Both horses are very much 'Foundationbred'. Their actual percentages depends on the registry used. All are different. You have to remember that none of the so-called foundation registries are actually 'registries'. They are all 'for profit' companies owned by someone. They have no actual boards of directors and only function to make one family or small group of company owners, money. They write and change the rules as they go. They offer little in return but a piece of paper.
Before I put very much stock in actually getting 'registration papers' from one of these registries, look around and see if they have shows in your area. In Oklahoma, the FQHR is huge. They have shows with 700 to 800 entries at each show; They have youth activities, year-end awards and many reasons to join and get your horse registered with them. NFQHA is big in other areas, but with no shows or activities around here, there is no reason to bother with giving them money for nothing but a piece of paper.
Since AQHA has added the 'ranch' division (done to counter the large number of people involved in the foundation movement), there is a lot more incentive to go to AQHA shows that offer these classes. Then, horses can actually earn AQHA points and actually have a 'real' record' to follow them. Members with an Amateur membership can earn a real AQHA show record as well.
To me, percentages mean nothing at all. I have found very few horses worth riding that have no Three Bars or other TB in them. After all, before 1940, horses could go back to remount stock (mostly TB), mustangs or draft stock. All of the stock that the King Ranch bought were TBs, but since they did not list them individually on early registration applications, they are not considered TBs by these so-called foundation registries. The name is a sham. If the 'Lazarus mares' and Peter McCue were listed as the TBs they actually were, the only 'foundation horses' would be mustangs and draft stock. Even Joe Hancock and Old Sorrel were grandsons of Peter McCue.
Good horses are good horses. 'Old' TBs were the best saddle horses out there at that time. The cavalry figured out what breeding and 'type' worked under saddle and that was what they used. They were not the bird-legged fragile TBs of today bred for only speed. You have to remember that races 100+ years ago were miles long and the horse had to be ridden to them. Today's TBs would not cut it and would not even resemble the old ones.
The two horses listed are really nicely bred foundation horses. They are both a combination of cutting and reining breeding. These are all lines of foundation-bred horses that have been selectively bred for extreme athletic ability and good minds that take a lot of high-pressure training.
It is this ability to take stay sane and keep on trying under high pressure training that knocks the Wiescamp and halter-bred horses out of the game. The Two Eyed Jacks made good roping horses and can take the pressure, but they are thick-skinned and not very athletic. The cutting and reining-bred horses are thin skinned and 'feely but crude training methods do not work very well for them. 'Rough' handed and crude riders get along better with the thick-skinned and more dense ones.
Probably the biggest thing you have to watch for in the cutting and reining-bred horses is size and bone (along with soundness) Some are too refined and too light-boned to hold up to hard work.
We have raised them for years and love them. BUT, we have selectively looked for breeding stock that is a little bigger and heavier made than most. They will probably not ever make World Champion cutting or reining horses, but will sure cut a cow, have athletic ability and will stay sound and carry a big rider.