Well, I just say warmblood because they originated from a heavier stock and then were heavily infused with hot(spanish) blood in the 1600’s and bred true from then on. Fhana and the FPS classify them as warmblood, although, yeah they aren’t a warmblood breed in the traditional sense,it’s just that their breeding hints at it. Trakehners are warmblooded horses and have a pretty closed studbook…ie you can’t use any other warmblood in there. Anyways, there is nothing in the horses breeding lineage that suggest cold blood…which essentially means what it says…COLD blood…lack of HOT blood, which is not the case for friesians if you read the history links below.
I agree they are hard to classify…baroque breed probably makes the most sense. However, there is nothing about their history or looks that says cold blooded, so I am not sure if it is just the feathers on the legs or what. There are alot of misconceptions about the breed, and this is probably the most common one. People always think too that they were originally bred for pulling and they were not.
As a side note, I noticed in the last months issue of dressage today in the breed profile article they were classified as a warmblood breed …I think people are starting to look into it more and realize feathers dont automatically equal cold blood.
Here are some good links to friesian history:
The first is an excerpt from the FPS…the governing book for the breed.
http://friesian-crazy.tripod.com/historicnotes.html
http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/friesian.html#hist
http://www.knappfriesians.com/SPECTACULAR/New/history.html
http://www.friesianexchange.com/index.asp?cat=75980
I guess it boils down to what you consider a cold blood. To me, something that has this much hot influence is not a cold blood…what they actually are…hmmm, well that is more difficult to say:)