COTH seems to hate my iPad so had to post the link without any comments.
I’ll preface this by saying I think Carl Hester is wonderful. He has been there, done it, got the t-shirt and says the things no one else seems to. In the above link he says he went to holland and was told by the KWPN stallion jury that they had done a study of top dressage horses and found that short front legs correlated with top dressage performance. He then goes on to say that Uthopia has short front legs, as does charlotte’s 5yo.
The old belief that short canon bones were linked to soundness seems to still be true. And the modern idea that a horse needs long front legs in order to be uphill appears to be false.
I wonder how long it will be before the findings of this study are reflected in the new stallions that are licenced?
Ponies for everyone!
Lol agree ^^
Very interesting. The ability to bend the joints of the hindlegs is what creates the true appearance of “uphill”. The marketing language of “purpose-bred” and born “uphill horses” are relatively new terms. Sounds like someone is coming to their senses. JMHO
I would think that elbow placement would be very important. Short front legs with a high elbow placement–relatively short humerus (?) would seem to me to be better than a long humerus along with the rest of the leg short. And, of course, the angle of the humerus.
Interesting. An equine veterinarian once explained to me that the super-uphill horses who move like German Shepherd dogs often develop hock/hind end issues because of that movement at some point in their lives. She explained that relatively shorter front legs and a more balanced frame often leads to sounder horses that go further in dressage.
Perhaps counterintuitively this this isn’t the case. A short humerus leads to limitation in the range of motion of the front leg. What you want is a long humerus and a shoulder angle of greater than 90 degrees. This combination gives the greatest freedom through the shoulder while short radius/ ulna and canon bones improve long term soundness.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7375182]
I would think that elbow placement would be very important. Short front legs with a high elbow placement–relatively short humerus (?) would seem to me to be better than a long humerus along with the rest of the leg short. And, of course, the angle of the humerus.[/QUOTE]
I just watched the PBS special “legendary white stallions.” It inspired me to pick up where I had left off some time ago, researching the classical dressage conformation. What I found interesting coming from the Federal Stud Piber/Spanish riding school in their selection regarding shoulder and leg conformation was:
“The main line flows with moderately high and long withers. The shoulders are strong and sufficiently long and should be set at an angle between 50° and 65° to the proportionately long upper arm. The chest should be deep and wide.”
and
“The horse should have relatively short, strong, dry legs with clear tendons, strong joints and hard, correctly formed hooves.”
Just food for thought as we push forward with our warmblood breeding programs.
[QUOTE=J-Lu;7375706]
Interesting. An equine veterinarian once explained to me that the super-uphill horses who move like German Shepherd dogs often develop hock/hind end issues because of that movement at some point in their lives. She explained that relatively shorter front legs and a more balanced frame often leads to sounder horses that go further in dressage.[/QUOTE]
Yep. One of my Thoroughbreds is very uphill, he is 14 now and has an incredible weak hind end compared to the rest of him. Not great for jumping anymore.
Uphill does not always mean long front leg. I have a very uphill mare who has a shortish front leg, especially compared with the popular modern type. She is very talented (but an opinionated redhead), I have toyed with breeding her, usually thinking about stallions with a longer front leg - now I will eliminate that from my criteria.
My mare is built level, has very good sit AND uber long front legs…so what the heck does THAT mean? 
That means that her ability to ‘sit’ will save wear and tear on her long fronts legs. One of the purposes of dressage.
Shorts cannon bones save the legs.
I think the problem now is that people are trying to breed for uphill in the wrong way. The forearm should be long, the cannon short. Not the other way around.
I would think a certain type of uphill conformation might not lend itself to actually engaging the rear end.
I mean, how can the horse arch the muscles of the back upward (round) if his front is really higher than his rear?
uphill has nothing to do with length of legs (or vice versa).
uphill is a feature of dynamics and only displays in dynamics, i.e. when the horse is moving.
you cannot hold a static feature (like length of legs or anything else) responsible for question of dynamics since dynamics are an individual feature of any given horse and always a question of how the horse functions in the sum of its parts.
When evaluating my dressage horses, I use the elbow to stifle line in determining whether to consider the horse. At the very least, it must be level. If the stifle is higher, I consider the horse to be downhill and know that the collected work will be harder. I agree that short cannons are good.
This is exactly what the video explains is not true. Charlotte’s horse has elbows several inches lower than his stifles. This is the conformation that the KWPN study has shown to be associated with top level dressage horses.
[QUOTE=Dressagelvr;7376726]
When evaluating my dressage horses, I use the elbow to stifle line in determining whether to consider the horse. At the very least, it must be level. If the stifle is higher, I consider the horse to be downhill and know that the collected work will be harder. I agree that short cannons are good.[/QUOTE]
Didn’t catch the video…too long to load on my phone. But, they must have been speaking of a horse other than Valegro…he’s level…as are most of the greats…and have been all my UL horses.
