Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> This debate has been going on a LONG time on ridecamp and what you are
> saying about personal preference is what many of us have already said.
> The funny thing is.... the ones that I've experienced to be the meanest
> and loudest in their protests about tall horses, saying they have a lack
>  of substance... lack of stamina... lack of oxygen from their heads
> being  too high in the clouds??!!?! are a handful of CMK breeders (not
> referring to the majority of CMK breeders) who produce solely smaller
> horses. Coincidence?
Gee, Bette, you apparently have been pretty choosey about which ridecamp
posts you read.  And it's too bad that you can't add some constructive
dialog to support your viewpoint instead of simply slamming other folks. 
As Lynne Glazer said, this had been a pretty interesting and informative
dialog.  This discussion isn't about CMK horses--but you choose to slam a
very successful segment of the breed just because it makes you mad to read
posts about balance and athleticism as opposed to height.  Others who
simply prefer to ride taller horses have said so without impugning anyone
else.  And those who have quoted stats or simply stated preference
regarding average-sized horses have done so without rancor or slams.  You
are the first person in this thread to interject any sort of meanness,
pettiness, or anger.

Many of the people who have advocated horses of heights average for the
breed in this thread are those who have been in the sport for years and
years and who have seen and have had hands on endurance horses of all
shapes and sizes, of all makes and models, and who have the experience to
see what is consistent and what isn't.  Most of them are riders, not
breeders.  Those few of us who ARE breeders started out as endurance
riders, for the most part.  But we breeders are only a very few of those
advocating horses of average size, and those of us who do so are first and
foremost riders.  Furthermore, we advocate what we do because as vets and
riders, that is what we SEE succeeding out there.  Perhaps it is difficult
for those who don't ride to fathom, but there ARE reasons to contribute to
Ridecamp other than to try to create a market niche for one's horses! 
Some of us are here first and foremost because we love the sport and we
RIDE.  (FWIW, Arabs that stand 14.2 are not "small" with respect to the
breed at large.)

Additionally, I have not read one single post from ANYBODY that suggests
that taller horses lack stamina.  What too many (not all!) of them lack is
biomechanical balance, and that leads to soundness issues.  This ties in
to studies such as those by Susan G at Tevis that equated overall horse
and rider weight in excess of 1200 lbs to an increase in lameness pulls. 
As horses get taller, in order to have ANY semblence of balance, they also
get heavier.  The bigger the package, past a certain point, the more apt
it is to go lame due to its own concussion, and hence the less it can
carry.  You can believe the reality in front of you, or not.  Susan's
studies go hand in hand with what many of us vetting rides have observed
for years--but she actually put some numbers to it.  And it only takes a
look-up at the AERC records of several (again, not all) of the touted
"tall" horses to see what their pull rates are.  This is about numbers and
science--not about preference, meanness, or personalities.

There are those breeders who breed tall horses just because they want tall
horses.  Then there are those breeders who go out and see what works and
who choose their breeding stock accordingly.  (And not all of those are
CMK breeders, either.)

Additionally, as this thread so pointedly brought out of the woodwork--a
great many riders (many with considerable experience!) have likewise
observed the tendency toward superiority of horses that do not tend to ANY
extreme, but instead typify the athleticism for which the breed is noted.

It is not difficult at all to see that there is much higher percentage of
properly proportioned horses among the mid-range for the size of the breed
than there is at the extremes.  The old-timers knew this hands down--one
of the standard sayings among the early breeders is that given Arabs under
15 hands, you will find four in ten of exceptional quality, but given
Arabs over 15 hands, you will find only one in ten of exceptional quality.
They knew their stuff, and they would still be right today.

No one has stated here that there are no good tall Arabs.  You read that
prejudice in all by yourself.  What a great many here have stated is the
simple truth--that when you exaggerate one aspect, the whole horse is more
apt to be out of proportion.

One of the greats of our breed was Bezatal--he was an honest 16 hands.  Is
that what made him great?  No.  What made him great was his proportion and
balance.  But too many people credited his success to his size--and were
sorely disappointed when they subsequently tried to make it on height
alone.  And most his successful offspring are not as tall as he was--many
are considerably shorter.  They got the important part--the balance and
the athleticism.

Given the modern craze for tall horses, there are a lot more tall Arabians
available than there used to be.  But in what I see at rides, I don't see
any more tall ones excelling than in earlier days--it is still the
mid-range WELL BUILT horse that is most often the successful contender.  
The majority of the taller horses still go by the wayside--because they
still lack the balance of their more moderate herdmates.  The successes
are the exceptions--not the rule.

You can bash the CMK horses all you want, Bette--but the records don't
lie.  The CMK and the other preservation groups are still WAAAY
"over-represented" when the awards are handed out in endurance and when
consistency is recorded as compared to their occurrence in the general
gene pool.  And you have it backwards--folks usually choose to breed CMK
or other old-line horses BECAUSE they excel--they aren't breeding them
just because that's what they have, and then trying to create a "market
niche" for them.  Ask breeders like Edie Booth, with her Sa'ud horses, or
the *Witez II preservation breeders.  Like CMK, those are groups that are
likewise "over-represented" in the success column--not because of any
marketing ploy, but because they just keep doing well and turning up
there.  And they turn up there because they are quality horses and are not
exaggerated or extreme.  They tend to be balanced and athletic.  And they
have remained so because breeders have not tried to alter them from the
type of horse that they were--they have simply tried to breed better ones.

Again, NO ONE has suggested in this thread that there are no good tall
horses.  Just that they are much more rare than good horses of moderate
size.  You will hunt a lot longer and look at a lot more horses before you
find a decent Arab over 16 hands than if you look among those that are
14-2 to 15-1 or so.

No one is suggesting throwing a GOOD horse out of the gene pool, no matter
HOW tall he is.  But height is not the starting point--balance,
athleticism and QUALITY are what it is all about.  If one concentrates on
those, and tall "happens" then so be it.  That was the case with Bezatal,
and that has been the case with every really athletic tall Arab I've ever
seen.  When one intentionally sets out to use height as a selection
criterion, one generally ends up with long cannons, long pasterns, and
upright shoulders.  When one exaggerates any one trait, other traits are
affected.  A simple perusal of Scottsdale or Nationals pictures will
underscore this, as will a trip through any of the Arabian "glossies."  It
doesn't take a rocket scientist to see it--anyone with a basic
understanding of equine biomechanics can figure it out.

There were tall horses at Crabbet behind the CMK horses.  An occasional
one sticked as tall as 15.3.  But they were not the norm, and they were
not "selected out" to try to exaggerate the trait.  (And they REALLY
sticked that, because in that era, people actually USED sticks and levels,
instead of the "pie-in-the-sky" heights one sees today.)  Instead, they
were bred back toward the norm, and bred in an effort to increase quality
rather than height.  Because of that, they DID tend to retain their using
qualities, and occasionally one still gets a balanced throwback to those
horses, just as one occasionally gets a throwback to the 13.1 ones.  But
breeders like Lady Wentworth didn't get carried away with breeding taller
and taller--they RODE their horses, and likewise realized that they had to
retain the riding qualities, and breed back toward the middle to do so. 
They realized that they could much more consistently retain the qualities
of the breed by keeping it within its normal range--of about 14.1 to 15.1
or so.

Imagine, if you will, that breeders had selected for Arabs that were 13.3
and under, and particularly cherished horses that were 13 hands.  You
would see a whole bunch of cute little out-of-proportion horses.  Exactly
the same thing happens when the selection process aims for horses that are
over the norm--only different traits are exaggerated.  One can certainly
utilize horses on either side of the norm (look at the contributions to
the breed made by *Raffles!) but if one tries to make the breed look like
them, the breed suffers.  The best descendants of those individuals who
were outside the norm are those that resulted from breeding back toward
the norm.

Don't take my word for it--ask any qualified geneticist who knows anything
about horses, or any other species, for that matter...

Heidi

PS:  Sorry, can't help it if it is construed as "mean" to share facts,
figures, and observances.  I know Bette's post is meant as a personal
harpoon toward me and perhaps toward Maria (who is the only other CMK
breeder who has responded to this thread)--but I consider us to be in good
company among Joe Long, Lynne Glazer, and the several other regular
contributors (who also happen to RIDE!) who have likewise stated their
observations about balanced, middle-of-the-road horses.  It is sad indeed
when frankness and openness about a subject are attacked as "meanness" by
a few who can't come up with anything better than personal slams.



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=