The rankings of horses for showjumping, dressage, and eventing that the FEI does for the WBFSH contains TBs. I remember that Favoritas xx, for example, appeared in the ranking of showjumpers when he was competing. However the ranking of studbooks omits TBs because the TB studbooks cannot be members of the WBFSH. However the rankings of sires for the three disciplines list TB stallions (e.g., Heraldik xx, Lauries Crusader xx, Master Imp xx).
It would be an easy exercise to identify the TBs listed in the three rankings and compute total points earned by TBs in each discipline. These points could be used to compare the “TB Studbook” to the other studbooks within each of the three disciplines.
[QUOTE=Linny;7604731]
"Most people simply cannot afford the thoroughbreds that are also the most exquisite jumpers because they and their breeding come from the racing industry. You’re not going to get your hands on a talented AP Indy without spending a lot of money and it appears to me that sport horse breeders do not have those funds."
I think this was from SEPowell, who I know is an advocate for OTTB’s.
She is correct that much of the top breeding is out of the price range of someone looking for sport. There are options though. First, look for top sport breeding in “less well bred” horses. For example, Rock Slide, by AP Indy from a great family has earned a great rep as a sport sire but he stands for $2500 and you can get his yearlings at places like Timonium. Similarly, Dance With Ravens at $3k. At this fee level, those foals are out of mares of lower RACING quality but who often carry fine pedigree for sport.
Most of the people who buy the very high end horses, $500k + are buying based on ego. They want the horse everyone is saying is the “best in the sale” because they can afford it. If it’s a colt, why not write them a nice note congratulating them on the purchase and mentioning that while you hope to see him winning the KY Derby in 2 years, if it doesn’t pan out, based on his breeding on conformation, you’d love to offer him a chance as a sporthorse some day. It can’t hurt. The worst they can do is say NO, thanks.
I am seeing more and more interest in bloodlines from people riding TB’s. Let’s face it, even the poorest bred TB on earth is probably only a couple of generations away from a “famous” horse. It may be silly, but people like being able to say that their horse has “Secretariat” or “Man O’ War” in their family tree. (Speaking of which, the Man O’ War’s were famous for their jump.)
I do understand that just as I love the TB, others prefer other breeds. A few years ago, I got into a TB/WB debate online with someone who felt that TB’s were all but useless for sport. She was only interested in WB’s I asked her to name a few of her favorite WBs. She named a nice hunter, Hanoverian I think. A bit of googling uncovered the fact that 3 of it’s 4 grandparents had raced.[/QUOTE]
Actually, even a very well bred horse may not be worth much money if it doesn’t run well. One of Secretariat’s sons ended up a GP jumper, Quantum Leap.
On the other hand, Jet Run and Idle Dice were not exactly royally bred for racing. Neither was Touch of Class, not up close.
[QUOTE=Linny;7604637]
I agree about the JC. When most of the patrons of the USET were also folks who bred TB’s (who they raced, and showed and hunted etc.) there was a natural pipeline from one sport to another. Now many of those patrons are gone. TB’s are bred more commercially, far fewer race for their breeder and since there are plenty of lower level options, less fast racehorses still can make a decent living.
Look at a horse like Thane (above) who is bred top and bottom to be a sport horse. Fifty years ago, had he been bred by an old time sportsman there is a chance that if he was slow, he’d have been kept entire and possibly taught to jump while “improving” the quality of the hunters or even ponies the owner kept. If his foals were good looking and eventually showed some jump, his reputation would grow amongst the sporty set.
The same night that Sheik Mo bought Thane he bought this horse from my friend’s farm. http://www.pedigreequery.com/summerfree
Their breeding is similar, though Summerfree lacks much of the Secretariat blood that Servalina carries. Summmerfree was as good looking and was exported. I have no idea what became of him and cannot find a race record. If he were entire, he’d be worth trying to make as a stallion. He had a wonderful temperament, was a fancy mover and could probably jump. As “Fred” could probably tell you, making a sire is an uphill battle. Similarly, last week I saw a lovely mare listed on one of the CANTER sites. I’m sure that she will end up a broodmare but odds are that any registered foals that OTTB has, will be in WB books. Many of Fred’s foals are o/o WB’s and are thus known as WB crosses.
It seems that the odds of a “sport bred TB” resurgence are slim. "
The RRTP is trying to form a data base of pedigree but it is hard to monitor. The kid with a crooked TB in her yard can post the horse’s pedigree. We need analysis of the pedigrees of the elite horses in sport. CoTH did something like this in it’s Rolex coverage.
This BB has helped “out” certain sires. A few years ago several people here all came across offspring of Lido Palace who were sound, sane, scopey and trainable.[/QUOTE]
I think I saw video of DMK’s Lido Palace youngster. She has a horse that looks amazing over jumps and wonder that’s the horse that is a LP offspring.
Red another your posts: MdO is a beautiful horse!
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7604290]
And this is the point that needs clarification. This is going back to the early 1800’s so it is very hard to get an understanding of where these mares came from. I do know that the Prussian’s placed great value on their Calvary and that they had the foresight to set aside breeding stock for this purpose. I suggest that when the pedigree gets to “unknown” in the mid 1800’s that these mares were not “just” plough horses but were the horses that were some of the same stock used for wars and they needed a job. Wars were extremely frequent at that point and these horses were their army, but people need to eat also. I bet that the mares that were used were hand picked (they were really important that they had the best) and had characteristics that went beyond pulling as they were the mares from the last generation of horses used in war. It would make no sense not to have another use for the breeding stock of the army but that doesn’t mean that the farming use was the goal behind the breeding.
Racing was a sport and the horses used were a small subset of the larger population. But horses used for war had to be in great numbers and needed to be the majority of the population of horses as they would play the largest factor in the success of the war. Unlike the race horses, you can not have a large population of animal sitting around a small sized country side just eating, they need to help the country out with food supply also. They were big and strong, so why not use them for industry and farming. One shouldn’t ignore the major use and the huge importance of the horse for the nations survival in that area at that time. There is no discredit to a horse that has power and is one of the features of the Wb that still account for their success. But they were not simply plough horses.
If you look at the pedigree’s, right from the 1800"s, the Germans were using stock from England as the countries had very close ties. Much of the same stock were used in both places. That is over 200 years of influence.
People keep saying that they were only a creation since the early 1900’s and that is when they “changed goals” to meet the Olympic sports in particular.
But…the Olympic sports came from the traditional Calvary, which these horse have been bred for continuously for over 300 years. It always made sense to add in speed to the power without losing the larger form but the goal has been the same for a very long time.
http://discovereventing.com/?q=node/67
Bayhawk- And I know better too…[/QUOTE]
I’ve been following this discussion for a while and appreciate all insights and thoughtful responses given. I haven’t wanted to reply, as I think this thread is diverging in a direction that is no longer educational, but wanted to add…
Historically, and I think people tend to overlook it – most the traditional cavalry weren’t the fleet cavalry horses we think of, but pack animals and plough horses carrying ammunition, guns, food, etc that converted into mounted animals. Many fine horses in both regards, but warhorses during the time period you are referring to were mostly grade/local plough horses employed to pull. The stock from England, Germany, and many other warring places before the invention of an automobile were plough horses and not the lithe, viperous little war-horses people most often associate. Of course, they had many more uses than simply pulling - IIRC, they were much smaller than ‘full draft’ breeds and had to be fast enough to move over rough terrain and under fire/in skirmishes - but largely, were not fine-boned or royally bred animals. In times of war, horses are scarce, and breeding expensive - IIRC, many soldiers went to war with their own horses. Obviously, as you stated, there were some horses specifically bred as cavalry mounts.
Of course, one most likely remembers paintings of royal officers charging blindly into battle, but these were the exception and not the norm – an apparent mantra for this thread 
There were, if I remember, only a handful of ‘warhorse’ breeds selectively bred for mounted combat (Marwaris, Baroques, Tekes, etc)-- which is an entirely different species of animal than the animal used in cavalry in more modern (1800s+) times, and had very little influence (if any at all) in the development of the modern WB.
From about 1915 or so, the US Cavalry started their Remount Breeding system. They accepted stallions, many of them pure TB or a more solid type of TB or Arabs or Morgans or…, and bred them to local mares. They also had a few pure TB mares that they bred for many of their international competitors. Diplomat was pure TB, as was Gordon Russell, the remount stallion responsible for Jenny Camp. The cavalry used high blood horses for competition. The stallion Royal Minstrel was given to the Fort Royal, VA, remount station. I recall reading that most of the more pure TB and larger foals from the remounts were sold relatively young to private individuals for sporting purposes. For chargers, the Army wanted smallish, tough air ferns.
The German racing TB Nordlicht was brought to the US as spoils of war because they thought they might need him for remounts. There were other Army imports from the same time that were considered ‘war booty’.
Remember that the US cavalry didn’t start their horses until they were a minimum of 4 years old and expected them to remain serviceable for at least ten years. The competition horses were kept in service even longer. Diplomat was twenty, IIRC, when he competed in the 1952 Games.
[QUOTE=beowulf;7605266]
I’ve been following this discussion for a while and appreciate all insights and thoughtful responses given. I haven’t wanted to reply, as I think this thread is diverging in a direction that is no longer educational, but wanted to add…
Historically, and I think people tend to overlook it – most the traditional cavalry weren’t the fleet cavalry horses we think of, but pack animals and plough horses carrying ammunition, guns, food, etc that converted into mounted animals. Many fine horses in both regards, but warhorses during the time period you are referring to were mostly grade/local plough horses employed to pull. The stock from England, Germany, and many other warring places before the invention of an automobile were plough horses and not the lithe, viperous little war-horses people most often associate. Of course, they had many more uses than simply pulling - IIRC, they were much smaller than ‘full draft’ breeds and had to be fast enough to move over rough terrain and under fire/in skirmishes - but largely, were not fine-boned or royally bred animals. In times of war, horses are scarce, and breeding expensive - IIRC, many soldiers went to war with their own horses. Obviously, as you stated, there were some horses specifically bred as cavalry mounts.
Of course, one most likely remembers paintings of royal officers charging blindly into battle, but these were the exception and not the norm – an apparent mantra for this thread
There were, if I remember, only a handful of ‘warhorse’ breeds selectively bred for mounted combat (Marwaris, Baroques, Tekes, etc)-- which is an entirely different species of animal than the animal used in cavalry in more modern (1800s+) times, and had very little influence (if any at all) in the development of the modern WB.[/QUOTE]
I would love to have more info. However, I do not think the majority of horses used in war in the 1800’s were pulling. Troops needed to get around and they used horses. The Qh ancestor was developed as a Calvary horse, a smaller, lighter animal that could travel fast, this was at a similar time.
The value of a horse in war was important enough that Kings did establish the Studs during that time to produce such horses. Historically to them, all the great conquests and empires had been built on horses carrying men. Think of the smaller Mongolian horses that may have been the reason for their great success, that was the 1300’s.
Not a fan of Wiki but this article gives some particulars that I think are relative to the discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_the_Napoleonic_Wars
The majority were Calvary which they go on to describe.
Plus, it must also be remembered that when they officially developed the Stud books they imported stallion and hand choose the mares. They did not use the general population. They choose a few mares with the best qualities. That was in the mid 1800’s. By the late 1800’s and early 1900 the books were closed for the most part except to each other and Tb’s and Arabs.
Wb’s do not have a ton of random ancestors, they were a chosen few. So the best mares that had been bred in the area’s. They were developed not as an average horse but much like the Traks, a selectively bred Calvary horse.
During the Waterloo Campaign, the Armee du Nord had 47,000 horses: 25,000 cavalry, 12,000 for artillery, 10,000 for infantry and supply columns
The war horse was traditionally of moderate size for both officers and troopers, since heavy horses were logistically difficult to maintain, and less adaptable to varied terrains.[13] Most armies at the time preferred cavalry horses to be 15.2 hh and 450–500 kg, although cuirassiers frequently had heavier horses.[1] Napoleon’s Imperial Guard dragoons’ mounts had an average size of 15hh.[13] Lighter horses were restricted to scouting and raiding. Cavalry horses were generally obtained at 5 years, from 10 or 12 years service (barring loss) could be expected. Mares and geldings were used in preference to the less-easily managed stallions.[1] Losses of 30–40% were common during a campaign, due to conditions of the march as well as enemy action.[14] As regimental structures developed, many units selected horses of uniform type, some, such as the Royal Scots Greys even specifying colour. Trumpeters, too, often rode distinctive horses, so they might stand out.[15] Regional armies developed preferences, such as the British 15 hh hunters, the Germans’ hanoverians, and the Cossacks’ steppe ponies, but the low supplies available in wartime resulted in horses of all types being used.[
There are several very good books on the history of breed development, uses of the horse through the centuries, political and social structure of post-Renaissance Europe vs. North America, development of roads, carriages, guns, artillery, etc.
Let me simply say that carriage and coach horses, as well as farm/riding combination horses in Europe were active, strong, useful, willing horses, sturdy, fertile, long-lived and tough. And yes, they could and can jump. As can their modern descendants the WB sporthorses.
The huge difference between Europe and North America in 1700-1900 was that the new world had fewer roads and proportionately more people rode than drove their horses. Being frugal, they used a smaller horse when possible. Being subject to moving through huge often lawless territories with none-too-friendly resident populations and encountering and often fighting with other ‘invading’ European settlers; a sprint horse was the preferred type.
Gaited horses from Europe were ‘unloaded’ on the colonies as they were undesirable for carriage and coach - trot on.
Which explains the Narragansett, Morgan, early QH, Canadian Horse.
When good roads did develop, the much greater distances led to development of a true fast long distance trotter, where speed, not beauty was paramount: Standardbreds.
Continental Europe was a hotbed of strife throughout this period, wars waxing and waning as successive dukedoms and monarchies vied for control of territory.
If you really want to see the horses modern stock has come from, pick an era post 1850 and google images. Photographs are not the idealized chargers of paintings.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/infocus/civilwar020812/s_c01_09170338.jpg
http://www.gpb.org/files/ga_civil_war02.jpg
http://www.v-like-vintage.net/uploads/images/Cropped700/00074690.jpg
http://francoprussianwar.com/prusparis1.jpg
Remember that horses that went to war often did not come home, and many were eaten post-war by a starving, bankrupt populace. Horses had to work or die.
…and the horses in Europe in WWI
http://www.roll-of-honour.com/Regiments/images/RHAWW1Tohogne-5.jpg
http://www.paoyeomanry.co.uk/Yeomanry/LeicsYeo/Horse%20Furniture/BurkittMajor.jpg
Troops didn’t move by horseback, but afoot.
Cavalry was often for reconnaissance, and occasional lightning stike and retreat maneuvers. Artillery and pack horses hauled or carried weapons and supplies.
Cavalry was basically disbanded by all powers post-WWII as motorcycles and jeeps and tanks superseded them.
Sir Barton ended his days at stud as a remount stallion.
During the 1700’s, continental Europe was awash with battles and rival principalities used horses for all sorts of war work.
In N. American colonies however were relatively peaceful, apart from skirmishes with native populations. Horses were agricultural, for farm work both light and heavy. Farmers might have a lighter type horse to take the family to church on Sunday but heavy horses for clearing land and working fields. Fast horses were imported and proved a foundation for the TB in America. Their availability added some refinement to the local stock. The sire of “Figure” was a TB as was Janus, the foundation of the quarter racing horse. Later, by crossing pacing and some gaited horses to TB’s created the Standardbred.
Southern landowners liked the comfortable gaits of some of the gaited exports and developed saddlebreds and walkers of several local varieties. By the post Civil War era, as the nation was becoming less “regional” and “state oriented” and seeing itself more as one country, breeds began solidifying, with stud books established and rules for admission determined. Gaited horses became “ASB’s” or TWH’s or Fox Trotters. Due to movement of armies, many northerners were first exposed to “souythern gaited” horses in the war. Some found their way north, captured by soldiers.
Peace and relative plenty meant that recreational use of the horse for racing and driving (typically by the wealthy) became fairly common. The less affluent, lacking land to layout a racecourse, carved out 1/4 mile straightaways at the edge of a field and raced, thus the birth of the QH.
I find it interesting that so many varied types were developed in the colonies. By contrast, there wasn’t a huge difference between the types of horses developed by the assorted Germanic principalities. The foundation Oldenburgs were reputed to be taller than most and Holsteiners a bit heavier but their differences were nothing compared to the difference between a TWH and a QH. Why? All of those “WB” breeds were developed for the same general purpose, not so the North American breeds.
This horse traces tail female to a xx mare:
http://www.horsetelex.com/horses/pedigree/745875?levels=9
http://www.globalchampionstour.com/profiles/horses/16394/quaoukoura-du-ty/gallery/
http://www.elevage-de-soie-hotmail.fr/etalons/quaoukoura-du-ty/
Has this horse been posted?
http://www.horsetelex.nl//horses/pedigree/313479. Liscalgot, world show jumping champion, 2002. Damsire Tula Rocket xx.
Or Authentic?
http://www.horsetelex.com/horses/pedigree/12688. 72% blood, dam sire Katell xx.
[QUOTE=grayarabpony;7606194]
Has this horse been posted?
http://www.horsetelex.nl//horses/pedigree/313479. Liscalgot, world show jumping champion, 2002. Damsire Tula Rocket xx.[/QUOTE]
Typical Irish “unknown” mares.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7606208]
Typical Irish “unknown” mares.[/QUOTE]
Yes I read they often didn’t write down pedigrees and crosses. Makes you wonder how they bred such good horses!
Another little point: stud books have kept privately for centuries as everyone wants to know which mare was put to which stallion and how the resulting get performs. The ‘General Stud Book’ was started in 1791 to gather pedigree information about the current and as many previous race horses as was possible because the whole of Britain had an interest in racing and so there was a market for the book. The very name ‘thorough’-bred gives a clue.
Most other breeds of horse only gained published stud books in the late 19th century, at a time when everything was catalogued and ordered: from horses and dogs to butterflies and races of people. Breed in this sense only means that the pedigree is known. Some breeds, such as the ponies found in the North of Spain, have had stud books for only 30 years or so.
The WBFSH do not recognise the Irish Draught as a breed because there are still too many gaps in the breeding record. That makes the foundation animal of the world-beating ISH a ‘type’ and heaven only knows how so many good sport horses come out of Ireland. By contrast, half the people in the bar of any pub in Ireland could probably recite the pedigree of the winner of the Grand National Winner in 2006 back for five generations.
Some more about the horse I posted about earlier: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLd0rJ8Mbak
http://www.privasequitation.com/wordpress/2012/07/un-ardechois-passe-le-mur/
[QUOTE=Willesdon;7606359]
Another little point: stud books have kept privately for centuries as everyone wants to know which mare was put to which stallion and how the resulting get performs. The ‘General Stud Book’ was started in 1791 to gather pedigree information about the current and as many previous race horses as was possible because the whole of Britain had an interest in racing and so there was a market for the book. The very name ‘thorough’-bred gives a clue.
Most other breeds of horse only gained published stud books in the late 19th century, at a time when everything was catalogued and ordered: from horses and dogs to butterflies and races of people. Breed in this sense only means that the pedigree is known. Some breeds, such as the ponies found in the North of Spain, have had stud books for only 30 years or so.
The WBFSH do not recognise the Irish Draught as a breed because there are still too many gaps in the breeding record. That makes the foundation animal of the world-beating ISH a ‘type’ and heaven only knows how so many good sport horses come out of Ireland. By contrast, half the people in the bar of any pub in Ireland could probably recite the pedigree of the winner of the Grand National Winner in 2006 back for five generations.[/QUOTE]
But half the people in pubs could not fill in the gaps of some of these ISH, I take it. Not if the records were private or mental notes.
This is all very fascinating but if I want to breed a jumper to jump todays show jumping courses, I am going to do what the currently successful stud books do. The most successful stud books (in this century) have been KWPN and Holstein. They seem to know what they are doing. And they did use TB to add refinement, sensitivity and quicker reactions to produce F-1 (mares). Still happens today. Remember Marius’ background? And he won a Gold Medal. Eventing. But hey, those who want to bring back the TB show jumping horse…have at it. Looking forward to seeing the product as I, like anyone who breeds sport horses, appreciates what a TB can bring to the table. However that is not USUALLY scope. Carry on
No, they do bring scope to the table, or at least the ability to jump wide jumps. It’s jumping height that’s the problem for more TBs than not.
You’re not going to be able to get your hands on the best breeding mares anyway, unless you have limitless money. You’ll have to get an extra edge of talent from somewhere else. Carry on.
This has morphed into an interesting historical topic. It is absolutely amazing how selective breeding has evolved to today’s sport horses - specifically bred for the sport they were designed for. It is not so long in terms of evolution
and the sophistication of serious breeders.
I remember when the Dutch WB book was so new their horses were heavy set, Gelderlanders and they took the best from the best of all registries.
We did not get the best from Europe here, and the comment was often made that these heavier types were ‘camped out behind’, because they came from pulling stock - stock whose forefathers ploughed the fields, took the crops to market and the family to church on Sunday.
My Dad was in the First WW - his job was with the horses and mules pulling the cannons.
For anybody who has not found it TB Heritage is in interesting site to explore.
