I, too have a fabulous Soprano youngster, FHF Sorpreso here he is at two. In addition to being a good looking two year old (whoever heard of such a thing) he has the easiest personality ever.
[QUOTE=skydy;7914437]
She’s lovely Kyzteke. :yes:[/QUOTE]
Thank you. This is her old 1/2+ sister, Shaharazad RHR. This video was taken when she was just abit over 2 yrs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOqb8HNvO7g&list=UU7I73Q992WVpbYMILxJUctg
Based strictly on conformation, I would say Shah could use a prettier head, is slightly base-narrow when she moves, could use abit bigger engine. But in all the dept’s that count (shoulder, limbs, joints, top line, loin connection) she is very, very solid and very correct. But more important is the way she uses her body…sincel she was a new born foal she has always been balanced and able to use her hind end. HOnestly, I think that might have come from the Weltmeyer side.
The Soprano filly is the prettier horse, but Shah is lovely when she moves. And per her new owner, a professional FEI rider, she is super to ride as well. She just sent me this video…not real flashy yet, but Shah only had about 20 rides under her belt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK-CVm0iHWQ&list=UU7I73Q992WVpbYMILxJUctg&index=1
As I mentioned, both are o/o a Weltmeyer/Batido/Bolero mare and by Sandro Hit sons w/jumper dams. Soprano is Sandro Hit/Contender and Shah’s sire Schroeder is Sandro Hit/Escudo.
Interesting thing in terms of sheer “pretty conformation” is that Soprano has Tin Rocco fairly close up, and Tin Rocco won a ton of conformation contests at 3 yrs before going on to GP jumping success.
https://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=AwrTcXi5uJNUha4A1FOJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTIyaGt0MGo5BHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1nBG9pZANkN2ZlMzUzNDIzY2I2YmMwYjhhYjRlMTBiMTU0NDYwZgRncG9zAzMEaXQDYmluZw--?.origin=&back=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fyhs%2Fsearch%3Fp%3DTin%2BRocco%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26hsimp%3Dyhs-001%26hspart%3Dmozilla%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D3&w=300&h=220&imgurl=www.sporthorse-data.com%2Fhorse%2F626386%2F380%2FHorse_Tin_Rocco-_2.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportpferdezucht-haygis.de%2Ftin-rocco.html&size=11.7KB&name=1990+hat+<b>Tin+Rocco<%2Fb>+die+Zuchtwertschätzung+der+FN+bei+der+…&p=Tin+Rocco&oid=d7fe353423cb6bc0b8ab4e10b154460f&fr2=piv-web&fr=&tt=1990+hat+%3Cb%3ETin+Rocco%3C%2Fb%3E+die+Zuchtwertsch%C3%A4tzung+der+FN+bei+der+…&b=0&ni=21&no=3&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=11kq6tens&sigb=13guneaqn&sigi=11v58tf22&sigt=124s5oj1o&sign=124s5oj1o&.crumb=FsmqgUkFgXq&fr2=piv-web&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=mozilla
But my point through all of this is that “perfect” conformation often does not translate into extraordinary movement OR athletic ability. How a horse looks standing still often doesn’t mean much when they move…and vice versa. Of course there are certain “rules” we all learn, but wise horse people and breeders use them (IMHO) as general guidelines…not carved in stone absolutes.
That’s why I have little use for “halter” classes per se, although I will admit it sure is easier to sell a “pretty” horse.
Secretariat. Sorry, I knew you wanted a living horse or at least one with frozen semen. But, we studied Secretariat’s conformation both standing and running in class for our judging team at CSU. He was so perfect! I keep him in mind when looking at any other horse.i recall it was a movie on form to function with lots of slowed down running shots. Great movie but I have no idea where my coach got it from.
When choosing a stallion I’m much more concerned with what the babies do than anything else. That and the resale value because I can’t keep every baby I’ve ever bred. I look at movement and winnings of the foals, temperament of the foals, temperament of the stallion and lastly conformation. If the foals are good enough to win big classes that’s far more important to me than conformation itself as I believe form to function wouldn’t allow crappy conformation and bad temper many to win in the classes I breed for. ( western pleasure,trail,western riding and all-around). I breed paints and I never breed to a paint stallion because there are so many more great AQHA stallions with much longer and better breeding records. I like picking an older stallion who is on the AQHA leading sires list, no less than top 5.
Is there something similar for dressage and hunters/jumpers? Hoping to breed my new,large pony someday to a good German Riding pony or Welsh.
Interesting reading the comments,I know the mare is just as important as the stallion.But I don’t understand how a stallion of any breed that is not quality can produce a outstanding foal?
[QUOTE=beauty101;7916178]
Interesting reading the comments,I know the mare is just as important as the stallion.But I don’t understand how a stallion of any breed that is not quality can produce a outstanding foal?[/QUOTE]
I am not sure anyone is saying that a stallion that is “not quality” can produce outstanding foals, just that a stallion doesn’t have to have “perfect” conformation to produce well. No stallion (or mare, or gelding, for that matter) has absolutely perfect conformation - to everyone. There will always be someone who will say, “Well, he is a touch long in the loin”, or “I would prefer a touch more elegance in the throat latch”, etc.
Case in point are several people I know who feel that Escudo II is a bit “post-legged”. These are very, very well known and highly respected folks who are well plugged into the breeding scene. They weren’t slamming the horse, just expressing their personal observations and preferences.
There are other stallions mentioned here - such as Weltmeyer - that some folks think is a bit short-legged. Now, I know a lot of folks are critical of the “modern, long-legged look”, but again, everyone’s personal preference is a bit different.
Another example - here is what Dr Dietrich Rossow wrote about the mighty Landgraf in his book on Holsteiner stallions. (Bolding is mine).
“Imposing appearance with enormous crest and neck carriage. Smooth total topline and much presence. Beautiful face with marvellous eye. Long, rather broad neck, long sloping shoulder. Withers could be more clearly defined. Well-shaped, muscular croup. Strong bone. Good in front. Slightly sickle hocked in youth (became very straight with age). Tied in below the hock and faults in the hind fetlocks. Good mover. Marvellous temperament. Phenomenal jumper; tight in front, lots of bascule, careful and talented. Great performance capabilities.”
So Landgraf was certainly not a “perfect” specimen, but I don’t think anyone can be very critical of his record as a sire.
[QUOTE=beauty101;7916178]
Interesting reading the comments,I know the mare is just as important as the stallion.But I don’t understand how a stallion of any breed that is not quality can produce a outstanding foal?[/QUOTE]
A halter horse may have “perfect” conformation, but most halter horses are not successful as sport horses. Conformation is created idea not an absolute.
And it also follows the function, so a cutting horse with really good cutting horse conformation would be a horrible type for dressage.
If you want to look for quality in Wb’s, look to the stallions with successful offspring. They are quality and that is how the Wb was created and hopefully how it will continue. Aesthetics are actually dangerous to the quality of many breeds as it is a subjective idea.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7916721]
A halter horse may have “perfect” conformation, but most halter horses are not successful as sport horses. Conformation is created idea not an absolute.
And it also follows the function, so a cutting horse with really good cutting horse conformation would be a horrible type for dressage.
If you want to look for quality in Wb’s, look to the stallions with successful offspring. They are quality and that is how the Wb was created and hopefully how it will continue. Aesthetics are actually dangerous to the quality of many breeds as it is a subjective idea.[/QUOTE]
Yep, and I think often people forget that. I would say sport horse conformation is less “ideal” most of the time than what I was raised with in the stock world, but that it is more functional and stressing performance, which is FAR better in my opinion. My first horse was a very unathletic QH who did well when judged by her conformation because the things about it which made her unathletic didn’t check the boxes in “conformation flaws to mark down for” according to the texts.
When my vet did his check on my TB, he also looked at him conformationally for the intended purpose (dressage.) He noted that he is built to be an athlete, and while he doesn’t have dressage specific conformation his athleticism would serve him well. This is proving very true.
On the other hand, he hadn’t seen my filly in a year, and when he was doing fall shots he kept standing back and looking at her, and commenting on how great her angles all are for dressage. Despite being bred more for an overall athlete (sire was a GP dressage horse, but was bred to be a GP jumper, dam was a hunter with all kinds of international eventer lines) she was born very much a dressage horse. She can jump, as she has a lot of athleticism, but piaffe is her go-to move because that’s what she’s built to do.
[QUOTE=Doctracy;7916139]
Secretariat.[/QUOTE]
Again, I agree. I was lucky enough to have just starting working on the track the year before he won the Belmont. In '73 I was working as a hotwalker for a trainer who was stabled in the barn next to him + and so saw him “up close & personal” a number of times.
Of course, he was in the best shape of his life then, but it’s true he was a breathtaking animal…hard to fault. He was a stunning example of a horse bred to run…but if you’d been looking at him as a cutting horse or dressage horse, obviously not so much.
[QUOTE=stoicfish;7916721]
A halter horse may have “perfect” conformation, but most halter horses are not successful as sport horses. Conformation is created idea not an absolute.
And it also follows the function, so a cutting horse with really good cutting horse conformation would be a horrible type for dressage.
If you want to look for quality in Wb’s, look to the stallions with successful offspring. They are quality and that is how the Wb was created and hopefully how it will continue. Aesthetics are actually dangerous to the quality of many breeds as it is a subjective idea.[/QUOTE]
Exactly! beauty101, this is what myself and others are saying. We are taught the “rules” of general equine conformation when we start with horses, and if we get into specific breeds, then those breeds often have a “standard” and judges decide what is “perfect conformation” for that breed based on the horse who is built closest to the standard.
That’s why Arabs don’t look like QHs who don’t look like Morgans, etc. etc. However it’s pretty well known in just about every breed where this sort of “standard” exists, that those “perfect” horses (ie halter horses) who are judged on looks alone don’t perform so well.
Just look at QHs for example: look at top “halter” champions, vs top cutting or reining horses. They hardly look like the same breed.
TBs and WBs do not have that sort of standard; they are bred to perform. If you read the “standard” for the Hanoverian WB, for example it is very general and doesn’t really have specifics in terms of conformation.
And when WBs are “judged” movement is paramount. For WBs deemed “quality” enough to breed on, their total athletic ability is taken in…all 3 gaits, how they use their body, jumping ability, temperament (as much as can be judged in a young horse), etc.
And, as other posters have noted, everyone has different ideas of what constitutes “perfect” conformation.
I assume you started this thread because you want to breed your mare. Well, the way to tilt the outcome in your favor is NOT to look for the perfectly conformed stallion, but instead look at what you want to produce (what discipline, what level, etc), then look at your particular mare and her pedigree, THEN look for a stallion who tends to nick well with your type of mare and has been relatively consistent in his production of the type of foal you want.
Except when taken to extremes, for a stallion who is a consistent producer of quality foals, HIS conformation is almost irrelevant.
Because WB breeding stallions must be approved either via testing or performance, in 98% of the cases, I would bet that any sort of extreme faults in terms of conformation are weeded out long before that animal gets to the breeding shed.
Does this make sense?
Or to put it succinctly: “Beauty is as beauty does.”
[QUOTE=DownYonder;7916225]
Another example - here is what Dr Dietrich Rossow wrote about the mighty Landgraf in his book on Holsteiner stallions. (Bolding is mine).
“Imposing appearance with enormous crest and neck carriage. Smooth total topline and much presence. Beautiful face with marvellous eye. Long, rather broad neck, long sloping shoulder. Withers could be more clearly defined. Well-shaped, muscular croup. Strong bone. Good in front. Slightly sickle hocked in youth (became very straight with age). Tied in below the hock and faults in the hind fetlocks. Good mover. Marvellous temperament. Phenomenal jumper; tight in front, lots of bascule, careful and talented. Great performance capabilities.”[/QUOTE]
I think this point is vital. EVERY breeder should be able to critique their stock in a clear & unprejudiced manner, just like breeding committees do. IMHO too many breeders love their horses like their children and can’t stand to criticize them. That is a very dangerous trait in a breeder. And I doubt many stallions are judged “perfect” by licensing/testing inspectors.
But the difference between Europeans and Americans (at least, this is what I’ve been told), is the Americans tend to get abit fussy over some small points and end up throwing babies out with the bath water, whereas European breeders are willing to accept some faults because THE WHOLE is “quality.”
Thanks everyone for the replies , it does make sense to me 
[QUOTE=Kyzteke;7911872]
Personally, I would rather breed to a stallion who has produced a dozen PSG or I-1 horses than one who has only produced 1-2 GP superstars.[/QUOTE]
But Negro has produced a dozen PSG horses and no less than 10 GP horses. :lol:
[QUOTE=L&L;7922513]
But Negro has produced a dozen PSG horses and no less than 10 GP horses. :lol:[/QUOTE]
Oh…that is great to know. I know when we had a thread on the WBFSH Top Dressage horses some one who knows more than I do said that Negro would not be near the top if he hadn’t produced Valegro.
Not to be argumentative, because I LOVE Negro, but where did you get your stats? Do you have the names of the horses? I’d like to research them and see what sort of mare he’s crossing best with.
[QUOTE=Kyzteke;7923293]
Oh…that is great to know. I know when we had a thread on the WBFSH Top Dressage horses some one who knows more than I do said that Negro would not be near the top if he hadn’t produced Valegro.
Not to be argumentative, because I LOVE Negro, but where did you get your stats? Do you have the names of the horses? I’d like to research them and see what sort of mare he’s crossing best with.[/QUOTE]
Could be true without the other being true as well. Generally having the #1 in the world boosts any stallion’s ranking. See: Gribaldi and Totilas, despite his other international GP offspring.
Besides Valegro, just looking at the first page of news on his offspring from Hilltop’s page, at GP are Unico G, Uforia, Nintendo
and FEI is Natasha.
I would expect more FEI offspring in Europe than the US.
I know I sound like a broken record when I say that to me the mare must be as close to perfect as possible, and then the stallion can be the proverbial icing on the cake.
I can forgive small faults, i. e. a LITTLE short in the front leg or neck, or maybe a LITTLE long in the pastern, but not all of them together in one mare. You can find stallions that reliably produce length of leg or improve the other faults I mentioned, but don’t think they will take care of them all.
What is not negotiable to me is quality of movement, temperament, and overall correctness of conformation.
Just my opinion…
[QUOTE=L&L;7922513]
But Negro has produced a dozen PSG horses and no less than 10 GP horses. :lol:[/QUOTE]
http://www.wbfsh.org/files/September_Dressage_horse_final.pdf
He has 5 horse in the list of the top 700. He is about 20 years old so he shouldn’t have a ton of “retired” offspring yet.
I think he is really a lovely stallion but from the offspring I have seen, I do not find him to be extremely pre-potent.
DeNiro is two years older and has 24 offspring in the top 700. The number of mares bred could explain some of it but then you also need to look at why one stallion got more breedings.
I don’t like the term perfect, or even near perfect. In horse & livestock judging this was driven into us. Really, one must start with consideration of what you want the horse to do. But I get what OP is asking.
Anyway, I drove Christian Schacht to the airport once & he used Quarterback as the example of an “ideal” (did not say perfect) modern warmblood/sporthorse. I don’t know a lot about WB lines, etc, or any thing about his offspring.
[QUOTE=Hippolyta;7924641]
Anyway, I drove Christian Schacht to the airport once & he used Quarterback as the example of an “ideal” (did not say perfect) modern warmblood/sporthorse. I don’t know a lot about WB lines, etc, or any thing about his offspring.[/QUOTE]
And this is a perfect example about individual tastes in “perfect” or “ideal”. I have to say I have not seen either horse in person, but from pics/video Negro and Quarterback do not look alike in anyway I can see.
Although (we hope) they both have straight limbs, good “angles” etc., they appear to be VERY different “types.”
Anyone seen them both in the flesh?
[QUOTE=iJump;7925016]
I like this guy…
http://www.spycoastfarm.com/view/237/big-star/overview[/QUOTE]
See, if you just posted this pic without any information on the stallion’s performance, I would not be impressed with his conformation. There are a number of things I don’t care for.
But, as I said, the proof is in the pudding and, although I don’t breed jumpers, he seems to have more than proven himself in the arena.
However, I can’t stress enough that for a BREEDING stallion, what matters most is not who he is or even what he has done, but what he PRODUCES.
