11-26-2010, 12:32 PM
| || |
Maura - actually, I don't think it's cheating... I consider it "proof" that the science works. I find a lot of people approach conformation from a subjective standpoint, and it's not a subjective thing. Good conformation will stand the test of time, and my opinion of Nelson wouldn't change if I didn't know how old he was or what he does, because the numbers wouldn't change if he were a trail horse. You'll note that while I do sometimes mention musclature, it's not actually a part of whether a horse is "ideal" or not... that's because conformation actually has little to do with musclature (yes, some conformational weaknesses will show themselves as musclature issues, and likewise the strengths will show as strengths too) it's actually about the bone structure of the horse.
The horse is a sum of all parts - so it does little good to just pick on a few points... or focus only on the weaknesses. There is no such thing as the "perfect" horse (or if there is, I haven't seen it) there's always SOME flaw you can find, if you go in depth enough. What I'm doing here is actually VERY basic... on purpose... I like to do it the way I do as a learning tool, the points I'm talking about are the basic points for someone to go out and take a look at a horse and decide "is this horse capable of what I want to do?".
Paint isn't ideal for doing the lines... I downloaded a free paint program called Paint.Net... it's not the best I've worked with, but it doesn't do too bad (I used to use Macromedia Fireworks - AWESOME program, but expensive... when I got my new computer I never loaded it, but I should)
MIE - has it been that long? Huh... time flies when you're having fun!