Of course too far in either direction is undesirable.
As a dressage rider I would rather have a horse that is a bit long than a bit short. As long as the rest of the animal is suitably built for the work, the longer horses with still be able to collect without much trouble… and their lateral work is often much nicer. As you move up the levels this becomes really important.
IME, shorter backed horses are significantly more prone to kissing spines. That said, definitely somewhere in the middle range.
A horse’s back is a long expanse without any support. Considering that a spine is a very delicate thing (ask anyone with back trouble) and that we regularly bounce over a hundred pounds on horses’ backs, the longer unsupported span is going to be weaker and more prone to problems than a shorter unsupported span. Ask any engineer.
[QUOTE=nightsong;6462239]
A horse’s back is a long expanse without any support. Considering that a spine is a very delicate thing (ask anyone with back trouble) and that we regularly bounce over a hundred pounds on horses’ backs, the longer unsupported span is going to be weaker and more prone to problems than a shorter unsupported span. Ask any engineer.[/QUOTE]
You are assuming the only supporting features to be the skeleton, or taking into account all the other?
You may have more stress in the overall structure with a longer span, but you also have more flexibility to withstand pressure from all directions, unlike in a more rigid, shorter span, unless engineered differently.
Bouncing too much on any length of back, the more divergent the more consequences, if maybe different ones.
Length of span alone doesn’t indicate the physical response of any structure to stresses.
Extremes will.
I dont look at a back without looking at the underline. Short back, long underline, indicates to me a very well angled shoulder and hip. Its generally what I look for in a race horse. Long back with moderate underline likely will give you a lousy mover, short shoulder and hip.
Its all about balance.
Long backs tend to have a smoother ride, thats why a lot of WP horses are what I would consider long backs. Short backs have an easier time engaging themselves instead of their hind end just coming along because its attached.
[QUOTE=halo;6462358]
I dont look at a back without looking at the underline. Short back, long underline, indicates to me a very well angled shoulder and hip. Its generally what I look for in a race horse. Long back with moderate underline likely will give you a lousy mover, short shoulder and hip.
Its all about balance.[/QUOTE]
I don’t hang with the new pros so I am not up on what hey look for today.
But when I was younger and knew quite a few of the greats of that day WWII -1960’s) they looked for short backs.
Interesting that I have thought a lot about that recently and I have come to the conclusion that .they did so because a short back is short because on a short back, the withers is what makes the back short.
In other words, the withers is well developed and runs back well behind the elbow, making for half of what is needed for a good shoulder.
The other half of course is the depth of the shoulder, indicated by the placement of the elbow.
But they looked for the short backs.
Can a horse have both a withers placed well back behind the elbow and a long back? Never really thought about it. A little research is in order when I have time.
He would be as long as a freight train at a crossing you needed to cross to get to the bathroom.
Mabe a poster has pictures that would illuminate the point.
[QUOTE=cssutton;6462447]
I don’t hang with the new pros so I am not up on what hey look for today.
But when I was younger and knew quite a few of the greats of that day WWII -1960’s) they looked for short backs.
Interesting that I have thought a lot about that recently and I have come to the conclusion that .they did so because a short back is short because on a short back, the withers is what makes the back short.
In other words, the withers is well developed and runs back well behind the elbow, making for half of what is needed for a good shoulder.
The other half of course is the depth of the shoulder, indicated by the placement of the elbow.
But they looked for the short backs.
Can a horse have both a withers placed well back behind the elbow and a long back? Never really thought about it. A little research is in order when I have time.
He would be as long as a freight train at a crossing you needed to cross to get to the bathroom.
Mabe a poster has pictures that would illuminate the point.[/QUOTE]
Early 1970’s, extremely nice, well balanced, 15.1 hands, six year old AQHA ranch mare, double bred Poco Bueno, a granddaughter of Poco Dell, with practically no TB and none close up.
The picture doesn’t do her justice, she looks a bit coarse, but was not in person, although she was not very refined either.
As so many horses in those days, they were “used”, not just ridden a bit and so very fit, not on the fat side, as so many seem today:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a298/Robintoo/Scan163August112009.jpg
That mare more mature and less fit may have been a bit mutton withers.
Black AQHA daughter of Rocket Bar TB, very short back, ran AA with effort, bred to have been a AAA mare easily:
http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a298/Robintoo/Scan163August112009.jpg
That horse is about a perfect looking (to me) as you can get. Talk about oozing athletic talent! She seems taller than 15.1h.
prob goes without saying, but you can generally improve/compensate for a long back with correct work, hills, lateral work, etc.
Mare when I got her (for $1, in case any one is wondering how the heck someone would buy a horse with this confo: Brio
About 8mos later: a bit better
[QUOTE=caffeinated;6460923]
I think it’s less about the length of the back than it is about the length/strength of the loin area as it connects to the hip.
I like that area to be relatively short and very strong, regardless of the length of the back.[/QUOTE]
I think this is really the crux of it.
I owned a very short backed horse and she had constant back issues. Wouldn’t give in her back and it eventually turned into lameness in other parts of her body that were compensating for her back issues. Her back was so short that I could barely fit a saddle on her because they were almost all on top of her SI practically. She was great with collection and could almost canter in place, but I would never own another like that.
Can someone please provide pictures regarding the whole loin thing? I have never seen a diagram that properly tell me where to look. How can you tell if it is a weak connection?
The loin is the equivalent to your lower back/lumbar vertebrae, it is also called the coupling (I guess it "couples the back to the hind end? I have no idea why it is called this)
Ribs are attached to thoracic vertebrae - so the loin is the part of the back from the last rib to the croup (the lumbosacral jt).
If you look at a skeleton (horse or person) you will see that in the lumbar area, the only bone around is the spine. Although muscles in this area are also attached to the pelvis & ribs, the spine is the primary site of attachment & it will have to bear the bulk of that area’s weight (muscle, organs). The lumbar vertebrae are larger than the cervical & thoracic, since they do have to perform this function.
If this area is long, weak, sloping and/or poorly muscled (ideally you would like to see what it looks like from above, not just the side), it is going to be prone to sag (just like the bridge mentioned earlier). Drop a plumb from the lumbosacral jt & you should hit horse’s hip. If LS is behind hip, loin is long.
I admit when I hear “long back” I think “long loin”, but one could have a longer back with a short loin - this would be structurally sounder & less likely to break down.
I also would support the poster who talked about the need to consider the length of the underline when discussing length of the back.
I just spent some time googling for pix of a weak loin. FYI “horse loin” gets you photos of some poor declawed lion riding a horrified horse.
skeleton superimposed on real horse
http://www.bansidhesenterprises.com/images/horse%20skeleton.jpg
[QUOTE=Hippolyta;6463639]
skeleton superimposed on real horse
http://www.bansidhesenterprises.com/images/horse%20skeleton.jpg[/QUOTE]
Thank you for that picture.
I can sure use it to teach, very good.
I also think there is more than a too long/short back to ideal function, like why it is too long/short, what else is there in the conformation of that horse and what will the horse be used for.:yes:
[QUOTE=Hippolyta;6463639]
skeleton superimposed on real horse
http://www.bansidhesenterprises.com/images/horse%20skeleton.jpg[/QUOTE]
So in that photo, where is the SI? Is it at the start of the sacral?
Interesting topic, as I just retired my longer backed Appy (who was built more like a TB than a “stock” Appy)…and got a much shorter backed, more “compact” Connemara with an amazing hind end. Probably the biggest difference I noticed is that he feels alot more compact, but also that he has to compensate much less on inclines, hills and he just powers over jumps with little effort. It’s been an interesting feeling and change for me to say the least and he’s not just shorter backed, he is just compact front to back and 14.2 vs. 16.1 so adjustments all around for me…but I was very diligent choosing a saddle and ended up with one made for an Arabian so it fit the length of his back better.
This yearling pretty much shows what I mean when talking about short back/long underline.
Moving toward the tail, the last lumbar vertebrae articulates (fancy way of saying where two bones meet, aka a joint) with the sacral vertebrae (sacrum). This is at the croup.
The sacrum articulates with ilium (bone in the pelvis) on either side of the spine in this same location. This is the SI jt.
this is what yours look like
horse from the side
don’t know how to attach pic or I would mark latter pic with a big X. You can see the ilium behind the wood bar. The SI is where the ilium abuts the spine.
I need to point/draw- hope I am explaining it clearly.
^^This^^. To me, it’s not so much the length of the back, as the strength and angle of the loin tie-in. I’ve had long backed horses with crappy loin tie-ins (angled to the back) that couldn’t collect if their lives depended on it, but made great jumpers. And I’ve had shorter backed horses with marginal loin tie ins that were sort of jack-of-all-trades trustys, but would never set the world on fire in any one discipline.
Me, I’m fanatic about a proportionate length of back with a short, strong loin tie in. You don’t get SI issues with this sort of conformation, and a horse with such conformation can usually excel both on the flat and over fences. Just my preference.
Absolutely. If I could find a photo of the Trak/TB mare I used to own, I’d show you this phenomenon. 
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
