# Conformation is good....... WHAT?!



## AQHA13

Good confo for what they expect in a halter horse. In a halter class that horse would probably do very well. In any other discipline, NO WAY. It wouldn't hold up structurally. It's bones are too tiny for it's overly large muscles and the lines they show are very different from the angles I actually see on the horse!


----------



## alexischristina

I saw a great looking mare... when my screen was cutting off her lower half, and that just looks odd to me? I'm no halter expert, but from what I've seen she does fit in- but everywhere else? No way.


----------



## Juna

The angle that's off is her shoulder slope. The mare's slope is much more vertical than their line.

The horse is kinda cool to look at....but I wouldn't want to ride her. With those posty pasterns...she'd jar the living life outta me at the trot! Not to mention breaking down.....


----------



## JustDressageIt

Every horse would have an excellent "shoulder slope" if calculated like that; in fact her shoulder is a bit steep. The red markings mean very little to me - I will pull up one of Denny's photos and do the same thing, it means very little. 
Though... in the grand scheme of things, she is a nice mare. Overmuscled for what I would like, which can make her seem unappealing, and can have a negative effect on the way she moves for us 'movin horses' types, but her base conformation is quite nice. A bit posty-hocked (of course), hind legs set back on the haunch, and a bit of a diaper butt, but all in all, I do like her. 
I'm giggling over the red marks, but all in all the mare herself certainly isn't something I'd be quick to scoff at. Is she perfect? No, she has her faults, but she's nicer than a lot of "broodmares" out there that shouldn't be reproducing...


----------



## rocky pony

Honestly those horses scare the crap out of me...hahaha


----------



## Shalani

So true ! So many halter horses these days in all breeds would be near useless as riding horses.

So how is it that they win in a class that is purely based on confirmation and movement ???


----------



## White Foot

I have a halterbred gelding that I ride all the time. And now he's getting very nice muscles 

I love the halter QH, they are so gorgeous.


----------



## JustDressageIt

Folks, let's please keep this thread from becoming a Halter-bred horse bashing thread. It's a different discipline, just like every other different discipline out there. This mare, while overmuscled for my tastes, doesn't have poor conformation. I would much rather she breed (if she is HyPP/HERDA negative) than a horse with no purpose.
Again, the mare's base conformation is nice - yes she has some faults, but not many to speak of. It's the overmuscling that detracts the eye.


----------



## ShutUpJoe

I like her. In fact I had a mare very similar to her. Tiny head, steep shoulder, thin neck.... She was nice to look at.


----------



## farmpony84

I think she's really pretty. She's bred for halter, not movement. Not saying she can't perform, but it isn't something that would come easily to her, she's too bulky. However, if they wanted to make her a broodmare, she could make some pretty performance babies.... (my opinion)

She looks like she's an impressive bred mare so she'd have to by HYPP/NN for me to breed her though.


----------



## JustDressageIt

thunderhooves said:


> 1) The pic also demonstrates angles?! I'm confused.
> 2) They also said she had good balance,
> 3) hip,
> 4) shoulder,
> 5) nice neck tied in high, and
> 6 )great set back withers
> ............... please explain?



1) The photo tries to demonstrate angles, but it does a poor job of it. Actually, I'd be inclined to tell you to ignore everything in red on that photo because it really doesn't make any sense to me. There is a correct way to draw angles and the "thirds" rule, but they didn't do it. 
2) She is very balanced, but their lines are slightly off. The mare's neck and head is proportionate to her shoulder is proportionate to her ribcage is proportionate to her hindquarter. This creates a balanced horse. If one section is too long, it can throw the horse's proportions off, making them a relatively "unbalanced" horse. 
3) She does have a nice hip, but them writing "hip bone" over a quarter of her hindquarter doesn't tell me (or you) anything. In fact, writing "hip bone" over the location of her hip bone makes it harder to see it. When you are judging a horse, you want to look at these angles:








(there are other angles in the hindquarter that you can look at, but that was an okay picture to show what I was getting at)
4) Shoulder angles are very important to some of us. It determines the ability for a horse to move and be free in the front end. For others it's a distinguishing mark of a comfortable horse. The red line that they drew means nothing corresponding to her shoulder slope. You can quite clearly see that the angle is much steeper. Here is a good article for shoulder angle: Front End Conformation
Put that and point 3 together (the triangle is what I'm used to seeing, it is very important):
















5) She has a nice neck and it is tied in high for a quarter horse. Tied in means where it attaches to the horse's front end. 
Tied in high: 








Tied in low: 








You can see that the top of the neck is attached at different places, as is the bottom of the neck in those two photos. 
6) Set back withers has to do with where the withers are and where they end. Ideally, you want them to end quite far back as that indicates balance. Follow the slope of the wither. Where does it look like they join in to the back? This is the attachment place, and you want it actually quite centered in the middle of the horse. This is best illustrated with pictures, I will come back with some.


----------



## IllComeALopin

While I like her a lot I'd say she is an inbeween halter horse... not the greatest but you could do _a lot_ worse imo.

Remember, in this picture she is fitted for halter... its not like she is stuck like this forever.
You could easily take her home, feed her differently, and she would make a cute, nice (normal looking/less muscled) little mare. 

No, she likely won't make a jumper, eventer, or dressage prospect, to me she will be to wide and big for cow events and gymkhana.. but she would make a cute local pleasure horse for sure.


----------



## farmpony84

IllComeALopin said:


> Remember, in this picture she is fitted for halter... its not like she is stuck like this forever.
> You could easily take her home, feed her differently, and she would make a cute, nice (normal looking/less muscled) little mare.


Beauty is no longer fitted for halter and has had 5 babies. I don't have any great conformation shots but you'll see that that mare could actually look pretty cute as a riding horse. Beauty does well in western pleasure and is really cute in the hunter ring and even does well over 2 foot courses. She isn't shown anymore due to a severe tendon injury.


----------



## IllComeALopin

farmpony84 said:


> Beauty is no longer fitted for halter and has had 5 babies. I don't have any great conformation shots but you'll see that that mare could actually look pretty cute as a riding horse. Beauty does well in western pleasure and is really cute in the hunter ring and even does well over 2 foot courses. She isn't shown anymore due to a severe tendon injury.


Thanks, this was my point.
They are _fed_ like this, not necessarily _bred_ like this. 

But; Yes, she will always be bulkier than a walking horse, or a thoroughbred. But, she is the kind of horse I like.

And while I said she wouldn't make a good jumper I ment BIG jumps...
Only becuase halter horses are big bodied horses and smaller legs and feet. When trained, shoed/trimmed, and shown in a way that complements them they do hold up just like any other horse in any other discipline..
Those thin legs and small feet just make 'em move really nice imho.


----------



## Allison Finch

That mare's hind legs are so post legged it is ridiculous to consider her with GOOD conformation, IMO. To me, not even pretty to look at. 

Why consider it a winning form? It would be a poor horse for any discipline that I know of. And those tiny feet? I've seen too many have bad soundness issues way too early in life.


----------



## westonsma

Bramblett Quarter Horses - JMK In Reality

I think it is the standard of excellence in the Halter competition to look this way. Any stallion you see that is a halter champ will be the same. They compromise bone density for muscle density, to up the "beefiness" and make the horse appear larger than it would if it were heavily boned as well. 

Check out the tiny feet and upright pasterns on this stallion. That's just the norm for the discipline. And the lines are off, but she's a nice prospect, and if bred with the right stud, she could produce some good prospects for performance!


----------



## FGRanch

I really like her, other than her hind legs.


----------



## smrobs

IMHO, good conformation is sound conformation even if it doesn't really hit the wow factor on the pretty scale. If a horse cannot stay sound under even semi-stressful work, then it's conformation is not good. FP, I really like your mare. She is very well conformed and still has some bones and feet under her. She looks like the type of mare you could win a halter class with then go use her for ranch work all day. Back in the day, it was good sound using horses that were entered into halter classes and that's the way it still should be. I don't have a problem with the OP body or her head, my biggest problem is with the entire lower half of her body. She has teacup hooves, chicken legs, and is way too straight from hoof to body. Her pasterns have no angle at all and neither do her hocks. Even if she did somehow manage to stay sound for work, she would likely be a monster to ride like a jackhammer on steroids. I get that it is the discipline standard for a horse to look like that but I honestly don't understand breeding horses that are literally good for nothing else than looking "purty" in the show ring and so many are not sound or comfortable for even light riding.


----------



## .Delete.

Good confirmation for a halter horse. But you should not compare that confirmation to a rail horse, jumping horse, etc etc. That is what is desirable in the halter ring. I live near a halter horse breeder (breeds appy halter studs) they all have posty legs.


----------



## Tennessee

I like her minus her back legs. It's just an acquired taste to like these kind of horses.


----------



## lolayla

i am really confused because i can see thunderhooves origional post but the post that JDI quoted was no where to be seen!?!? anyways i think that the red lines over the mare were actually drawn to show that she is NOT correct. i just noticed that some people were saying the lines were drawn incorrectly over the mare. 

i sont like halter horses but i actually like this mare. yes she is over muscled and post legged but still in general a nice mare. 

question for any halter people. if the mare was broke to ride and taken off of the halter regimen(feeding, exercise ect.) would her huge bulky muscles diminish and become more performance like? or would the work keep the muscles from the work? always wondered that.


----------



## smrobs

Yes, some of the bulky appearance would fade. However, even with proper feed and excersize, the unsound conformation of her legs would not change.


----------



## lolayla

ha ha ignore my "red lines to show she is not correct". Pro posted the actual page that picture came from in the thread about the triangles of comformation. looks like it was a general outline to show she was close to correct. my bad...


----------



## Super Nova

I agree the back legs are not conformationly correct for any horse.......there should be decent angle in the stifle and in the hock........they should not look like a post. 

Super Nova


----------



## trailhorserider

Sometimes I think the AQHA forgets that Quarter Horses are supposed to be able to work cattle, not look like cattle. I love muscle as much as the next guy, but common, let's get some bone and hoof on these horses!

I love, love, love stocky horses. Draft crosses and anything that is compact, muscular and has substance drives me mad! Old style Morgans, Mustangs, Welsh cobs, Irish Drafts etc, I just love them! So Quarter Horses should be my favorite breed, right? But it is getting so hard to find ones I really, really like. They either all look like beef cattle or they all look like Thoroughbreds. What happened to the old bulldog style QH's? Ones that have bone, hoof and muscle? Ones that are built like tanks AND are sound? I love those kinds of horses.


----------



## thunderhooves

trailhorserider said:


> Sometimes I think the AQHA forgets that Quarter Horses are supposed to be able to work cattle, not look like cattle. I love muscle as much as the next guy, but common, let's get some bone and hoof on these horses!
> 
> I love, love, love stocky horses. Draft crosses and anything that is compact, muscular and has substance drives me mad! Old style Morgans, Mustangs, Welsh cobs, Irish Drafts etc, I just love them! So Quarter Horses should be my favorite breed, right? But it is getting so hard to find ones I really, really like. They either all look like beef cattle or they all look like Thoroughbreds. What happened to the old bulldog style QH's? Ones that have bone, hoof and muscle? Ones that are built like tanks AND are sound? I love those kinds of horses.


haha good point.


----------



## equiniphile

Halter Quality horses are often not bred in any way that would make him a desirable athlete. They often have over-muscled bodies and less efficiency from lugging all that extra muscle around, and too-thin legs with too-small feet to soundly support their over-muscled bodies. Pin legs and Hulk bodes :???:


----------



## Shalani

I'm not making this into a halter horse bashing thread.
Its a debate 

I have seen some amazing halter horses....

but others I have seen are terrible .

Halter horses are supposed to be judged on their conformation and suitability as breeding stock. 

Now if their conformation inhibited their ability to perform in any discipline let alone the disciplines the breed is well known for ...

How is it a good example of the breed??


----------



## .Delete.

Quarter horse = STOCK horse.

It has turned into who has the STOCKIEST horse. I think they took the term "stock horse" a bit too literal.


----------



## equiniphile

^ Dido. I don't like today's halter horses. Many halter horses are VERY limited in their athletic abilities because of very odd, very ugly selective breeding for "who has the best body-builder horse?!"


----------



## IllComeALopin

And _once again _Halter is another discipline that is let up to the judges... if the judges didn't pin them, you would have very pretty horse that could move.

My farrier is a halter horse guy. He shows at AQHA shows all over the states. He told me that a judge came up to him and told him outright that he came in second becuase his two year old wasn't butt high and didn't have as much muscle. :-( This farrier is a great guy, and he won't take a butt high horse if you paid him... some judges just don't understand what they are lookin for. 

I have seen some harsh, rough around the edges, ranch bred Quarter horses with fugly heads and not to my liking conformation; they moved like crap, but stayed sound and got the job done day in and out... not somthing I would want but their owners loved them...


----------



## IllComeALopin

equiniphile said:


> ^ Dido. I don't like today's halter horses. Many halter horses are VERY limited in their athletic abilities because of very odd, very ugly selective breeding for "who has the best body-builder horse?!"


 
Athleticism is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't need anything that can do high levels in dressage, jump 7 feet then down into a puddle of water, turn circles around a few barrels, or rope cows all day.

My halter bred horse is doing very well as a pleasure trail horse, he could easily go Hunter Under Saddle, Western Pleasure, Trail (show) and he seems to have the 'want' to team pen (he is a bit big, but can still get out of his own way pretty fast).
I think most of all he would like the trail classes, becuase he enjoys lateral movements and he is very quite, almost to quite for a horse his age :lol:.

Best of all; his personality. He is a much more sensative horse than I'm used to (I'm used to ranch/cutting bred Qhs). He is very smart and always willing to please, but he is the type of horse who panics (we get a lot of 'panic' sweat as I call it) when he doesnt understand somthing or thinks he is doing a bad job. 
So far I really like him, he shows a lot promise... even if he can't rope or pen cows all day; thats fine for me i don't have any cows anyway.

Now I'll be honest my biggest pet peeve; he is a little too whimpy. He swells easily from bugs, and from being stalled (I assume for most of his young life) its taking him a while to figure out how real horses live... outside on uneven ground! He also walks in his stall, but I hope living how he is now that will go away. His feet were in poor condition when I got him so we have to work on those becuase he was very long in the toes and whoever shoed him just slapped a shoe on right out of the box. And of course at 16 hands tall he is a bit of a pain when I have to go under low branches :lol:.
As a trail horse he goes over and under anything I point him at. 
For a 3 year old he does real well imho, there isnt a thing I wouldn't at least try to do on him.


----------



## roro

I don't see what's so awful about her, as long as she's for halter and not for a working discipline. However, those red lines do nothing but make her look worse, that red line is certainly NOT showing her shoulder line. Her shoulder is quite steeper than that, and her legs are quite below average for riding purposes, as well as what I can see from her hooves. Good halter horse, not so good riding horse.


----------



## Allison Finch

roro said:


> I don't see what's so awful about her, as long as she's for halter and not for a working discipline. Good halter horse, not so good riding horse.


SHEESH! So, we are really trying to breed a non-usable horse? What is all this coming to? Breeding horses with a genetic trait (HYPP) that has become rampant in the breed just because it helps bulk muscles up? And, really, no other reason. SAD sad sad.....


----------



## IllComeALopin

Who said the horse is hypp positive?

and its not a "non-usable horse" I could easily use this horse. Maybe you can't, but I could.


----------



## Tennessee

I don't understand why people compare halter horses to riding horses. They are not the same thing. They are not even in the same category!

A halter horse is called a halter horse for a reason. They are not bred to be jumping four foot fences, be able to chase a cow around an arena, or run a mile race in less than two minutes. 

They are not bred for their suitability to be rode. Let them be. If you don't like them, don't get one.


----------



## IllComeALopin

Tennessee said:


> They are not bred for their suitability to be rode. Let them be. If you don't like them, don't get one.


If you don't fit them for halter they usually do well in trail and pleasure classes also.  Many of them ride very nice... like my horse.


----------



## Tennessee

IllComeALopin said:


> If you don't fit them for halter they usually do well in trail and pleasure classes also.  Many of them ride very nice... like my horse.


True. But the majority of the ones bred these days probably wouldn't be very sound undersaddle.


----------



## IllComeALopin

Tennessee said:


> True. But the majority of the ones bred these days _*probably wouldn't be*_ very sound undersaddle.


 :lol: that speaks for itself.

It depends on what bloodlines and conformation. Not all halter horses are post legged. Many of them show in their early years and go on to be riding horses. 

To say ALL halter horses are unsound, and look like the op's example is ignorant.

I have seem some pretty sad horses with pretty poor conformation stay sound becuase they were doing a discipline that suited them.

Plus there is a performance halter now... which I like better... but they are _still_ halter horses.


----------



## Allison Finch

IllComeALopin said:


> Who said the horse is hypp positive?
> 
> and its not a "non-usable horse" I could easily use this horse. Maybe you can't, but I could.


I wasn't commenting on this particular horse...just on the comments about breeding halter horses in general.


----------



## wild_spot

> They are not bred for their suitability to be rode. Let them be. If you don't like them, don't get one.


Uh - Correct my if i'm wrong, but halter judges the horses by the breed standard, yes? 

And the breed was priginally created to be a working ranch horse?

So in essence, aren't the halter classes supposed to judge the horses who would be most suited to becoming a working ranch horse?


----------



## MacabreMikolaj

I have two things to add -

1. For the post legs, as much as I won't dispute that they are THERE, the post legs on halter horses are dramatically exposed by the massive hindquarters. The muscling is not a "true" representation of the average hind end, and makes the hind end seem much more massive and prominent - which in turn naturally makes the legs look "postier" by comparison.

2. Personally, I despite halter - in every breed. It's gone from a representation of the breed, to a ring full of circus animals that could never hold up under real work - which really, defeats the entire purpose of the class in the first place right?

HOWEVER - to say that it's ridiculous to delibrately breed unusable horses is ridiculous. Just because someone thinks horses are for riding, does not automatically assume that everyone does. Many people own horses they do not ride, Miniatures for example. Are they an abomination? They are delibrately bred to be nothing but pasture ornaments and pets, and occasionally trained to drive. 

I agree about the genetic disease, and competition should never be an excuse for bad conformation, but horses exist for a LOT more then JUST riding, and I think it's silly to bash someones discipline because it differs from your own. If you are a jumper, your discipline entails you risking your horses neck and legs every single day with hard streneous activity. In all reality, horses were ACTUALLY made moreso for things like halter then they were for jumping 5'0" courses constantly!

I'll never understand the mentality to bash another discipline for no other purpose then your own personal agenda. If they aren't abusing the animal, I'd love to know where anyone has the right to tell someone else they're wrong.


----------



## roro

Allison Finch said:


> SHEESH! So, we are really trying to breed a non-usable horse? What is all this coming to? Breeding horses with a genetic trait (HYPP) that has become rampant in the breed just because it helps bulk muscles up? And, really, no other reason. SAD sad sad.....


The sad truth in many cases. People will go far in pursuit of vanity. I suppose some people like an impractically muscled horse and are willing to sacrifice genetic health and sound conformation for it, as much as it irritates me. A good halter horse should represent the breed like a shining beacon, and it seems like a lot of them aren't stepping up to the plate.


----------



## farmpony84

wild_spot said:


> Uh - Correct my if i'm wrong, but halter judges the horses by the breed standard, yes?
> 
> And the breed was priginally created to be a working ranch horse?
> 
> So in essence, aren't the halter classes supposed to judge the horses who would be most suited to becoming a working ranch horse?


...actaully, they were origina bred to run the quarter of a mile. It's how they got their names, that's why the powerful hindquarters, to get that quick burst of speed right off the start. They werent bred for endurance, they were bred for speed. In creating them, they ended making one heack of a ranch horse!


----------



## wild_spot

Lol, my bad, duh!

Same point though - Both ranch work and quarter mile racing require pretty spot on conformation so the horse doesn't break down.


----------



## smrobs

^^ Exactly. Quarter horses were originally bred as _using horses_, regardless of what they were used for. I won't say that none of the halter bred horses can be ridden cause that just isn't true, but too many of them have conformation that wouldn't hold up to any form of riding work for an extended period of time without some serious side effects i/e navicular, arthritis, bowed tendons, etc.


----------



## Honeysuga

I think one of her stronger points are her withers. She has good clean high withers(they look low due to her over muscling) that are long into her back giving her nice length of rein. Her dorsal processes slope back nicely as well. Her weaker points are her overall lack of bone, goose rump, and post legs. She has a nice short wide coupling.

I think her confo is ok...not great, typical of a halter horse, nothing more or less.


----------



## LolHorse

In my opionion halter horses are not very usable outside the halter ring, they have horrible legs and tiny hoofs. I really like the halter horse's muscling and I find it very attractive (I like some beef on my horses!), but there posty legs are just terrible and unattractive. I thought halter horses are supposed to represent what a great preformance horse the breed is, not a body building contest. 
I would love to own a halter horse if they came with better looking legs and a slightly bigger head (I know head size has nothing to do with preformance but it makes the horse more attractive C
Just my opionion though.


----------



## PechosGoldenChance

I know I've posted a lot of times saying how I like my horses stocky...but THAT mare, is a little TOO stocky for my likings. I mean, if she were just a little bit less stocky, that would be GREAT!!! Horses that are that large remind me of those body builders you see on tv. Yea it's cool to look at, but in the back of our minds, we're all thinking, "gross, now thats just way too big. Look at all of those veins," etc. It just kinda freaks me out lol

As for her conformation...not bad. Of course her head is quite small haha, but everything else isn't bad to me. Like I said though, it's a little too big for me lol


----------



## Shalani

Tennessee said:


> I don't understand why people compare halter horses to riding horses. They are not the same thing. They are not even in the same category!
> 
> A halter horse is called a halter horse for a reason. They are not bred to be jumping four foot fences, be able to chase a cow around an arena, or run a mile race in less than two minutes.
> 
> They are not bred for their suitability to be rode. Let them be. If you don't like them, don't get one.


I have to disagree with you .

The debate here is 
Halter horses are supposed to be judged on their conformation and suitability as breeding stock. 

Now if their conformation inhibited their ability to perform in any discipline let alone the disciplines the breed is well known for ...

How is it a good example of the breed??

I am not saying all halter horses are like this.... all horses have their faults there is no "perfect horse" .
But breeding for exaggerated traits in any breed to a point where it becomes a defect should not be rewarded in any show ring in my OP.




​


----------



## Super Nova

Tennessee said:


> They are not bred for their suitability to be rode. Let them be. If you don't like them, don't get one.


Really!!! Why would you breed if not to ride them for one reason or another!

The goal of any breeder should be to breed a horse that has correct conformation.....and I am talking basic conformation not the fine tuning of the things like the slope of shoulder for jumping as compared to barrel racing or the angle of the hock......just that there should be what is an acceptable angle of hock for your average horse as apposed to no angle at all and this goes for pasterns, stifles, etc...


Super Nova


----------



## nrhareiner

Tennessee said:


> I don't understand why people compare halter horses to riding horses. They are not the same thing. They are not even in the same category!
> 
> A halter horse is called a halter horse for a reason. They are not bred to be jumping four foot fences, be able to chase a cow around an arena, or run a mile race in less than two minutes.
> 
> They are not bred for their suitability to be rode. Let them be. If you don't like them, don't get one.


They should be. A halter horse should be judged on his ability to what the breed is bred to do. Like has been stated a QH was bred to run and be a using horse. They where bred to work cattle and then go to a race. What the AQHA halter horse has become is not what the QH really is and should be. You see this problem not just with horses but conformation classes with dogs. A animal shown in halter should be able to go and perform in a performance class latter that day. Which most do not do. Now I understand that there are those who show halter that do not want to ride and that is fine but their horse should still look like it could go and do anouther performance class.


----------



## smrobs

That is one thing that I love about those ranch horse versatility competitions. After a full day of cutting and roping and reining and trail classes, the horse is stripped of the saddle, put into a non-flashy halter and led into the halter class, sweat marks and all. They have to prove that they can look pretty and work hard too.


----------



## JustDressageIt

nrhareiner said:


> *They should be.* A halter horse should be judged on his ability to what the breed is bred to do. Like has been stated a QH was bred to run and be a using horse. They where bred to work cattle and then go to a race. What the AQHA halter horse has become is not what the QH really is and should be. You see this problem not just with horses but conformation classes with dogs. A animal shown in halter should be able to go and perform in a performance class latter that day. Which most do not do. Now I understand that there are those who show halter that do not want to ride and that is fine but their horse should still look like it could go and do anouther performance class.


I don't disagree, but we all have opinions about what "should be." 
Dressage "should be" about a partnership between horse and rider, showcasing training and a horse using itself properly - not all the fake stuff you see winning today.
Jumpers "should be" about the partnership of a spirited, talented horse, and an equally spirited and talented rider, not about submission due to big bits and rollkur in the warmup ring. 
Western Pleasure should be about a horse that is a willing, easy, smooth ride, not the extreme you see in the ring today.

Lots of stuff "should be" but isn't, unfortunately.


----------



## PaintsPwn

You see that horse in my avatar? 110% halter bred. I can fit him for halter, and when I do, he's **** near unbeatable - but it's freaking HARD fitting a horse for halter and keeping them fit. His movement suffered because of it, so he retired from halter, and he's my riding horse now and he does everything.

Asking a halter horse who is fit to perform in a rail class, is like asking a body builder to do a proper ballet. It's just not possible. However, just like body builders, special diets are used and special work methods. But, if you changed the diet of the body builder, and started training for lean muscle, you'd have half a shot.

I like the mares body, but I hate her neck and hind legs.
​


----------

