How did you measure him? I would not say he is completely square, but certainly more square than rect. Although what you say about younger horses is very true.
It is important to remember that many times the pics some of use to evaluate a stallion were taken when he was just 3-4 yrs old; barely mature.
I am an Oskar II fan, having a filly by him that I adore. He showed and won/scored high enough in Grand Prix dressage under different judges to earn the pg after his name with the ATA which is not an easy task and quite an honor. He also suffered a fractured back, I believe, in a trailer accident and showed in spite of that. So, I have to say he is quite the Man – I had the privilege of seeing him show and he left me breathless. I was so excited to have a mare that matched well with him and scored high at her ATA inspection as well as producing all I hoped she would. I love the more modern (TB) look, but don’t care for the “spider-y” more leg than body, out of proportion horse and Oskar would not fit that description. Carry on …
PennyG
Watch the video. Definitely more rectangular than square. Leggy, yes. If I recall correctly, he damaged his cervical spine in a trailer accident and underwent a basket procedure similar to that of Seattle Slew.
Donella - your post was spot-on! THis is exactly what came to mind when I read what you wrote…
uphill
“See but that is not true. When someone says they want to increase length of leg, they are not talking about the hind legs. They want the forearm of the horse to be longer than the hind legs so that, relatively speaking, the horse is naturally higher at the elbow than he is at the stifle (the definition of “uphill”). If the hind end is well conformed and the front leg puts the horse in an uphill balance then you would assume that the horse would struggle less to shift it’s weight to the hind end and, more importantly, raise the front end (collection).”
have to disagree with the above given definiton for the simple reason that “uphill” describes a realtive and subjective impression only, not a static realtion or anything that can be measured in centimeters.
uphill move results from DYNAMICS, not from statics.
length of (front)legs is NOT an issue, the uphill tendency of any given move in a horse results from a multitude of factors which in the sum of their parts make the horse “look” uphill - power from behind, push through the body, formation of shoulder and resulting form that the individual carriage (lift) of the entire neckset as such plus the sheer dynamics that provide for what we call “cadence” - these are the features that are respionsible for uphill moves.
length or formation of front legs has nothing to do with it.
for the simple reason that nature ALWAYS creates scelettons equally built - meaning:
front and hindlegs in any given horse are always of the same length and shaped equally.
simple proof:
ellbows (front and behind) of any given horse are always at the same hight, no matter if the horse shows an uphill or downhill (flat) tendency when moving.
I’m not sure I agree with this – but then you don’t have racing quarter horses in Germany.
Take a look at this link:
http://racehorse-studs.com/
Almost every stallion shown is obviously downhill, which is DESIRABLE for a racing QH, because you want them to break fast and run REALLY fast for a short distance. Ditto for horses used for calf roping, bull-dogging & team roping (which I realize you also don’t have…:D).
But to me, it seems that these horses DO have longer back legs than front…or is it just my eye? And if not, what makes them so butt high?
[QUOTE=Kyzteke;5681697]
I’m not sure I agree with this – but then you don’t have racing quarter horses in Germany.
Take a look at this link:
http://racehorse-studs.com/
Almost every stallion shown is obviously downhill, which is DESIRABLE for a racing QH, because you want them to break fast and run REALLY fast for a short distance. Ditto for horses used for calf roping, bull-dogging & team roping (which I realize you also don’t have…:D).
But to me, it seems that these horses DO have longer back legs than front…or is it just my eye? And if not, what makes them so butt high?[/QUOTE]
See, I would argue that a lot of those horses aren’t built down-hill (certainly some are, though). If you look carefully, the withers and hips are often even in those horses, and when I think down-hill/butt-high, I think hips/hind ends that are actually higher than the withers. I think that some of it is the amount of mass/muscling in the front that makes them look down-hill, but that could just be my perspective. I will say, as someone who is married to an AVID roper that they DON’T want a down-hill horse. The horse has to be able to sprint, sure (which they would argue comes from having an enormous hip/"engine), and then has to be able to really SIT and stop the steer and hold him, again working soley off the hind end. So at least for ropers, a down-hill build is not the preference. Sure, you could have a great rope horse that is built down-hill, but we all know horses in all sports that achieve success despite their conformation, not b/c of it.
Kyzteke - great topic idea and great discussion everyone!
I really appreciate Ann’s input since she has trained so many horses.
Donnella, I would have thought the same thing as you about the uphill conformation and longer front legs. But what do you think of De Niro? He showed Grand Prix at 7 and has so many top offspring at Grand Prix now. And yet look at his long hindleg and rectangular conformation.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.dicavalli.com/stallions/reference/diniro2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dicavalli.com/reference.html&usg=__c3U50nsUf9RU7QymtOg5ZcttnJ8=&h=194&w=283&sz=39&hl=en&start=123&zoom=1&tbnid=ky_E1OyVHa6nwM:&tbnh=121&tbnw=161&ei=OeEETvb9CI650AGOz_XVCw&prev=/search%3Fq%3DDe%2Bniro%2BHanoverian%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26rlz%3D1T4DKUS_enUS300US300%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D577%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=474&vpy=286&dur=536&hovh=155&hovw=226&tx=161&ty=94&page=7&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:123&biw=1280&bih=577
So you are saying the legs ARE the same length (like fannie mae is saying) and their withers & croup are level, but it’s just their big muscley butts that make 'em look this way?
And of course that does make sense about the roping horses…
Does someone have a pick of a horse that IS downhill because of the length of his hind legs? I mean, what makes a horse downhill other than that?
I would say most of those QH stallions are downhill. I just snagged some photos from the site and pulled them into a graphics application and drew a horizontal line from top of rump forward. On some of them, it hit slightly above the withers, on many of them it hit well forward of the withers (several inches up the neck).
I also drew a vertical line from ground to stifle, and then moved that same line to go from ground to elbow. On many of them, the forelegs definitely appear shorter - i.e., top of my line hit well above the elbow. These could be off, though, since most of the stallions are standing in grass, and it is hard to determine exactly where “the ground” is.
This was just a quick look at them - I may try to do a more in-depth study if I have time over the weekend.
Muscle
I think that in all talk about uphill you have more to consider than measuring front and rear height and ground to whithers and chest to point of butt.
First the primary point of “uphill” is movement, all measuring aside, do they lift their front with their rear? Do they reach under their body with their rear? Is their action under their body or behind their body…do they push or carry? Can the front end get out of the way of the drive from the active hind leg? Does the neck enhance the uphill carriage and help free the shoulder or does it weight the shoulder limiting freedom of the shoulder?
Comparing the difference between the height of the withers to the ground and the length of the body from chest to rump and asking does the neck come out of the top of the withers or lower are helpful but definately over simplify the charecteristics that make a horse move uphill.
You can compare the structure of a heavily muscled horse like a QH but remember they can have a lot of muscle over their rump. They are selected for this. It does not mean their frame(skeleton) is down hill. In my breed, Irish Draughts, many also carry significant muscle on their top line. My best mare will measure level with her top of withers to top of rump measure but she moves very uphill and if you consider her frame it is also up hill but what you see is level. There can be no uphill judgement without seeing movement.
What makes QHs down hill includes the mass of the neck placement if it is low, and it doesn’t have to be set low to be trained to carry it low, many ARE bred to carry it low to enhance the peanut pusher fashion of western pleasure divisions. That is not seen as much in the working western divisions but you will still see the heavy muscled hind end. You might also see a general heavyness in the shoulder and over the withers but it is the same…this is less common in the working western bred horses. PatO
I am not saying that horses can’t move uphill if they aren’t built that way…sometimes you see horses with odd shaped necks, really sloped croups ect ect and you see them in motion and are wow’ed. But I generally believe in form to function…that is why we have distinct breeds. I own two Quarter horses and I can most certainly say that their stifles are higher than their elbows and their bums are higher than their withers. They are built downhill because of this length of leg difference. Their necks come out nicely, so it isn’t that. When I see a horse with a short front leg, generally speaking the horse looks less uphill than a horse with a long front leg, even if they are very similair everywhere else. Something clearly creates a more uphill horse and if it isn’t length of leg difference, then what is it?
I am not fanatical about the long forearm (it’s just one trait), but I know it is used as a judging criteria for the KWPN for the reason which I mentioned above. That has always been the thinking of breeders…you manipulate the form to suit the function through selective breeding. Again, that is why the Clydesdale doesn’t look like an Arabian. Length of leg is just another part of the horse we choose to manipulate to create what we want. It isn’t something that dictates wether or not a horse will be a top athlete. It’s just one quality amongst many.
I love De Niro. He is a great stallion and was a GP horse. But the goal of the breeder is to always breed a better horse with each generation. It’s not like a short front leg prevents a horse from being athletic…but again, the best GP horses of the 50’s do not look like the best GP horses of the 70’s and the best GP horses of the 70’s don’t look like Totilas. This is because we have selectively bred for certain characteristics that allow a horse to be born with qualities that make him even more suited to his job.
That’s just my humble opinion.
Some example of a downhill horse due primarily to lack of forearm length (or long hind leg length…)
A good indication to know if a horse is uphill is to draw a line from the wither to the elbow and another one from the point of the hip to the stifle. The line joining the middle of each line will give you a good idea of the body direction.
Now this is from a conformation point of view. Some horses despite the fact that their body direction are downhill manage to move uphill anyway; I would say Sir Sinclair is quite a good example of this;
http://www.ironspringfarm.com/stallions/sir-sinclair/photos/810
http://www.ironspringfarm.com/stallions/sir-sinclair/videos/810
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
