Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> Please Reply to: Julie js017k@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx or
> ridecamp@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ========================================I've
> recently gotten very interested in horse conformation and what traits
> are good/bad for endurance horses. I know of a few books that are
> supposed to be great for conformation in general, but don't have the
> funds right now to get them. Would anyone mind posting about what conf.
> traits you feel are most important for an endurance horse to have?
> Things that are necessary, things that hurt a horse's chances to be a
> good ED horse, and things that give a horse an extra edge? I'd
> appreciate any and all input, here or in private email!
Hi, Julie--

First, I'd preface my comments by saying that BASIC good conformation is
the same, no matter WHAT the athletic endeavor.  This includes good
balance (ie the "three-circle horse" where one can draw three equal
circles--not ovals!--on the shoulder apparatus, the barrel/body, and the
hip apparatus), length of neck that fits the body, proper proportion of
body to leg, proper forearm-to-cannon ratio, etc.  These things are BASIC
to biomechanics, whether the horse is trying to run, jump, turn, pull, or
do anything besides stand there and be a pasture ornament.

That said, the one thing that one RARELY finds in good endurance horses is
a truly bad back.  In order to travel 50 miles or more repeatedly, year
after year, a horse MUST have sufficient self-carriage to be able to carry
not only himself lightly, but also a rider, without trashing the rest of
himself.  A horse with a poor back will trash the most perfect legs within
a season or two.

The next thing I particularly look for is depth of body.  This isn't just
about heart and lung room--it is also about room for a gut with sufficient
space to fuel the whole machine.  More and more we are becoming aware of
the absolute importance of hindgut digestion and VFA metabolism, and there
has to be somewhere to PUT that hindgut full of forage.

Ideally, I want a long, SLOPING shoulder (I see a lot of them that are
plenty long, but not plenty sloped!) and a hip of a length to match it. 
This will make the horse move more efficiently and will make the ride
easier.  That said, there are a lot of horses that do reasonably well that
are less than ideal in this department--but very few where the shoulder
and hip don't at least match, even if they are of less than ideal length
and slope.  But the less ideal in this department, the more the back and
legs have to take up the slack--so again, a good back is a must.

As for legs--obviously the more correct the legs, the better.  That said,
horses with GOOD balance and GOOD backs will often do well despite minor
leg faults, whereas even the most perfect set of legs will not survive a
poor body for long in this sport.  By good legs, I'm not just talking
about "straight" legs--I'm also talking about legs that have correct
angulation and proportion (long humerus, good angle with the shoulderblade
and elbow, as near to a 2:1 forearm-to-cannon ratio as you can get in the
front, pasterns not too long and not too short, good angle of the femur
with the pelvis, good angulation through the stifle and the hock,
relatively long tibias and short rear cannons, and nice, round feet with
good walls).  That stuff is WAY more important than minor offsets, etc. 
I'd add nice, big, clean joints to that.

You'll hear a lot of people talk about bone.  It is meaningless unless
they also mention the weight of the horse.  A horse needs a minimum of 8"
cannon circumference per 1000# body weight.  (Note that this is not a
linear relationship--if you want all the stuff about pi and radius and
diameter I can give you that, but I think people get waaay too wrapped up
in it--main thing is that it is sufficient, and it is clean.  Most Arabs
do NOT weigh 1000# in running shape, so most do not need 8" of bone.  That
said, it really gets my goat to see people with overly large Arabs
BRAGGING that they have 8" of bone--when they actually need MORE because
they are so big!)

I also don't recommend Arabs much over 15 hands, for the most part,
although you will find some good taller ones occasionally.  But--the breed
standard calls for horses from 14 to 15 hands, and those that are over OR
under are usually out of proportion.  There are VERY few REALLY tall ones
that have the proportion to be well-balanced athletes.  And you also get
to a point of diminishing return--read Susan G's Tevis stats sometime,
about how the increase in total weight of horse and rider seems to be a
significant factor in lameness pulls--if the combined total is over 1200#
in her studies, your risk of failure goes up.  So a really BIG horse
actually needs a SMALLER rider.

If you can find a good side shot of the late RO Grand Sultan, he was
almost a conformation model for bodies.  He was 14:2 and along with Khalil
Khai (at 14:1) was one of only two "Perfect 10's" to date in
endurance--10,000+ miles, 10+ consecutive years, 10 or more wins, and 10
or more BC's.

Heidi


============================================================
Locks do not prevent theft, they only deter those in doubt.
~ Robert Morris

ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/

============================================================