As is often the case, these definitions seem to mean different things to different people. That makes this discussion pretty imprecise.
I hear inspectors wanting “longer legs” (especially longer front legs) more often than I hear a need for refinement.
I have slowly come to the conclusion that this longer leg trend is not necessarily a good thing, as I believe that it is very hard to add leg without making the cannon bone longer than it should be for longterm soundness.
These posts always confuse me. What are you wanting to breed - horses for the inspections or for the GP?
[QUOTE=Bats79;7364499]
These posts always confuse me. What are you wanting to breed - horses for the inspections or for the GP?[/QUOTE]
IMO, GP should be the goal of any dressage breeder. Not every horse will end up there of course, but you should not try to breed for a mediocre horse.
If refined stallions are getting there without issue why not use the ones who have proven themselves to do the job? But if they are few and are between, then maybe there’s something to why there are so few, and we should take that into consideration.
There aren’t many stallions making the list so far.
What about Hohenstein and Londonderry?
Some opinions. To the OP: there are extremely few “fashionable” refined stallions competing at GP. If you go to the CDIs both here and in Europe, you would be very hard pressed to find one, let alone more than that.
I am not where I can access the FN or WBFSH stats so these are very rough numbers.
Sandro Hit was mentioned as an example. Yes, he has a few at the FEI levels. But put that into perspective: there are TWO parents. The mare contributes at least 60% or more of performance traits.IMO. There are thousands of SH offspring. How many have made it to GP? 5? 10? Let’s say 25 out of 2000 or more.
Then take Donnerhall who has how many at GP? 200 or so over the years. He had maybe 900 or 1000 offspring. Which stallion is the better type then, the one with large numbers of offspring but small numbers in performance or the reverse?
I chose those two because this thread is about refined stallions doing GP and they represent both sides of the question. If you look at the most successful SH offspring, they have Donnerhall in the same pedigree.
A longer front leg is not always a good thing. Being built uphill is. The length of the cannon is critical to soundness at FEI. Longer cannon is disposed to tendon and ligament injury. Density of bone comes with the concussive training needed for FEI levels. If you start out too light, there can be chips and fractures.
Two other stallions mentioned in this thread: Londonderry and Hohenstein. I have seen both several times over the years. Neither is refined or light boned. But they ARE built uphill. Again, go to the numbers, how many offspring vs those doing performance at FEI levels? I see the Hohenstein out there on both sides of the pedigree but have no idea about the actual numbers. I personally think Londonderry is the Sandro Hit of Hanoverians. Sooo many offspring and where are they? percentages not names of a few.
I will add that in 2003, I was already asking registry officials what they were aiming for when licensing and then giving SPS titles because even then, I saw the writing on the wall: pretty and flash over substance and correctness.
I posted a wonderful interview of some of the top Dutch breeders on FB a while ago. One of the statements was like a light bulb for me, I will paraphrase:
“We need competing grand prix riders to judge the stallions and not the political BOD members. Riders can see what is needed for performance. We have traveled so far away from that ideal because we must sell to survive. With officials telling breeders that this or that stallion is tops, the breeders flock to him without proof of longevity or performance.
It is a self perpetuating “pat on the back” for the same people to license the stallion. Then they must of course continue along this way with more offspring of that stallion for auctions, mares and stallions with high scores. Otherwise they look like they were wrong in the first place. Even if privately they know that they made a mistake in the beginning”
In the USA, our market is the 40 something amateur lady rider. They need a lighter horse that they do not have to struggle with. But they also want the fancy gaits which most of them can not ride. So they buy fancy and pretty. An upper level horse is usually substantial and has three correct gaits that later translate to power. If you look at the structure of FEI riders, they are usually long legged and broad shouldered. They look elegant on their horses, but get up close when thy are standing on the ground and they are athletes. You can see why they can do what they do.
Temperment is another can of worms I will not open on this thread
This thread is IMO closely related to the thread I started a while back asking about soundness in breeding. Very we’ll thought out responses and I agree that the goal of Dressage breeders should be to produce horses that can make it to the upper levels / GP. As a rider I need a horse with the body and mind that can last. I am not interested in a young horse champion I want to go past that and be doing All the FEI levels. I realize that breeders have to sell foals and otherwise won’t make it but how very sad to produce a flashy fancy foal that is lame and unrideable at 7. That is a disservice to the owner, horse, and dressage community JMO.
I also think that if the registries stood up and said, “this is the right type of horse”, that many people would listen, especially those genuinely interested in the sport. In other words I am not sure it is totally the tail wagging the dog, with the consumer dictating the refinement movement. I think it is both. They advertise them in the shows and licencing, and they sell. But they sell because they are touted as the next best thing. I think the above post (Marydell) is very accurate in that they picked stallions and now they pick their offspring to prove they were right. It snowballs.
Separate the ammy market from the rest with a riding horse program. The older female NA market needs shorter horses with good minds, not necessarily refined horses that are tall and hot. Many are going to pony crosses to get what they need. They can have the talent but the temperament comes first, and they are sized down.
Ironically, few ammy riders buy foals so it is hard to blame that group for the shift. Now amateur trainers is a whole other thing that I think is affecting the horse market.
[QUOTE=Marydell;7364768]
Two other stallions mentioned in this thread: Londonderry and Hohenstein. I have seen both several times over the years. Neither is refined or light boned. But they ARE built uphill. [/QUOTE]
I have seen Londonderry several times, I would definitely say he is lighter boned. That being said, I do not think he is so light or refined that his body cannot handle the demands of upper level work.
The best example that springs to mind of a really refined FEI dressage stallion is Holme Grove Prokoviev. I am not sure if he ever competed GP but he had more than enough talent for the work.
Look at google images for some pics of him or here is his stud’s webpage http://www.holmetrakehners.com/stallions/prokofiev.htm
Yes, this is what I think of as refined. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHp2RCO-ocU
[QUOTE=Hollycatt;7367278]
The best example that springs to mind of a really refined FEI dressage stallion is Holme Grove Prokoviev. I am not sure if he ever competed GP but he had more than enough talent for the work.
Look at google images for some pics of him or here is his stud’s webpage http://www.holmetrakehners.com/stallions/prokofiev.htm[/QUOTE]
Londonderry is NOT light or refined!? Sorry, I strongly disagree. If he is not refined or light then I don’t know what is. 
I don’t think light bone is a negative thing at all if it is proportional to substance…nor have I noticed that horses competing at CDIs are particularly huge horses with heavy bone? Some are, some aren’t. Look at the all the tb’s and blooded horses at the top of eventing sport. Clearly a lack of bone does not prevent top athletic success. Jazz is not exactly a large boned, substantial horse and nor are many of his offspring…just as an example of a top GP competitor and sire.
I think where this topic can disolve into a disagreement is the difference of the definition of “refined or light boned” to :“modern type”. Two VERY different meanings. Light bone IS a detriment to GP soundness. There have been fractures of splint, pedal bones, cannons, etc. that I know (both in the US and Germany) some of the most promising YH winners once asked to truely sit and collect.
I beleive this thread was about dressage horses, not jumpers or eventers. In both of those disciplines, the musculature is very different and the bulk needed for GP dressage would be a detriment. So that is where the TB inbfluence is best seen. I certainly believe in using TB blood, look at Don Principe (Prince Thatch xx damline)or even Doctor Wendell who has both Prince Thatch xx and Hill Hawk xx in the pedigree. In both cases, the TB influence is F2 or F3. With more substantial blood closer in the pedigree to add back the strength without losing the vigor and refinement( yes-refinement) that the TB brought to the mix.
Londonderry is modern type. Sandro Hit is refined/ light boned. Both stallions pass on their specific traits.
Once again, both stallions are old enough and have had many offspring. So where are they at GP dressage? Remember, two or three or even 10 at this stage is less than one half of 1% of what they have produced ( I believe the last study I read showed Sandro Hit with .013%). The stallions who are modern type but not refined, do produce FEI offspring that have a larger percentage of competing athletes at top FEI levels.
Rubinstein is a perfect example. He has anglo arab blood as an F2. result-modern type with substance. His sons and grandsons, Rohdiamont, Royal Diamond, Rotspon, Relevant,Rubin Royal, Blue Horse Romanov, Royal Prince, etc are modern in type but substansive in bone.
Even though everybody seems to be in agreement that the mare adds more to the breeding equation than the stallion, here we are criticizing the boys only…
I believe that the average warmblood breeder in the US gets somewhere around 8 to 10 foals out of their mares. During this time you continue to learn what both parties - boys and girls - contribute to the equation and you pick better and better nicks as you go along. While the new generations of approved stallions may change in looks/conformation depending on the latest whim of the approval committee, your mares stay the same and I’m willing to bet that all of us long-time breeders have one or two “substantial” girls that actually benefit from a pairing with a more refined boy.
So let’s not get too carried away in criticizing all these “modern and insubstantial” stallions… Some of us breeders actually like and need what they have to offer. 
[QUOTE=Donella;7368067]
Londonderry is NOT light or refined!? Sorry, I strongly disagree. If he is not refined or light then I don’t know what is.
I don’t think light bone is a negative thing at all if it is proportional to substance…nor have I noticed that horses competing at CDIs are particularly huge horses with heavy bone? Some are, some aren’t. Look at the all the tb’s and blooded horses at the top of eventing sport. Clearly a lack of bone does not prevent top athletic success. Jazz is not exactly a large boned, substantial horse and nor are many of his offspring…just as an example of a top GP competitor and sire.[/QUOTE]
“Athletic success” cannot be used as a blanket term for all disciplines. Comparing top dressage horses and eventers is like comparing apples and oranges. The requirements for these two sports are too different to make direct comparisons. Eventers need to have the blood for the cross country and even at 4 star level event horses are only required to complete Fourth level movements. Thus, the power and collecting ability required of GP dressage horses is not required in event horses and can even be detrimental to their cross country performance. If the trend moves toward hotter, lighter horses that top out at Fourth Level/PSG, some of these refined dressage stallions may ultimately prove to be useful eventing sires (if crossed with the right mare).
And that’s reasonable siegi.
Problem is, like stallions, this is becoming the expectation for newly inspected mares as well.
I see your point, back in the saddle… On the other hand I have purchased a couple of fillies/mares sight-unseen and strictly based on their bloodlines and some description, and while they may not all have obtained their titles based on their own conformation and movement, their “kids” more than made up for it. Fact of the matter is that most “serious” broodmares don’t have a “serious” performance career and I’m tickled pink that I own two of a total of 22 KWPN-NA mares in the US that have the “Preferent” predicate, something completely based on the quality of their offspring.
There are no guarantees in breeding and in the end your “gut” makes the final decision. In my 30 years of breeding horses my gut has become quite educated…
This one is a trakehner in his first year at GP. He’s my idea of a refined stallion in that he has a gorgeous head and elegant conformation but still with enough strength and substance to do the hardest GP movements. He’s also a lovely sunny personality who loves to work. Such a sweet boy.
Siegi makes a good point. A mare’s worth is in her production, not her inspection results. A lot of breeding comes down to gut feelings that a breeder has the intestinal fortitude to stay with long enough to prove right or wrong.
To me a serious breeder needs to have a personal vision that is strong enough to remain steady, despite trends, even trends dictated by inspectors. A mare does not need to be the highest scoring mare in order to be approved. Many top scoring mares may never fulfill predictions. Many less that top scoring mares become top producers.
A breeder should have a very clear idea of the type horse that they want to produce with their program. That idea is more likely to be valid if it is based on actual experience riding horses within the discipline for which they are breeding. They may not still be riding, but experience sometime in the past is really essential to understanding form to function and for communication with trainers and riders.
If a breeder allows fashion to force changes in their program, I do not think that they will be successful, except perhaps for success at selling pretty foals. A breeder should be prepared to make changes as they see the results of their choices and how the choices effect soundness, ability for the sport of choice - not so much how they effect prettiness or placings in inspections and breed shows.
It is not easy to stay true to a vision, if the vision is bucking a new and strong trend. However, to me it is part of being a truly serious breeder whose goal is not just selling foals, but improving their breed.
Vision
I think that this is part of a progression of change from the old fashioned…I say traditional…warmblood type to a modern warmblood type. First more Trak and TB were added and now there is breeding from these F1 and F2 crosses. Some will breed true to type, some will lighten, some will throw back…the goal I believe is to set the new type of an uphill, somewhat longer legged, active hind leg horse; and they are not there yet. A Sandro Hit is part of the progression and maybe a necessary part of the progression while not the end result in and of himself. Perhaps his daughters or sons offspring will be closer to the final goal, or part of the final formula, which at the moment seems to be about black(or dark), very fancy and pretty, elegant, sensitive or reactive, more action…a womans mount for Grand Prix Olympic competition. My reason for not going to the warmblood registries is I didn’t see a place for me to choose what I wanted to breed different from what the inspection process was choosing to choose. I went to a breed where I got to choose a more traditional form…in my case Irish Draughts.
Who decides what the modern warmblood will looks like?
PatO
Lots of good points here for sure. Mary Lou, totally agree with you, well said.
Marydell, yes, you are right, it does depend on what you mean by modern and what you mean by refined… and then what you mean by light boned. To me a horse is modern when it is clearly blood influenced, relatively uphill and lighter in bone AND substance. I think of the term “refined” the same way. When someone says a horse is too light in the bone, to me that means that the horse’s legs/supporting structures are too light for the way in which the horse is built otherwise. A large framed, substantial horse with TB bone would be a horse that is too light in the bone. And I would agree that yes, that for sure is a serious hazard to long term soundness. But I cannot imagine that inspectors would be encouraging such a breeding trend??
To clarify, I am completely aware that eventing places different demands on a horse than does upper level dressage. But my point was that eventing is extremely demanding on the body and places much stress on the bones, joints, tendons etc and yet modern types seem to excel. I just cannot understand how modern type with lighter substance and the corresponding bone would be at more of a disadvantage soundness wise to larger horse with large bone?? The more modern type should not need the same bone as the 18.1 hh massive old style horse…
Totally agree that Londonderry and Sandro Hit should have produced more GP offspring but I think it is a bit far reaching to say that the reason for this is the modern type they throw. I also think the definitely have played an important role in modern dressage horse breeding.
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
