x Standardbred


Reasonably squarer image, thanks.

Interesting type.

Pasterns slightly upright and a touch shorter
breeding considered but not a problem. Limbs fairly
refined and perhaps a shade shorter. The shoulder
joint is very open adding strength orientations to
the stride. Shoulder blade is slightly upright. In a 
natural stance I would think the back may be on
the longer side - although it gains ample support
from a reasonably deep girth. The hind appears 
reasonable or strong although the slight angle
may be a little flattering in this regard. Regardless
the upper hind does appear as the strength of the 
top-line. Rear cannons not quite lining up 100% 
although that may also be the pose or stance.
I do see this one as a very handy and attractive 
'bit of everything' type..


----------



## kjr5horses

Thoughts on these two?


----------



## Spyder

Horsegears said:


> Certainly appearing as a English Sport Horse type but again image not good for anything definitive.



This is a very good side shot that most people would not have any trouble accessing.

I fail to see why you can't come up with something like you did with Golden Horse's horse above.

I am not one of the ones disagreeing with your comments that are on this thread.


----------



## Horsegears

Spyder said:


> This is a very good side shot that most people would not have any trouble accessing.
> 
> .












This photo is taken is clearly further from the front of the horse.

Look how small the hind appears to be. Further I assess
joint angles etc. How can i assess such from that angle.

I am sure many you give you comments based on that photo,
without knowledge or realizing the impact of horses angle, 
but I am not one.

I did spend time rating a previous horse you posted and 
it is hurtful that you question in such manner.


----------



## Poseidon

I have two that I would like you to do, both Paint mares.


----------



## vikki92

You can have a go at a couple of my horses 
This is Gabriella

















Camanche









Sorry there not the best confo pictures, but there the best I have at the moment..


----------



## smrobs

??????


----------



## Horsegears

Poseidon said:


> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sloped pasterns, shorter stockier limbs.
> Lovely slope to shoulder and good/reasonable
> wither set. The back is longer as expected with
> a longer horse. the croup and hind is also fairly
> strong. Large river barrel. Obviously a longer body
> with a good countering shorter neck. Western and
> strength oriented. Despite stockier limbs
> a smooth ride may be likely here and very easy to
> under-rate.


----------



## Horsegears

vikki92 said:


> You can have a go at a couple of my horses
> This is Gabriella
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Touch leggy. Longer arm in proportion
> to the shoulder blade. Nicely sloped blade.
> Touch longer through the back. Hind is reasonable
> without being over strong. Rarer taller type - rather
> than the more common longer type overall.
> Well balanced top-line between for e and hindquarters.
> Super color. Certainly a Sport Horse type, dressage,
> some jumping.


----------



## Horsegears

Poseidon said:


> I have two that I would like you to do, both Paint mares.



Lots of slope to pasterns which does not appear
to match type ideally, and may be trimming related 
etc. Certainly good stockier western limbs. The
shoulder joint appears open and leads into a 
slightly upright blade. the back and overall body
is longer. OK hind. Lovely shading. Large barrel.
Nice even head carriage in this image. Good and 
strong bias to western here.


----------



## NdAppy

Love how you give two different evals for the same horse... These pictures were taken within two months of each other. No excuses on "conformation changes" there. Goes to show that without HANDS ON the horses, you really can't tell squat. Goes back to you saying things that are not actually applicable to the horses you are "evaluating." 

Sorry but your system is flawed. 



Horsegears said:


> Shorter limbs. Pasterns a touch extra slope type
> considered. Evenly/good sloped blade. Nice length back
> (considering longer body type) which is well supported by a
> strong and deep girth. Large barrel capacity. The upper
> hind is very strong with both good croup and femur lengths.
> Nicely set neck which may be a touch shorter in length.
> Some versatility but overall perhaps a bias towards strength
> and western disciplines.





Horsegears said:


> Poseidon said:
> 
> 
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well sloped pasterns, shorter stockier limbs.
> Lovely slope to shoulder and good/reasonable
> wither set. The back is longer as expected with
> a longer horse. the croup and hind is also fairly
> strong. Large river barrel. Obviously a longer body
> with a good countering shorter neck. Western and
> strength oriented. Despite stockier limbs
> a smooth ride may be likely here and very easy to
> under-rate.
Click to expand...


----------



## Horsegears

QUOTE=NdAppy "Love how you give two different evals for the same horse... "



Actually comments may have varied wording but
are effectively very similar to each other, thanks !

Comments 1

Shorter limbs. Pasterns a touch extra slope type 
Considered. Evenly/good sloped blade. Nice length back 
(considering longer body type) which is well supported by a 
Strong and deep girth. Large barrel capacity. The upper 
Hind is very strong with both good croup and femur lengths. 
Nicely set neck which may be a touch shorter in length. 
Some versatility but overall perhaps a bias towards strength 
And western disciplines. 


Comments 2

Well sloped pasterns, shorter stockier limbs.
Lovely slope to shoulder and good/reasonable 
Wither set. The back is longer as expected with 
A longer horse. The croup and hind is also fairly 
Strong. Large river barrel. Obviously a longer body
With a good countering shorter neck. Western and
strength oriented. Despite stockier limbs 
A smooth ride may be likely here and very easy to 
Under-rate.


----------



## NdAppy

And you missed some very major flaws of hers

Your system IS flawed

You CANNOT accurately judge ANY animal through pictures. Hands on is the ONLY way to accurately judge any animal no matter what the species.


----------



## Golden Horse

Horsegears said:


> Reasonably squarer image, thanks.
> 
> Interesting type.
> 
> *Pasterns slightly upright and a touch shorter
> breeding considered but not a problem*. Limbs fairly
> refined and perhaps a shade shorter. The shoulder
> joint is very open adding strength orientations to
> the stride. Shoulder blade is slightly upright. In a
> natural stance I would think the back may be on
> the longer side - although it gains ample support
> from a reasonably deep girth. The hind appears
> reasonable or strong although the slight angle
> may be a little flattering in this regard. Regardless
> the upper hind does appear as the strength of the
> top-line. Rear cannons not quite lining up 100%
> although that may also be the pose or stance.
> I do see this one as a very handy and attractive
> 'bit of everything' type..



 OOPS, when you say breeding considered, must confess to a dyslexic kind of moment there, Ben is actually a Perch/TB x SADDLEBRED DOH, don't know if that changes the assessment any?


----------



## trailhorserider

I think Izzy keeps getting missed. I'll try her again.


----------



## Horsegears

Golden Horse said:


> OOPS, when you say breeding considered, must confess to a dyslexic kind of moment there, Ben is actually a Perch/TB x SADDLEBRED DOH, don't know if that changes the assessment any?


Thats fine, makes not difference to comments in this case, thanks


----------



## Poseidon

You still failed to notice that from two pictures that NdAppy's mare is completely butt high.


----------



## equiniphile

What do you think of this guy? Reg. Shetland stallion, sire Michigan's Man of Steel was ASPC/AMHR registered.


----------



## grayshell38

Thank you for your thoughts on Thelma, I had come to similar conclusions and had considered her for low level dressage when I decided to learn english. Endurance would suit her beautifully, she is a lover of "nature hikes" aka trail rides that last all day.  If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate your thoughts on my colt. You analyzed his dam for me on HGS before, and think you did very well.


----------



## soenjer55

Horsegears said:


> Thanks for the positive feedback.
> 
> Regarding growth rates, it is certainly not set.
> 
> In my opinion.
> 
> The foal/weanling can provide a false impression
> of an English type with its leggy appearance and
> often well sloped shoulder and closed shoulder
> joints. Then the yearling can look overly western
> with the strong hind in comparison to the
> forequarters which generally lengthens later.
> 
> The 2yo going through its education often goes
> through the final growth spurt where the wither
> heightens (although overall growth continues).
> This generally provides the first realistic view of
> the likely matured type 'as is'.
> 
> Signs of an immature horse include a shallow girth,
> leggy appearance, forward set wither, higher hind,
> very lean neck etc.
> 
> Although in theory all breeds mature
> at the same rate some further refined breeds
> have reputations for even growing up
> until 7 or even 8 years on occasion.


interesting. So here's something I'd like to ask- Pertaining to the mentioned breeds which grow slower, would arabians be one? I have a 4 year old arabian stud who's only 14 hands, and just seems to be a bit disproportionate to me, which I'm a bit worried about. I keep hoping that he'll grow to be more proportionate but I'm afraid that he may not... I don't have any good pictures for you at the moment, but I could take some.
Also, do you think being a stallion is affecting his growth? I'm just really worried, because I need to make a decision on whether to geld or not soon, which will be affected by his conformation. (No personal opinions about having studs etc., from anyone, I just want a factual answer. Sorry.)


----------



## Horsegears

soenjer55 said:


> interesting. So here's something I'd like to ask- Pertaining to the mentioned breeds which grow slower, would arabians be one? I have a 4 year old arabian stud who's only 14 hands, and just seems to be a bit disproportionate to me, which I'm a bit worried about. I keep hoping that he'll grow to be more proportionate but I'm afraid that he may not... I don't have any good pictures for you at the moment, but I could take some.
> Also, do you think being a stallion is affecting his growth? I'm just really worried, because I need to make a decision on whether to geld or not soon, which will be affected by his conformation. (No personal opinions about having studs etc., from anyone, I just want a factual answer. Sorry.)


PM'ed you


----------



## wild_spot

Thank you for your comments on my made Horsegears, and sorry about the angled photo! I appreciate it. 

I think it's rotten that people are tying to 'trick' you.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Cat

Here are the best squared up shots of my boys I could find from this past summer. I could go back and pull older ones on the 2 oldest boys if it might help, just let me know. Thanks.

Toby - Haflinger, 10 years old.










Apache - 6 year old draft cross. Not sure mixed with what. Please excuse the towel - that was left out to dry after the dog's bath and Apache was fascinated by it.










Rascal - 2 year old grade ???


----------



## Tennessee

wild_spot said:


> I think it's rotten that people are tying to 'trick' you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
I totally agree. Obviously, some people on here have way too much time on their hands, and could really use an outside life. 




Horsegears - I'm waiting on a dry day to get some pictures of my barrel horses. So, I'll have some for you later on.


----------



## Spyder

Tennessee said:


> I totally agree. Obviously, some people on here have way too much time on their hands, and could really use an outside life.
> .



You hit the nail on the head there.I guess Christmas time for some must be rather dull..eh?


----------



## Faceman

wild_spot said:


> Thank you for your comments on my made Horsegears, and sorry about the angled photo! I appreciate it.
> 
> I think it's rotten that people are tying to 'trick' you.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The OP has refused to state his qualifications, if any, some of his assessments have been way off base, and he has demonstrated he has little actual knowledge of anatomy and physiology. 

I don't believe anyone is trying to "trick" your fellow Aussie - just trying to establish his credibility as he has not done it himself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to establish credibility, whether it is for someone assessing your horse, or a vet, a farrier, or a trainer. Most people are perfectly willing to state their credentials. I'm not afraid to say I have a degree in Biology, a substantial anatomy and physiology education, have been a horse owner for over 50 years, and was a successful breeder for 20 years. Does that make me a conformation expert? Certainly not - I am not Deb Bennett, and don't pretend to be. But it at least establishes the level of my credibility so people know my opinion is not an expert one, but is credible and likely in the general ballpark.

The fact that he has given two distinctly different assessments on the same horse should give you a clue as to his credibility. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with anyone giving their opinion on conformation, regardless of how well or poorly qualified they may be...it is sort of fun and all part of the learning process. But it is also prudent to consider the reliability and credentials of the person doing the critiquing.

I am not "against" the OP. As some of you likely know this is not the only board he is doing this on, and in his defense, I will say if he is using this method to learn and gain experience evaluating and assessing horses, more power to him - it is a novel and innovative method of practicing, learning, and gaining experience...just so his critiques are not taken by people as expert analyses, because they are not - at least at this stage of his development...


----------



## vikki92

Horsegears said:


> vikki92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can have a go at a couple of my horses
> This is Gabriella
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Touch leggy. Longer arm in proportion
> to the shoulder blade. Nicely sloped blade.
> Touch longer through the back. Hind is reasonable
> without being over strong. Rarer taller type - rather
> than the more common longer type overall.
> Well balanced top-line between for e and hindquarters.
> Super color. Certainly a Sport Horse type, dressage,
> some jumping.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your input. I really want to work with her on jumping, she will be 3 yrs on feb 21st so I wanna start the small stuff with her.
Click to expand...


----------



## wild_spot

> just so his critiques are not taken by people as expert analyses, because they are not - at least at this stage of his development...


 think that is the point - We are on a horse forum, we don't know who any of us really are - Nothing should be taken as 'expert analysis' - As someone said, that can only be given in person. It is a bit of fun and interesting and should be taken as such.


----------



## Tennessee

Faceman said:


> The OP has refused to state his qualifications, if any, some of his assessments have been way off base, and he has demonstrated he has little actual knowledge of anatomy and physiology.
> 
> I don't believe anyone is trying to "trick" your fellow Aussie - just trying to establish his credibility as he has not done it himself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to establish credibility, whether it is for someone assessing your horse, or a vet, a farrier, or a trainer. Most people are perfectly willing to state their credentials. I'm not afraid to say I have a degree in Biology, a substantial anatomy and physiology education, have been a horse owner for over 50 years, and was a successful breeder for 20 years. Does that make me a conformation expert? Certainly not - I am not Deb Bennett, and don't pretend to be. But it at least establishes the level of my credibility so people know my opinion is not an expert one, but is credible and likely in the general ballpark.
> 
> The fact that he has given two distinctly different assessments on the same horse should give you a clue as to his credibility. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with anyone giving their opinion on conformation, regardless of how well or poorly qualified they may be...it is sort of fun and all part of the learning process. But it is also prudent to consider the reliability and credentials of the person doing the critiquing.
> 
> I am not "against" the OP. As some of you likely know this is not the only board he is doing this on, and in his defense, I will say if he is using this method to learn and gain experience evaluating and assessing horses, more power to him - it is a novel and innovative method of practicing, learning, and gaining experience...just so his critiques are not taken by people as expert analyses, because they are not - at least at this stage of his development...


 
What I don't understand is why he should have to prove his credibility. No one else on this forum gets criticized for giving input on a horse's conformation. Why should Horsegears? I think pretty much everyone on here understands that to have an accurate judging of a horse's conformation the horse needs to be seen in person. That being said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with someone critiquing conformation from what they can see from a picture. That is what EVERY SINGLE THREAD on the critiquing board is about. Now, I don't see you hopping all over their cases because they are kind enough to offer their opinions.

This happens time and time again. Some over-opinionated, rude, yet popular member jumps all over someone else (most of the time for no good reason at all), and you find ten or fifteen little followers jumping on the bandwagon. As far as I'm concerned, if you have a problem with the way Horsegears critiques horses, all you have to do is leave this thread. Don't post your horse's pictures on this particular thread, and leave it at that. 

Now I love this forum, but some of you people are freaking ridiculous, and seem to be nothing but bitter people that are always out to start a fight. What's sad is that the younger members on this forum are more mature than the adults.


----------



## Spyder

Tennessee said:


> This happens time and time again. Some over-opinionated, rude, yet popular member jumps all over someone else (most of the time for no good reason at all), and you find ten or fifteen little followers jumping on the bandwagon. As far as I'm concerned, if you have a problem with the way Horsegears critiques horses, all you have to do is leave this thread. Don't post your horse's pictures on this particular thread, and leave it at that.
> 
> Now I love this forum, but some of you people are freaking ridiculous, and seem to be nothing but bitter people that are always out to start a fight. What's sad is that the younger members on this forum are more mature than the adults.



Could not have said it better.

Kudos for saying what many think.


----------



## Horsegears

Tennessee said:


> This happens time and time again. Some over-opinionated, rude, yet popular member jumps all over someone else (most of the time for no good reason at all), and you find ten or fifteen little followers jumping on the bandwagon. As far as I'm concerned, if you have a problem with the way Horsegears critiques horses, all you have to do is leave this thread. Don't post your horse's pictures on this particular thread, and leave it at that.
> .


_*Below quote is in general terms and is not personally directed to anyone in this forum. It may or may not relate to this thread. In my opinion.*
_
'Mobbing' can 'extremely hurtful' and unjust. Mobbing commonly includes bullying, demands, irrational behavior, cowardice, and false claims. Its similar to ten people attacking one person with bats making it hard to defend against which amplifies the 'hurt' effect. Just because this is a forum and the action is not physical certainly does not mobbing in a forum acceptable. 

Being an ex-whistle blower and having experienced much of the above in off-line life (Mobbing type behavior is common against whistle blowers), I do stand firmly against such behavior and trust that people may think before becoming involved in supporting such (In any way what-so-ever). I understand people do not realize the 'hurt' that this action may cause.

To those who have the ability to stand against a mob, this speaks volumes for their own character and sense of justice. Its not easy to have the confidence to form an individual view that may go against the number in such circumstances.


----------



## Horsegears

A short note regarding images.

Please understand that a photo assessment is 'based on the photo', therefore if the photo does not truly reflect the horse then neither will the comments. The owner of a horse may take a number of photos of the horse and then use the one that is most typical of it. Only the owner or person taking the photo can judge if the photo is an accurate and fair representation of the horse.


----------



## Horsegears

Faceman said:


> T
> 
> The fact that he has given two distinctly different assessments on the same horse should give you a clue as to his credibility. ..


The fact that the comments did reflect the photos is more apt. The fact that photos appeared to show two varied horses may also need to be considered.

By the reckoning the fact that a second horse that was also posted twice, received two uncannily 'similar' comments may also speak volumes for credibility.


----------



## Spyder

Horsegears said:


> 'Mobbing' can 'extremely hurtful' and unjust. Mobbing commonly includes bullying, demands, irrational behavior, cowardice, and false claims. Its similar to ten people attacking one person with bats making it hard to defend against which amplifies the 'hurt' effect. Just because this is a forum and the action is not physical certainly does not mobbing in a forum acceptable.
> 
> Being an ex-whistle blower and having experienced much of the above in off-line life (Mobbing type behavior is common against whistle blowers), I do stand firmly against such behavior and trust that people may think before becoming involved in supporting such (In any way what-so-ever). I understand people do not realize the 'hurt' that this action may cause.
> 
> To those who have the ability to stand against a mob, this speaks volumes for their own character and sense of justice. Its not easy to have the confidence to form an individual view that may go against the number in such circumstances.



Mobbing, ganging up or piling ons is not acceptable behavior. Nor is mocking either in front of the person or behind then is, but seems to get a foothold in too many forums.

And you are correct...standing up to this type of behavior is the only way to act in these conditions but we must be aware that our own behavior must be reasonable and thought out as well.


----------



## Tennessee

Spyder said:


> And you are correct...standing up to this type of behavior is the only way to act in these conditions but we must be aware that our own behavior must be reasonable and thought out as well.


It took me 3 or 4 times to edit out all of the bad language I had in my post. I've been waiting a long time to put my opinion out there about it, but most of the time I have to backspace it all out because I am absolutely FED UP with the behavior that is allowed to go on around here, and I've been here long enough to know that this is not the first time, nor will it be the last, that this occurs. It's funny, a lot of times when I do say something I am ignored because I am just a "silly little teenager that just doesn't understand."


----------



## DuffyDuck

Just to put my pennies worth in, I mentioned earlier in the thread about this.

If persons want a critique, they can ask for it, but being underhand and attempting to trick a member or disregard their posts in this manner is pure childish... some I expected better of to be fair. Slightly disappointed.

Horsegears, I am hopefully going to get some more pics of Duffy tomorrow and hopefully you can crit those if you don't mind!

Tennessee, thanks for wording your previous posts better than I could have done, you've summed up how I feel!


----------



## trailhorserider

My girl Izzy must suck. :-(


----------



## Faceman

Horsegears said:


> The fact that the comments did reflect the photos is more apt. The fact that photos appeared to show two varied horses may also need to be considered.


This is what you have said - just to make it perfectly clear...

In the first sentence you have said that you yourself cannot critique a horse by its picture - you can only critique the picture.

In the second sentence you have said that you cannot tell by looking at a left side conformation shot of a horse and a right side conformation shot of a horse that it is the same horse.

Thank you. I agree 100%...


----------



## Horsegears

Faceman said:


> Thank you. I agree 100%...


Thank you kiindly, so as you consider we agree 100%, I take it you will also now kindly move on to someones else's thread?



.


----------



## Faceman

Tennessee said:


> What I don't understand is why he should have to prove his credibility.


Please see my post above. When someone looks at the left side of a horse and then looks at the right side of a horse and can't tell it's the same horse, it is perfectly reasonable - and logical - to question that person's credibility to critique a horse. That has absolutely nothing to do with a mob mentality or ganging up on someone...it is simple logic. I can't speak for anyone else, but as your response was directed at me, I don't belong to a mob, am not a "popular" member of this forum with thousands of posts, and am not rude. I am indeed opinionated, which I fully admit...and in my opinion the OP, with all due respect to him, because he seems like a nice fellow, is someone I can't take seriously critiqueing horses, when he sees a different conformation on the left side as the right side, and can't even tell it's the same horse.

That is not at all meant to be rude, and I don't perceive it to be such. Although I have ridden horses for 55 years, I ride like a sack of potatoes, and a 12 year old girl with 6 months of lessons probably knows more about equitation than I do - equitation is neither my interest nor my forte. If I were to try to critique someone's equitation (which I would not do to begin with), it would not be rude for someone to point out my ignorance...it would be a fact-based opinion...


----------



## Faceman

Horsegears said:


> Thank you kiindly, so as you consider we agree 100%, I take it you will also now kindly move on to someones else's thread?
> 
> 
> 
> .


If you only wanted people to post that agreed with your critiques, why didn't you say so in your original post? If your intent is to critique horses, then you should be prepared to hear from those that agree with you - and those that disagree. If you go through life expecting everyone to agree with you all the time, I'm afraid you will be sorely disappointed. I sure wish everyone would agree with me all the time, but alas, I don't think that will ever happen...


----------



## Tennessee

Faceman said:


> Please see my post above. When someone looks at the left side of a horse and then looks at the right side of a horse and can't tell it's the same horse, it is perfectly reasonable - and logical - to question that person's credibility to critique a horse. That has absolutely nothing to do with a mob mentality or ganging up on someone...it is simple logic. I can't speak for anyone else, but as your response was directed at me, I don't belong to a mob, am not a "popular" member of this forum with thousands of posts, and am not rude. I am indeed opinionated, which I fully admit...and in my opinion the OP, with all due respect to him, because he seems like a nice fellow, is someone I can't take seriously critiqueing horses, when he sees a different conformation on the left side as the right side, and can't even tell it's the same horse.
> 
> That is not at all meant to be rude, and I don't perceive it to be such. Although I have ridden horses for 55 years, I ride like a sack of potatoes, and a 12 year old girl with 6 months of lessons probably knows more about equitation than I do - equitation is neither my interest nor my forte. If I were to try to critique someone's equitation (which I would not do to begin with), it would not be rude for someone to point out my ignorance...it would be a fact-based opinion...


 
Oh shoot. I didn't mean for that second or third paragraph of what I wrote to be directed at you. I should have been more clear with that. Sorry. That was me letting out some steam about similar occurances that happen over and over and over again on this forum and nothing is done about it. 

The first was directed at you, though. haha.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

As I have posted before and will say again, personally I am with faceman and would take these critiques with a large grain of salt... calling a downhill, posty horse with less than ideal hind end conformation a Dressage prospect speaks for itself... doing it multiple times even after being called out on it.... that's just wrong. If you don't know sporthorse conformation, don't say anything! I couldn't tell you a working cattle horse from a reiner so I don't go there!! But saying something that's not really well put together enough for anything is a Dressage horse is a slap in the face to those of us whom have studied and learned for years on ideal conformation and breeding of these horses. 

Of course some members of this forum are testing and calling the OP out! The rest of us have spent years building up our reputations on this forum, why is it that some guy can waltz on here and trump the opinions of the very knowledgeable horsepeople we already have here?? I guess the grass on the other side really is greener ...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> But saying something that's not really well put together enough for anything is a Dressage horse
> 
> why is it that some guy can waltz on here and trump the opinions of the very knowledgeable horsepeople we already have here??


Perhaps because many statements from the so-celled very knowledgeable people, like the top statement regarding the dressage horse, do not appear accurate. 

Please kindly copy and paste where I actually said that - if you believe otherwise.


----------



## bsms

I've debated with Faceman on a variety of threads. The debates have been enthusiastic. For my part, enthusiasm may have substituted for reason. However, the debates were always honest and open - not personal.

Folks ought to be free to disagree with another persons *thoughts*. And that person should be free to illustrate *why* he/she disagrees. Honest disagreement can be enlightening. Attacking someone's motives, person, or integrity is out of bounds. Feuds are out of bounds. We need to remember that a good and decent person can disagree with our ideas and conclusions without any animosity toward us.

"Friendly and helpful" includes discussion and debate, if the debate is reasoned. IMHO. As a poster who enjoys the forum.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

Horsegears said:


> Perhaps because many statements from the so-celled very knowledgeable people, like the top statement regarding the dressage horse, do not appear accurate.
> 
> Please kindly copy and paste where I actually said that - if you believe otherwise.


In your opinion. I'm not going to change your opinion, just stating that in my observations from my base of knowledge when assessing Dressage prospects for the upper and international levels of sport your opinion is not entirely correct. Find me a downhill, posty and poorly angled Dressage horse on the international podium in the last century.

If you don't know Dressage horses - then stop posting about them. It's nice that you have an opinion but if its coming from a place of pure opinion as opposed to a place of knowledge I would advise not posting at all... opinion alone does not get you far here and so far that's all I've read from you on Dressage horses.

If youre going to make a thread claiming to have a conformation rating system all figured out then I expect a tip top analysis. You might read Unicorns stickied thread regarding angle and length analysis for an example of what "flies" as knowledge on this forum...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> But saying something that's not really well put together enough for anything is a Dressage horse_e_


I am not calling you a liar, but please copy and paste where I said the above or kindly understand that your posts and claims will not be taken seriously.

I believe the above is very reasonable.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

Horsegears said:


> I am not calling you a liar, but please copy and paste where I said the above or kindly understand that your posts and claims will not be taken seriously.
> 
> I believe the above is very reasonable.


Seriously? Search this thread for the word Dressage, find a post with a critiqued horse and then take a moment to evaluate the lines of the horse, a ruler is all it takes.

Well no, its actually not reasonable. I don't know if you've noticed but another fun function of this forum is it tells you when people are on a smart phone, like I am now. Multiple quotes are a pita on a pc and I refuse to attempt them on a handheld device, at a nightclub. 

My point is not to argue individual points on individual horses, but instead to suggest that "experts" first of all will realize where their knowledge ends, and accept that.... so just like you refusing to accept my critiques of yours unless I meticulously pick through this thread and find every instance on which I disagree with you, I refuse to accept that you've even seen, or could puck out from the crowd, an international Dressage horse in the flesh until you post some credentials or anything beyond claims to knowledge about the ideal conformation of a sport horse.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lubylol

I think Horsegears created this thread to be able to critique people's horses, if he's qualified or not, who cares. Half the people on here that critique on other threads probably aren't qualified either. If you guys don't want to hear his critiques then don't post, and leave. 

Yes he made some mistakes, but maybe it's a good thing that he picked up 2 critiques on the same horse because from one side you could see certain qualities, on the other side, you could see others.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Seriously?


Yes, if you effectively quote me with a statement
that I did not make I take that quite seriously.

Enough said.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

It's a public forum, we are entitled to out opinion. In my opinion, making unbiased statements and presenting them as a "horse conformation rating system" on a public forum is wrong.
Do you want me to come out and inspect your house? I'm qualified enough to know it would probably collapse because I'd miss serious stuff.
Maybe my 5 year old nephew could start a conformation thread next....

Go read unicorns legitimate conformation thread and you will find no negative nancying. Because we call a spade a spade does not make us bad!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

lubylol said:


> maybe it's a good thing that he picked up 2 critiques on the same horse because from one side you could see certain qualities, on the other side, you could see others.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The thing is, both critiques on the horse were very, very similar.


----------



## lubylol

But I don't see how having his/her own thread asking for people to post pictures for a critique would mean they have to be qualified? Why aren't you yelling at other people that critique too?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lubylol

Horsegears, I couldn't find that post so I couldn't compare :/
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

Horsegears said:


> Yes, if you effectively quote me with a statement
> that I did not make I take that quite seriously.
> 
> Enough said.


You have, multiple times, called downhill, posty horses with poor hind angles for Dressage, Dressage horses. Because I refuse to go through a thread and find all instances of this does not make my point moot and the fact you refuse to justify your opinion further exemplifies your lack of knowledge in Dressage horse conformation.

$0.02
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

Some dressage related comments below:



Horsegears said:


> Legacy-15-20 year old Appy(assuming, he's an auction horse)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sloped pasterns perhaps on the shorter side. Good
> short cannons and shorter limbs overall. The shoulder
> joint is very nicely closed and the blade slope is reasonable.
> The blades extra length is a positive. The back is longer
> and it looks like we are getting a bit of a dip here with age.
> The croup is short but gains some strength from a longer
> femur. Larger barrel and longer overall body type.
> Likely smooth ride at his peak. *Dressage *probably
> best shot here. :smile:


 #32



Horsegears said:


> Appears leggy, even TB considered. Good moderate muscle type
> with nice portions of both strength and flexibility. Slightly closed
> shoulder joint. Shoulder blade is perhaps a touch shorter. Longer
> through the back. The hind is functionally probably quite strong,
> and this also adds strength to the loins.* Dressage* and jumps
> may suit this one. :smile:


 #35



~*~anebel~*~ said:


> You should really be specifying what level of dressage you think some of these horses are suited to, because honestly none of the horses save the first TB you have labelled as a "dressage type" horse would I even look at for a prospect for the upper levels of dressage. If it's conformation is as such it would be more appropriate to label a horse as a "pleasure" or "english flat" horse than a dressage horse... JMO. While everything can do dressage, only horses with a specific conformational type will excel at it and stay sound at the upper levels.


 post 42



Horsegears said:


> Battling to get a good view of this one.
> 
> Pasterns are well sloped and this one is very leggy.
> Some scope for added muscle. The wither set
> appears a little forward. The back is on the longer
> side. The girth is shallow which in this case may help
> stride extension and goes with the type. The hind is a
> little leaner. Lacks a little prime moving strength
> at both ends but may have some good flexibility
> and natural fitness. English and/or *Dressage* best
> shots for this one based on type only. :smile:


 post 48



Horsegears said:


> Based on this photo only.
> 
> Well sloped pasterns with longer fore cannons.
> The shoulder is fairly good/text-book. Back is a
> good length. The croup is also functional strong
> and completes an above average top-line that
> is also nicely balanced between the fore and
> hind. Slightly longer overall body with a shorter
> neck. Deep girth and large barrel. Some sharp
> muscle shape indicating strength/speed. Fairly
> versatile across disciplines with some athleticism
> and *dressage*/eventing would appear to suit ideally. :smile:


 post 49

I think that gives a factual basis for someone to discuss if the horses above are well suited for dressage or not. I personally am totally clueless on conformation, and not much better on dressage. I'm like a dog watching TV. I cannot contribute to a rational discussion of the merits of these rating.

However, I ask others to stick to specifics, and discuss IDEAS, not personalities.


----------



## bsms

On an open forum, discussion and even disagreement are acceptable. Personal attacks are not. 

I've posted some pictures and comments from earlier in the thread. It would be entirely acceptable to disagree with the critique and say why it is wrong, just as it would be entirely acceptable for the OP to discuss why it is right.

Let's stick to reasons, not personalities.

My mustang pony could do low level dressage, but I'd be surprised if any of our dressage riders would want to take him up for competitive dressage. Nice pony, and I think he is a keeper, but I would be shocked if anyone thought he would prosper in competitive dressage. His extended trot is like being on a drunk jackhammer:


----------



## Spyder

lubylol said:


> Horsegears, I couldn't find that post so I couldn't compare :/
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Comments made..

Facing right.................................

Shorter limbs. Pasterns a touch extra slope type 
considered. Evenly/good sloped blade. Nice length back 
(considering longer body type) which is well supported by a 
strong and deep girth. Large barrel capacity. The upper 
hind is very strong with both good croup and femur lengths. 
Nicely set neck which may be a touch shorter in length. 
Some versatility but overall perhaps a bias towards strength 
and western disciplines. 

AND

facing left..........................................

Well sloped pasterns, shorter stockier limbs.
Lovely slope to shoulder and good/reasonable 
wither set. The back is longer as expected with 
a longer horse. the croup and hind is also fairly 
strong. Large river barrel. Obviously a longer body
with a good countering shorter neck. Western and
strength oriented. Despite stockier limbs 
a smooth ride may be likely here and very easy to 
under-rate. 


To me they are very similar comments. Different wording but essentially the same.


----------



## Horsegears

lubylol said:


> EDIT** Also, because he/she says "dressage" doesn't mean they mean HIGH LEVEL dressage. I think of low levels, training, etc...(Not sure of the levels)


Exactly, a horse with a long muscle type, shallow girth and very lean hind will be better off at dressage than say high jumping or high intensity western barrels - where soundness, safety and other factors may certainly become an issue.

That does not mean the horse is going to be a leading dressage type, rather that's the short of work that she/he may be best suited to - all considered.

That's what functional conformation is all about, Not just good or bad traditional text book stuff. But analyzing traits and were they may be best suited, *and/or effectively 'least disadvantaged'.*

Completely different mind set to the specialist who's only after a top level performer and considering only one discipline and is looking for a specific type of horse.

An open mind is needed.

An ability or athletic rating, rather than a suitability rating is what would be used to assess a horse's top-end *potential for a given task.

.


----------



## lubylol

Exactly^^
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

Ok because when I read Dressage horse I think of a PSG+ horse. But I guess my sport is just so beneath all yall that I should just give up attempting to explain otherwise... luckily I'm stubborn!

Dressage is just as hard, or harder on a horse than any other discipline. It is a slap in the face to those of us whom have dedicated our lives to breeding, training and competing elite sport horses in Dressage for some guy to suggest that anything with 4 legs can do it. Bsms pulled up some of the relevant posts...

I do have an open mind, but someone suggesting (bubbas grey for an example) that a downhill horse obviously lacking the hindquarter strength and without appropriate angles behind (all thats required is a ruler and protractor!) Is a Dressage horse is seriously smoking something. Were I on my pc I would post a video and the horses flat, quick movement, completely unsuitable for Dressage and foreseeable in her conformation would further prove my point.

Maybe instead of suggesting such a horse to be suitable or "least disadvantaged" for Dressage, an Olympic level SPORT one would be more inclined to use the words "pleasure riding".

But Dressage is, has always been and will forever be "easy" and its upper levels easily attainable while maintaining soundness by anything with 4 legs... *sigh*. 

Nice try on your "athletic suitability" bs though, never mentioned it in the previous 25 pages! Suitability infers that its what the horse is suitable for and you say Dressage - the horse better be a Dressage horse!!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Dressage is just as hard, or harder on a horse than any other discipline. It is a slap in the face to those of us whom have dedicated our lives to breeding, training and competing elite sport horses in Dressage for some guy to suggest that anything with 4 legs can do it._e_


Genuine western horses with a strong bias are clearly not ideally suited to dressage, so I would certainly not say any horse on 4 legs will do it to a high or even good/reasonable level etc. (You appear to be making assumptions based on a lack of understanding again)

I am sorry that you were insulted by thinking that I believed any horse was suited to dressage, or high level dressage. (Clearly not the case)

I request that you don't hold this against me with what appears as vexatious comments as a re-retaliation to these apparent insults. 

I do feel the above is balanced and reasonable, but its up to you.



.


----------



## bubba13

I said I was going to stay out of it but I guess I lied.

These were the critiques, based on the photos below. All of the photos picture the same horse.


























AND










Critique #1:

Touch shorter limbs which are well muscled. The shoulder 
blade is long and has reasonable/good slope. The back is 
a good length and nicely matches the deeper girth and 
larger barrel. The hind is also strong. Nice neck set and 
a higher head carriage likely. perhaps a longer body 
shape with slightly shorter neck. Very nicely balanced
between fore and hind and has obvious versatility. I do see
perhaps a slight bias to western, although English is fine 
as well. Very standard text book and easy on the eye
for potential buyers if need be. 

Critique #2:

Pasterns are well sloped and this one is very leggy. 
Some scope for added muscle. The wither set 
appears a little forward. The back is on the longer
side. The girth is shallow which in this case may help 
stride extension and goes with the type. The hind is a 
little leaner. Lacks a little prime moving strength
at both ends but may have some good flexibility
and natural fitness. English and/or Dressage best 
shots for this one based on type only. 

I've color-coded the significant deviations.

How would I critique my horse?

_Long (but strong) back, straighter shoulder (but still fairly good), lower wither. Very mild calf knees (which may be related to her serious lameness problems). Good depth of heartgirth. Adequate pasterns (on the shorter side in the hind, but well-angled) but a tad posty in the hocks (which are capped). Steep croup. Muscular ewe neck which is short and naturally upright. Downhill build. Fat and bitchy._

Dressage potential at a competitive level? Hardly. She's fast and athletic, but in the same way that a charging rhinoceros is fast and athletic. Not terribly rough, but sure not something you'd call a pretty or smooth mover, and no suspension whatsoever. She is, however, a winning 1D barrel horse. She has incredible stride and speed. And a terrible propensity toward lameness, perhaps coming, at least in part, from faulty foreleg conformation.


----------



## lubylol

Bubba I'm not trying to offend you, sorry if I do. But I would have thought those were two different horses. The first pictures, she's got a nice build, and light in color; while in the second set of pictures she looks butt high and built downhill, and darker in color. Although it could be the lighting, if you wouldn't have posted that, I would have never known.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Horsegears

bubba13 said:


> Critique #2:
> 
> Pasterns are well sloped and this one is very leggy.
> Some scope for added muscle. The wither set
> appears a little forward. The back is on the longer
> side. The girth is shallow which in this case may help
> stride extension and goes with the type. The hind is a
> little leaner. Lacks a little prime moving strength
> at both ends but may have some good flexibility
> and natural fitness. English and/or Dressage best
> shots for this one based on type only.
> 
> .


The second horse was immature as a 4yo 
compared to the first/top horse as an 7 or 
8yo. Lets look carefully at the trait variations.

The younger horse had - Longer limbs, leaner 
muscles, longer back, shallow girth, lacking 
prime moving strength,.

You may note these are all immaturity traits. 
Note the older horse's girth deepend, muscle 
gained shape, back shorterned as shoulder 
blade lengthened (blade one of last bones to 
length) and horse gained muscle over hind.

Its actually consistent with standard equine 
growth rates, and these type of variations 
may be expected *if a horse changes/matures 
significantly from a 4yo to a 7 or 8yo.

I know its technically the same horse, but if it
significantly changes shape with maturity etc,
so will the proportions and balance, and my 
comments that relate to these. Sorry.


----------



## bubba13

So then, all four-year-olds are dressage prospects that magically morph into Western prospects at age six or seven? If age was a needed factor for your ratings to be accurate, why did you not request that people provided it before you 'rated' the horses?

And Luby, that was kind of the point. Of course the color is different. That's why I chose those photos--so it would not be immediately suspected. But the underlying conformation is still the same. Someone truly educated in equine physiology should have noted that my two mares, while differing in maturity, had strikingly similar bone angles.


----------



## Horsegears

bubba13 said:


> So then, all four-year-olds are dressage prospects that magically morph into Western prospects at age six or seven?


Certainly not, but if they do change these are the exact traits that you would expect.

I think the images show (or even perhaps prove to an extent) that the horse certainly did appear to change significantly.


----------



## bubba13

What changed? Her bone ratios certainly did not change. Her back length did not change. Her neck set and shoulder did not change, and her leg angles did not change. She got fatter and more muscular. That's all.


----------



## Horsegears

bubba13 said:


> What changed? Her bone ratios certainly did not change. Her back length did not change. Her neck set and shoulder did not change, and her leg angles did not change. She got fatter and more muscular. That's all.


By proportion and balance lengths can certainly change. (in comparison to other lengths) 

For example a stronger chest and hind will add to the length of the top-line, therefore by proportion the back will be effectively shorter. (Even if the back measures the same in isolation))

Remember conformation is all about proportions and balance - rather than individual lengths.


----------



## bubba13

Here she is at age five:



















Age six:


----------



## Horsegears

bubba13 said:


> Here she is at age five:


Look, I've rated the same horse twice for you and answered many of your questions. If you don't mind I am looking for to rate new horses for other posters etc.

I much prefer chatting about conformation with interested leading trainers and conformation educators and the like, and I am not really into solely educating people myself. Teaching is not my thing.

I just came here to rate some horses for a bit of fun.


.


----------



## bubba13

Age nine again:




























Age six:




























Age seven:


----------



## bubba13

Horsegears said:


> By proportion and balance lengths can certainly change. (in comparison to other lengths)
> 
> For example a stronger chest and hind will add to the length of the top-line, therefore by proportion the back will be effectively shorter. (Even if the back measures the same in isolation))
> 
> Remember conformation is all about proportions and balance - rather than individual lengths.


Proportions and balance of underlying structure, not superficial fat and muscle! Appearances can be deceiving! From what you are saying, if you take a long-backed horse and get it hideously obese, suddenly it is no longer a long-backed horse but rather a short-backed horse. Proportions and all.



Horsegears said:


> Look, I've rated the same horse twice for you and answered many of your questions. If you don't mind I am looking for to rate new horses for other posters etc.
> 
> I much prefer chatting about conformation with interested leading trainers and conformation educators and the like, and I am not really into solely educating people myself. Teaching is not my thing.


Then why'd you start the thread?

But I'm not even asking you to rate anything--just showing photos that rather go against the point you're trying to make. There are, however, plenty of people who have posted photos way back in the thread that you have neglected to critique....I'm sure they'd be glad for their shot.


----------



## kitten_Val

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Ok because when I read Dressage horse I think of a PSG+ horse.


Anebel, as you know any horse can do the low levels one. So saying "would be good for dressage" is technically correct. And in my understanding (I went through several pages of the thread right now) that was what the OP meant. Clearly those horses he marked as "dressage" are NOT high-level dressage quality, may be even not 1st-2nd level quality. But then it wasn't specified either what level of dressage. 

I noticed that often the horse that is not good for jumping in English world is "good for dressage" then  , just because it's a flat work and not really tough on body for Intro/Training levels. Heck, I find it way more nice to say "your horse is good for low level dressage" than saying "you horse is ugly POS that is not good for anything but some trail riding" (as it was my personal experience in past).


----------



## bsms

kitten_Val said:


> Anebel, as you know any horse can do the low levels one. So saying "would be good for dressage" is technically correct. And in my understanding (I went through several pages of the thread right now) that was what the OP meant. Clearly those horses he marked as "dressage" are NOT high-level dressage quality, may be even not 1st-2nd level quality. But then it wasn't specified either what level of dressage...


I disagree. By that standard, ANY horse alive could be described as "good for dressage".

That is why I disagree with using 'dressage' to mean training. Any horse can be trained, but not any horse can be trained for the sport of dressage. When one mixes the meanings, we lose the use of the word dressage. All we gain is a second word for training.

To put it another way, any horse alive can jump. It may only be able to jump 6 inches, but it can jump! So - does that mean it is acceptable in a critique to say that the horse is suitable for jumping?

If you recommend a horse for a sport, that means it should be suitable for doing it as well or better than a horse chosen at random. IMHO. Otherwise, I could write anything about any horse, and technically be correct.


----------



## Horsegears

bsms said:


> If you recommend a horse for a sport, that means it should be suitable for doing it as well or better than a horse chosen at random. IMHO. Otherwise, I could write anything about any horse, and technically be correct.


Wrong, it *may mean that that's the most suited discipline for that horse, keeping in mind its athletic ability is quite low. It may still have low top end potential even in its ideal discipline if its not generally an athletic horse. 

Athletic ability and heart can overcome conformation flaws, just like a lack of athletic ability and heart can lower the potential of a horse across all disciplines. 

How it may compare to a horse selected at random may be totally unrelated, not relevant, and/or totally mis-leading.

Technically dressage can be good training for almost any horse. Thats is a fact and if that mixes the meaning for you, well you need to deal with that, because that's a fact you can't ignore for a convenient use of meanings.


----------



## Spyder

Horsegears said:


> Athletic ability and heart can overcome conformation flaws, just like a lack of athletic ability and heart can lower the potential of a horse across all disciplines.



I do have to agree with this.

The quarab that I took to GP was not conformational correct. It had a straight hind leg and a neck too short. It did however have a desire to please that even with jack spavins in both back legs ( due to its conformation) it competed at the highest level.

These horses are rare however and one SHOULD try to find a better put together horse to do the highest level of ANY discipline. I just never had the money to buy one.

In fact there are many similarities to the grey that bubba posted.

This is my old GP horse.


----------



## bsms

Horsegears said:


> ...Technically dressage can be good training for almost any horse. Thats is a fact and if that mixes the meaning for you, well you need to deal with that, because that's a fact you can't ignore for a convenient use of meanings.


I disagree. 

First, any horse that isn't lame can be used for recreational riding (from a conformation standpoint). My mustang pony seems to do fine for recreational riding, and for helping newbies get off to a good start at riding. That is a valuable enough skill. The right recommendation for his suitability might well be "recreational riding".

Second, if any horse can do dressage, then there is no value in saying the horse can do dressage. One might as well say, "This horse is suitable for eating hay". As I pointed out, any horse that isn't lame can jump 6 inches - so does that mean every horse should be recommended as a jumper?_On June 26, 1956, C.S. Lewis replied to letter from an American girl named Joan with advice on writing:_

_ 1 *Always try to use the language so as to make quite clear what you mean and make sure your sentence couldn’t mean anything else.*_

_ 2 Always prefer the plain direct word to the long, vague one. Don’t implement promises, but keep them._ 

_ 3 Never use abstract nouns when concrete ones will do. If you mean “More people died” don’t say “Mortality rose.”_ 

_ 4 In writing. Don’t use adjectives which merely tell us how you want us to feel about the things you are describing. I mean, instead of telling us the thing is “terrible,” describe it so that we’ll be terrified. Don’t say it was “delightful”; make us say “delightful” when we’ve read the description. You see, all those words (horrifying, wonderful, hideous, exquisite) are only like saying to your readers “Please, will you do my job for me.”_ 

_ 5 *Don’t use words too big for the subject. Don’t say “infinitely” when you mean “very”; otherwise you’ll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.*_

Source: C.S. Lewis, Letters to Children, p. 64​Lewis was right. If someone says something that could mean anything, they have just made a meaningless statement. Writing is about communicating, and communication depends on words having real meaning. If you use dressage to mean training, then you have no word left to use when you want to say dressage.

The fact that every horse in the world could do some level of dressage or jumping doesn't mean that every horse in the world is suitable for dressage or jumping.


----------



## bsms

Horsegears said:


> ...Athletic ability and heart can overcome conformation flaws, just like a lack of athletic ability and heart can lower the potential of a horse across all disciplines...


If anyone ever develops a system for rating "heart" from a picture, I'll buy their product. Until then, recommendations need to be based on what is discernible thru the eye.


----------



## farmpony84

The horses above that Anebel posted that had been rated for dressage, I'd have picked for trail or even local hunt. I'm not a good conformation critique though. The really straight backed Sorrel, I'd have picked for western pleasure depending on movement.....

Bsms, I'd have picked your mustang pony for hunt or 4-H... 

BUT... I think some people can see stuff that other peopel can't see. How many times has someone bought a horse that looked like nothing and turned it inot something? It's always possible....

Snowman is just one example.... (actually that would be a fun thread... horses that went from nothing to something...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowman_(horse)


----------



## Horsegears

bsms said:


> . As I pointed out, any horse that isn't lame can jump 6 inches - so does that mean every horse should be recommended as a jumper?


If all the other disciplines pose a safety risk to the horse then YES. Certainly select the remaining discipline that is less likely to result in injury or soundness issues for the horse.

The horses well-being should be a priority. Not only does 'soundness for a purpose' keep the horses and rider safer, it also indirectly indicates the ideal *natural discipline for a horse.

Why go against nature. Horses are designed for certain purposes, thats why English horses generally have longer and further sloping pasterns than western horses, or why english horses generally have longer cannons than western horses etc etc etc.


----------



## Horsegears

bsms said:


> If anyone ever develops a system for rating "heart" from a picture, I'll buy their product. Until then, recommendations need to be based on what is discernible thru the eye.


If you own a horse you can certainly gain an idea of its mentality or heart by its performance. Or if you don't even its past preference history can be a guide. Breeding can be another indicator.


----------



## equiniphile

Would you mind giving this guy a shot?


equiniphile said:


> What do you think of this guy? Reg. Shetland stallion, sire Michigan's Man of Steel was ASPC/AMHR registered.


----------



## kitten_Val

bsms said:


> I disagree. By that standard, ANY horse alive could be described as "good for dressage".


Yes, I still stand my opinion that any horse alive (unless it's a total conformational wreck or having healthy limitations) can be good for low-level showing (and that's what I meant - showing, when I was talking about low levels). IF the horse has a right mind for that kind of work, which is not always true for every horse, as well as it's something you can't tell from looking at the confo pic of the horse. 

Some horses are very challenging to train to move "dressagy" (for the lack of better word, and by that I mean round, on bit, working from behind, and light on front, nothing more). You still can do it, but you either have to be a very good rider or you have to have a very good trainer to be able to push them. So my qh would NOT be a good dressage prospect EVEN for the low levels just because of the challenges not everyone can deal with, while my neighbor's OTTB is because of his conformation.


----------



## Horsegears

;1 said:


> If one disagrees with textbooks by acknowledged authorities, one must expect to be challenged.


Many text books contradict each other, and even the contents within text books can contradict itself. Especially in regard to conformation, much of which is rehashed for convenience from the early 1900's.

Text books are not Bibles to all. In fact some may wish to totally ignore text books and learn from the base up, therefore ensuring a solid understanding of the fundamentals, from which a knowledge base can be built up without having to refer back to text books for assurances. This also encourages reasoned independent thinking and allows further common sense to be applied to related issues.

One is entitled to offer opinion against text book theory, and just because the opinion may not follow what some text books may claim, it does not necessarily lower the value of the opinion, and nor does it provide others *additional rights to demand explanations etc.

Someone offering a varied opinion is one thing, but being aggressively challenged, having demands placed on one, and being continually questioned is quite another. Excusing or justifying such poor behavior by solely claiming an opinion is against the text book is not acceptable or just IMO.



.


----------



## Faceman

Moderators are people just like everyone else. They should be allowed to voice their opinion, whether in support or in opposition of someone else's observations or opinions. A moderator shouldn't be held to some lofty standard where they have to be agreeable to everyone and never voice an opposing view...that might be the case if it was a paid job, but as a volunteer job I don't think it would be fair to expect them never to speak their mind - if that were the case, why would they even be a part of the forum? It surely wouldn't be much fun.

Actually, I find it sort of interesting that so many moderators are participating in this thread - I can count about 8 off the top of my head between mods on this board and others. and they certainly don't all agree...each has their own opinions just as everyone else, and they agree and disagree with one another.

Just my opinion, of course, but threads like this may be bumpy and sometimes ruffle a few feathers, but they are very constructive and educational - kudos to the OP for that, even if I don't agree with many of his critiques, or his inability to tolerate criticism. Anyone that is following this thread can't help to walk away having learned something...if nothing else that critiqueing a horse is more complex than just looking at various bodyparts and comparing them to some generally accepted benchmark. Conformation is all about form to function, and form to function is complex because it invariably involves multiple body parts and variables in bones, joints, tendons, ligaments, and muscle. Again, just my opinion, but I find it refreshing to see people actually looking at these horses and thinking about conformation rather than the usual "steep croup, ewe neck, kind eye" "critiques" so often seen on forums, and I hope the battle of egos (isn't it funny that we horse people always seem to have big egos...any idea why?) doesn't keep the less experienced people from learning, because there is a ton of good information in this thread...


----------



## tinyliny

bubba13 said:


> So then, all four-year-olds are dressage prospects that magically morph into Western prospects at age six or seven? If age was a needed factor for your ratings to be accurate, why did you not request that people provided it before you 'rated' the horses?
> 
> And Luby, that was kind of the point. Of course the color is different. That's why I chose those photos--so it would not be immediately suspected. But the underlying conformation is still the same. Someone truly educated in equine physiology should have noted that my two mares, while differing in maturity, had strikingly similar bone angles.


 
So, you were testing him. Maybe even "tricking" him. .Hm m . I , too, would have thought they were two different horses. Now, I never claimed to be any expert, so perhaps I can be forgiven. I think HG is claiming to be an expert, therein some folks feel that he should offer up his basis for claiming expertise.
Is it years and years of experience? A degree? Just being curious about this is neither prying nor bullying. And someone who says they have a system might like to share how it came about. 
But, he doesn't HAVE to explain his credentials, but neither can he whine or complain when asked for them. Nor can he dictate who stays here on the thread, as long as that member refrains from personal insults.

My two cents, though I am really late to this party.


----------



## Cat

This seemed to get lost in the hubbub. Anyways you could take a look at these boys HG? Thanks.



Cat said:


> Here are the best squared up shots of my boys I could find from this past summer. I could go back and pull older ones on the 2 oldest boys if it might help, just let me know. Thanks.
> 
> Toby - Haflinger, 10 years old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apache - 6 year old draft cross. Not sure mixed with what. Please excuse the towel - that was left out to dry after the dog's bath and Apache was fascinated by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rascal - 2 year old grade ???


----------



## Falicity

here's my girl, Falicity. She's a Dutch warmblood/Tb, 6yrs old, by Musing any and all critique would be great.


----------



## bsms

If there are any questions about the moderating, please contact the moderating team thru the Talk To The Team section:

http://www.horseforum.com/talk-team/


----------



## Skyseternalangel

Would be interested in knowing about my horse (these are all from this past year Oldest --> Newest















































Will try to get some proper confirmation pictures.


----------



## farmpony84

kitten_Val said:


> Yes, I still stand my opinion that any horse alive (unless it's a total conformational wreck or having healthy limitations) can be good for low-level showing (and that's what I meant - showing, when I was talking about low levels). IF the horse has a right mind for that kind of work, which is not always true for every horse, as well as it's something you can't tell from looking at the confo pic of the horse.
> 
> Some horses are very challenging to train to move "dressagy" (for the lack of better word, and by that I mean round, on bit, working from behind, and light on front, nothing more). You still can do it, but you either have to be a very good rider or you have to have a very good trainer to be able to push them. So my qh would NOT be a good dressage prospect EVEN for the low levels just because of the challenges not everyone can deal with, while my neighbor's OTTB is because of his conformation.


I agree that any horse alive can do at least a lower level dressage test and even be competitive. Obviously the more supple ones are going to do better. I showed a very stiff, arthritic appy in a "baby green" dressage course with a good 15 other riders. We placed 8th over all. We did not ribbon in the flat but the cross country and stadium kicked us up into the placings.

I actually think ANY horse can do ANY discipline TO SOME DEGREE... it's just that some are more suitable for specific sports then others and of course when you get into the higher levels it's a whole new ball game....


----------



## kitten_Val

farmpony84 said:


> I actually think ANY horse can do ANY discipline TO SOME DEGREE... it's just that some are more suitable for specific sports then others and of course when you get into the higher levels it's a whole new ball game....


Very much agree, FP!


----------



## banman

are my pictures not good enough?


----------



## bsms

There may be a delay in critiques.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

If most horses can do the lower level of most sports, then what us the purpose if the whole conformation part of this forum??
To say a horse is suitable for a discipline should mean that they are more apt to that sport than most other horses. If they are not, then calling them a pleasure horse is, in my opinion, the best way to describe their suitability. It doesn't mean that they can't do lower level Dressage or jumping, as at the lower levels of those sports it is for most people an endeavor of pleasure riding.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DuffyDuck

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> *If most horses can do the lower level of most sports, then what us the purpose if the whole conformation part of this forum??*
> To say a horse is suitable for a discipline should mean that they are more apt to that sport than most other horses. If they are not, then calling them a pleasure horse is, in my opinion, the best way to describe their suitability. It doesn't mean that they can't do lower level Dressage or jumping, as at the lower levels of those sports it is for most people an endeavor of pleasure riding.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Because a QH that may be able to do low level dressage may also be suitable to run barrles. A WB that may be able to to low level dressage may not be able to run barrles- and confirmation wise, a big tall WB over say 16hh would not be suitable. 

In my opinion, if you can jump, dressage, barrel race, rein or whatever you wish to do with your horse you don't have to be at the top, or have your name in lights to label that horse as a jumper, dressage, barrel racing, reining horse.

Some are more suited as 'pleasure' horses but there are plenty of 'pleasure' horses that could jump, dressage, barrel race or rein.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

DuffyDuck said:


> Because a QH that may be able to do low level dressage may also be suitable to run barrles. A WB that may be able to to low level dressage may not be able to run barrles- and confirmation wise, a big tall WB over say 16hh would not be suitable.
> 
> In my opinion, if you can jump, dressage, barrel race, rein or whatever you wish to do with your horse you don't have to be at the top, or have your name in lights to label that horse as a jumper, dressage, barrel racing, reining horse.
> 
> Some are more suited as 'pleasure' horses but there are plenty of 'pleasure' horses that could jump, dressage, barrel race or rein.


That is what I said in my post....

So if you're going to do a conformation rating tread and then call a horse a Dressage horse, it better be an uphill horse with a strong hindend capable of performing upper level movements, not a pleasure horse that might be able to do first or second level, because almost any horse can do that.....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## lubylol

I think you all are beating a dead horse and this thread should go back to critiquing horses.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## DuffyDuck

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> That is what I said in my post....
> 
> So if you're going to do a conformation rating tread and then call a horse a Dressage horse, it better be an uphill horse with a strong hindend capable of performing upper level movements, not a pleasure horse that might be able to do first or second level, because almost any horse can do that.....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



I understood it as 'if the horse isn't going to make it to higher level, it shouldn't be labelled A,B,C just a pleasure horse.'

Sorry, but I think that's wrong.. apologies if I didn't explain myself properly. The things you stated about confirmation is correct, yes, and does help for dressage, but just because we have an 'ideal' for the perfect confirmation (and lets face it, we all have things we'd like to tweak on our horse's if we really could) but that doesn't mean they have to reach a certain level before they can be classed as A, B or C. JMO, and you've obviously got where you have with success, but persons, like myself, who cannot afford horses that reach a certain medium, to higher level should not have to refrain from calling our horses A, B or C....


----------



## DuffyDuck

lubylol said:


> I think you all are beating a dead horse and this thread should go back to critiquing horses.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



To quote Bubba.. not another slaughter thread :/

I joke, really I do... not so much beating a dead horse, but discussing what we believe 'labels' are, I suppose.. quite interesting to see people's points of view, and so long as it's polite, why not?


----------



## Falicity

lubylol said:


> I think you all are beating a dead horse and this thread should go back to critiquing horses.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


i agree, several horses (including mine ) have been forgotten, and the point of this thread has kind of been defeated.


----------



## DuffyDuck

Falicity said:


> i agree, several horses (including mine ) have been forgotten, and the point of this thread has kind of been defeated.



The OP has been banned so critique may be a while, I don't know if its temp or perm though...


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

DuffyDuck said:


> I understood it as 'if the horse isn't going to make it to higher level, it shouldn't be labelled A,B,C just a pleasure horse.'
> 
> Sorry, but I think that's wrong.. apologies if I didn't explain myself properly. The things you stated about confirmation is correct, yes, and does help for dressage, but just because we have an 'ideal' for the perfect confirmation (and lets face it, we all have things we'd like to tweak on our horse's if we really could) but that doesn't mean they have to reach a certain level before they can be classed as A, B or C. JMO, and you've obviously got where you have with success, but persons, like myself, who cannot afford horses that reach a certain medium, to higher level should not have to refrain from calling our horses A, B or C....


I think again we are having a misunderstanding....
Your horse, to me looks like a Dressage horse conformationally. I'm not saying only expensive Warmbloods should be called Dressage horses, never said that. I have seen plenty of QHs, TBs, Arabs, etc.. who are well conformed for Dressage and are not expensive. My friend has a TB who does the PSG/I1 and has finished in the top half of large classes, the horse is however uphill, well balanced and has powerful haunches and very good legs. Looking at the horse he is well conformed for Dressage.

To say that some of the horses in this thread are Dressage horses to the calibre of performing short work, pirouettes, etc while staying sound is a stretch. To say then that they are able to do lower levels is a cop out as almost every horse in the world can do low level Dressage. So they are better off being called a pleasure horse because at the level they can do the sport and stay sound is basically a pleasure level... up to first or second level. To call a horse a Dressage horse, or say it is suitable for Dressage is saying that they are able to exceed the level of Dressage performance by most horses.. so are able to collect by their conformation...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

lubylol said:


> I think you all are beating a dead horse and this thread should go back to critiquing horses.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree. Posts that attempt to bicker for the fun of bickering will be removed without any explanation. Those discussing what makes a horse good for XYZ, or critiques - if and when the OP returns - are fine.

50 posts have been removed. Let's keep that number from growing.


----------



## DuffyDuck

bsms it says you posted last in here, but I can't seem to view past page 29? Every time I click 30 it refreshes to 29 and shows 30 as the next page...


----------



## bsms

Once again, if anyone has questions about moderating, please start a thread in the Talk To The Team forum:

http://www.horseforum.com/talk-team/

This will allow the moderating team to discuss any concerns you have in private with you.


----------



## DuffyDuck

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> I think again we are having a misunderstanding....
> Your horse, to me looks like a Dressage horse conformationally. I'm not saying only expensive Warmbloods should be called Dressage horses, never said that. I have seen plenty of QHs, TBs, Arabs, etc.. who are well conformed for Dressage and are not expensive. My friend has a TB who does the PSG/I1 and has finished in the top half of large classes, the horse is however uphill, well balanced and has powerful haunches and very good legs. Looking at the horse he is well conformed for Dressage.
> 
> To say that some of the horses in this thread are Dressage horses to the calibre of performing short work, pirouettes, etc while staying sound is a stretch. To say then that they are able to do lower levels is a cop out as almost every horse in the world can do low level Dressage. So they are better off being called a pleasure horse because at the level they can do the sport and stay sound is basically a pleasure level... up to first or second level. To call a horse a Dressage horse, or say it is suitable for Dressage is saying that they are able to exceed the level of Dressage performance by most horses.. so are able to collect by their conformation...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Perhaps I do misunderstand, but then perhaps we have different views on what should be labelled a pleasure horse, or a A,B, C horse. A pleasure horse for me is someone who enjoys the trails, mooching about and hacking out.

We concentrate so much on the 'ideal' confirmation for what we need for out horses, but sometimes I don't believe it to be valid. Again, just my opinion.

So practically every horse in the world can do low level dressage, that isn't an issue, but I don't see why we should only label those who reach a certain level as A, B or C.

The other issue, as has been mentioned previously, is that one picture, and some are not of good quality, does not show you everything. You yourself know your horse better than one picture can tell an outsider, so if someone gets something wrong, I don't see a reason to jump on them rather than discuss it.

With correct training, and no health issues I've seen some pretty 'wonkey donkey's' do some higher dressage.

I just don't think that because a horse doesn't go past low levels you can't call it a dressage horse. It depends on circumstance- you are used to a much higher caliber of horse than I am, and I know a lot of back yard riders who hack, train, train on hacks and compete low levels with their jumpers, dressage and xcountry horses.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

I feel that second level dressage is an extremely basic level of education for any horse or rider. I refuse to raise jumps over about 2'6 until I have the second level solid to the point of receiving high 60% at second level (which is possible with almost any horse). Most well educated western horses can also do the second level - light on the aids, light on the forehand, able to move the shoulder and haunch independently, transistion of walk-canter and trot-halt.
Second level is no large feat, even in the sense of "competition" as I have seen some very ungifted horses compete and win at second level.
Therefore it is considered by most that up to that level is in the "learning" or "pleasure" stage of the learning of both horse and rider. Regardless of your tack - these are basic things that the horse and rider should know. Therefore "pleasure", or "basic riding".. not really dressage.

To get a horse to the point where he can comfortably put together a third level test where extensions, flying changes (not lead swaps - proper changes), half pass and a high degree of collection requires ability from the horse. Something without the conformation for dressage wil have a very difficult time performing at this level, and higher. Not saying it's impossible, but I have never seen a "wonkey donkey" do well, or put together an easy to watch test at this level, even when they have excelled at second level.

So maybe the word pleasure is not entirely being used correctly by me (I think of a non-competetive trail horse as something that just bumbles around and a pleasure horse as something which is riden regularily and competed at low levels of many disciplines or at open shows - think english pleasure classes)... but basically what I mean is that any horse is capable of having a basic education. The fact that there are competitions in dressage in these levels does not make the horse able to do only these levels a dressage horse, it makes them a horse as anything can do second level that isn't horribly crippled.

The point of this thread is for the OP to be labeling the horses as A B or C. He labelled horses not suited to dressage (but suited to a basic education) as dressage horses, in my opinion, various times, so I felt the need to call him out after previous posts attempting discussion were blatantly ignored....


----------



## DuffyDuck

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> I feel that second level dressage is an extremely basic level of education for any horse or rider. I refuse to raise jumps over about 2'6 until I have the second level solid to the point of receiving high 60% at second level (which is possible with almost any horse). Most well educated western horses can also do the second level - light on the aids, light on the forehand, able to move the shoulder and haunch independently, transistion of walk-canter and trot-halt.
> Second level is no large feat, even in the sense of "competition" as I have seen some very ungifted horses compete and win at second level.
> Therefore it is considered by most that up to that level is in the "learning" or "pleasure" stage of the learning of both horse and rider. Regardless of your tack - these are basic things that the horse and rider should know. Therefore "pleasure", or "basic riding".. not really dressage.
> 
> To get a horse to the point where he can comfortably put together a third level test where extensions, flying changes (not lead swaps - proper changes), half pass and a high degree of collection requires ability from the horse. Something without the conformation for dressage wil have a very difficult time performing at this level, and higher. Not saying it's impossible, but I have never seen a "wonkey donkey" do well, or put together an easy to watch test at this level, even when they have excelled at second level.
> 
> So maybe the word pleasure is not entirely being used correctly by me (I think of a non-competetive trail horse as something that just bumbles around and a pleasure horse as something which is riden regularily and competed at low levels of many disciplines or at open shows - think english pleasure classes)... but basically what I mean is that any horse is capable of having a basic education. The fact that there are competitions in dressage in these levels does not make the horse able to do only these levels a dressage horse, it makes them a horse as anything can do second level that isn't horribly crippled.
> 
> The point of this thread is for the OP to be labeling the horses as A B or C. He labelled horses not suited to dressage (but suited to a basic education) as dressage horses, in my opinion, various times, so I felt the need to call him out after previous posts attempting discussion were blatantly ignored....



It's Christmas lol, I'm going to agree to disagree.. perhaps I don't have your view on it, but my view is anyone that wants to do it, regardless of how far they get or their horse's confirmation can have a 'dressage' horse.

There are too many ideals, preferences etc. and everyone's view is different. 

I'm off this board for now. 

Cheerio all =)


----------



## blush

Then why shouldn't first or second level "dressage" be labeled as first/second level "pleasure riding" if only third level and up is considered the only "true dressage"? 

And I mean this as purely an honest question, no offence intended. 
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## thesilverspear

I've been quietly lurking but while generally I agree with the point Duffy is making, I agree with Anabel in the context of *this* thread. It seemed to me that the OP was making claims as to what disciplines horses would be best suited for, and arguably using "dressage" to mean "well, you can ride it and it might not fall over." To me, that's a little bit problematic and certainly undermined the credibility of the OP in my view. 

You can have the most posty-legged, downhill, choppy-gaited horse in the world and if you are happy to potter about at First Level and train your horse to do it to the best of its ability, I'm quite happy calling it a "dressage horse" if that is how the owner sees it. If you posted a picture of said horse and asked me to rate it as a dressage prospect, I'd probably tell you "No, to be honest." I feel there is a difference here. I hope I am explaining it clearly enough.


----------



## DuffyDuck

thesilverspear said:


> I've been quietly lurking but while generally I agree with the point Duffy is making, I agree with Anabel in the context of *this* thread. It seemed to me that the OP was making claims as to what disciplines horses would be best suited for, and arguably using "dressage" to mean "well, you can ride it and it might not fall over." To me, that's a little bit problematic and certainly undermined the credibility of the OP in my view.
> 
> You can have the most posty-legged, downhill, choppy-gaited horse in the world and if you are happy to potter about at First Level and train your horse to do it to the best of its ability, I'm quite happy calling it a "dressage horse" if that is how the owner sees it. If you posted a picture of said horse and asked me to rate it as a dressage prospect, I'd probably tell you "No, to be honest." I feel there is a difference here. I hope I am explaining it clearly enough.



Actually I think you've explained it pretty well... 
except I am banning myself from any more lengthly answers... festive spirit.. and.. champagne :lol:


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

blush said:


> Then why shouldn't first or second level "dressage" be labeled as first/second level "pleasure riding" if only third level and up is considered the only "true dressage"?
> 
> And I mean this as purely an honest question, no offence intended.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 See thesilverspear's answer for a possibly better worded answer than I am capable of explaining...

But anyways.. what do you expect of a well trained horse (universally)??
I think we all (western, english, trail riders, etc..) can agree that having a horse who does w-t-c, shows "collection" in that they are light on the aids and light on the forehand, can independently move their forhand and haunches, show "lenghtened" or "medium" paces, walk on a loose rein and do a walk-canter and trot-halt transitions is "well trained", regardless of discipline, goals, tack or lackthereof and whether you are on a trail, in an arena, infront of a jump or warming up for a barrel pattern. These are the requirements of second level... Therefore any "well-trained" horse for pleasure would be able to do second level so is it really dressage?? Or just having a well trained horse??

Come third level the requirements for collection really increase - you're showing extended paces, beginning walk pirouettes, half pass and flying changes. These things are really what start to set the "dressage" horses and riders apart from the others... And you really need a horse that can sit on his hocks and not break down to perform these things, ie a horse conformed ideally for dressage.


----------



## Chiilaa

I hope to clarify here. I don't think Anebel is suggesting that we stop calling lower levels Dressage. Nor is she putting down those riders who ride at these levels. In the context of this thread, she is suggesting to the OP (who is no longer with us) that they stop using the line "suitable for dressage" if the horse is physically not going to cope with more than the first few levels.

Dressage should NOT be the discipline for horses that are not sound for anything else. Dressage above a certain level will require just as much soundness as jumping, or barrels, or anything else. It is just as demanding on the horse's physical attributes as the other disciplines. The implication of "oh he can't jump because of his bung leg, let's just do dressage with him" is insulting to riders that take dressage seriously. 

When the OP suggests that these horses that don't automatically fit into other disciplines (based entirely on their system, which they clearly cannot come back to justify), it suggests that they too are of this frame of mind. If it can't do anything else, just do dressage with it.


----------



## kitten_Val

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> If most horses can do the lower level of most sports, then what us the purpose if the whole conformation part of this forum??


I want to repeat what I already said on this thread. Obviously most horses can do lower levels of the different disciplines (IF they have a right mind to do a certain discipline, even on low level). If they are _*good **prospects*_ for even the lower levels is absolutely different question. And my answer is no, not every horse is a good prospect for jumping, or dressage, or reining. Not too many people (even those targeting towards the lower levels) will go with the horse that is too hard to deal with/train because of the conformation. 

However I also don't see what is so wrong to say this nice all-arounder would be suitable for low jumping and low levels of dressage.


----------



## kitten_Val

thesilverspear said:


> You can have the most posty-legged, downhill, choppy-gaited horse in the world and if you are happy to potter about at First Level and train your horse to do it to the best of its ability, I'm quite happy calling it a "dressage horse" if that is how the owner sees it. If you posted a picture of said horse and asked me to rate it as a dressage prospect, I'd probably tell you "No, to be honest." I feel there is a difference here. I hope I am explaining it clearly enough.


Agree with you, silver. The horse that may and does something may not be a proper prospect conformation-wise. 

Besides, there IS a difference when someone is posting horse he/she intends to buy targeting towards specific discipline and look for critiques/opinions, and the person who owns the horse already and looks into working in specific discipline. I'm curious, the horse that doesn't have a perfect dressage or jumping conformation still owner wants to do english, _*what *_would you say it would be suitable for? "Pleasure" horse? That does not sound right to me, sorry. "Your horse while doesn't have a perfect confo still can succeed at the lower levels with the proper training" does sound right though. 

As for this particular thread... C'mon, people, everyone should take any conformation suggestions/advices/ratings/critique with the big grain of salt, simply because it's Internet and you take it from some stranger you don't even know. Same often goes for training advices.


----------



## bsms

kitten_Val said:


> ...I'm curious, the horse that doesn't have a perfect dressage or jumping conformation still owner wants to do english, _*what *_would you say it would be suitable for? "Pleasure" horse? That does not sound right to me, sorry...


I guess it is a difference in interpretation between people, which made it worth exploring. I'd say a horse like that is suited for pleasure riding, trails, etc. That is exactly what I think my mustang is suited for - and I'm happy with that. Small, sure-footed, sturdy, excellent hooves, level headed - that is an excellent horse for my purposes. I might not be a fan of Anky, for example, but realistically I probably couldn't even mount, let alone ride, some of the horses she rode. But then, they might not do as well on a desert trail as a mustang born here...

Now, could I use him to learn low level dressage, cutting, jumping, or reining? Probably. I was told he spent a couple years on a working ranch here in southern AZ, so he's been around cows.

But if it is a level that ANY sound horse could handle, then that isn't how I interpret "suitable". That doesn't make me right, of course. It just means that it is hard to write anything in such a way that someone can't misunderstand it. Therefor, when confusion arises, people of good will ought to ask and listen. I'm good at asking, but my wife could tell you I need work on the "listening" side! :lol:


----------



## kitten_Val

bsms said:


> I guess it is a difference in interpretation between people, which made it worth exploring. I'd say a horse like that is suited for pleasure riding, trails, etc.


See, bsms, that's my personal pet peeves, simply because I was in the same situation. When people say so they in fact may discourage the owner from looking into the discipline even though the horse clearly can do lower levels and owner doesn't look into something special/high. 

I was lucky enough to have several people here last year (those with qualifications and knowing what they say) to encourage me to look into the different trainer if I want to try it so much. Now, noone told me I have a perfect english prospect (no, I'm not, and I knew that :wink: ), but noone said it's only good for trail riding/pleasure like some local trainers did. 

BTW, I think we are going off-topic quite a bit...


----------



## Spyder

kitten_Val said:


> BTW, I think we are going off-topic quite a bit...



Thread drift fairy ?????????


----------



## kitten_Val

^^ Lol, Spyder! At least we don't have heat-up discussion going off-topic (even when we disagree)...


----------



## Horsegears

Horses are not rated as dressage horses because they have been assessed at a lower level. The suitability rating is in fact noting to do with solely top-end or low end potential. There are also ample western, endurance jumping etc that are rated as lower level horses.

A horses placement is reliant on factors such as 'soundness for a purpose' and other conformation traits, and applies equally across other disciplines. *A genuine low level western horse may equally be rated as solely a western horse *partly because its 'soundness for a purpose' does not suit english disciplines. Many other traits go along with these that further emphasize this point.* (If 'soundness for a purpose' if foreign to you, you can take my word it exists and I can justify/explain it just like many past issues in this thread). Once again the same generally applies to horses through all the disciplines equally.

The discipline 'suitability rating' uses a horses traits prominently in a positive manner to place it in its most suitable discipline - all considered conformation wise. If someone prefers to place ALL lower level horses in the 'pleasure basket" - that actually takes a lot less knowledge/effort to do and is fine by me. But I don't think such views based on 'opinion' are even worth debating. You rate as you wish and let others rate as they wish. I am not going into anyone else's thread effectively telling them how they MUST rate horses and going on and on and on about it. Its silly.

Horses that are considered lower level can often compete fine if placed in a suitable discipline. Conformation is not a definitive factor to performance and if the horse is well placed you just never know until you try. This especially applies to fun learning mounts for beginner/intermediate riders. Not everyone can afford, or wants to buy a potential top level horse, and may prefer to keep their own horse - but give it and themselves the best opportunity by placing it well. 

In contrast, an ability or athletic rating rates a horses top-end *potential via its conformation. (Breeding, mentality, heart and many other factors collate to determine a horses actual realized ability. 

If you have questions on the above kindly read below. 

If a moderator wants to privately question me about qualifications/experience etc I am fine with that, but for several reasons I am not going to make any such claims to being an 'expert' or claiming qualifications in a forum were I am certainly not working in a professional manner money wise. For the sake of this forum and thread I remain without having made claims of being an 'expert' or being qualified in any way, despite false claims to the contradictory.

Regardless I believe my knowledge as shown in this thread talks for itself.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

Horses all have limitations and I think that yes, "lumping them in the pleasure basket" for the more conformationally limited horses is not uneducated, but realistic. Why tell someone with a horse "best suited for Dressage" but that probably won't stay sound past first or second level that their horse is a Dressage prospect?? When really, it should be pleasure ridden and competed at low levels to maintain soundness, not pushed to perform at compete in Dressage. 

If you are going to call a pear an apple then sobeit but people with your view on horse conformation are the reason that so many people show up in the Dressage ring thinking any horse can do Dressage and proceed to break down their PLEASURE horse (who may be "best suited to Dressage") attempting to force him up the levels where he clearly cannot conformationally go! It's basic biomechanics....

Just because I have a compact frame and am "best suited" to lifting weights or something does not mean I am a weight lifter because as far as human conformation I should really only do low impact, recreational sport. And I'm ok with not doing a half iron man ever. I work out to keep my body strong for riding and for my own enjoyment but if I ever started training for an event my body would break down because I am not built for high impact sport!

Why is calling a pleasure horse a pleasure horse so bad?! Who cares if your horse is best suited to barrels when realistically it should not be pushed to run a barrel pattern if you wish to keep its soundness? Who cares if the horse is best suited to jumping if it will only stay sound if jumped below 2 feet? Recreational pleasure horses have their place and should be referred to as such. And its not uneducated, its logical and reasonable. I suggest you go back and read some ot the posts and arguments made by people like thesilverspear and myself on previous pages...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> See thesilverspear's answer for a possibly better worded answer than I am capable of explaining...
> 
> But anyways.. what do you expect of a well trained horse (universally)??
> I think we all (western, english, trail riders, etc..) can agree that having a horse who does w-t-c, shows "collection" in that they are light on the aids and light on the forehand, can independently move their forhand and haunches, show "lenghtened" or "medium" paces, walk on a loose rein and do a walk-canter and trot-halt transitions is "well trained", regardless of discipline, goals, tack or lackthereof and whether you are on a trail, in an arena, infront of a jump or warming up for a barrel pattern. These are the requirements of second level... Therefore any "well-trained" horse for pleasure would be able to do second level so is it really dressage?? Or just having a well trained horse??
> 
> Come third level the requirements for collection really increase - you're showing extended paces, beginning walk pirouettes, half pass and flying changes. These things are really what start to set the "dressage" horses and riders apart from the others... And you really need a horse that can sit on his hocks and not break down to perform these things, ie a horse conformed ideally for dressage.


This post specifically I think explains my opinion pretty well...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## kitten_Val

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> If you are going to call a pear an apple then sobeit but people with your view on horse conformation are the reason that *so many people show up in the Dressage ring thinking any horse can do Dressage and proceed to break down their PLEASURE horse *(who Kay be "best suited to Dressage") attempting to force him up the levels where he clearly cannot conformationally go! It's basic biomechanics....


You can't fix stupid in this particular case though. Doesn't matter WHAT those people are told they are not gonna listen (and again, I don't understand in 1st place how one can seriously take expertise advice on Internet, unless I know for sure who the person is, I'm not talking about this particular thread, but in general). And I'd expect such people to work with the trainer, so why would trainer say nothing?


----------



## Spyder

kitten_Val said:


> You can't fix stupid in this particular case though. Doesn't matter WHAT those people are told they are not gonna listen (and again, I don't understand in 1st place how one can seriously take advice on Internet, unless I know for sure who the person is). And I'd expect such people to work with the trainer, so why would trainer say nothing?



It is too bad that instead of using the word dressage as a single critique description, maybe it would have been better to have said.

_A general all rounder at the lower levels in any discipline._

That would not make pleasure or dressage sound like a loser or leftover.


----------



## ~*~anebel~*~

Spyder said:


> It is too bad that instead of using the word dressage as a single critique description, maybe it would have been better to have said.
> 
> _A general all rounder at the lower levels in any discipline._
> 
> That would not make pleasure or dressage sound like a loser or leftover.


Yes. Thank you Spyder for the well worded response.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Skyseternalangel

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Horses all have limitations and I think that yes, "lumping them in the pleasure basket" for the more conformationally limited horses is not uneducated, but realistic. *Why tell someone with a horse "best suited for Dressage" but that probably won't stay sound past first or second level that their horse is a Dressage prospect?? When really, it should be pleasure ridden and competed at low levels to maintain soundness, not pushed to perform at compete in Dressage. *
> 
> If you are going to call a pear an apple then sobeit but people with your view on horse conformation are the reason that *so many people show up in the Dressage ring thinking any horse can do Dressage and proceed to break down their PLEASURE horse (who may be "best suited to Dressage") attempting to force him up the levels where he clearly cannot conformationally go!* It's basic biomechanics....
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


See that is my ultimate fear. Because I am not educated enough to understand where a horse's limitations are. It's so easy for someone to say "yes they can do this" but where do they draw the line? Some people just want the ribbons, others want what's best for the horse.

Which is WHY I want all of the opinions I can get. I don't plan on going high with my horse. I just want him to be happy and enjoy life for a change. So expect to see him in a lot more critique threads 

But I think if people are offended (for lack of a better word) having their horse called a pleasure horse instead of a "barrels" horse or a "jumper" or a "dressage" horse, then I think they need to work on growing some thicker skin.


----------



## thesilverspear

To be fair, Horsegears, if you make highly debatable claims on an internet forum, especially one populated by other opinionated and knowledgeable horsepeople, and ALSO suggest that the "conformation theory" as expounded by "textbooks" (which ones? can we have full citations, please) is incorrect or inaccurate, you should expect people to challenge you, to ask about your qualifications, and to inquire which sources back up your arguments.


----------



## Faceman

Horsegears said:


> ...Conformation is not a definitive factor to performance...


Oh, for Heaven sakes...


----------



## tomriad

Faceman said:


> I'm not afraid to say I have a degree in Biology, a substantial anatomy and physiology education


 
so whats your excuse............ha ha


----------



## Faceman

tomriad said:


> so whats your excuse............ha ha


I don't know - fell out of a tree on my head maybe?...:rofl:


----------



## enduroenglish

~*~anebel~*~ said:


> Horses all have limitations and I think that yes, "lumping them in the pleasure basket" for the more conformationally limited horses is not uneducated


My equine mentor helped me find my enduro horse. We both figured the horse was a trainwreak. The horse was going to dogs in a days. Had been for sale for months and would not sell. My budget was small. Toby was skinny and looked underweight. Toby was clam to ride and my trainer done this trick of counting its heart rate after riding. He said for what I wished it was great value. The horse turned out my best horse ever. People away from endurance see my horse and look down on us both. 

It is disgusting to only judge horses just on its look. Heart, mind, work can take many unperfect horses to high levels. Dont wite a horse off on looks or bein lower type only good for pleasure fun trial.


----------



## bsms

enduroenglish said:


> ...Heart, mind, work can take many unperfect horses to high levels. Dont wite a horse off on looks or bein lower type only good for pleasure fun trial.


Kind of hard to judge that from a photo, though...

The horse's personality and drive can help. However, my mustang pony ain't going to go far in dressage. He's great for pleasure riding. He's 13 hands, and can carry my 175 lbs without any difficulty. He's a solid fellow with a good mind. He seems very well balanced. 

Why is it wrong to say a horse is well suited for pleasure riding, and capable of benefiting from lower level dressage? Why is it considered an insult if the horse isn't built right for top level competition in anything?


----------



## enduroenglish

bsms said:


> The horse's personality and drive can help. However, my mustang pony ain't going to go far in dressage. He's great for pleasure riding. He's 13 hands, and can carry my 175 lbs without any difficulty. He's a solid fellow with a good mind. He seems very well balanced.


Mustangs are mostly western, thats coments a bit dumb actually (ever even watched western movies?).



bsms said:


> Why is it wrong to say a horse is well suited for pleasure riding, and capable of benefiting from lower level dressage?


HUH, no one said that?



bsms said:


> Why is it considered an insult if the horse isn't built right for top level competition in anything?


HUH, no one said it was about high level either, that is kinda dumb comment as well.

Its disgusting to describe any lower level horse as only suitable for pleasure trial. My Toby is seen as low level (on look), but is a very capable endurance discipline horse.


----------



## bubba13

Am I the only one suspicious of all the brand-new members flocking to this thread, along with the nature of their comments? :rofl:



> Mustangs are western, that's coments a bit dumb actually (ever even watch western movies?).


Where in the world did you get THAT comment?


----------



## bsms

But bubba, my mustang looks like this (with my daughter-in-law):










*You don't think that Totilas fellow is getting worried?*



enduroenglish said:


> Mustangs are mostly western, thats coments a bit dumb actually (ever even watched western movies?)...
> 
> HUH, no one said it was about high level either, that is kinda dumb comment as well...


I know you are new here, but calling people dumb is neither helpful or friendly. Please consider changing your approach to posting on the forum. This thread has had 50 posts removed for rudeness. You could make it 51...


----------



## bubba13

Looks like a dressage* prospect, to me.

*_And by "dressage," I mean "horseburger."_


----------



## Spyder

enduroenglish said:


> Mustangs are mostly western, thats coments a bit dumb actually (ever even watched western movies?).
> 
> .



Opps......................... SOMEONE forgot to tell this mustang that he is not doing what he is supposed to do...eh ?

And this one is only in its first year of showing...........!!!!!!!


----------



## bsms

bubba13, He would kick you for that comment, but his short, stubby legs might not reach. 

He's the perfect horse for me. If in doubt, I can stand up and let him run off without me.


----------



## enduroenglish

enduroenglish said:


> Its disgusting to describe any lower level horse as only suitable for pleasure trial. My Toby is seen as low level (on look), but is a very capable endurance discipline horse.


*bsms *
Why do you say this is not so. Explain please.


----------



## Skyseternalangel

:/ Though I do love the Spyder's posts, I'm going to have to unsubscribe. This is getting a little ridiculous for my liking.


----------



## Kimmylikestojump

If that video is what a common 1st leveler/pleasure horse only looks like, my horse would be better off not even trying.


----------



## enduroenglish

Skyseternalangel said:


> I'm going to unsubscribe. This is getting a little ridiculous QUOTE] :clap:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same, never heard any horseperson say a lower level conformed horse has to be called a pleasure horse.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bsms

enduroenglish said:


> Skyseternalangel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to unsubscribe. This is getting a little ridiculous QUOTE] :clap:
> 
> Same, never heard any horseperson say a lower level conformed horse has to be called a pleasure horse.
> 
> 
> 
> If the horse can do lower level dressage, fine. Do it.
> 
> But since I'm constantly told that ANY horse can do low level dressage, there is no value in saying "This horse can do low level dressage". If ANY horse can do it, then saying it is like saying, "This horse can eat hay".
> 
> Pretty much any horse in the world can jump 6-12 inches. Should any horse in the world be called 'suitable for jumping'? If the standard is, "Good enough to jump 6 inches", then saying the horse can jump becomes meaningless.
> 
> My horses can jump 12 inches, but none of them would be a good purchase for someone who wants to use a horse for jumping. My horses can do training to improve their flexibility and athleticism, but none of them would be a good purchase for someone who wants to use a horse for competitive dressage.
> 
> Here is an article that discusses what conformation results in a good dressage horse:
> 
> Desirable conformational traits in a dressage horse
> 
> A horse doesn't have to be built for dressage to do low level dressage, but he should be built for it before someone singles him out as 'suitable for dressage'. Otherwise, "suitable for dressage" = "horse". And we already have a good word for that - "horse"!
Click to expand...


----------



## Faceman

Why do people post that they are going to unsubscribe? The post itself is contrary to their statement...





Most people know that my gelding Casper is a trainwreck. But he excels at dressage...standing dressage.

Casper and I invented standing dressage, and standing dressage is a growing discipline in the Ozarks, and just about any horse can do well. All it takes is a quiet clearing in the woods and a nice sunny day...no fees, no travel, no bad judges, no tiresome grooming, no expensive tack, and no fancy pants or silly hats.

While sitting peacefully in our clearing in the warm sun, Casper and I visualize our routine. After years of practice, we are in perfect synchronization. What might be to some the sound of a flock of birds passing overhead we know to be the startled crowd, taking in their breath at our perfect movement in unison - we are one body...we are one mind. 

Standing dressage can extremely demanding. Sometimes between our rounds, I dismount, have a smoke, and visit the nearest tree while Casper rests peacefully and grabs a few mouthfulls of grass to regain his energy for the next round.

While some people might poo-poo standing dressage, it takes far more skill and mental coordination between man and horse to visualize doing a routine together than to actually do a routine together. Birds, butterflies, squirrels, chipmunks, and an overwhelming compulsion to close one's eyes, daydream, and slowly drift to sleep - all conspire to distract one's attention from the business at hand. It takes very strict discipline to avoid losing one's concentration.

But the rewards are worth it. The slow mosey up the path back to the barn through the throngs of worshipping admirers after a hard day of standing dressage creates a contentment and satisfaction that most people never have the opportunity to enjoy...they are far too busy rushing through their lives, celebrating victories and grieving losses, stressed and worried, to enjoy the simple pleasures of true communion with their equine partner.

I'm sure someday Casper will be dethroned - nothing lasts forever, and all champions must bow to those who follow. But for now he is the best. Number one. The man. There is no other that can even approach his skill at standing dressage...


----------



## bsms

I'll add that some people buy a horse FOR a sport, and others (me) buy a horse and then look for a sport.

For the first person, suitable means "a good horse to buy in support of my chosen sport". For the second, suitable means, "good enough".

My little mustang is good for my purposes. However, some of the things that make him a good match for me would make him a poor choice for jumping. He has a heavy body for his size, and thick legs. He was born wild, and is cautious about his footing. For an adult male riding in the desert, he does fine. The solid body and legs can carry my weight. When picking the way thru rocks, his caution keeps us safe. Safe is very important to both of us!

Although he can jump, his build works against him. Heavy weight for his height means he'll never say:

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth
And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings;
Sunward I've climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth
Of sun-split clouds..."

Indeed, he has no desire to dance the skies. He wants his feet on the ground. Think Gimli!

In the future, one of my granddaughters may want to learn jumping, and he could do it - at a very low level. Beyond that, he would not be suitable.

Gratuitous Internet airplane pic - humor a former WSO/EWO who would gladly "slip the surly bonds of earth". It has been a long time since I had a chance to play with the clouds :


----------



## MHFoundation Quarters

Face - I love the standing dressage concept! I'm queen of horseless freestyle reining. It's also a visualization sport, turn the satellite radio to classic vinyl, find a great song like Styx's Renegade and imagine where your slides, spins, circles and lead changes would fall in the song. You should try it sometime.


----------



## sierrams1123

*Please Take a Look At My Mare *

I would love to hear what you think of my mare.
The pictures where she looks wet is when she was down on her weight and in heavy work outs, the other pictures are from when she was out of shape and very fluffy! She is now in shape and at a good weight  but I have not current body shots of her. These pictures were not taken to judge her confo so I will understand if they are not ones you can work with.
Thank you in advance.


----------



## Klassic Superstar

Would love to hear what you think of Oliver, first picture is the most recent, 2nd one is when I first got him  BE harsh!:shock:

He is a 5 year old Trakhner/TB 15.1h


----------



## grayshell38

Unfortunately for the people that were enjoying this thread without the excess commentary, I think that HorseGears will probably not be coming back to this thread.


----------



## kitten_Val

bsms said:


> I'll add that some people buy a horse FOR a sport, and others (me) buy a horse and then look for a sport.


That's an excellent comment, bsms. It happens more often then not BTW. When I got my qh filly ALL I was looking for was a pleasure horse for trail riding (several months later I got my paint to pull it off the bad situation, and I wasn't even planning on breaking/riding it). But the appetite comes as you eat, so I got tired of just trail riding and decided to try bunch of other things. Then I started lessons. Now I look into showing dressage (even though on low levels) and (possibly and if everything goes smooth) jumping for one of them.

Faceman, I'm not just great at standing dressage. My qh and me are PERFECT at it!


----------



## GotaDunQH

I know Ross, the OP, from somewhere else. just a little background and I'll be brief; he's written a lot of articles and has run things by me for other disciplines other than racing...which is his niche. He looks at the "inside" of the horse, the skeletal stucture and the mechanics of that structure as it relates to performance. MOST of us look at the outside instead, without thinking about the actual bone structure and angles underneath. That is what Ross specializes in...but he has branched out into the other disciplines. I've given him insight into what a person looks for in a cutter, a reiner, an HUS horse, a WP horse, a Dressage horse and so on when it comes to "form to function". There IS a difference in all of them and Ross has looked for guidance in the discipline outside his realm. He comes at conformation in a strictly bio-mechanic eye based in horse racing, a more scientific view from what the rest of us look at. He's learning outside of his realm, and who can fault him for wanting to learn more. We all know that the horse industry changes constantly in disciplines and us humans have "tweaked" conformation to suit our needs.


----------



## Clayton Taffy

I thought horsegears was very interesting. I am sorry he is not critiqueing horses here anymore.


----------



## demonwolfmoon

Taffy Clayton said:


> I thought horsegears was very interesting. I am sorry he is not critiqueing horses here anymore.


Same. I liked reading it....
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------

