List the stallions that consistantly produce offspring with longer front legs.
I’ll start:
Stedinger
Royal Prince
And maybe list the detrimental effects long legs have on the horse, while you’re at it?
Royal Pribce does not always add a longer front leg (in my breeding experience).
I think Sir Donnerhall and Romanov do so, with consistency.
Long legs are good, if there is sufficient substance and a good sized/shaped hoof. Even in the modern type you also want a rectangular shaped horse. Too short a back might create some difficulties with suppleness.
Although looking at the top horses now - Utopia, Valegro, Totilas…long legs are getting “so, like yesterday”
I’ve got a long legged Stedinger - Rose D’Argent Bfd. 17.2hh 4yo in this clip
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkdhPUCDYEM
Never had a leg problem or weakness in his life.
My own double cross Romedio (by Rigoletto x Ramzes) stallion (17hh) puts long legs, short backs, slightly long necks - elegant.
I think long legs are only a problem when they go hand in hand with poor conformation. That don’t make conformation poor.
Define “long legs”
In relation to what? The back? The neck? The hind legs? Elbow vs stifle?
Long legs in relation to the whole body is not a good thing from a foal’s perspective. The study done on the “long legs small (pretty) head foals” pretty much proved it greatly increases the odds of developing a high-low hoof syndrome from a very split-leg stance (one forward one back).
Long legs automatically “shortens” the back and makes overreaching/grabbing potentially a bigger issue
What is a “rectangular” horse? 
Tall rectangle? Long rectangle? Tall rectangles tend, IME, to be that way due to a short(er) back, though can also be that way due to longer legs.
I’d much rather have a square 
In relation to what??? In relation to the overall look of the horse. It was obvious which ones had short front legs when they were standing square in front of you.
As to the grazing hoof as I call it’… simple solution to avoid it: Keep them on tall pastures so there is no need to stand like that.
Why is this topic so offensive to people???
I can tell when a foal is long legged versus average or short legged. Yes, all foals seem to have long legs but an experienced breeder or someone who has seen many foals can tell the difference. The cannon bone length especially from birth does not change much in terms of length. I read somewhere that the cannon bone is 90% of what it will mature to be by the horse’s yearling year.
My Tantris mare is very short legged. Her Royal Prince filly was born with longer cannons than her.
This thread is not about what body style you prefer or why long legs are better, it’s about which stallion throws longer legs–simple as that. I’m not sure why some have commented the way they did.
[QUOTE=Callaway;5878405]
This thread is not about what body style you prefer or why long legs are better, it’s about which stallion throws longer legs–simple as that. I’m not sure why some have commented the way they did.[/QUOTE]
exactly.
I don’t think there’s a large % to choose from so I’m wondering who those stallions are who do give a longer feint leg.
I don’t think anyone is offended or getting defensive, but what does “throw longer front legs” MEAN?
Does it really mean producing an uphill horse? The question wasn’t just “longer legs” but “longer FRONT legs” 
My limited experience has been Oskar II (TK) and Coromino (GOV) both produced leggy but proportionate.
PennyG
While I think the word “offensive” might be somewhat strong, I think what JB and others (including myself) might be getting at, is there is a real risk in breeding for a physical characteristic where good function is a problem. If you look at most horses, they do NOT have a leggy look. This is a more modern “fashion”.
If you have a rectangular horse, his legs aren’t going to look longer, he will just be taller if he has long legs, as his body is in proportion.
Traditionally, one wants to look for short cannons to enhance performance, so that means more length of leg would be gained only by making everything above the hock “long”.
Again, this is a very new “fashion” and I for one am not really convinced it’s best for the horse or his performance. Having seen the trend for form over function almost ruin breeds like Arabs, QHs and Tekes, I would hesitate to jump on this bandwagon.
So – I think (and please correct me if I’m wrong) most posters are saying “why would you want to breed long legs?”
Again, traditional horseman’s wisdom tells us stuff like a square built, overly short back and small feet are NOT desireable, yet breeders of various breeds have gone this direction with dire results.
Kyz, can you explain a bit more your last comment about “square built”? I think a square horse - the old standard for judging conformation, where the rear end, the middle, and the front end are all in equal proportions, and the length vs the height is the same, is one of the more functional builds in general. Not that you can’t get functional with a tall or long rectangle, but those depend more on where the difference is coming from, and to what degree they are tall or long.
I very much agree with you on the cannon bones vs the rest of the leg length. As the whole leg length increases, you can get a longer cannon bone and still stay “short” in proportion, but still, the added length has to be coming mostly from the forearm.
I still want to know what “produces longer front legs” really means
Ditto on Oskar II and I have heard Stiletto does as well. My 6 year Anglo-Trak by him is certainly leggy.
See, what I was taught, was that the horse should indeed be balanced and in proportion just as you say, however still of a rectangular built rather than square. Meaning he is longer from nose to dock than he is tall. THEN comes the leg aspect (I don’t think I am explaining this correctly).
One thing I learned from my connection with Tekes is that conformation standards have changed – back when TBs ran truly long races (like 4 miles), a longer back was desired. Once the races shortened to 2 mile & under, the backs shortened as well.
For me, at first glance, it seems that a dressage horse needs to get low, to sit, to get his hocks way underneath him. Seems like it just gets harder if the legs are longer. And if you are breeding a horse with just longer FRONT legs, you are creating a imbalanced horse.
I think what makes more sense is NOT just lengthening the legs, but slimming the body – breeding for a more refined BODY, which would give the illusion of longer legs.
To me the perfect example of this has always been and will always be Rembrandt. He was modern before “modern” was cool…:yes:
Sir Donnerhall.
First video is of an Espri mare, pulled from the field and lunged for the first time in five years. Powerful mare, scored an overall “8” with the Hanoverian Verband. Not the type that would get that score today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoW-hQ40IEI
Daughter by Sir Donnerhall. More refined, longer legs. I would not want anything with longer legs than this filly though. You can tell they get in her way a bit (-: Once under saddle she was fine but finding her balance took some time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yqCC-ONDSw
Also have a quite tall Hanoverian mare with "shorter front legs…well the problem is really that her hind legs are too long, not the the fronts legs are short. Many horses are built like this. It works quite well for the majority of them but is not ideal.
[QUOTE=JB;5878468]
I still want to know what “produces longer front legs” really means :)[/QUOTE]
In most cases the same as producing horses with a to small depth in their body.
One of the reasons Sandro Hit became so popular was/is his ability to consistently pass a longer front leg - i.e., the elbow sits a bit higher than the stifle. IOW, the horse is built more “uphill”. And many of the SH sons and daughters also pass on this trait pretty reliably.
A shorter front leg is a carryover from stock used primarily for pulling. It is still seen in horses from older lines (heck, even Feiner Stern frequently passed a shorter front leg).
As to why a longer front leg is more desirable in a dressage horse - maybe it will help to look at Quarter Horses. They have a short front leg by design, because QH breeders want them to travel long and low, and also because a shorter front leg makes it easier for the horse to get down in front when working cattle (and it probably also is more conducive to fast, short bursts of speed).
But a dressage horse has to travel the exact opposite of a QH - i.e., uphill, and sitting on a hindleg that is capable of LIFTING and CARRYING the forehand UP stride after stride - not just pushing forward, and not just for a few quick strides here or there. If the horse is built downhill the way most QH’s are built, it has to work that much harder to lift the forehand.
Not sure I am explaining this adequately, but that is how things were explained to me by an old German breeder.
Edited to stress that the front leg should be SLIGHTLY longer than the hind leg - the horse shouldn’t look like a giraffe. 
In most cases the same as producing horses with a to small depth in their body
I don’t think so. There is a mare here now in training that is incredibly long legged and yet two people have commented on her lovely, deep heartgirth (she is half tb). A horse can be very long legged all the way around and still be very downhill (think some tb’s). It’s that relation between the front and hind legs that breeders are striving to influence.
A longer front leg translates to a longer radius. You don’t want longer cannon bones, but if the radius is long enough it will neccisarily create a more uphill build on the horse (ie elbow level with stifle or higher than stifle).
I don’t know if there are soundness concerns with this type. One would think that anything that creates an animal better suited to get weight onto the hind end would create an animal better suited for the sport of dressage (and hence less likely to break down). In my opinion it is smart to try and breed an animal that is born with a predisposition for collection, because the sport is not easy to begin with, that’s forsure.
