# Hill



## Saigold (Mar 21, 2019)

I’d like to know the answer to this As well. One of ours is built downhill and I find that I do slide forward in the saddle and notice it a lot more if he’s walking downhill.


----------



## whisperbaby22 (Jan 25, 2013)

I'd like to hear what others say, too. I have ridden both, and just made adjustments. I think the important thing is if the horse is stumbly.


----------



## trailhorserider (Oct 13, 2009)

I hate the feel of riding a downhill horse. Luckily I have never owned one, at least not enough that I noticed. But I've test ridden a few and I hate that feeling. 

I believe I've read that downhill horses are faster for racing. And that's why some Quarter Horses are downhill. I could be mistaken, but that's what I've heard.

I would like to learn more too. Because it's hard to imagine why anyone would breed for a downhill horse on purpose........unless it improved their speed or something like that.


Personally, I think it's a terrible quality in a riding horse. (It hurts my back) And that is coming from a trail rider. But there MUST be a reason horses are bred that way. I think it has to do with speed.


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

The only horses that seem to be bred to be downhill is halter QH, to emphasize the big rear ends. But there maybe others that breed downhill. 

IMO, racing horses would not be downhill bred...but not sure about that. 

I prefer an uphill horse, but they can get "light in the front" easier :wink: 

Most breeders strive for evenness, but hard to get it perfect...


----------



## rambo99 (Nov 29, 2016)

I like a horse that is fairly level. I wouldn't buy a down hill built horse,rode one and absolutely hated it.

Feels like you're going to go over there head all the time. Not sure on the uphill build ,not sure how saddle fit would effect either build.


----------



## trailhorserider (Oct 13, 2009)

AnitaAnne said:


> The only horses that seem to be bred to be downhill is halter QH, to emphasize the big rear ends. But there maybe others that breed downhill.



Well, there are a lot if illogical things when it comes to halter horses, so that could very well be a part of it! I had forgotten about them.......because other than being an oddity, I don't think about them at all. How they ever got away from function in halter horses, I will never understand.

Now as soon as I say that someone will come along and say how great and normal their halter QH is.........but I bet theirs IS closer to normal than what is apparently winning at the top levels. Some of those horses I see advertised as breeding stock freak me out! 

That's one of the reasons I'm not opposed to grade horses. Some of them are built a lot better than the purebreds! Unless that changes, I'll always be open to owning "mutts."


----------



## trailhorserider (Oct 13, 2009)

rambo99 said:


> I like a horse that is fairly level. I wouldn't buy a down hill built horse,rode one and absolutely hated it.
> 
> Feels like you're going to go over there head all the time.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure there are very many horses truly built uphill. Just horses that are level or level with high withers. I don't think saddle fit would be a problem with the uphill horse, there are horses that are ridden "uphill" like TWH's for example, and they seem to hold their saddles just fine.


Downhill.......even if the rider didn't feel it or care, the saddle is going to be slidding into that pocket below their withers and pushing on their shoulder blades. In a quick internet search, there are a couple of websites by saddle makers talking about the problems of trying to fit a downhill horse. I think saddle fit in a very downhill horse would be a nightmare, probably more for the horse's comfort than even the rider's comfort:


https://www.rodnikkel.com/content/saddle-tree-blog-from-shop-and-desk/downhill-horse/


DOWNHILL HORSE


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

trailhorserider said:


> Well, there are a lot if illogical things when it comes to halter horses, so that could very well be a part of it! I had forgotten about them.......because other than being an oddity, I don't think about them at all. How they ever got away from function in halter horses, I will never understand.
> 
> Now as soon as I say that someone will come along and say how great and normal their halter QH is.........but I bet theirs IS closer to normal than what is apparently winning at the top levels. Some of those horses I see advertised as breeding stock freak me out!
> 
> That's one of the reasons I'm not opposed to grade horses. Some of them are built a lot better than the purebreds! Unless that changes, I'll always be open to owning "mutts."


I'm not a halter horse fan either, QH appear to be the only breed that has them, as other horses that are shown in halter classes, are judged according to their ability to do a job. Some even need to have show points, for instance some breeding stallions need to have shown before they are judged for their breeding qualifications.


----------



## Woodhaven (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't like riding an downhill horse as I always think they will trip or stumble if the going gets bad. I see some quarter horses/paints that are downhill, I don't know if this is intentional or just happened with a particular horse.
Some dressage riders like an uphill moving horse as they will probably have better self carriage.

I want one in the middle but having to take a choice between the two I would pick uphill.


----------



## knightrider (Jun 27, 2014)

According to Deb Bennett of Equus Magazine, horses are bred to be downhill when they need to drop the hindquarters low for cutting and reining. Thoroughbreds are able to use the downhill conformation to improve their speed.

But, according to Deb, uphill horses are more comfortable to ride.


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

knightrider said:


> According to Deb Bennett of Equus Magazine, horses are bred to be downhill when they need to drop the hindquarters low for cutting and reining. Thoroughbreds are able to use the downhill conformation to improve their speed.
> 
> But, according to Deb, uphill horses are more comfortable to ride.


Deb Bennet is a questionable source. 

TB are not built downhill...


----------



## The Equinest (Dec 18, 2019)

First of all, let's just define "downhill" and "uphill" because I think we're having a bit of confusion as to what exactly those two terms mean. I think the best definition might be _how the horse moves._ An uphill horse moves uphill - naturally lighter on the forehand, more "floating" type gates often due to that lightness, and overall less weight is usually carried on the forehand which aids itself to being more naturally suited for hard work, as the horse is able to easier shift some of that roughly 60% of weight that's naturally placed on the forehand back onto the hindquarters for more balanced movement. A downhill horse, on the other hand, moves downhill. Shorter, choppier strides because his body is less equipped to shift that weight, and therefore he has less "airtime" in each stride to reach as far forward as a more uphill horse could. He's not as able to coil the hindquarters under himself, because to do that properly(such as in reining) you must first be able to shift the weight back a bit. It's not impossible for him, but it's harder. Lastly, he won't be able to jump as high, because as mentioned before he's got more weight on the forehand and therefore finds it harder to lift himself up and over the jump. A characteristic found in _all_ GP show jumpers is a high neck emergence and a high point of shoulder - which allow the horse to shift the weight easier than a horse with a low neck emergence and/or a low point of shoulder. You'll never see a GP jumper with a low point of shoulder/low neck emergence, because even if that horse moves his legs the exact same amount as a horse with a higher neck emergence + a higher point of shoulder, the results are vastly different. Hunters more commonly have that lower point of shoulder/lower neck emergence, while the horses who are required to jump extraordinary heights do not, because it's physically impossible for a horse with a lower neck emergence and lower point of shoulder to jump as high as a horse with a higher neck emergence/point of shoulder. And as so exemplified by halter horses, who often have their neck emergence between their front legs - it's quite difficult for them to lighten the forehand. 

So that being said - it's a common myth in my opinion to judge "uphillness" and "downhillness" with a line drawn from wither to butt/butt to wither. That tells us what a horse _looks_ like(Though yes, it can impede uphill movement. It's just not the deciding factor I don't think.), but it doesn't tell is how he moves. I have a gelding who's 1-2 inches butthigh, but he moves just like his breed typically does - the fancy, floating Morgan trot. It's by no means anywhere near downhill movement. I've also ridden QH's that people consider "uphill" because the withers are higher than the butt or they're "level", and they've been choppy and heavy on the forehand. I felt like I was ploughing the arena instead of riding in it. We say that you can't really judge a horse's gait without seeing him move - but is that entirely true? A horse with a weak stifle won't really drive under. A horse with sickle hocks will find it hard to do complex maneuvers/hard work and remain sound. A horse with the lumbosacral gap very far past the point of hip will find it nearly physically impossible to truly "coil under" because the joint that is the main point of extension and collection past the neck - if it's placed _past_ the point that the hind legs rotate around in a walk and trot, you will not maintain very good gaits. 

I think many people consider "butthigh" to be downhill, and I don't think that's true. Butthigh is of itself an issue, but I don't think it's what causes downhill movement. If it did, how on earth did On The Money Red(famous AQHA barrel racing sire) run barrels? A barrel horse is _demanded_ to move uphill. They cannot be slowed by ploughing through the dirt from downhill movement. As for racehorses being downhill - that is a lot of baloney, I think. If a racehorse was built downhill, every time he ran nearly all his weight would be constantly slamming into his pasterns, cannons, knees, shoulders, withers, and neck. What's more than that, a true downhill horse finds it very hard to get the weight off his forehand - meaning that every time the racehorse were to try and reach forward in a new stride, he would first have to heave himself up out of the dirt, and strain to swing his front legs forward as far as he could before all that weight came tumbling back down to slam into him again. Racehorses already take a great deal of a beating on the track - if they moved downhill as well, we would've outlawed racing for the insane amount of broken bones we'd see.(Today's rates are bad enough - now imagine if a TB moved like a QH halter horse. That's a massacre waiting to happen on the track.) Butthigh causes quite a few saddle fitting issues, I'd imagine - having your horse's bum a hand higher than his withers is not good. But it's not the _deciding_ factor of uphill vs. downhill. Before I go any farther - I reccomend reading Judy Wardrope's take on what she calls "Functional Conformation". This is a way of judging conformation that takes into account A.) longevity(Aka, what type of conformation enables a horse to remain sound it's whole life, barring injury or disease?), B.) athleticism(What type of conformation allows a horse to be athletic _outside_ of one purpose?) and C.) natural movement(Or, what is _natural_ to the horse? Being a 300lb overweight halter horse certainly isn't, neither being a downhill monstrosity. I've never seen a wild/feral horse that moved downhill - and I imagine barring a genetic defect or injury, you'd be hard pressed to find one.). 
Link to her website: https://www.jwequine.com/
And a link to a PDF on the basics of functional conformation: https://www.hcbc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2018-Functional-Confirmation-draft-revision.pdf
Overall, I think this is the most scientifically and naturally correct way of judging conformation, because not only does it take into account anatomy - but also it seems to hold up when applied to our equine friends. 

That being said - I really can't tell you why people breed for downhill horses. It's always fascinated me that by the model of functional conformation, Quarter Horses are the _only_ breed in the world that is routinely bred for this, and the top athletes that "made" the breed often did not look anything like what we call today's top athletes. (Even Hancock, who was pretty darn butthigh if I remember correctly, did not move like today's horses.) Today, reining horses break down and barrel horses from the "best lines" are retired anywhere from 3-8. I know an Arabian who's 28, nearing 29 and competes in 4-H Gymkhana, in California, and places in one of the most horse-oriented counties in the state. I knew a 27yro QH gelding who also used to teach beginners to run cans without all the "maintenance" that's become the accepted norm in the horse world. Meanwhile, I also know a Frenchman's Guy barrel horse who's now 7 and retired after never running professional or even high school rodeo, just jackpots and the random open, because it's "too hard on her". Maybe that's the owner's fault - it's probably got something to do with expecting a 3yro to run barrels as well - but I think that says something. I've met a women who worked as a vet tech in Texas and "repairing" broken down barrel horses was nearly a full time job for some of the vets there. I've never seen the amount of breakdowns that we see in QH's in any other breed except TB's - which, given they're started at like 1.5-2yrs, makes sense. Most TB's that aren't raced don't ever break down. But I miss the old QH's - and maybe I'm a little biased, but it just doesn't really make sense to me. People claim that QH's are bred downhill so they can "get down and low" with a cow - but if you're going to get down and low, you've also got to be able to get back up again the turn or wheel around and the likes. And placing all the weight on the forehand by breeding for an intentionally downhill moving horse doesn't help that at all. To be honest - I'd love for someone to take a nice, Lippitt bred Morgan and try cutting on him. I think it would be interesting to see the comparison - because you can't really say that downhill horses are the "best" at cutting/reining etc when you have no one competing with them. Sure, there's the oddball horse here and there, but in the top money futurities and shows, it's all QH's and Paints - so there's not much diversity to compare.


----------



## secuono (Jul 6, 2011)

Cow cutters. Idk why no one immediately goes to them, they're the ones with butts higher than their heads. To supposedly help them drop the front end & move fast.
I, personally, hate them so much.
Saddle will always slide onto shoulders. Difficult to level the saddle out properly on the badly downhill. Your hip rolls forward and tips you off balance, like constantly falling forward.


----------



## boots (Jan 16, 2012)

I've owned a couple horses that would be considered "downhill." They were good sorts, and didn't tip over, nor did my saddle slip forward. We still have some in the ranch remuda. No one objects when they get put on their string.

Nobody is perfect. Regardless of species. If the horse can do what you need to do, then that's enough, IMO.

Uphill? I see less. Like almost never. But a horse with weak hind quarters won't be good for what we do, so I wouldn't buy one and don't have much experience.

Most of the horses were have are TBs, with some TB crosses. All with good bone.


----------



## trailhorserider (Oct 13, 2009)

Hmmm. I personally don't consider a horse heavy on the forehand "downhill." They may move downhill.......but that's just the way they carry themselves. I was talking about conformation, such as this:


----------



## The Equinest (Dec 18, 2019)

@trailhorserider

See, I consider that just "butthigh", not downhill. I've seen butthigh horses that move uphill, and "level" or even wither-high horses that move downhill. It's an aspect of being downhill, but it doesn't really make or break a horse's movement. And as conformation is the judging of the skeletal structure in regards to movement - you can't make movement obsolete. It's what conformation judging is for. We judging sickle hocks as bad because they weaken the hind end. We judge post legged as bad because they also weaken the hind end. We judge a sloping shoulder as good because it leads to smoother, stronger movement. Conformation is _about_ movement. 
@boots

TB's are built _very_ uphill. I'd recommend reading that PDF I linked just for an interesting read, because the judging process of deciding uphill vs. downhill is somewhat different than you expect - since uphill and downhill are in regards to movement, it judges horses based on movement and three things - neck emergence in relation to point of shoulder, lumbosacral gap in regards to point of hip, and the "Pillar of Support" - which is basically a visual aid telling us how much substance("horse") is being carried _directly_ by the front legs only. A true "perfectly uphill" horse does _not_ have weak hindquarters whatsoever. Look up Valegro, or Secretariat, or Reys Dual Badger. All of these horses are functionally built "uphill" and none of them have weak hindquarters.


----------



## ApuetsoT (Aug 22, 2014)

Uphill and downhill conformation is based on the relationship of the elbow and stifles, not butt and wither or how they move. You can have a butt high horse who's level. 

The picture of the bay above, downhill. Draw a line between the stifle and elbow.

A lot of racing bred TBs are downhill. It's a racing thing. You can get some spectacular TB that are level or uphill, but they usually aren't overly fast.


----------



## Saigold (Mar 21, 2019)

So would my guy be considered downhill or butt high? When I ride I do feel like I eventually go forward if I don’t have my feet In the stirrups. But I’m not rolling forward with every step or feel like I’m going over his neck. Not trying to hijack the thread


----------



## The Equinest (Dec 18, 2019)

@ApuetsoT

Stifle to elbow is yet another myth that tells us nothing about how the horse will actually move - long distance runners often have low stifles, short distance sprinters have high stifles, milers have a medium set stifle. The elbow, on the other hand, must remain within a smaller parameter for maximum athleticism - it cannot be too close to the body, or too high, because that inhibits the swinging of the legs. By such measurements, nearly all racehorses would be considered downhill, when such a thing is impossible if you consider the way they move - they do _not_ move downhill whatsoever. You'd kill a racehorse that moves downhill by expecting him to race. It wouldn't be physically possible. The stifle placement and the elbow placement tell us how easily and how far a horse can extend and contract their stride - not how much weight is resting on the forehand, or how hard it will be to lift that weight. 

By such measurements, Secretariat, one of the greatest equine athletes of all time, is "downhill". Yet in the photos of him running, he has no trouble at all getting himself off the ground. A true downhill horse would find it physically impossible to do such a feat. 



















Meanwhile, go watch Epic Titan's reining performance and note the lack of extension and good, forward movement from him. The first time he spins, he nearly tips over. When he walks, his hind legs are dragging through the dirt. (He's not my favorite stallion - Reys Dual Badger or a Bullseye Bullion are probably my two favorite QH stallions - but if you do like him, try to be impartial and judge the actual movement. Compared to an uphill horse - it's not great.) The lack of extension in the trot for a "performance horse" is astounding(and you can see he's stretching quite a bit): 










(We'll put it this way - there's a reason Peppy San Badger was good at what he does, and it's not because his stifle to elbow was level.)
TB's are bred with the stifle higher than elbow not because it makes them downhill - but because it makes it easier for them to swing their long legs as far under themselves as possible. Meanwhile, a distance runner nearly always has a stifle placed much, much lower. But BOTH of them move uphill. Again, you cannot separate conformation from movement, because conformation tells us how the horse will move. Change one aspect, the movement is changed. Add or take away one aspect, it's changed again. Conformation is the judging of skeletal structure - which dictates how efficiently a horse moves. They are not two different things at all. 
@Saigold

We can't really judge anything by these photos, the horse is standing with his head turned toward you and awkwardly. Don't square him up - that distorts certain things - but ask him to stand with weight balanced on all four feet, and with his head at a normal elevation looking forwards. Shoot the photo from roughly about mid-barrel, where the horse's "center of balance" is.


----------



## AnitaAnne (Oct 31, 2010)

trailhorserider said:


> Hmmm. I personally don't consider a horse heavy on the forehand "downhill." They may move downhill.......but that's just the way they carry themselves. I was talking about conformation, such as this:


This type of horse I call downhill too. Also it is like two different horses joined in the middle. That back is weak and the horse will not be very athletic. 

Butt High is a term I reserve for growing foals, they go through stages of their rear being higher than the front.


----------



## The Equinest (Dec 18, 2019)

@AnitaAnne 

If every butthigh horse were downhill, how would we have Reining as a sport? Or cutting? 90% of the reining and cutting stallions I've seen are extraordinarily butthigh, and they are by no means nonathletic for the most part. 

--

Before we go on, let's talk about the stifle-to-croup measurement a little bit more, because I'd like to offer a few points of contradiction. First of all, let's look at the phases of the gallop:










As you can see, the horse has a period within the gallop that he must push off as hard as he can with his hind legs and extend as far as he can with his front legs, essentially "leaping forward" into the next stride, which then transfers his weight front the hindquarters to the front legs, which shove off and then the cycle starts all over again. 

Now let's talk about stifle placement - in a sprinter, yes, the stifle is typically higher than the elbow. The elbow is nearly always lower than the stifle in a horse, unless he is bred for distance. You might note that Secretariat's stifle, while higher that his elbow, is not nearly as high as other sprinters commonly have their's placed - and Secretariat is king of being known for both speed and stamina. We might also observe this Russian racing-bred Arabian, Naalo: 

http://www.firedancefarms.net/Naalostandlf2015sm.JPG (The image really doesn't want to insert. :| )

Stifle to elbow is nearly level if not perfectly level. Naalo is a pretty good endurance horse, and that mid-range stifle placement allows him a good amount of extension but also stamina - just like Secretariat. The higher the stifle, the quicker and faster the horse can swing forward and spring off the turf - the lower the stifle, the more extension and length of stride he'll have. Secretariat has a great deal lower of a stifle than American Pharaoh, who does not show the same amount of insane speed and stamina the famous Secretariat did. 

Now, by this measurement an "uphill horse" is a horse that's elbow is higher than it's wither - well, I challenge you to find a horse that has this. I've never seen a horse with the elbow higher than the wither - not even among dressage horses, who are famous for their uphill movement. (And yes, there is no disputing that the dressage horse moves uphill. Ask anyone who's ever ridden or knows anything about dressage - the trained dressage horse or well conformed dressage does indeed, move uphill. _Very_ uphill.) Even this handsome fellow, who looks like he's got his front legs standing on a hill, has a level stifle-to-elbow. So by that standard, he is either "level" or downhill, but I'll bet you $10 he's a dressage horse. Or check out Valegro, or Totilas, or *****'s stifle to elbow placement. I doubt you'll find one in which the elbow is ever higher than the stifle. 










People say Mother Nature knows best, well: 










So then, if there are no horses with the elbow higher than the stifle - does an uphill horse exist? Well, dressage horses are uphill. I doubt anyone could argue that they aren't - though to be honest I wasn't aware people argued that TB's are downhill either. Jumpers are most certainly uphill, I'd hope. We'd be seeing a lot more blown out pasterns and knees and busted cannons if they weren't. In fact, two places we hear about horses breaking down the most are, surprise - Western and racing. Racing we can attribute reasonably to two things - poor breeding and early starting. The horse does not fully mature until roughly 7-8 years old, so while the "growth plates" that everyone's worried about in the knees might be fused at 3-5, the 32 growth plates in the horse's spine are by no means fused. And unfortunately for the horse, TB's start running at 1.5-2, not 3, when we can be sure all the growth plates in the legs are most likely fused. TB's in America are also sadly lacking in bone, which I'd imagine can be quite easily broken when it's bred thin and also ran hard from a young age. It's brutal, and it's a wonder as many horses do as well as they do. Roughly 60% of their weight is resting on that forehand naturally - a downhill horse has _more_ because he cannot get his hindquarters properly under him to lift that weight off, nor can he use his neck and shoulders properly to raise himself up a little and lighten the load. He is built with more than his fair share of weight on the front legs, and it does it's damage, as so exemplified by reining. 

Reining - horses break down quite frequently. Barrel horses do as well, but again we can attribute that to hard, fast, and rough riding by young and dumb riders who start their horses too young and too fast. I know a 28 year old Arabian who does Gymkhana in one of CA's biggest horse counties, and places well. I also know a 7yro Frenchman's Guy barrel mare who never ran high school or pro rodeo and was retired to be a broodmare because barrels were "too hard on here". Now reining, on the other hand, is supposed to be the "classy sport" of the western world. All the big trainers go there, all the "good horseman" - and yet we see an astounding rate of breakdowns in these horses, rivaling that of the racehorse. Why? Well, they're almost predominantly functionally downhill by the model of Judy Wardrope(Unlike the TB, who is measured as typically extraordinarily uphill.). Their stifle is most certainly level or higher than their elbow if you're going by that way of measurement as well - and yet the TB runs uphill just fine, so why can the reiner or barrel horse not? They are started early, and yet while a TB may go on to have another career - more than likely, the reiner will not. (And no, I'm not just shaming reining - I love the sport. I'd love to compete in it someday. But tradition does no always uphold what is actually right for the horse, as seen multiple times in the world of equine showing. And I'm calling something into question.) What's more, go look at endurance, where bone maturity is taken into account a great deal - TB's are some of the best endurance horses, right up there with Arabs, Morgans, and gaited horses. Meanwhile, the so-called "versatility" of the QH is rarely seen in endurance. 

So no.... I don't think stifle to elbow holds up. It doesn't actually impact the way a horse really carries himself beyond extension and collection - which also aren't the deciding factor in whether a horse is uphill or downhill. If that bay is downhill because he's butthigh or because his stifle is higher than his elbow, so is every baby WB or even every horse. And that's obviously not true, if you'd take care to look at the way a horse moves as well as the way he's built. Halter horses are "downhill" and so are TB's, according to butt-to-wither or stifle-to-elbow usually - so why do they move so differently? Why is one a riding horse, and one not at all? Why is one the "ultimate equine athlete" and the other barely able to trot?

Links: https://thehorse.com/152104/western-performance-horse-injuries-and-problems/
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/503b/a147b6e918253fef4dadc2b7446ce588cdce.pdf
Blog post, but it has an interesting point to make: Reining horses hardly stand a chance - Reining Trainers
By Deb Bennett - but I think it's rather hard to screw up bone maturation rates: http://www.equinestudies.org/ranger_2008/ranger_piece_2008_pdf1.pdf
And another one on bone maturation just for cross-referencing's sake: https://ker.com/equinews/principles-of-bone-development-in-horses1/ (Which also agrees mostly with Dr. Bennett - roughly 6 years old is when a horse's bones are fully mature, and obviously that changes due to size of horse or sex characteristics.)


----------



## ApuetsoT (Aug 22, 2014)

Being conformationally downhill doesn't mean a horse is not athletic. They can be conformationally downhill, but be taught to move in a more uphill manner, assuming their conformation isn't so extreme as to physically prevent them from doing so. Being downhill isn't the whole picture. It's how the rest of them is put together and what they are being asked to do. Judging uphill vs downhill comformation on the topline is decieving. There are many horses(particularly TBs...) that have large withers but are downhill. Draw a line from the croup to the wither and they are 'uphill', but their stifles are several inches above the elbow and if you watch them move they are very heavy on the front.



Moving uphill creates too much air time and not enough reach. You don't want a race horse to be moving uphill, it'll slow them down. Yea, they have to push off and the physics of the gait is that there is an upwards thrust, but that's not the same as moving uphill.


----------



## The Equinest (Dec 18, 2019)

I'd love to see evidence of a TB being "heavy on the front". I've ridden and been around plenty of them, and they are by no means heavy on the front - the typical QH however, is very heavy on the front. Uphill movement doesn't mean they're _not at all one the forehand_ - what is means is that the horse is built so that it's easier for him to move forwards -usually quicker as well. A downhill horse is heavy on the forehand, meaning he physically finds it harder to get the forelegs off the ground and reach. Ever seen a halter horse run? That's the epitome of downhill movement. A TB looks nothing like that. 

I think we're comparing extremes here - uphill movement in a TB in racing is not the same as uphill movement in a dressage horse, for obvious reasons. The horse can't reach maximum speed if he were to have so much energy expended into vertical movement like the dressage horse, but he also can't reach maximum speed if all his energy is expended into horizontal movement and none into getting the hooves actually _off_ the ground. A "ground-covered gallop" is efficient and quick because the horse is naturally built with less weight on the forehand, therefore making it easier to lift that forehand up because he can expend less energy doing that and more energy into driving forwards. A TB doesn't _drive_ himself shoulders-deep into the turf, then heave himself back up, and jerk forwards like a halter horse. He uses his body to maximum efficiency, just as he's been bred. Being heavy on the forehand and running with less of a Y-max are two different things. In fact, a downhill horse has more weight on the forehand, so he has _more_ upwards movement just to get himself off the ground than an uphill horse. 

This horse is very heavy on the forehand - he's driving he weight into his shoulders as his moves - this is pretty much the definition of "downhill movement". To get himself back up, he has to heave his shoulders up so his legs have enough time to swing forward and go into the next stride. There's a reason some horses are choppy - that constant up-and-down jerking of the shoulders or the bouncing of the back legs on a horse who's not even trying to lighten up his forehand doesn't make for a pleasant ride. There's a great more Y movement(vertical movement) in a downhill-moving horse than an uphill-moving horse because of this. The uphill horse does not need to throw himself so dramatically upwards(go watch reining, and you'll see what I mean by "throwing"), because he's naturally built so that he's at the advantage. He can choose to lighten his forehand easier than the downhill horse by curling under his powerful hindquarters, driving forwards and a little bit up, and at the same time using his neck and shoulders to swing his front legs as far forward as he can. 










^This horse is moving downhill. He's bouncing his hindquarters up and down, not driving up and forwards with his hind legs, and propelling all his weight onto his forehand before jerking his shoulders up with the hindquarters(who have much less leverage than they could from way back there) and repeating the sequence. Anyone who's ridden a horse that moves like this knows it's not pleasant, and that they're prone to trip many times. 

Compare now the 1878 film on horse racing with a very similar stride position:










And then the next image in that sequence: 










The horse is thrusting a bit upwards - not driving himself again down into the dirt. Why? Because he has to, so he's able to get those long hind legs as far under him as possible and stretch out the front legs as far as possible. Due to how high the stifle is on most sprinters, the radius of the circle(e.g. - the amount of rotation his legs take in one stride) is longer than a horse with a lower stifle, allowing him to swing his legs farther up underneath himself than a horse with a lower stifle. To do so, however, he must first get himself off the ground. Distance racers favor lower stifles, likely because the radius is shorter and it takes less energy to swing the legs up(even though they won't have the same amount of reach as the higher stifle). The horse's center of balance doesn't really move a whole lot, if you observe the next photo: 










And the last: 










The center of balance is not moving much, if at all, making it easy for the TB to stretch out and run to maximum capacity. He is _still_ moving uphill, however - he's not at all driving himself into the ground like the gray, or any other horse you've ever seen that's heavy on the forehand. Downhill movement means you linger with your hooves in the dirt, when you should be flying. It's simply not efficient for the TB. The Y-movement of the horse's center of balance is minimized because he is already built with the means to keep it that way - a well-placed lumbosacral gap to provide a good transmission, a high neck emergence to allow him to lift his neck up and help himself along, and the weight directly balanced on his forelegs is about the same as a dressage - and much less than a horse that halter horse, who is universally acknowledged to be pretty darn downhill. He cannot physically move downhill to maintain the speed that he does, nor can he be built downhill because downhill build encourages downhill movement. He might not need dressage-levels of uphill movement, but he is not the horse who can barely get his front legs off the ground because he's unable to lift himself up. Again - go watch Epic Titan perform in reining, then compare his movement to a TB's. There's a great deal of difference that goes beyond the breeds. If this was a car, we could say that all energy expended in X would be a perfectly efficient car. But this is not a car - it's a horse, who to get his legs off the ground must lift himself up and move "uphill" somewhat if he wants to reach a good speed. The physics of the stride demand that much.


----------



## SilverMaple (Jun 24, 2017)

Be aware that a horse with heavily-muscled hindquarters may appear downhill but not actually be downhill. You have to look at where the bones are, not just the thick layers of muscle. 

Sprint TBs and Quarterhorses bred to race tend to be slightly downhill. It equates to a drag racing car, from what I have been told. I have also seen some QHs that appear downhill due to the hindquarters muscle development or a growth stage, but who are actually level or very nearly so. QHs also tend to have low, wide withers which adds to the illusion when compared to the withers of a warmblood or lanky TB.


----------

