[QUOTE=apachepony;3350593]
I tend to side more with those saying that any horse can do lower level dressage, but you may run into hind end problems asking a Belgian to do upper level sitting. They just weren’t built to carry their weight in that manner.
That said, last year (and this weekend!) I had a chance to watch Big Horse Productions at our local expo. When they came in for their vaulting routine, I commented that they had the most fit, athletic belgians that I had seen. Later they came back for another routine, and the guy was riding bareback (well, behind the vaulting surcingle) with a snaffle and he piaffed and passaged that dang belgian all over the arena. It was one of the best piaffe’s i’ve seen. It certainly put the dressage and trick rider’s “upper level” moves to shame, who performed earlier in the night. Their primary vaulting horses have nicer canters than quite a few warmbloods. I was impressed.
So in general, I don’t think they are the most appropriate choice for upper level dressage, but that’s not to say you can’t find an individual in any breed up to the task.[/QUOTE]
In the video I was mostly impressed by the Belgian’s steadiness and ability to put up with anything. :lol: The male acrobat is amazing.
[QUOTE=Ambrey;3351297]
Not really. If all APHA horses were only bred to other APHA horses, and the solids weeded out and not rebred, APHA would be like some other breeds and have all homozygous horses.[/QUOTE]
Homozygous frame overo = lethal white foal. A homozygous overo horse that lives IS a genetic impossibility.
Even if the foal is guaranteed to receive a color gene from a parent (Either tobiano or overo) it may still end up with very minimal white markings, if any markings at all.
Here’s a thread on a filly that tested heterozygous for tobiano but has no white other then a thin stripe on her face:
These conversations always want to make me pull my hair out!
We have the typical three camps represented as usual.
The starry-eyed “dressage if good for everyone! even my Elephant!” camp. I mean… after all, “dressage” means “training” right?
The “Defenders of the Breed” camp. You’ve never met MY (insert breed here). He piaffes better than Ahlerich, and I use him for endurance riding on the weekends too!
and
The realists. Who are invariably accused of breed bias, and somehow can’t convince everyone in Camps 1 and 2 that the reason they think your Gypsy Vanner would be a poor choice for endurance racing is anything but pure hatred and bigotry.
The original question as I understood it was - in general- are Belgians good for dressage. In my opinion, the answer is a flat no. They’re not bred for it. They’re not built for it. Does that mean that a lot of people might not be perfectly happy (and even score well) competing their Belgians at Training and 1st level? No. Does it mean SOME people might even be happy (and competitive) competing their Belgians at 2nd and 3rd level? No. Does it mean that the rare individual might even be competitive at GP? No. But someone suggested that we don’t see more Belgians at the FEI level primarily because no one gives them a chance. While I’m sure that is true in individual cases, I disagree. You don’t see more of them at FEI because MOST of them will never make it that far, and knowledgable dressage riders do not want to train a horse for 4+ years only to have it max out at 3rd or 4th level (if it even makes it that far).
Belgians (and many other drafties) are wonderful horses for LOTS of things… but if you’re choosing them as your primary dressage breed, I’d say you either aren’t very knowledgeable, or you want something entirely different than the standard dressage experience (at least as defined by the rules). That’s fine if you choose the latter. Most of us do this for a hobby, and above all we should ride a horse we enjoy.
That’s right. No judgement or bias, because they are RIGHT, and we are WRONG. If we would just see the light and admit their rightness, we’d understand the meaning of life.
And if in their rightness, they happen to be degrading and insulting about a horse they’ve never seen, ridden, trained, or any of the other things most knowledgeable people use to form opinions of a horse’s ability, that’s just part of being right and it’s perfectly fine.
And anyone who complains is just a whiner, who doesn’t like them because they’re RIGHT.
[QUOTE=Ambrey;3351474]
Frame Overo would be eliminated. But, seriously, is eliminating a color gene that kills with irresponsible breeding choices a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
We could also eliminate greys since they have a tendency to develop melanomas… Or appaloosas since they have a tendency to develop eye problems…
Yes, you could drastically reduce the chance of a solid foal being born if you eliminate all overos and only breed homozygous tobianos. I’m just saying that solid and almost solid foals WOULD still happen even if that was the case.
I’m a big fan of drafts in general. I own a Reg. Clyde mare and a another draft cross mare. If you are thinking of doing dressage with a draft I would stick to the clydes as I find they are more build to do higher end stuff.
[QUOTE=TaliaCristianna;3350793]
I don’t recall implying that you were not. I enjoy a good debate and would never insinuate that my views were anything more then personal opinion as well. [/QUOTE]
It is all good, I was just clarifying before personal insults start to get tossed around (it has happened before because I am all about debating).
That is interesting because I have fond memories of the many horses I retrained off the track and as many not so fond memories of the quarter horses at the same farm. I find quarter horses tend to be opinionated and tempermental. I know some that are one rider horses - making their best attempt to throw anyone else off, no matter how good you are. Some will toss any beginner or toss anyone that thinks they can ride, etc. If I were looking for a horse for a 12 year old child, I would be just as likely to look at a thoroughbred as I would a quarter horse.
…Kind of…depends on where you are looking at the start of the breed. Quarter horse types have been around for centuries, but they have not been a recognized breed until the mid 1900’s. So to say the Quarter horse as a breed was established for racing isn’t so much true as it is Quarter Horses, Thoroughbreds, Arabians, Barbs and others were taken out west, bred for purpose and eventually the breed formed a registry, closed the books and started working on bloodlines. Before the registries were closed, quarter horses were registered as thoroughbreds because they could race and many thoroughbred were considered quarter horses because they worked cattle.
…what they said - it is not an impossibility, just takes breeding and actually closing the books and paying attention to bloodlines. Issues such as lethal white should be dealt with in the same manner as HYPP in quarter horses - and there is a similar genetic issue with Arabians. It takes careful and responsible breeding.
Which goes into what else you said about bloodlines. Again, if you go to the website and look at the history of the registry, bloodlines were not mentioned - just color and confirmation. This is contrary to other books, such as the English Thoroughbred. Three studs were brought in and bred to English mares. Initially, only foals from those studs were accepted, then it was closed further to allow only foals from registered mares and studs. This is a closed book and this is what bloodlines mean. Allowing horses with a parent of a different breed in means they are not being as strict about bloodlines.
I know the difference between the paint and pinto associations. I am talking about the origins of the registry - please read the history to understand what I am talking about before replying. [/QUOTE]
I can’t speak for others, but Lewin and I have trainers who are perfectly qualified to critique our horses, and actually know them. I think it’s amazing that people would rather think our trainers are delusional than admit that maybe a draft horse can be a dressage horse.[/QUOTE]
I enjoyed this whole post, but to comment more on the part I quoted I ride with an FEI trainer who rides with Linda Zang. A breedest comment was made on a test of mine and that test was shown to Linda. The reply was along the lines that judges should ENCOURAGE people to ride dressage not DISCOURAGE.
The other person I ride with trainers mostly eventers and he too was surprised by the comment I got.
I’m also really surprised that the comments I see so frequently here are that we are being mean to our horses by forcing them to do something they can’t and don’t want to do. Hmmm. I wonder if any of those people have tried to make a 17+h 1500+pd horse do something it didn’t want to do? Speaking from a personal position, my horse loves being ridden and loves working, he loves people, and he loves jumping. Any naysayers who are local to me are welcome to come ride him and see how much he likes or dislikes his job. :yes:
I suspect this happens quite a bit: there was a guy showing a nice young grey mare at Training Level (Open) this weekend who did really well. He was going around telling everyone the mare was Dutch Warmblood–according to my trainer, who knows the horse, she is actually a Percheron/TB cross.
group of DQ’s (doubt they ride but are more peacocks by the ring) at the schooling ring commenting to the innocent bystander hubby watching his wife warm-up “what a lovely young horse!” “what a nice mover!” “so balanced, so relaxed, so BEAUTIFUL!” ussually the oldest of these overweight overaged DQ’s turns to hubby and asks “is he an import?” innocent hubby asks “import?” Old DQ repeats “where did he come from?” Hubby says “oh, from CT” DQ now annoyed with stupid attitude of hubby asks again what the horse is, hubby catching on answer “my wife calls him an american warmblood” DQ now insulted that she can’t define an import from a domestic replies “is that like that canadian sh…t where they cross a draft horse with a TB and try to call it a warmblood?” Hubby, doubled over laughing at her answers “YES, that is EXACTLY what that horse you are admiring is!” old DQ and her still older and fatter friends sniff up their noses and walk away with a parting comment “well,he is still lovely even if he is a draftx”.
[QUOTE=Ambrey;3351508]
That’s right. No judgement or bias, because they are RIGHT, and we are WRONG. If we would just see the light and admit their rightness, we’d understand the meaning of life.
And if in their rightness, they happen to be degrading and insulting about a horse they’ve never seen, ridden, trained, or any of the other things most knowledgeable people use to form opinions of a horse’s ability, that’s just part of being right and it’s perfectly fine.
And anyone who complains is just a whiner, who doesn’t like them because they’re RIGHT.[/QUOTE]
Ambrey, if you actually disagree, and think Belgians are great horses – IN GENERAL – for someone who wants to work up the levels, you’re entitled to your opinion. (and I’m entitled to think you’re wrong). But what makes me crazy, is your inability (or unwillingness) to understand or differentiate between people saying they don’t think the breed is great for dressage, and saying NO SINGLE INDIVIDUAL is worth their time – because those are two totally different statements. I don’t think ANYONE on this thread has said that a Belgian can never be successful. That’s you putting words into their mouths. I haven’t seen anyone be “degrading and insulting about [any particular] horse that they’ve never seen, ridden, trained, etc.”
There was someone in our state that was bringing down PMU horses and advertising them as Canadian WB’s a few yrs back. Total bullsh**!!! If anyone really knows the Candi’s up there have built up an awesome string of top bloodlines of prove heritage. I hope people do take the time to realize the difference.
Im going to say something here and I may piss a few, or alot of you off. Sorry in advance, but… whatever.
Yrs ago, I would do whatever I could just to ride a horse. I did not care what horse, just to sit on a horse made me happy. Being a poor working barn girl, I did what I could and took clinics and lessons on whatever I could.
Most of these horses were, well not bred for the sports I wanted to do, but I tried hard.
Life went by, I graduated and started a “real life” of my own. Then I was able to afford a horse that was suited for what I wanted to do.
One of the biggest realizations was how much easier it was for these “bred for it” horses did things. It came more natural to them to engage, sit, elastic shoulder… jumpers that could actually see a distance/have scope, jump a fence easy, etc, etc, etc.
Training became easier for the horse and myself.
What Im getting at is heritage, genetics and such do matter.
If someone just wants to poot around at T and 1st level, thats cool. Have fun, but if your hearts goal is to get into the mid and upper levels and be competitive, then I sugguest getting a horse that is born to do it. It WILL make life a lot easier on both of you.
[QUOTE=Ajierene;3351616]
…what they said - it is not an impossibility, just takes breeding and actually closing the books and paying attention to bloodlines. Issues such as lethal white should be dealt with in the same manner as HYPP in quarter horses - and there is a similar genetic issue with Arabians. It takes careful and responsible breeding.[/QUOTE]
Like I said in my rebuttal to those posts, you can reduce the chance of getting solid foals, but even when breeding homozygous tobi to homozygous tobi you still have the chance of getting white markings too minimal for “regular” paint papers. (You would also have to eliminate the overo, splash, and sabino patterned horses from the breed as there is no rhyme or reason to the extent in which those patterns may show on the coat when present.)
No different then virtually every warmblood registry in existence, plus QH, Appaloosa, Pintos…
You are talking about the APSHA, NOT the APHA. The APSHA WAS based on color and conformation alone. It was a registry for horses that had similar physical traits. Every early breed registry started out as nothing more then a collection of horses with similar characteristics and/or place of origin.
As I originally stated, APHA has had strict pedigree requirements from its very inception. These requirements applied to all offspring of the newly APHA registered horses, including those that were originally registered with the APSHA. This is why from the very beginning even solid foals from APHA parents were allowed to have papers. YES color is desirable, but it is not REQUIRED for registration. Pedigree has always come first. That’s all I’m trying to say here.
