Most of them have very easy names to pronounce. And those who have names that are a bit harder are the prettier and nicer ones (better, in my opinion, to Clydes, Shires, Vanners, and Percherons).
I like many of the heavy breeds, but what in your opinion, makes them "better" than Clydes, Shires and Percherons. (There isn't a breed called Vanners - it's the name of a registry and only horses registered within that registry, can be called "Vanners". The breed is known as Gypsy Horses or Gypsy Cobs.)
Better in conformation, colour, work ethic or ??
While some heavy breeds are interesting and well known in their own countries, many have not reached America yet and conformation is absolutely ghastly in many cases. Many sadly are still purely bred for meat.
Noriker - it's the solid colored Gypsy Vanner... but prettier! Surprised not too many people know about them
Huh? Not even close to a Gypsy Horse and hopefully nobody in the breed would want a sickle-hocked rear like that. I was reading about Norikers on another forum recently and many were even worse in conformation, than the one you showed here. Certainly not a solid colour Gypsy Horse.
I do like the Suffolks and there is a huge push in the UK to preserve the breed, which has for a long time now, been critical.
We must also remember, that when a new breed arrives in the US, the Americans tend to want to immediately change it. Very few Shires today, bear any resemblance to the horses of 60-100 years ago unfortunately. And of course a while back, Shires and Clydesdales were one and the same breed. Today, they are much more leggy and refined. Brabants and Belgians have also now taken different courses in different countries, but were quite recently all one breed.
Australia has a Draft horse of it's own. Just haven't any pics right now.