|
|
Post by sbutter on Mar 27, 2009 16:40:13 GMT -5
I realize that everyone has their "ideal" for a horse and new that different disciplines would stress certain points. If barbhorses finds that a horse with a slight cowhock stays more sound for her uses, then she is obviously going to lean more towards that type of horse. Is there a book or even a study out there on horse confirmation for different disciplines? We also don't want the kigers to be unrecognizable when compared to other kigers and just become just another dun horse. Should there be a "middle" standard and then some slight variations within that standard for the different uses of kigers with a clear definition for the slight variations? I don't want it to split into the "natural" kiger versus the domestic bred kiger. There is going to be a difference in type between the wild and domestic, because of their need to adapt to what is required of them. I just wasn't sure if there was going to be a difference between the breeds on what a good leg conformation looks like.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michelle Clarke on Mar 27, 2009 19:32:42 GMT -5
You know what, DHW....I don't really care if you belive the study or not. I don't know why every time someone on the internet says something, they have to qualify it. I am passing along information - what you do with it is your business, you don't need to get snippy with me. That is the kind of stuff that gets old. If you have an opinion, fine; don't get personal.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbhorses on Mar 27, 2009 19:34:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by barbhorses on Mar 27, 2009 19:37:35 GMT -5
I would rather believe someone that has done extensive research and has credentials to support their opinion than someone who doesn't. Dr. Deb has been dissecting horses for over two decades. I think that she has seen plenty of horses on the inside and what certain conformation features in horses cause. Hence, her opinion that I gave in a previous post.
I would rather have a horse that doesn't wobble in the hock and stays sound for a long time than the "ideal" straight hock that has a greater chance of not staying sound and wobbles.
|
|
|
|
Post by barbhorses on Mar 27, 2009 19:45:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Michelle Clarke on Mar 27, 2009 20:05:06 GMT -5
It is hard to tell from the hand drawings, but it does not appear that they are correct in illustrating what a straight leg is. A straight leg is defined as the hocks, hooves AND point of hips are equal distance. In the drawing, it seems as if the point of hip is way out, while the legs are close together - that would be base narrow, not straight legs; like this:  This is more correct of what a straight leg is:  This is cowhocked:  The hocks are closer together than the point of hip and most time that the hooves. Many folks (like professional sport horse conformation experts) consider Deb Bennet a "kook"...personally, I like some of her stuff, this I don't happen to agree with. I have disected a few horses in my day to, so I am not sure how well that qualifies me. But, I have ridden over a thousand horses in my life and I can tell you the difference it makes under saddle. Again, it is all personal preference. I'll tell you that cow-hocked horses don't have great laterals and that is a large part of training for many disciplines. For horses that do alot of moving on the forehand, cow hocks are not too much of a problem, but when you want to move that weight back, carry and load, you have issues. And I am not talking about doing down hills, I am talking about gymnastic exercises for extended periods of time. As a breeder, this is something that will be looked at by potential buyers and that is why the emphasis should be placed on very selective breeding. |
|
|
|
Post by barbhorses on Mar 27, 2009 20:14:33 GMT -5
Yea, I don't agree with Deb on points either. My horse also does not display a true cow hock. She has what I would consider the ideal type of hindquarter. As far as type goes, I would like to see her pin bone not sticking out as far, but she has a very strong hindquarter. I mostly do trail riding with her, but I have also taken dressage lessons with a licensed Dutch dressage trainer and she loved Victoria's conformation and said she was built for dressage. I wouldn't want a horse whose legs were really close together like this: i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff208/barbhorses/Sulphur%20horses/Mixed%20Sulphurs/3610.jpgEven then, according to what a true cow hock is, this horse is also not cow hocked due to the position of her canon bones. I can understand your point of view with having this extreme. This is not ideal and I certainly would not want to breed for it. Victoria's legs are as straight as I would want them to be as she has a very stable and strong hock and hindquarter in general. I don't like the looks of that PRE. WAY too straight. Those hocks look weak to me and I would never want to breed for such weak hocks. That is exactly the type of conformation I see with horses that have hocks that wobble when moving. |
|
|
|
Post by barbhorses on Mar 27, 2009 20:19:38 GMT -5
To add to my comment, Dr. Deb's version of what correct hocks are suppose to look like are placed too far inward imo. I would not want to breed for that either. Victoria has the perfect angle where she has nice strong hocks that don't wobble and can handle a lot of stress out on the trail when we come across steep hills. I also have no problems trotting or cantering down hills with her when she is in shape (not something to do with an out of shape horse!).
There is a video on this board showing a Kiger with incredibly weak hocks. Bowing out to the extreme. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want a horse with those hocks! I certainly can't see how you think that horses with straight legs that consistently wobble would be strong hocks.
edited to say:
Of course now I can't find that video!! grrr It was posted a while ago. Pretty sure it was a grulla.
|
|
