US Olympic Trials: less than perfect conformation doesn't matter at the top

[rodawn]

[QUOTE=RyTimMick;6368660]
As a breeder you must always demand correctness for your breeding stock. Otherwise you will allow for more and more incorrectness overtime. The not so perfect go into sport.

Tim[/QUOTE]

Everyone is talking about apples and oranges and missed the key element that Tim talked about here.

As breeders, we MUST strive to use the horses that are the most perfect… because flaws not corrected get worse with generations.

Therefore, those that are not conformationally perfect, i.e. the siblings or less than perfect kids of that great broodmare you have in the field, are the ones that go to sport. And, frankly, if a broodmare keeps throwing flaws in her kids despite a variety of stallions, she is removed from breeding and put back into sport.

It does not mean that the family is wasted because the crooked one is in sport - indeed his or her sibling is back in the breeding shed passing on the genetics.

@RyTimMick;6368660

That being said, properly conformed toplines and rear ends allow less then perfect front legs to be insignificant. They are so light on their front ends that the imperfection doesn’t receive that much impact. Now take the same front legs on a horse that is heavy up there, and you will see a problem.

Again, we’re talking about minor flaws even in the sport. In dressage, most of the pressure is on the hindquarters. All the collection, impulsion, extended gaits, pirouette, piaffe, whatever, ALL are based on the hindquarters. As a rider, myself, I will accept minor flaws in the front end as long as the hindquarters are PERFECT.

As a breeder, if I were to be looking at 2 sister-mares with exactly the same pedigree, I would take the more perfect one all around for the breeding shed and use the sister with some front-end flaws for my riding horse. She will no doubt do extremely well in sport and it is a testament to her pedigree and her family heritage. But her more conformationally perfect sister will be selected to carry the genetics forward.

As a rider, I would prefer a horse who is slightly toed-in and thus paddles outward, than one that is toed-out and paddles inwards, risking striking the opposing leg. Both tend to put strain on ligaments, tendons and joints and farrier must be done with precision for balancing. After exercise care on these legs must be diligent to ensure long-term soundness. Many minor toed-out/in horses never stay sound. Then, for whatever reason, some do.

Also remember this, as a someone who has ridden the grand prix, MANY horses NEVER make it to the top due to unsoundness, whether the imperfections are minor or whether the conformation was perfect. Only a relatively few. This is why each and every high-level rider always has many horses on the go… several at the top, many in the middle, and a lot starting out at the bottom levels. That is just the stats. And I can say that from having BEEN THERE and having been blessed by being with several Olympiad coaches who also maintain the same “fleet” as it were of horses. Many horses get sold at mid levels because they won’t probably stay sound and/or won’t make it at the top.

[RedMare01]

Honestly, I think the best indicator for soundness and performance in offspring is soundness and performance in the parents. I think way too many times we get caught up in the pretty, flashy, and extravagant and lose track of functionality. Conformation should be functional. If it works and stays sound (to the upper levels of whatever sport), I personally don’t care if it’s not textbook. I’ve seen way too many pretty perfectly conformed horses lame and retired while, as the OP states, those with a crookedness or other “defect” stay sound and compete for years.

There is so much that cannot be evaluated by simply looking at conformation (like heart, fortitude, soft tissue structure and strength, just to name a few…). If I were looking for an upper level prospect in a foal or young horse or future broodmare prospect, the #1 criteria I would be looking for would be upper level performance in the parents. Or in the sire/grandsire/greatgrandsire, out of a mareline that’s produced sound, performance horses. A little bit of deviation from “perfect conformation” shouldn’t be a big deal. JMO.

[TKR]

As one who has been a breeder for umpteen years and a competitor as well, I have to agree, when you breed, you absolutely must breed the best individuals on every level, including conformation. What is appropriate to breed should always be closer to the ideal than perhaps what is ok to ride and compete and do very well at any level. The entire idea of breeding and keeping records is to attempt to improve the breed. Even though a horse might be a good competitor, it might not be the best choice for breeding. That said, many that are perfect conformation examples might not pass it on. That’s the conumdrum, but it is also one that breeders must face head on and be objective about what is produced. A correct structure is certainly a valid and excellent start to staying sound for riding and competition. However, it’s only one component. I value a willing and nice disposition with a good work ethic above all else. Without that the rest doesn’t matter because that horse won’t stay here or be bred. Pedigree is a great tool to assess most traits since they are passed on, although not every individual will pass it on equally. A proven performance horse is probably worth breeding but the produce will tell you if that one should have indeed been bred or not. Just as an excellent individual of pedigree and conformation that is injured should possibly have a shot also – again the resulting produce will be the test. Given a choice between a proven producer w/a proven pedigree and a proven competitor lacking in type, movement and/or pedigree, I’ll take the proven producer to breed. Until you have bred a number of years, it might not be that clear.
PennyG

[RyTimMick]

@stoicfish;6368828

I agree that the conformation is an estimate of a structure that will be sound. There can be different structures that will hold up to force. But how can a UL jumper (or eventer) not be thought to receive that much impact?
. Rough calculation it is 76000 Newtons (N) for a 1400 pd unit (horse and rider) over a 1.6m fence (and this is not including forward motion), and this is all on two front feet. For reference, a 154 pound person stands with 686 N. So for the equivalent force you would have to put the weight of 111 people on the two front feet (only) of a standing horse to equal the weight a horse bears when it lands a jump.
I would like to find a better estimation done by someone. I found one but only for a four foot jump and not sure about the weight, works out to 58 people @ 154 pds

My point was not that the strains of landing a jump are not substantial, but that strengths in the rest of the body can minimize the impact. We have seen horses nearly fall apart coming off a jump. These horses won’t hold up. Even a perfect front leg can’t handle this impact. However, an imperfect front leg can handle a proper landing. This has been proven with many GP horses with imperfect legs. Baloubet, Hickstead, Cardento, Berlin etc. So off to sport they go. However, if they can not compensate then they will be crooked legged and unathletic.

There is a thought by some that by breeding for correctness we overlook lack of athleticism or durability. This is just wrong. We choose correct, athletic fillies from Dams that are known for producing upper levels of sport. I can know more information by looking at the family then by looking at the animal in front of me. So I select correct and athletic, but I look to the family for fertility, ability to compete at upper levels, durability and so forth. I feel it is only those who don’t know how to garner this information that ask the show ring to tell them all. In this regard I think they ask too much.

Tim

[oneyequine]

[QUOTE=stoicfish;6368828]
I agree that the conformation is an estimate of a structure that will be sound. [/QUOTE]

That sounds pretty old school to me. Conformation can tell you plenty about an athletics horse’s likely function including agility type, low or high profile stride, stride length, efficiency, strength, power etc. Endless list here.

Just depends what you know and your ‘eye’ for a horse. Lacking either and conformation may never mean much to you.

[oneyequine]

[QUOTE=RedMare01;6368997]
Honestly, I think the best indicator for soundness and performance in offspring is soundness and performance in the parents. .[/QUOTE]

Yes, I refer to it as ‘performance soundness’. It is relatively proven soundness regardless.

[RyTimMick]

@oneyequine;6391237

Yes, I refer to it as ‘performance soundness’. It is relatively proven soundness regardless.

Here is where this is wrong. You don’t know how they breed by how they perform. Unless the offspring are clones, this tells you nothing.

The best and only way to “Predict” soundness is by parents that have produced it. This tells you that they are progenitors, not just inheritors. When it comes to being a good breeder, you desire both, but only need them to be good progenitors. If they have correct confirmation, and keep in mind most do not know how to judge confirmation properly, they the only thing you know is they have inerited it. You do not know if they will pass it on to their offspring.

Tim

[okggo]

I haven’t heard anyone mention non-genetic issues that can cause abnormalities. Pasture injuries, that lets face it almost every horse will get a ‘ding’ at some point in his/her life. My gelding spooked and ran through a wood fence post, and now and forever more has a front leg that looks pretty miserable, but is sound on it. There is also the very common “grazing leg” that can lead to hoof and potentially leg imbalance in the front, as another example. I wonder some times with foals, how many imbalances could be prevented with balanced trimming. If you don’t catch that heel that shoots up during a wierd growth spurt, etc.

[stoicfish]

[QUOTE=oneyequine;6391228]
That sounds pretty old school to me. Conformation can tell you plenty about an athletics horse’s likely function including agility type, low or high profile stride, stride length, efficiency, strength, power etc. Endless list here.

Just depends what you know and your ‘eye’ for a horse. Lacking either and conformation may never mean much to you.[/QUOTE]

I see it from a purely mechanical point of view, like a building structure. There are different “arrangements” that are capable, and even more complicated a horses body is a structure with constant movement so muscle attachment, strength, ligaments, tendons, bone density also play a huge factor in handling stress and force. That is a ton of factors to try and figure out if the long term structure will be sound.
I try not to agree with RyTimMick too much :winkgrin: but I do think tried and tested conformations is a good way to go about breeding decisions.
There are horse out there that seem to defy conformational standards but in reality they do have other factors that make up for it. And as the title of the thread, there are horses that are at the highest levels that do not follow the “type”. So obviously there is some discrepancy between what we believe to be a perfect structure and one that is actually functioning to a high degree. And there are lame horses that cannot hold up to work and have near perfect conformation.
But hey if you are someone that can look at any horse and accurately predict whether the horse with have any issue with soundness and it’s future ability - then you could be a very rich person. But you can’t use performance soundness as that is just stating what is obviously in front of you and is not predictive based on the conformation.
As you pointed out, I do not have that talent. I can only see if a horse has the typical faults or strengths.

[RedMare01]

@stoicfish;6391710

But you can’t use performance soundness as that is just stating what is obviously in front of you and is not predictive based on the conformation.
As you pointed out, I do not have that talent. I can only see if a horse has the typical faults or strengths.

?

Obviously not every great performance horse will be a great producer, but almost without fail the best sires are ones that competed to the highest levels of sport.

http://www.wbfsh.org/GB/Rankings/Sire%20Rankings/2011.aspx

[stoicfish]

[QUOTE=RedMare01;6391734]
?

Obviously not every great performance horse will be a great producer, but almost without fail the best sires are ones that competed to the highest levels of sport.

http://www.wbfsh.org/GB/Rankings/Sire%20Rankings/2011.aspx[/QUOTE]

Red Mare,
I was referring to oneye (individually) not being able to use performance soundness to PREDICT as it is already obvious they are sound in their job. Obviously by the rest of my post (and even my agreeing with Tim), I believe that performance is excellent qualifier.

But hey if you are someone that can look at any horse and accurately predict whether the horse with have any issue with soundness and it’s future ability - then you could be a very rich person. But you can’t use performance soundness as that is just stating what is obviously in front of you and is not predictive based on the conformation.

[RyTimMick]

@RedMare01;6391734

?

Obviously not every great performance horse will be a great producer, but almost without fail the best sires are ones that competed to the highest levels of sport.

http://www.wbfsh.org/GB/Rankings/Sire%20Rankings/2011.aspx

RedMare,

All stallions in Holstein compete if they are able. They can be breeding and competing at the same time. Your list does not look at the mothers, most of which did not compete. Your list also does not take into consideration all of the geldings and stallions that are not on that list that also competed at the top of the sport. The sport did not select these good sires, the breeders did. Our best breeding stallions are also good sport horses, not the other way around. Contender didn’t compete in sport, does that mean he is not a good stallion? How about Cassini II?

Tim

[EqTrainer]

[QUOTE=okggo;6391597]
I haven’t heard anyone mention non-genetic issues that can cause abnormalities. Pasture injuries, that lets face it almost every horse will get a ‘ding’ at some point in his/her life. My gelding spooked and ran through a wood fence post, and now and forever more has a front leg that looks pretty miserable, but is sound on it. There is also the very common “grazing leg” that can lead to hoof and potentially leg imbalance in the front, as another example. I wonder some times with foals, how many imbalances could be prevented with balanced trimming. If you don’t catch that heel that shoots up during a wierd growth spurt, etc.[/QUOTE]

Welllll… Kinda off topic but I am seeing a whole lot of baby horses who have had their heels taken down too low, get heel sore, start pointing the foot because of that… Voila, a grazing foot

The fact that horses feet do not spread until they are older, and their heels stay “high” until then, seems to be lost on an awful lot of trimmers

[oneyequine]

[QUOTE=RyTimMick;6391561]
Here is where this is wrong. You don’t know how they breed by how they perform. Unless the offspring are clones, this tells you nothing.[/QUOTE]

You have a point, however for teh sake of the debate only, if we have fast speedy proven racehorse 2yos that appear unsound in as far as not being correct, I would back this types progeny to remain racing sound over those from a sire who has no performance record and appears similarly incorrect.

Its not definitive, rather just about putting the numbers on your side.

[RyTimMick]

I see your point with Race Horses, as 2 years old is hardly proof that a horse is sound. However, in the the sport horse world, this is not the case. To be a proven sport horse, you are usually well past 6 years of age. Furthermore, using your race analogy, even the one that retire sound may have only raced less then 10 races in their whole life. Not exactly a test of soundness. In the sport horse world, a horse with an international show record has been tested. This is good enough to look to a mares production.

Tim

[grayarabpony]

[QUOTE=RedMare01;6391734]

Obviously not every great performance horse will be a great producer, but almost without fail the best sires are ones that competed to the highest levels of sport.

http://www.wbfsh.org/GB/Rankings/Sire%20Rankings/2011.aspx[/QUOTE]

Yes so basic this appears to go over the heads of certain persons, who claim to have magikal insight into genetics.

If a mare cannot contribute to jumping ability ( ie “can’t jump a stick”), it’s unlikely she’s going to be a great producer. Same for a stallion.

[oneyequine]

[QUOTE=RyTimMick;6394197]
I see your point with Race Horses, as 2 years old is hardly proof that a horse is sound. [/QUOTE]

Geah, your hard to please.

A 2yo that wins a good number of leading races at extreme pace on a solid surface that also remains sound enough to race on later needs to be a hardy type. Surely this is an indication of a strong constitution, performance soundness, and breeding potential for likewise sound stock etc.

Of course different types of horses will need to prove themselves over varied types of performance work. One rule does not fit all.

And of course if the above 2yo eventually produces like-type hardy stock that’s the ultimate feather in its cap in regard to breeding sound types.

[oneyequine]

[QUOTE=grayarabpony;6394201]

If a mare cannot contribute to jumping ability ( ie “can’t jump a stick”), it’s unlikely she’s going to be a great producer. Same for a stallion.[/QUOTE]

Agree, actual ability generally needs to come directly from the parents. Its a simple rule that is often over looked.

[RyTimMick]

@oneyequine;6394212

Agree, actual ability generally needs to come directly from the parents. Its a simple rule that is often over looked.

You both have a lot to learn about breeding. You can’t just breed to GP jumpers together and expect to get a GP jumper. It doesn’t work that way. It will some of the time, but breeding is about increasing your odds of getting what you want. You too quickly disregard the dam, who rarely is a top performer, because she never gets the opportunity to perform. There is a better way. If you knew anything about statistics you would realize the vast majority of sires compete at upper levels. The real question is what percentage of those are ranked as top producers. The answer is very few. So CLEARLY this is not the way to select a sire. There must be other selectors. Of the list of top sires, most if not all were approved before their careers. So again, we select top bred horses, with CORRECT confirmation. Those that produce well we hear about. Of course they can compete at the top, they have the type to perform in sport, because we as breeders select for it.

Tim

[RyTimMick]

@oneyequine;6394205

Geah, your hard to please.

A 2yo that wins a good number of leading races at extreme pace on a solid surface that also remains sound enough to race on later needs to be a hardy type. Surely this is an indication of a strong constitution, performance soundness, and breeding potential for likewise sound stock etc.

Of course different types of horses will need to prove themselves over varied types of performance work. One rule does not fit all.

And of course if the above 2yo eventually produces like-type hardy stock that’s the ultimate feather in its cap in regard to breeding sound types.

All due respect, but the vast majority of Racing sires retired before they even hit maturity. Why do you think the eventing world who has used mostly TB’s are the ones that complain about soundness. It is because they are stuck with the results of breeding that was intended for being successful at 2, not 8 or 10 or 16. I would not use the TB breed industry as a testiment on how to breed sound horses.

Tim