Why aren't Quarter Horses More Popular in the H/J Ring?

[Ajierene]

Findeight’s examples are akin to the Brett-Ohio issue, where pedigree is unknown or turns out to be different than advertised. The issue with the hunter bred quarter horse is that pedigree IS known and IS NOT full quarter horse pedigree, but is allowed to be advertised as a full quarter horse. This would be similar to the ASB being allowed to be considered full Arabian.

The question at hand is: Why aren’t quarter horses more popular in the hunter/jumper ring?

The answer, as you, Equino noted, is that 8 out of 10 are not suitable.

Those that are suitable do not fit the quarter horse breed standard. The fact they are almost all 50% thoroughbred, helps illustrate this.

Breed standard is 14-16 hands, stocky, short cannon bone, compact. Can run the quarter mile faster than any other horse.

While the examples listed here are nice horses, they do not fit the breed standard.

This is not the opinion of a few ‘uninformed’, but the opinion of quarter horse breeders as well and is why the Foundation Quarter Horse Association was created relatively recently. The quarter horses that do well in the hunter/jumper arena are not full quarter horses. This does a disservice to the true quarter horse type - which when the registry was created, thoroughbreds were only allowed in if they fit the quarter type. Now, they do not need to fit the type. Not giving a nod to the thoroughbred influence that changes the horses type to allow it to excel in the hunter ring also does a disservice to the influence of the thoroughbred.

Some links to help illustrate:
http://www.bhfqh.com/
http://www.diamondhquarterhorses.com/American_Quarter_Horse_History.html
http://www.diamondhquarterhorses.com/

[RugBug]

@Equino;4675625

If you had X amount of $$ to spend, went to a sales barn or someone you know who had horses for sale, and were shown horses in your range, one or two happening to be QH, would you turn them down before looking?

As I stated a number of times, I would not turn a QH down just because it was a QH. I’ve only purchased two horses in my life…and both times, QHs were included in my search. This last time, I even went to try a QH. He was a lovely, lovely horse, had a wonderful canter rhythm once you got him rolling, every jump came up just right and he could make the distances with jumps at 2’3" from that rolling canter. However, while the owners said he could do 2’6" and maybe some 2’9", they didn’t think he would hold up for it. I told my trainer about him and we actually brought him up to our barn on trial for someone else. He was fantastic little horse, but there were some vetting issues the buyer couldn’t live with based on his purchase price. He went back.

I like QHs, think there are some pretty nice little horses carrying that name. My riding life has been filled with some wonderful QHs. They are one of my top recommendations to first time buyers…but they aren’t one of my recommendations to some looking for a 3’+ hunter unless that person wants to do a lot of shopping and has a $$$ budget. Finding those hypothetical 2 out of 10 can be very difficult. Horse shopping is frustrating enough as it is…why make it that much harder?

FWIW: Go to dreamhorse and do a search for QHs. Heck even do a radius search around your zip. How many of the results even look like a hunter over fences type? Not many in my case. (I just did this. 84 results in a 50 mile radius. Out of those 84, only 35 had pictures. Out of those 35 horses…only 2 looked interesting, one of which was $30k. BTW…I opened the radius to 100 miles, which added another 50+ horses, but only another 6 or so with pictures. There was one with pictures that looked interesting, and only for $5,5000. there was a video, but the horse had been sold and video removed. Bummer. I really did want to see this particular horse.)

[Equino]

@Ajieren

The answer, as you, Equino noted, is that 8 out of 10 are not suitable.

Because there are so many types within the breed and not every type is going to be suitable.

Those that are suitable do not fit the quarter horse breed standard. The fact they are almost all 50% thoroughbred, helps illustrate this

Breed standard is 14-16 hands, stocky, short cannon bone, compact. Can run the quarter mile faster than any other horse.

The standard HAS changed. No longer are QH breeders breeding specifically for a ranch horse, or specifically for the 15 hand, bulldog type. Not every QH was bred to or can run 1/4 of a mile faster than anything else. That’s like saying every TB is bred to be a race horse, and look how much variety of horses have been bred among TBs as well.

There ARE QHs out there that are suitable for the H/J ring. That is the only point I am trying to make. AQHA has come far away from the starting point of the “bulldog” type of horse. The ranch horses have nothing like the western pleasure horses who look nothing like the hunters, etc, etc, etc. You can’t generalize a breed that has such diversity with in it. And that, IMO, is why you can’t say “QH ARE this or that.” That’s all. I have a WB mare and if I was in the market for another horse, I would seek out another WB. But that doesn’t mean I don;t think there is a suitable QH or QH/TB for me. I really don’t know why I keep coming back to this thread because I don’t really 100% agree with either side. I guess it just bugs me when people keep insisting every QH is like this:
http://www.alacranquarterhorses.com/images/mrprettypocofront1.jpg

There are just too many types in this breed to generalize, and I believe there are plenty enough that do a great job representing the breed in the H/J world.

[Chuckles]

Breed standard is 14-16 hands, stocky, short cannon bone, compact. Can run the quarter mile faster than any other horse.

While the examples listed here are nice horses, they do not fit the breed standard.

This is not the opinion of a few ‘uninformed’, but the opinion of quarter horse breeders as well and is why the Foundation Quarter Horse Association was created relatively recently. The quarter horses that do well in the hunter/jumper arena are not full quarter horses. This does a disservice to the true quarter horse type - which when the registry was created, thoroughbreds were only allowed in if they fit the quarter type. Now, they do not need to fit the type. Not giving a nod to the thoroughbred influence that changes the horses type to allow it to excel in the hunter ring also does a disservice to the influence of the thoroughbred.

Some links to help illustrate:
http://www.bhfqh.com/
http://www.diamondhquarterhorses.com/American_Quarter_Horse_History.html
http://www.diamondhquarterhorses.com/

Ajierene- This is not the breed standard that AQHA goes by. It is not in the handbook anywhere. Where did you get this?!
The foundation quarter horse registry celebrates linebred animals. That is the only way to get a horse with enough foundation % to qualify for the registry. I don’t know anyone who owns or seeks one out because these horses would not be suitable for our uses.

Why would you cite a group that is not recognized by the breed association as experts on the breed?

[CamdenLab]

We love our stock horse (she is a solid paint – might as well be QH as she has very little paint breeding) and use her for dressage. She can move out pretty well and for a stock horse she has a fairly free shoulder and her neck ties in higher than average. We have had to work to increase her endurance and we still keep her workouts short, her warm-ups are mostly walking and bending. Her disposition is really awesome and she is smart. Her work ethic isn’t “C’mon, lets get down to business and get moving!” like my TB was. She’s more like “Ugh . . . I don’t wanna work!”. But she does try, once you convince her that she has no other choice, and she’ll do anything asked of her. Great trail horse, fairly easy keeper, trailers like a dream, no bad habits, etc. She’s awesome.

However, we wouldn’t jump her. She’s got a size 0 hoof on a nearly 1,200 lb. body (and she’s in shape – it’s all muscle). She’s not necessarily built like a bull-dog, but she is pretty buff! She’s got a lot of foundationg in her breeding. It’s unfortunate because she’d do it and probably look good at the same time.

[Chuckles]

Rug Bug,
I can understand that looking for a specific horse can be an exercise in frustration. I know that is one of the reasons I stick with QH: I absolutely love the breed, but I am familiar with the bloodlines and with the people. It has taken many years for me to get to this point.

I invite you to google some of the stallions I posted earlier, if you are ever in a search again. Sometimes the breeders can be great sources of horses that are off the beaten path. I know that location can be an issue too. Many of the more suitable QH are on the east coast.

If you ever find one suitable, I think you will be delighted.

[Equino]

Chuckles…do you know of a trainer in the NY, NJ, CT area that specializes in QH Hunters o/f? A friend has one she’d love to get evaluated to see if he could do the QH circuit, or if he should stay on the H/J circuit. It would be great to get him in training with someone who does both circuits. Thanks!

[RugBug]

@Equino;4675839

There ARE QHs out there that are suitable for the H/J ring. That is the only point I am trying to make. AQHA has come far away from the starting point of the “bulldog” type of horse. The ranch horses have nothing like the western pleasure horses who look nothing like the hunters, etc, etc, etc. You can’t generalize a breed that has such diversity with in it.

You’re going to hate me for saying this, but do you know one of the main reasons the AKC won’t recognize the Labradoodle as a breed at this time? Too much variation.

I don’t think anyone has ever said that you can’t find a QH that is suitable for the H/J. Just that it is a lot harder to find those ones and the 3’6" QH is the rare exception. There are some out there…they’re just overwhelmed in sheer number of the other types that won’t suit.

[Chuckles]

Equino,
I will think about it. I know Pierre Brierre (sp) is in NJ. He is an all around trainer and judge. He works with a lot of amateurs and youth.
Geno Spagnolia comes to mind as well.

Ohhh- David Connors and Bill Ellis in NJ. They could point your friend in the right direction if they can’t help.

[luvs2ridewbs]

Does anyone have a website for david Connors and Bill Ellis? I’d be interested to see what type of QHs they are marketing.

[Sparky]

Bill and David’s farm in New Jersey is called Four Winds. They are there from about April until November, and in Ocala for the winter. I don’t think they have a website, but you can e-mail them at bdfwf@aol.com. They are well worth contacting for the best in AQHA hunters.

[Equino]

Rugbug…I know you are loving your Lab/Labradoodle argument. but here is the difference plain and simple:

AKC does NOT allow any type of cross into the breed registry.

AQHA allows up to 7/8ths TB into the registry.

There is no dispute there. It is NOT the same thing. You can argue all you want that you don’t agree with that rule. But it is there and unless it is changed, those horses with 7/8ths TB, 1/8 QH are allowed to be in the AQHA registry (provided of course that all other requirements are met as far as parentage with papers go). If AQHA was allowing multiple breeds to be accepted as long as 1/8th QH, I can see reason for outcry. But this is what they allow. AKC does not allow any % of poodle into the Labrador registry.

[RugBug]

@Equino;4676114

Rugbug…I know you are loving your Lab/Labradoodle argument. but here is the difference plain and simple:

AKC does NOT allow any type of cross into the breed registry.

AQHA allows up to 7/8ths TB into the registry.

There is no dispute there. It is NOT the same thing. You can argue all you want that you don’t agree with that rule. But it is there and unless it is changed, those horses with 7/8ths TB, 1/8 QH are allowed to be in the AQHA registry (provided of course that all other requirements are met as far as parentage with papers go). If AQHA was allowing multiple breeds to be accepted as long as 1/8th QH, I can see reason for outcry. But this is what they allow. AKC does not allow any % of poodle into the Labrador registry.

Good lord Equino, I get it. How many times do I have to say that I understand that the AQHA lets %TBs be registered?

You are continually missing the point that I was making regarding what constitutes a BREED and what constitutes a REGISTRY…which is the whole point of the Labradoodle train of thought. The latest Labradoodle comment was because you were discussing the wide variation in phenotype of the QH. I brought up the Labradoodles again because the AKC will not recognize them as a BREED until the variation is minimal.

I understand the the AQHA doesn’t care about the variation in phenotype. But it’s because they are a performance registry (with a bloodline requirement = QH or QH/TB) masquerading as a breed. AKC is a BREED organization, the AQHA is not.

[Equino]

I keep coming back to this because you keep coming back to this. It’s not a matter what WE think should be considered a cross, mutt, grade or pure bred animal. It matters what the breed registry allows.

You can “Good Lord” me all you want, Rugbug! But so-called “designer dogs” like a “Labradoodle” are a faux “breed” attempt, a method to extort a crap load of money from unsuspecting customers who truly believe they are getting something special when in reality, they are getting a high priced mutt. When you buy an appendix, even if the horse earned it’s ROM and numbered papers, there is proof on those papers what the % is in the horse’s blood, no hidden agendas. AQHA allows this. That is within their breed rights. You can repeat all you want that this makes them a performance registry and not breed registry, but the association considers themselves a breed registry with performance programs/associations under their umbrella, and that is how the majority view it.

There is no ending in agreement for this thread because we have different views, and this thread was based on asking for opinions/ideas. Unless you want to start a movement to purify the breed, there is nothing you can say to back up your claims because AQHA has the final say in what horses are allowed to be registered. Like I said a zillion posts ago, I think it’s time to close the books and see what happens, or minimize the TB % allowed to be bred.

[RugBug]

@Equino;4676278

I keep coming back to this because you keep coming back to this. It’s not a matter what WE think should be considered a cross, mutt, grade or pure bred animal. It matters what the breed registry allows.

You can “Good Lord” me all you want, Rugbug! But so-called “designer dogs” like a “Labradoodle” are a faux “breed” attempt, a method to extort a crap load of money from unsuspecting customers who truly believe they are getting something special when in reality, they are getting a high priced mutt. When you buy an appendix, even if the horse earned it’s ROM and numbered papers, there is proof on those papers what the % is in the horse’s blood, no hidden agendas. AQHA allows this. That is within their breed rights. You can repeat all you want that this makes them a performance registry and not breed registry, but the association considers themselves a breed registry with performance programs/associations under their umbrella, and that is how the majority view it.

There is no ending in agreement for this thread because we have different views, and this thread was based on asking for opinions/ideas. Unless you want to start a movement to purify the breed, there is nothing you can say to back up your claims because AQHA has the final say in what horses are allowed to be registered. Like I said a zillion posts ago, I think it’s time to close the books and see what happens, or minimize the TB % allowed to be bred.

Equino, I understand that AQHA gets to have its rules/regulations. But they don’t get to redefine what the word “breed” means. Just because they AQHA says that crosses that earn enough points get to magically become a member of the BREED, doesn’t mean that full and true definition of the word has changed.

I keep coming back to the AKC, because they do keep a pure definition of the word breed.

I do find it amusing that you can’t see the correlation between Labradoodles and Appendix horses. It’s the same thing. An Appendix horse is a designer Mutt…until it’s earned points, that is (according to the AQHA). I had to laugh out loud at your description of the Labradoodle because it can be said about appendix QHs: Almost word for word.

But you’re right. We will never reach an agreement on this. IMO, the only ones buying that the QH/TBs are QHs are those with their hands in your pockets or their heads in the sand.

BTW: Mutts and crosses can be special (hypoallergenic family dog is pretty special) or they can be pretty unremarkable It all depends on the lineage of the parents and the care of the breeder.

[tidy_rabbit]

Through my experiences with QH shows and people that participate they understand the difference between and appendix & a foundation QH.

I think the AQHA does a fantastic job at managing shows, points, awards (think horse trailer for a year end award!) & participation.

Whether or not you or I or anyone aside from AQHA members agree with the breed vs performance registry really doesn’t matter, what matters is that their participants really really enjoy what they do with their horses. And allowing the registry to expand keeps membership up and the breed/registry (whatever) to continue to evolve.

[Ajierene]

[QUOTE=RugBug;4676322]
Equino, I understand that AQHA gets to have it’s rules/regulations. But they don’t get to redefine what the word “breed” means. Just because they AQHA says that crosses that earn enough points get to magically become a member of the BREED, doesn’t mean that full and true definition of the word has changed.

I keep coming back to the AKC, because they do keep a pure definition of the word breed.

I do find it amusing that you can’t see the correlation between Labradoodles and Appendix horses. It’s the same thing. An Appendix horse is a designer Mutt…until it’s earned points, that is (according to the AKC). I had to laugh out loud at your description of the Labradoodle because it can be said about appendix QHs: Almost word for word.

But you’re right. We will never reach an agreement on this. IMO, the only ones buying that the QH/TBs are QHs are those with their hands in your pockets or their heads in the sand.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with all of this, and this is an argument of quarter horse breeders as well (see my links, especially to Diamond H Ranch [http://www.diamondhquarterhorses.com/], as she is a quarter horse breeder and is in agreement with Rugbug and myself).

[Ajierene]

[QUOTE=tidy rabbit;4676351]
Through my experiences with QH shows and people that participate they understand the difference between and appendix & a foundation QH.

I think the AQHA does a fantastic job at managing shows, points, awards (think horse trailer for a year end award!) & participation.

Whether or not you or I or anyone aside from AQHA members agree with the breed vs performance registry really doesn’t matter, what matters is that their participants really really enjoy what they do with their horses. And allowing the registry to expand keeps membership up and the breed/registry (whatever) to continue to evolve.[/QUOTE]

No one is disputing the difference between a foundation and appendix quarter horse. The discussion is appendix quarter horses masquerading as foundation quarter horses.

See previous post about Chocolua not being an appendix, when in reality he is 50% quarter horse.

When the general population thinks of a quarter horse, they think of the foundation breed standard. The original intent of the AQHA was to keep and promote that breed standard. If they keep true to their roots, then horses like Chocolua could never have their white papers because they do not fit the type - whether you look at conformation or performance. But now they are being offered as 'real quarter horses and look how versatile the breed is…no…no thoroughbred here - sweep that under the rug.

That is the crux of the discussion. So when someone asks why quarter horses are not popular in the hunter/jumper world, most people’s minds will automatically go to the original breed standard and reply that they are not developed for the hunter/jumper world and are not as good at it. Some quarter horse enthusiasts will counter that with ‘real’ quarter horses that get half their genetics from another breed and use that as an argument.

This is exactly akin to the argument that percherons are great as endurance horses and the percheron used as an example is in reality 50% arabian. Really, is it the percheron half that makes it good at endurance or the arab half?

Likewise - is it the quarter horse half that enable the horse to get down the lines with ease or the thoroughbred half? If Chocolua and horses like him were advertised as Appendix Quarter Horses, this discussion would not exist.

[RugBug]

@tidy rabbit;4676351

Through my experiences with QH shows and people that participate they understand the difference between and appendix & a foundation QH.

I think the AQHA does a fantastic job at managing shows, points, awards (think horse trailer for a year end award!) & participation.

Whether or not you or I or anyone aside from AQHA members agree with the breed vs performance registry really doesn’t matter, what matters is that their participants really really enjoy what they do with their horses. And allowing the registry to expand keeps membership up and the breed/registry (whatever) to continue to evolve.

TR…you’re right. It doesn’t really matter in the grand scheme of things. It’s just bothersome to some of us. Don’t get me started on the APHA (not a breed) or ApHC (being ruined by the QH influence).

Ajierene…I have to say that while what I say may sound similar to Foundation QH people …I think they’re a bit of a crazy lot whose horses tend to fit the small feet, navicular prone, small strided QH stereotypes.

[Chuckles]

[QUOTE=Chuckles;4675864]
Ajierene- This is not the breed standard that AQHA goes by. It is not in the handbook anywhere. Where did you get this?!
The foundation quarter horse registry celebrates linebred animals. That is the only way to get a horse with enough foundation % to qualify for the registry. I don’t know anyone who owns or seeks one out because these horses would not be suitable for our uses.

Why would you cite a group that is not recognized by the breed association as experts on the breed?[/QUOTE]

I find that I am repeating myself. Where do you get this standard and why do you continue to cite people who have started their own line bred registry. The foundation horse people not AQHA