Exception to the rule or best to best will most often produce the best?

I read this on another forum and though I would throw it up for discussion.

I agree and disagree with that quote. I agree for the fact that you could get a "non-purpose" bred horse with no known lines and it could grow up to be something amazing. But I have to disagree with the 90% of the population is no different in ability. Sadly, most of the horse population is over filled by people who don't know what they're doing and are breeding because they think the horse is "cute" with every intention of selling it for a few grand.. when in reality that won't happen because the "cute horse" has horrible lines with horrible conformation.

I disagree. Build doesn't factor in heart and mind. Just because a horse has legs for days, doesn't mean it can or will want to jump.

Bloodlines that are specific to disciplines aid in the want or even need for the horse to do something.

My opinion of course.

I agree with Equestriun.

>>> The average purpose bred horse (about 90% of the total population) is no different in ability from the average non-purpose bred horse of similar build.

Well right there I see two important stipulations-- "average", and "of similar build". If you breed with a purpose--

Lets say you breed for hunters-- and you get an average set and shaped neck, average legs, average size, average shoulder and hip angles-- put all that together, and then you get an average "build". Not the best, not the worst-- proabably functional for your purpose but not the biggest star.

If a "non-purpose" bred horse happens to be born with a similarly average "build", why yes, that horse should have the potential to have similar athleticism and movement....

But to me the caveat is that many breeders who are "purpose breeding" are usually breeding for ABOVE average horses... and most breeders NOT breeding with a purpose are NOT, they might get lucky, but the consistency will not be there. IMO those breeding with a purpose have more of a chance of producing a few average horses, more above-average horses, a very occasional flop, and an occasional star. Those NOT breeding with a purpose will have a greater potential of producing many average horses, a few flops, very few above average, and hardly ever a star. IMO.

Quote, "And 90 % of all horses are average and below average, with the best laid plans of breeding programs."

How is this mathematically possible?

Now I have no actual statistics to back this up other than what I have seen but my best guess is that when a responsible breeder breeds for a purpose that results usually come out somewhat like this.

10% are very much above average bordering on elite and will command the highest prices.
30% will be above average commanding good money
50% will be average to slightly above average that the majority can afford
10% will be disappointments and in certain countries will end up in a dog can or a French plate.

We must also take into account that each persons idea of average will differ.

There are a lot of well bred horses out there that don't amount to much. And there are some mutt horses out there that shine above the purebreds.

Purpose-bred does not necessarily = purebed

Same point though. Purebred or purpose bred - some are not such a big deal and some of the non purpose bred- mutt's whatever - can be spectacular.