Breedism and Warmbloods

[quietann]

@mvp;8199269

a. Breeders did not produce F1 generations of draft x TBs over and over. (Though they did outcross with TBs more and more in recent history.) That means they chose from horses whose conformation and purposeful ideal was shifting from either the draft breeder’s goal or the TB breeder’s goal.

b. The crucial thing is the selection or sieve that is happening in all of those generations! And it happens, too, for the out-crossed, non-WB horses people would like to use to outcross with a WB. All must meet criteria that relate to the registry’s long-term breeding goal and conformational/performance ideal.

I had a little trouble editing the quote, but this bears repeating.

In my mind, I make the distinction between small-w wbs and large-w WBs, with the latter being the purpose-bred for generations sport horse. Small-w wbs are harder to define because they are diverse – draft crosses, QH crossed with WB, etc. And there are some breeders of small-w wbs who are following the ISH route of starting with heavy draft mares in F0, but gradually adding more TBs and other sport horses (including big-W WBs). After some generations of this, my guess is that they will have something equivalent to a WB. And it may have a lot of WB in its pedigree.

I think folks should also consider the effect of human history on horse breeding, especially in 20th century Europe. The early to mid 20th century WBs were more drafty and heavier, but as the need for “utility” horses disappeared, it made sense to breed a finer horse more suitable for riding. Then you have the chaos of WW1 and WW2, loss of breeding stock etc. so probably a trip back to heavier mares again, assuming that is what survived the Wars. The omid-century/post WW2 WBs are indeed quite heavy horse.

[FatCatFarm]

As an owner of draft crosses (two of which are obnoxiously called “Georgian Grandes” - I always say draft crosses as GGs are most commonly Saddlebred x Friesian anyway), I liked the article. What I took away from it was the whole judging a book by it’s cover bit. The author is obviously riding heavier horse than is what is fashionable in the hunter ring and concerned that the “looks” or “type” factor will come into play causing her to be pinned less than her sleeker counterparts. I do think that breedism or type happens in anything that is subjectively judged. It’s human nature. Irritating? Certainly.

No I don’t think my draft crosses are (W)or(w)armbloods. To me they are far, far superior. :winkgrin:

Edited to add: As a previous poster said, if I were interested in competing at the upper levels (which I am not), I would indeed set about purchasing the best purpose bred sport horse I could afford and likely not an F1 draft cross. But are they fun? Absolutely!

[Midge]

[QUOTE=FatCatFarm;8201612]
The author is obviously riding heavier horse than is what is fashionable in the hunter ring and concerned that the “looks” or “type” factor will come into play causing her to be pinned less than her sleeker counterparts. I do think that breedism or type happens in anything that is subjectively judged. It’s human nature. Irritating? Certainly. [/QUOTE]

But hunters ARE a type. They are not a breed. There are no standards as far as size, color, breed, age, or sex. Any horse can show in the hunters.

There are standards by which a hunter is judged. It’s not ‘judging a book by it’s cover.’ It is judging to the hunter standard. If your horse doesn’t fit the standard, he is not a hunter. No cause for irritation at all.

[Dispatcher]

[QUOTE=enjoytheride;8199084]
Come on guys, I’m more interested in hearing the labradoodle person insult the curly coated retriever person then have a rational discussion about breedism.[/QUOTE]

well, isn’t that discussion a PRIME example of “breedism” ? You know,he was bred and trained in EUROPE! He can do his job in 2 different countries! How dare you mistake him for a half-breed… and on and on…

[FatCatFarm]

I never said they are a breed. I agree they are “type” and the current type subjectively is not what the author is riding. I do think she has a valid concern but that is only my opinion and your mileage may vary.

[Canaqua]

My leased mare is a Trakehner x Appendix QH. She is a “slightly warmer than your typical bath water” blood. And, no, she is not a hunter, she looks pretty fancy standing still, and even on the flat if she’s in the right mood, but her peculiar style of jump will NEVER pin in a rated hunter ring, regardless of what breed or “temperature” I call her.

[Bombproof]

[QUOTE=Go Fish;8201536]
By your definition, a quarter horse would be a warmblood. I would strongly advise you NOT to go up to a QH breeder and mention this. They are smart enough to know what “warmblood” means. And, it’s NOT a QH. :lol:[/QUOTE]

Really? So then is the QH a hotblood or a coldblood? Or is it something in between, which would be…umm…oh, yeah…a warmblood. The QH meets every definition of a warmblood breed; hotblooded horses crossed to coldblooded horses and refined by selection to meet specific criteria. European sporthorses aren’t the only warmblood breeds, they’re just the ones with the word “Warmblood” in their descriptions.

[SillyHorse]

The QH meets every definition of a warmblood breed;

From where are you getting this “definition?”

[SmartAlex]

[QUOTE=SillyHorse;8201725]
From where are you getting this “definition?”[/QUOTE]

The old one: hot blood (TB or Arab) x cold blood (native, draft, pony)

QH originated in the colonies when the American population consisted of small pony types (i.e. Jennets, Palfries) and they were bred up with later imports (Thoroughbreds) The QH got it’s big influx of TB with remount breeding among other things.

Other American Warm Bloods: Saddlebreds, Morgans, TWH, Standardbreds, Missouri Fox Trotters. They all have foundation stock in common with each other and with the QH.
They all have some draft. They all have some harness types. They all have some Spanish/Iberian/English gaited horses. They were improved with Thoroughbreds. For generations. Just like the European warmbloods were improved and purpose bred for generations

[ladyj79]

I don’t think qhs have anything we’d call “cold blood,” so I’m confused as to how they got tossed into this “discussion”.

[Sticky_Situation]

[QUOTE=Midge;8201113]
For the most part, no one looks down on breeds or colors if they are pretty, stylish jumpers with a big step.

But yeah, you bring a coarse, heavy, gallumping draft cross into the hunter ring, and it will be looked down on. Not because it is a draft cross, but because it is not a hunter.[/QUOTE]

The irony is, draft crosses seem to be one of the most popular types out in the actual hunt field these days, so many of them must be quite good foxhunters! However, I think we can all agree that the show hunters have diverged quite a bit and a more refined horse is needed to be successful in the show ring.

I’m not sure why we are still arguing semantics over warmblood vs Warmblood vs draft x vs warmblood x… Look at a TB/Belgian next to a Hanoverian and it will be clear that there is a difference, regardless of what you call them. It doesn’t mean one is “better” or “worse” than the other, but depending on what you intend to use the horse for, one of them might suit your needs more appropriately than the other.

[ladyj79]

Why would native horses or ponies necessarily be cold blooded? This is getting pretty far reaching.

[ladyj79]

(I’m not even clear what is meant by “native” horses. Native where??)

[SmartAlex]

[QUOTE=ladyj79;8201740]
Why would native horses or ponies necessarily be cold blooded? This is getting pretty far reaching.[/QUOTE]

Simplified version: the only “hot blooded” horses were the Arabs and Barbs which came from the Oriental sub species. Most of the rest are “cold blooded” from the shaggy forest subspecies which were bred large (Shire/Clyde type) and small (Cob, New Forest type).

Even the English Thoroughbred was once a warmblood. The native british stock (forest horses) were improved by the Godolphin Arabian, Darley Arabian and the Byerly Turk. Again, simplified version. There is a lot of history there.

[SmartAlex]

[QUOTE=ladyj79;8201746]
(I’m not even clear what is meant by “native” horses. Native where??)[/QUOTE]

In America? Nothing was native. They all came from Spain, Europe or England. The colonial horses were first small (think Chincoteague horses) One of the first American types to develop was the Narragansett Pacer. There was also heavy importation of draft animals and American types developed in that category.

In England the native horses were shaggy ponies (Forest horses).
In Europe: Asiatic horses

How far do you want to go back?

[Bombproof]

[QUOTE=ladyj79;8201738]
I don’t think qhs have anything we’d call “cold blood,” so I’m confused as to how they got tossed into this “discussion”.[/QUOTE]

Records that far back are almost non-existent, but it is widely believed that some light draft horses were part of the mix that eventually made the AQH. There is almost certainly some Iberian blood from the feral horses of the west, and many of those also had a mix of genes that included draft breeds. The development of the QH was much the same process as the development of the Warmblood sporthorse breeds, albeit targeting a different set of sports.

[roseymare]

Words can have two different meaninings in different context right? Why are people insisting that warmblood only has one? In history and academia it has can have one context and in modern horse breeding it also can have another. Warmblood can mean the cross between a hotblood and a cold blood when talking about history and generalities OR it can refer to the modern breeds of horses that have been selectively bred for generations by European studfarms.
There are plenty of examples of words which have both a generalized meaning and a specific meaning in the English language. I think this is a total nonargument. Both this thread and the original blog post.

[roseymare]

Most of the breeds that are considered warmbloods have originated as landraces not breeds.

[Caol_Ila]

Yes, surely the point of hunters is judging how it moves, as per a certain standard. Drafts and draft crosses tend not to move like that. Mine is a lovely mover, for dressage, but she’s not got that floaty daisy-cutter thing going on, so would probably suck in the hunter ring.

Should I write an article whinging about hard it is to compete my draft cross against all the QHs at reining? Will I win a competition?

[Alagirl]

[QUOTE=roseymare;8201783]
Most of the breeds that are considered warmbloods have originated as landraces not breeds.[/QUOTE]

Explain the difference, if you please…