List a horse and you may receive comments. 
Excellent conformation photos required.
Excellent conformation photos required.
Horse conformation ratings
Horsegears
- Status
281 - 300 of 343 Posts
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
If most horses can do the lower level of most sports, then what us the purpose if the whole conformation part of this forum??
To say a horse is suitable for a discipline should mean that they are more apt to that sport than most other horses. If they are not, then calling them a pleasure horse is, in my opinion, the best way to describe their suitability. It doesn't mean that they can't do lower level Dressage or jumping, as at the lower levels of those sports it is for most people an endeavor of pleasure riding.
Posted via Mobile Device
To say a horse is suitable for a discipline should mean that they are more apt to that sport than most other horses. If they are not, then calling them a pleasure horse is, in my opinion, the best way to describe their suitability. It doesn't mean that they can't do lower level Dressage or jumping, as at the lower levels of those sports it is for most people an endeavor of pleasure riding.
Posted via Mobile Device
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
Because a QH that may be able to do low level dressage may also be suitable to run barrles. A WB that may be able to to low level dressage may not be able to run barrles- and confirmation wise, a big tall WB over say 16hh would not be suitable.
In my opinion, if you can jump, dressage, barrel race, rein or whatever you wish to do with your horse you don't have to be at the top, or have your name in lights to label that horse as a jumper, dressage, barrel racing, reining horse.
Some are more suited as 'pleasure' horses but there are plenty of 'pleasure' horses that could jump, dressage, barrel race or rein.
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
That is what I said in my post....
So if you're going to do a conformation rating tread and then call a horse a Dressage horse, it better be an uphill horse with a strong hindend capable of performing upper level movements, not a pleasure horse that might be able to do first or second level, because almost any horse can do that.....
Posted via Mobile Device
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
I understood it as 'if the horse isn't going to make it to higher level, it shouldn't be labelled A,B,C just a pleasure horse.'
Sorry, but I think that's wrong.. apologies if I didn't explain myself properly. The things you stated about confirmation is correct, yes, and does help for dressage, but just because we have an 'ideal' for the perfect confirmation (and lets face it, we all have things we'd like to tweak on our horse's if we really could) but that doesn't mean they have to reach a certain level before they can be classed as A, B or C. JMO, and you've obviously got where you have with success, but persons, like myself, who cannot afford horses that reach a certain medium, to higher level should not have to refrain from calling our horses A, B or C....
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
To quote Bubba.. not another slaughter thread :/
I joke, really I do... not so much beating a dead horse, but discussing what we believe 'labels' are, I suppose.. quite interesting to see people's points of view, and so long as it's polite, why not?
Joined
·
130 Posts
i agree, several horses (including mine :p) have been forgotten, and the point of this thread has kind of been defeated.
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
The OP has been banned so critique may be a while, I don't know if its temp or perm though...
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
I think again we are having a misunderstanding....
Your horse, to me looks like a Dressage horse conformationally. I'm not saying only expensive Warmbloods should be called Dressage horses, never said that. I have seen plenty of QHs, TBs, Arabs, etc.. who are well conformed for Dressage and are not expensive. My friend has a TB who does the PSG/I1 and has finished in the top half of large classes, the horse is however uphill, well balanced and has powerful haunches and very good legs. Looking at the horse he is well conformed for Dressage.
To say that some of the horses in this thread are Dressage horses to the calibre of performing short work, pirouettes, etc while staying sound is a stretch. To say then that they are able to do lower levels is a cop out as almost every horse in the world can do low level Dressage. So they are better off being called a pleasure horse because at the level they can do the sport and stay sound is basically a pleasure level... up to first or second level. To call a horse a Dressage horse, or say it is suitable for Dressage is saying that they are able to exceed the level of Dressage performance by most horses.. so are able to collect by their conformation...
Posted via Mobile Device
Joined
·
14,646 Posts
I agree. Posts that attempt to bicker for the fun of bickering will be removed without any explanation. Those discussing what makes a horse good for XYZ, or critiques - if and when the OP returns - are fine.
50 posts have been removed. Let's keep that number from growing.
Joined
·
14,646 Posts
Once again, if anyone has questions about moderating, please start a thread in the Talk To The Team forum:
http://www.horseforum.com/talk-team/
This will allow the moderating team to discuss any concerns you have in private with you.
http://www.horseforum.com/talk-team/
This will allow the moderating team to discuss any concerns you have in private with you.
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
Perhaps I do misunderstand, but then perhaps we have different views on what should be labelled a pleasure horse, or a A,B, C horse. A pleasure horse for me is someone who enjoys the trails, mooching about and hacking out.
We concentrate so much on the 'ideal' confirmation for what we need for out horses, but sometimes I don't believe it to be valid. Again, just my opinion.
So practically every horse in the world can do low level dressage, that isn't an issue, but I don't see why we should only label those who reach a certain level as A, B or C.
The other issue, as has been mentioned previously, is that one picture, and some are not of good quality, does not show you everything. You yourself know your horse better than one picture can tell an outsider, so if someone gets something wrong, I don't see a reason to jump on them rather than discuss it.
With correct training, and no health issues I've seen some pretty 'wonkey donkey's' do some higher dressage.
I just don't think that because a horse doesn't go past low levels you can't call it a dressage horse. It depends on circumstance- you are used to a much higher caliber of horse than I am, and I know a lot of back yard riders who hack, train, train on hacks and compete low levels with their jumpers, dressage and xcountry horses.
Joined
·
5,184 Posts
I feel that second level dressage is an extremely basic level of education for any horse or rider. I refuse to raise jumps over about 2'6 until I have the second level solid to the point of receiving high 60% at second level (which is possible with almost any horse). Most well educated western horses can also do the second level - light on the aids, light on the forehand, able to move the shoulder and haunch independently, transistion of walk-canter and trot-halt.
Second level is no large feat, even in the sense of "competition" as I have seen some very ungifted horses compete and win at second level.
Therefore it is considered by most that up to that level is in the "learning" or "pleasure" stage of the learning of both horse and rider. Regardless of your tack - these are basic things that the horse and rider should know. Therefore "pleasure", or "basic riding".. not really dressage.
To get a horse to the point where he can comfortably put together a third level test where extensions, flying changes (not lead swaps - proper changes), half pass and a high degree of collection requires ability from the horse. Something without the conformation for dressage wil have a very difficult time performing at this level, and higher. Not saying it's impossible, but I have never seen a "wonkey donkey" do well, or put together an easy to watch test at this level, even when they have excelled at second level.
So maybe the word pleasure is not entirely being used correctly by me (I think of a non-competetive trail horse as something that just bumbles around and a pleasure horse as something which is riden regularily and competed at low levels of many disciplines or at open shows - think english pleasure classes)... but basically what I mean is that any horse is capable of having a basic education. The fact that there are competitions in dressage in these levels does not make the horse able to do only these levels a dressage horse, it makes them a horse as anything can do second level that isn't horribly crippled.
The point of this thread is for the OP to be labeling the horses as A B or C. He labelled horses not suited to dressage (but suited to a basic education) as dressage horses, in my opinion, various times, so I felt the need to call him out after previous posts attempting discussion were blatantly ignored....
Second level is no large feat, even in the sense of "competition" as I have seen some very ungifted horses compete and win at second level.
Therefore it is considered by most that up to that level is in the "learning" or "pleasure" stage of the learning of both horse and rider. Regardless of your tack - these are basic things that the horse and rider should know. Therefore "pleasure", or "basic riding".. not really dressage.
To get a horse to the point where he can comfortably put together a third level test where extensions, flying changes (not lead swaps - proper changes), half pass and a high degree of collection requires ability from the horse. Something without the conformation for dressage wil have a very difficult time performing at this level, and higher. Not saying it's impossible, but I have never seen a "wonkey donkey" do well, or put together an easy to watch test at this level, even when they have excelled at second level.
So maybe the word pleasure is not entirely being used correctly by me (I think of a non-competetive trail horse as something that just bumbles around and a pleasure horse as something which is riden regularily and competed at low levels of many disciplines or at open shows - think english pleasure classes)... but basically what I mean is that any horse is capable of having a basic education. The fact that there are competitions in dressage in these levels does not make the horse able to do only these levels a dressage horse, it makes them a horse as anything can do second level that isn't horribly crippled.
The point of this thread is for the OP to be labeling the horses as A B or C. He labelled horses not suited to dressage (but suited to a basic education) as dressage horses, in my opinion, various times, so I felt the need to call him out after previous posts attempting discussion were blatantly ignored....
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
It's Christmas lol, I'm going to agree to disagree.. perhaps I don't have your view on it, but my view is anyone that wants to do it, regardless of how far they get or their horse's confirmation can have a 'dressage' horse.
There are too many ideals, preferences etc. and everyone's view is different.
I'm off this board for now.
Cheerio all =)
Joined
·
602 Posts
Then why shouldn't first or second level "dressage" be labeled as first/second level "pleasure riding" if only third level and up is considered the only "true dressage"?
And I mean this as purely an honest question, no offence intended.
Posted via Mobile Device
And I mean this as purely an honest question, no offence intended.
Posted via Mobile Device
Joined
·
1,446 Posts
I've been quietly lurking but while generally I agree with the point Duffy is making, I agree with Anabel in the context of *this* thread. It seemed to me that the OP was making claims as to what disciplines horses would be best suited for, and arguably using "dressage" to mean "well, you can ride it and it might not fall over." To me, that's a little bit problematic and certainly undermined the credibility of the OP in my view.
You can have the most posty-legged, downhill, choppy-gaited horse in the world and if you are happy to potter about at First Level and train your horse to do it to the best of its ability, I'm quite happy calling it a "dressage horse" if that is how the owner sees it. If you posted a picture of said horse and asked me to rate it as a dressage prospect, I'd probably tell you "No, to be honest." I feel there is a difference here. I hope I am explaining it clearly enough.
You can have the most posty-legged, downhill, choppy-gaited horse in the world and if you are happy to potter about at First Level and train your horse to do it to the best of its ability, I'm quite happy calling it a "dressage horse" if that is how the owner sees it. If you posted a picture of said horse and asked me to rate it as a dressage prospect, I'd probably tell you "No, to be honest." I feel there is a difference here. I hope I am explaining it clearly enough.
Joined
·
5,153 Posts
I've been quietly lurking but while generally I agree with the point Duffy is making, I agree with Anabel in the context of *this* thread. It seemed to me that the OP was making claims as to what disciplines horses would be best suited for, and arguably using "dressage" to mean "well, you can ride it and it might not fall over." To me, that's a little bit problematic and certainly undermined the credibility of the OP in my view.
You can have the most posty-legged, downhill, choppy-gaited horse in the world and if you are happy to potter about at First Level and train your horse to do it to the best of its ability, I'm quite happy calling it a "dressage horse" if that is how the owner sees it. If you posted a picture of said horse and asked me to rate it as a dressage prospect, I'd probably tell you "No, to be honest." I feel there is a difference here. I hope I am explaining it clearly enough.
Actually I think you've explained it pretty well...
except I am banning myself from any more lengthly answers... festive spirit.. and.. champagne :lol:
281 - 300 of 343 Posts
- Status
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
