Saddle Horse Conformation

[Michelle Clarke]

I thought maybe we could start a thread on what type of conformation makes a good saddle horse. One of the clinics I do is on choosing the right horse for the right job and what to look for when evaluating conformation. I've researched extensively on what is needed to carry both a saddle and rider efficiently and maintain soundness for a long, useful career. JP Giacomini has really helped educate me on this subject also - he has a keen eye and really knows when looking at a horse how it will all fit together in movement. It's kind of involved, so I've got it seperated into sections...maybe we can discuss it one at a time.

The Back

First and foremost, we have to consider the back since most of us are buying or breeding horses to be ridden. The horse has to have a strong, solid back to carry us through a productive career. The withers must be prominent in order to carry a saddle properly, with good muscling on either side of the spine all along the topline of the back. A horizontal back has a strong spine and can carry a rider and saddle in the proper place without slipping forward onto the shoulders.

Since "fat" is the favorite color in the States, you need to educate yourself in looking past a fat on a horse and seeing the true shape of the back. Some of the Thoroughbred type horses will lack strong, carrying muscle on the topline, due to the breeding to be able to use those muscles as a support between the front end and hindend for high speed running, carrying little weight. Also being bred to run, alot of their weight is naturally carried on the front end. In general, thoroughbred types are not seen high up in dressage or eventing due to these facts; though they are used for crossbred/warmblood horses.

Quarter horse types actually go the other way and have thick, large muscling along the spine. They are known for being able to carry alot of weight comfortably. This disadvantage is that the muscling does not have the flexability needed for deep roundness or a high level of proper collection. It is easy for a horse with this type of muscling to lock their back against the weight it is carrying - which drastically changes the way the legs move and puts more strain on the joints, therefore being more prone to lameness.

When thinking of a good versatile, saddle horse, the words "middle ground" is what should be focused on. A good amount of strong, flexable muscle should be the aim.

[DianneC]

I see really flat backs in some Kigers. I used to say that you could eat dinner off of Chinook's back. Didn't matter fat or fit, but it did make fitting a saddle more difficult as he is more upside down U shaped than V shaped. Could you comment on that?
The fault I see in some Kigers is a lack of width through the loins. Is that a separate issue?

[kigermustang1]

This is a great topic Michelle. Can you post pictures of different horses with some of the issues you have mentioned above? I think it would really help if we could see what you are speaking about. It doesn't have to be of Kigers, just the conformational issues in general.

When I was doing my research I also noticed a number of Kigers with long backs and wasp waists. Can you comment on these issues too?

Karen

[Michelle Clarke]

Dianne, interestingly, the Andalusian/Lusitano horses have the same problem: wide backs, most of the time short in length. I remember seeing JP's stallions at one time and was astonished at just how flat the backs were! This is not a fault as long as the flexability is still maintained, which the Kigers have no issue with there!

Back fifty years ago, saddle were mostly made wider and shorter in length. With all the thoroughbred types becoming more streamlined and more popular, saddles changed to fit more of the V shape you mentioned. They also were modified to be more shaped like a banana to accomodate the horses with lower/dropped backs. This is another issue with fitting the flatter backed horses...they need flat panels to lay against the back.

The newer saddles that have modified the trees (instead of building a new style saddle on the older type trees) are getting wider and some shorter agian. Mostly because of the "fat factor" but also the horses backs are changing again. I've just gotten in the mode of buying my saddles from Spain, that way I know they will fit our horses! I have one old saddle I bought from a client that is over forty years old - it fits most horses here very well and it is super short with large, flat panels...I've been offered five times what I paid for it, but I don't think I'll ever part with it!

[Michelle Clarke]

The loins are the pivot point of the back and connects that area with the croup. Thin, weak loins definately affect the ability to carry weight and also bring the hindend underneath for drive. I have seen this in just about every breed; however, I've seen this in some Iberian horses and they tend to have amazing flex from front to back. I don't have any experience with that to know what the longevity of strength had been with those particular horses. Horses that tend to have super-flex there can easily have the tendancy toward the hip bones being much more prominant but I think this have more to do with the angle of the pelvis and the relation to the other angles of the uppper hind legs.

[Michelle Clarke]

Length of back is very important and again, for an optimum saddle horse, think medium length. Too short of a back means lack of flexability and makes it very easy for the horse to lock his back and avoid true work. Think of a gaited horse: they gait because they lock their back - that is why well gaited horses are short backed and those with longer backs do not gait well naturally. I've actually done body work on a few non-gaited horses that gaited because of their backs being locked. Once released, they trotted normally.

Too long of a back can be a weakness and a disconnection from the frontend to backend. They have a tendancy toward not having enough muscle to support the longer spine, plus having a longer length in the lumbar (the part of the vertabrae after the ribs that have no support until they get to the pelvis). It can lead to sway backed appearance even early on in life. If these horses are not ridden correctly round throughout training, the back drops and weakens. It is easier for these horses to drop their back away from the rider, raise (or disconnect) the neck and send the back legs out behind, causing a very uncomfortable ride!

With the depth of waist, such as a wasp waist, again think medium. With the combination of the Spanish type horses flex in the hindend, angles and reach of the hind legs, they need room to bring up those stifles and allow them to go forward. For example, horses that have a mid section shaped like a barrel when viewed from the side, do not have room to let the hind leg come up and under the horse with flexion from the hip. Those horses have to move more stiff legged to get the reach they need and the hip tends to rock from side to side instead of undulate up and down as the legs reach forward. Mostly they do the easy thing and just let the back legs lag out behind.

I'll see what I can get posted this weekend, especially on some of the biomechanics because standing still is one thing, but we need them to be useful in motion and understand how that all ties in.

[sbutter]

This is going to be a fun thread

I have noticed the lack of TBs in higher levels of eventing and dressage and knew that there had to be some conformational reasons, but now that you mention the spine, that makes a lot of sense. They were bred to be a lightweight powerhouse that won't break down at top speeds (at least thats the goal). Kind of like a cheetah, they aren't as "sturdy" looking as the other cats, but no one can touch them on speed.

[sbutter]

I tried to find some pictures of horses on my computer that showed some variation within a breed. If you want to point anything out as far as a saddle horse conformation, go ahead

Stallion A


Stallion B


Stallion C

[kigermustang1]

Okay, I am going to take a stab at this but please remember, I am still learning. Okay, personally I like stallion 3 the best. He appears, in the picture, to be well balanced, level backed and square. I like the way his neck comes out of his chest and the way he is standing looks pretty square to me. He does not appear to have too long or too short a back and I think he might be fairly comfortable to ride. If anyone else has any comments, I would love to hear from you. This is a great thread and I am sure I can learn a lot here.

Karen

[sbutter]

I brought the one video over for you Karen and then I dug around and found an old video that I had of a homebred yearling colt. They can be used for comparison if anyone wants to use them.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkQaT5MIYE0

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ke39Q2smC4Q

[kigermustang1]

Thank you, I think it will help to understand better what we are discussing.

[DianneC]

Wowser! great colt!
I agree on number three. the first one looks like a running QH, all muscle, but not balanced with too big a hip. The second looks like a grey hound in comparison. His hip bone is further back, I'll bet he can run. His fetlocks are low, and he doesn't seems to have much bone, I wonder if he had soundness issues? His elbow is far forward of a line dropped from his withers (don't know what that means), and his back isn't as good as number 3. #C is fat, but well balanced, I like that his fore arm is longer and he has a deeper hip. Karen's right I think about his neck, good length and well set. The angles of his hip are nice but I'm guessing where his hip bone is. Perhaps he's older. If he was the same weight and age as the second horse he'd be stunning. Is this the sire of the colt in the video?

[Michelle Clarke]

Thanks for these picts Sarah...

Even though the first horse is not pictured with his feet totally in alignment when you look at him from the side (meaning, his back feet appear higher than his front), he is still looks downhill. The top of his hip is higher than the top of the wither. An ideal saddle horse will have the wither the highest point with the back flowing nicely without an excessive dropoff and the hip staying level with that - not raising back up. Horse three seems to be the best example of that point.

Being downhill can cause an array of issues because the front legs are loaded with not just the weight of the front end, but the whole body reallly. You'll notice that both the first and second horse are standing with their weight far over the front legs to the point that the body is leaning over them and they are not coming straight down from the shoulder as in the third horse. Sometimes this can be a farrier issue, but you have to look at the whole picture - not just the feet. On these horses, the balance point is too far forward and the horse has to move those front legs back to take the extra load. This is when sometimes a farrier will put shoes on with more support out the back of the foot to help compansate.

Downhill horses also make it hard to carry a saddle correctly. The saddle will have a tendancy to slip forward onto the shoulders and cause the horse to compansate in movement by shortening the front stride. Think of the western pleasure horse and how many are built downhill and shuffle along. This is not only training but the fact that the shoulders are uncomfortable when the leg comes far foward as the saddle digs into them.

The second horse need help in the farrier department. His balance point is too far foward...the heels should be further back on his foot without taking any more toe off. This will help the whole leg move forward over that foot so that the pasturn is not hanging out in mid-air and having no support. Three or four correct trimmings and the whole leg column will be straight and have proper support. I sure hope they did not run him like that!

The third horse shows a balanced frontend in that his leg is able to be straight under his shoulder for support.

Sometimes a horse will be downhill when they are growing, so training your eye and a good look at both parents will help you discern what the outcome will be. It has been toted by a large Kiger breeder that balanced horses do not grow up or down from front end to back end - they always grow even. This is not true, especially when a horse is going to be big, they can be extreme in the downhill spurts...smaller horses will show less of this type of growth. Another reason it is hard to look at horses once they get to weaning age until about four - five years old. They grow in spurts up and down, front to back, out instead of up; one reason you don't see alot of breeders putting up side shots of young horses as an uneducated buyer will pick out faults that are really just growth issues at that time.

[Michelle Clarke]

Forgot to mention that the first horse appears to be weak in the loins...not to mention that the tendons on his back legs look cashed - especially the left one.

Overall, the second horse does not have much to offer in the way of being a good, comfortable, versatile saddle horse, but he is built like a cheetah for running. His front end is heavier to be the balance point at a gallop (as the weight is forward), with a stong loin to bring that hindend forward and under himself.

The last horse is very well balanced all together and strong looking, bet he did pretty well at the track. He'd also make a decent riding horse after the fact...

[sbutter]

All these boys were top racehorses that won against the best.

A: is Street Boss who was an amazing sprint horse that ran through his four year old career. He was retired in November 2008 to go stand as a stallion (all these pictures were taken in Nov. 2008). Street Boss retired with seven wins and four placings from 13 starts and earnings of $831,800. He also ran second in that year’s Ancient Title Stakes (gr. I). (picture at 4 years)

B: is the all famous Afleet Alex. He was the one that was bumped hard in the Preakness and went to his knees in the homestretch to come back and win the race by multiple lengths. The colt's fall campaign was derailed when he was found in late July 2005 to have a hairline fracture in his left front cannon bone, near the ankle. They waited for the hairline fracture to heal up before working with him again. Later on in the year, avascular necrosis (the dying of tissue in the bone, creating a brittle patch) was discovered and diagnosed. The necrosis was probably due to an undetected deep bruise sustained when he caught himself and exerted the tremendous effort needed to save himself and his jockey with his left front leg in his near fall in the Preakness. It is believed the necrosis caused his summer condylar fracture. So, these pictures are of him when he was 6 years old.

C: is Stevie Wonderboy was born in 2003. He won the Breeder's Cup Juvenile. He was going to be a favorite contender in the Triple Crown, but February 7, 2006, it was announced that Stevie Wonderboy had suffered a hairline fracture in his ankle. On February 8, a screw was inserted in to his leg to correct the fracture. In July 2007, it was announced that Stevie Wonderboy had retired. (picture at 5 years)

Stevie is not the sire of the colt in the video, but nice try It would have been interesting if he was.