Unlimited access >

Why do some horses have really angular shoulders? (dumb question)

I have looked at a few horses lately that have really, really obvious points of the shoulder. I’ve always associated well muscled horses with not having this but these are horses in upper level work who should be filled in, not 2 year olds.

What is required to create a well-muscled shoulder in a horse like this? Do some horses just always have really pointy, prominent shoulders? I can’t say I find it attractive, so I’m wondering, and realized I’d never given it any thought.

I’ve seen some breeds trend towards this. High set necks, upright humerus, long laid back shoulder blade makes the point of the shoulder really pop out. These kind of horses are going to be flashy movers up front. Friesian, saddlebred, Dutch Harness Horse.

I’m not sure how you muscle it out other than lots of high stepping (cavelletti?) and feed to promote muscle gain.

Poor saddle fit or horses not actually working over their back properly. I have seen horse at psg and above scoring well with absolutely no top line or backs completely atrophy.

The horses I’ve seen have topline, just really…pointy shoulders. To me it looks like poor conditioning but they have nicely muscled backs and hindquarters. Just the kind of shoulders I’d associate with horses that are hard keepers or undermuscled. However I have seen it more than once, so I was wondering if it’s something that is becoming more common.

All the horses are wb breeds.

I think what you’re describing is just conformation, like some horses (and breeds) have really prominent points of hip.

Can you find/take a picture of what you’re seeing?

1 Like

Perhaps it’s just the different conformations that you’ve noticed?

You can have a long scapula and a short humerus which makes the point of the shoulder quite low down:

Or a scapula and humerus a bit closer together in length:

And then the angle between those two bones can either be quite open:

Or more closed:

and a bit of age probably takes its toll too, but he’s still a handsome boy

So between the length and angles of the humerus, scapula, the lay of the shoulder, how high/low the neck ties in and the age/muscling of the horse, you end up with all sorts of things.

4 Likes

Of these photos, the first and third horse is what I expect to see, but the second, fourth, and fifth are examples of what I’m seeing, with the fourth horse probably the most egregious example with the actual head of the humerous prominent and visible.

It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with shoulder angle as there’s lots of different ones here but all with really prominent points of the shoulder.

My new horse exhibits it, but he’s 3 and growing, so it’s expected.

These horses show a shoulder like I would expect, properly muscled and rounded:


this horse shows the kind of shoulder appearance I dislike because it seems to look undermuscled and weedy:


You also need to know what the horse looks like from the front.

The last 2 horses are actually pretty well muscled (the first of those 2 looks young, so muscle is relative to his age, not necessarily work) but they are also pretty lean, especially the last one

It’s just bonier. TWHs are known for broader hips from point of hip to point of hip, so healthy weight means those bones are more prominent, and if they do start “rounding”, the horse is fat

Well, it doesn’t really matter what the horse looks like from the front if the shoulder is angular from another view and personal preference leans against it?

None of the horses pictured are TWH. I guess I just have a preference for horses kept in better weight, then.

There is not all that much that good conditioning can change about that area of the horse; I’m with others that you’re likely seeing conformation come into play.

Some horses with a steeper slope to their shoulder, higher neck set, and higher withers will appear to have that area lack depth. That picture of the harness/dutch type chestnut is a fairly good example, but he looks young to me. He also has a more forward placed shoulder and humerus than some of the other horses you linked.

Functionally speaking, shoulders are one of the last things in a growing horse to fill out. I’ve had more than a couple weedy five year olds suddenly need a bigger blanket mid season – not because they got longer, but because their shoulders / chest filled out as they matured.

Some other physical things could come into play to produce that lack of musculature, like an ill-fitting harness or tack.

I think the only time it is cause for alarm, is if you see the area around the trapezius is marginally “bulkier” accompanied with what looks like a threadbare shoulder. This is N1 and just my experience so in no way rooted in fact, but several of the horses I’ve had x-rayed over their spine that have had some sort of neck issue have had this “bulgy” area - possibly the neck muscles in the neck compensating for whatever was bothering them in their spine.

1 Like

I’m not talking about personal preference. I mean, if a horse is quite wide in front, his side view is going to look different than if he’s slab-sided, even if the side view conformation is the same - same scapula length and angle, same humerus length and angle. I’d wager the narrower-bodied horse will look bonier vs the very wide horse.

You missed the point - I made the TWH reference because that is a very specific breed trait a lot of people see, and when uneducated, complain about in reference to the horse being too thin. I guarantee if you covered up those hip bones on most of those horses they would be obese.

This is NOT about weight. The horses you posted whose shoulders you dislike are in excellent weight. They would be obese if you couldn’t see those shoulder points well.

Some people have bony knees and some are more round. Some have bonier collar bones and some are very “smooth”. Start covering up the physical bone shape of those people and you get fat people

Yes. It’s very easy to see these differences if you talk about dog breeds; but it’s harder in horses because the differences between horse breeds are more subtle. But some breeds are more “bony” and others more “muscular” even when in the same condition. And of course, the angulation can make certain areas appear more prominent.

I have a bony collar bone. LOL. One of my coaches calls it “unusually prominent.” It would take a lot of fat to make that go away.

1 Like

There isn’t much in the way of muscle lying over the greater tuberosity of the humerus (aka point of shoulder). The braciocephalicus/omotransversarius does but, as much as they are important muscles, they aren’t ones you want overly developed (that gives you classic upside down neck). A very bulging subclavius muscle might also “hide” the shoulder but really isn’t ideal either.

The other anatomical aspect to keep in mind is that the front leg have no bony attachment to the body. They are only ‘strapped on’ by muscle and connective tissue, and as such is somewhat malleable. Perhaps not a ton in the angles, but certainly a lot on where the shoulders actually sit on the ribcage. You many not see the shoulder joint so much if the sternum is dropped and sitting well out in front (“boat chest”) but the shoulder could appear more prominent if the sternum is well lifted between the shoulders (desirable).

And then I must agree with the other poster who say conformation - that is, the actual bone length and joint angles - probably plays the biggest role in what you see. A long humerus tends to give better reach, so it’s something you would expect to see in many top sport horses.

1 Like