Classic AND correct!

[ASBJumper]

This is an OUTSTANDING example of a Saddlebred colt who displays all the CLASSIC characteristics of a Saddlebred, as set out in the conformation standards of the ASHA, while also being built correctly for ANY type of work.
http://www.horsetopia.com/for-sale/classifieds/ad477673

As a sporthorse breeder, i *love* this colt. He looks like a Saddlebred, make no mistake - but he shows the sloped shoulder and short strong back that are so often lacking in today's Saddlebreds. His croup is level, like the standards call for, but his croup is long and he has a deep, strong hip. Good articulation in the joints without being crazy snappy and sewing-machine like.. good drive from behind. Lovely neck and head. Good substance and bone, and looks spirited and flashy without looking like a scrawny, hyped-up wiener dog on speed.

Like i've said before - nowhere does it state that Saddlebreds should have long, weak backs and upright shoulders, which have both become the norm in Saddlebreds nowadays.

Love his breeding too... if he was a filly i'd have ants in my pants.. lol

[cblue08]

I saw that ad too and thought the EXACT same thing! Lovely example of a young saddlebred colt.

btw ASB, I love those 'before and after' photos of your mare, really shows how working a horse over their back can improve and strengthen a horses topline. She looks great and can't wait to see the baby!

[walkinghorseowner]

I too noticed the back on the asb has gotten a whole lot longer than when I owned mine (1971). Where did that come from, was it bred in on purpose, or one of those "accidents" acquired when breeding for another trait.
I personally prefer a short backed horse that can easily get up under himself.

[silvia]

I believe the long back tends to come part and parcel with the long neck. Breed for one, get the other.

[walkinghorseowner]

Yeah... sometimes you can't separate the desireable from the undesireable. In TWH we have a stud that throws walkin machines, but he has a short neck and short legs.(and throws them)... sometimes you just can't win

[SmartAlex]

Ahhh... but you can win! That long back on the Saddlebred makes it so much easier to fit them with a side saddle! See, look on the bright side. :)

[Fairfax]

The longer back is functional and for a sport horse allows it to bend over jumps.

Here is part of an interesting article.

FUNCTIONAL ANATOMY OF THE HORSE – The Back
A top German veterinarian discusses why the horse must be
stretched forward and down to be able to raise his back.
By Dr. Gerd Heuschmann, DVM
Translated by Reina Abelshauser


Back Problems: Homemade or Bad Conformation?
Many back problems are homemade, which means they are the result of incorrect
riding and gymnasticizing. When the horse has a back that is constantly tense, the
back muscles will degrade and become flat – a result of lacking blood circulation. A
permanent dropping of the back can lead to numerous spinal injuries because, as we
have seen, when a horse drops his back, it’s mostly his skeleton that carries the
burden on his back. There also are horses that have problematic conformation, which
make back problems more likely. A faulty conformation of the head-neck part
(horses that are thick at the throat or horses that have a swan neck) as well as short
back (square horse) can lead to back problems in the long run. A short and strongly
muscled back naturally has a lot of carrying power, which might lead you to the
assumption that a rather short, compact horse is more suitable to carry a rider than
a horse with a longer, “softer” back. However, this is a wrong conclusion. Horses
with short backs are especially the ones who tend to be tense and more difficult to
loosen up. There are two reasons why this happens: First of all, on a short, lesselastic
back, the stress is less distributed than on a long one. And second, what
makes it even more difficult, is that on a short-backed horse, the saddle often lies on
the broad, lateral extensions of the lumbar vertebrae are rigid. This inevitably leads
to tension as the horse will try to avert stress in this weak area. Therefore, horses
with very short backs are much more likely to be tense in their backs than horses
with longer backs, and for the rider of a short-backed horse, it will be more difficult
to eliminate that tension. Following this logic, a rider can also be too big for a horse.

[D_BaldStockings]

The longer back is functional and for a sport horse allows it to bend over jumps.

Here is part of an interesting article.

FUNCTIONAL ANATOMY OF THE HORSE – The Back
A top German veterinarian discusses why the horse must be
stretched forward and down to be able to raise his back.
By Dr. Gerd Heuschmann, DVM
Translated by Reina Abelshauser


Back Problems: Homemade or Bad Conformation?
Many back problems are homemade, which means they are the result of incorrect
riding and gymnasticizing. When the horse has a back that is constantly tense, the
back muscles will degrade and become flat – a result of lacking blood circulation. A
permanent dropping of the back can lead to numerous spinal injuries because, as we
have seen, when a horse drops his back, it’s mostly his skeleton that carries the
burden on his back. There also are horses that have problematic conformation, which
make back problems more likely. A faulty conformation of the head-neck part
(horses that are thick at the throat or horses that have a swan neck) as well as short
back (square horse) can lead to back problems in the long run. A short and strongly
muscled back naturally has a lot of carrying power, which might lead you to the
assumption that a rather short, compact horse is more suitable to carry a rider than
a horse with a longer, “softer” back. However, this is a wrong conclusion. Horses
with short backs are especially the ones who tend to be tense and more difficult to
loosen up. There are two reasons why this happens: First of all, on a short, lesselastic
back, the stress is less distributed than on a long one. And second, what
makes it even more difficult, is that on a short-backed horse, the saddle often lies on
the broad, lateral extensions of the lumbar vertebrae are rigid. This inevitably leads
to tension as the horse will try to avert stress in this weak area. Therefore, horses
with very short backs are much more likely to be tense in their backs than horses
with longer backs, and for the rider of a short-backed horse, it will be more difficult
to eliminate that tension. Following this logic, a rider can also be too big for a horse.


I'm in partial agreement with the unctionality of a longer back vs. a too short back, and also wish to note exceptions I personally experienced: that a very short backed Arab mare that was incredibly flexible and long-striding that threw this conformation had some of the most athletic and elastic horses on our place -Talking reining movements, mid-air direction changes over jumps, longitudinal flexibility and extension of limbs and then movement sideways, etc. Frankly put the SB to shame much of the time. Not that it was easy to ride such a horse!

While long backs -if flexible- are an advantage in jumping; they are considered a detriment in collected dressage work -and as Saddlebreds are supposed to work collected, I can understand there are limitations to proportional back length. Ending up with the HQ disconnected or in the next county isn't useful either.

I blued and bolded another very important point as to stress on the loin and tenseness. since Saddlebreds in Saddle Seat are habitually ridden on the loin area and with their back-loin-neck deliberately flexed concave (or dorso-flex if you like) are we adding or diminishing the stress by using a long, possibly less able to carry back configuration?

(Note: the standard says NOTHING about back length, merely mentioning 'strong and level with well sprung ribs' and faults include 'sway-back, roached back').

I've always been rather accepting of a horse's body conformation so long as the movement is stellar and the legs are corrrectly made: I've had only a few with really exceptionally good legs and sometimes that doesn't equate to great movement.

Oh, and great in my eyes won't match yours, most likely!

[ASBJumper]

*sigh* It annoys me when people twist arguments.

Fairfax - nowhere did I, or ANYone else, say that a "very" short back is desirable or ideal. Nowhere. It's patently obvious that ANY extreme in conformation is not desirable. Breeding for extremes is what causes things like lordosis, or the myriad of problems cropping up in dogs from trying to breed for extreme body types - yuck.

However, if you want to quote horse publications re: conformation, here's one for you:

"A short back is one that measures less than 1/3 of the total body length. Bending and flexing through the barrel is more difficult for a short-backed horse. This lack of flexibility also contributes to a choppy stride and limits the horse's foreleg scope. A horse with a short back is also prone to interfering. However, a short back is generally not considered as serious a fault as a long back, and in fact can enable the horse to change direction with speed and agility." - Horse Conformation: Structure, Soundness, and Performance By Equine Research, Juliet Hedge, Don M. Wagoner

It is EXTREMELY difficult to breed horses with a looOOooOOnng schoolbus back and yet maintain a good, strong loin coupling. My emphasis was on the WEAK part, not the length. Naturally, Saddlebreds are not overly compact - that's fine. But there's a big difference between a nice, medium-length strong back + good, solid LS placement, and a loooong, weak back with a crappy loin + short, weak croup.. blech.. which describes about 80% of the flashy show ASBs i see advertised on the 'net these days.. :(

And as D'Bald mentioned, the very fact that ASBs tend to carry their riders further back should make it DOUBLY important not to lose that strength in the lower back/sacrum area. No wonder so many have sway-backs in their teens!!

[Fairfax]

Like i've said before - nowhere does it state that Saddlebreds should have long, weak backs and upright shoulders, which have both become the norm in Saddlebreds nowadays.



"Shakes his head..arches an eye brow and wonders why this poor woman was reduced to a sigh"

You commented at to the wonderful (I think he is really neat looking) colt and what a great SPORT HORSE propsect he would be

I am sure Ventures would have a slightly different take his destination.

THEN..you posted the above..long,weak backs and upright shoulders et al.

I didn't twist anything. I did take an article by a German Vet who is involved in dressage and jumpers and his take and explaination.

There are others, I am sure, who would disagree with him.

Then. yet another tirade about the S.S. type American Saddlebred. Your quote

" It is EXTREMELY difficult to breed horses with a looOOooOOnng schoolbus back and yet maintain a good, strong loin coupling. My emphasis was on the WEAK part, not the length. Naturally, Saddlebreds are not overly compact - that's fine. But there's a big difference between a nice, medium-length strong back + good, solid LS placement, and a loooong, weak back with a crappy loin + short, weak croup.. blech.. which describes about 80% of the flashy show ASBs i see advertised on the 'net these day"

Interesting...none of us are to take offence at your statements, but me just printing an article elicits a hand wringing dramatic response.

Marys response was rational. It leaves one open to debate rather than just shutting everything down..

Sigh away...

[ASBJumper]

Mary's post was not the one you were twisting into something it was not - that was mine. So yeah, i am annoyed - and she's not.

Again - you are twisting my words and ASSuming what I meant in my original post. I purposely used the title "classic AND correct" to indicate that this SADDLESEAT prospect is correctly built and therefore could do just about *anything*.
I never said he was a sporthorse prospect - YOU said that. *I*said that i, (from the point of view of) a sporthorse breeder, love him.

I have seen champion Saddleseat horses that I *loved* the look of doing the thing they were bred to do - but they were mostly horses from decades long past. I don't see their type much anymore. The types that have shortER, stronger backs with big cabooses and widER chests and powerful, solid legs and big feet. They all looked like Saddlebreds - but not like misshapen freaks of nature. Heck my first "exposure" to the Saddlebred was my "Kentucky Saddler" Breyer model horse - and he was built like a tank!

I am not anti-SS horse, no matter how much you might love to paint me as such. I am anti-crappy conformation. I despise the ideolody of breeding for "pretty" over "functionality". Period. That applies to any breed of horse, and any species of animal for that matter.

[ASBJumper]

And just for fun, here's an excerpt from the University of Kentucky's horse judging manual:

American Saddlebred
"The head of a Saddlebred may be longer than that of
many breeds but should exhibit refinement and sharpness
of features. The well-shaped head is carried relatively high,
with small, alert, pointed ears set close, large eyes set well
apart, a fine muzzle with large nostrils, and a straight face
line. The neck should be long and well-arched, with a clean
throatlatch, and it may tie low into the chest with a more
vertical appearance. The Saddlebred has high withers, with
a long, sloping shoulder and a short, level back. The ribs are
well-sprung, allowing for maximum function. The croup
is level with a well-carried tail coming out high. Legs are
straight, with broad, flat bones, sharply defined tendons,
sloping pasterns, and good, sound hooves."
http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/asc/asc118/asc118.pdf

Seems the Australian Saddlebred registry also specifies that the back should be short and strong:
http://www.saddlebredaustralia.org.au/typeconformation.cfm
Back: short, level, strong, broad

So, why exactly does the ASHA not seem to have the word "short" in their description?

[D_BaldStockings]

And just for fun, here's an excerpt from the University of Kentucky's horse judging manual:

American Saddlebred
"The head of a Saddlebred may be longer than that of
many breeds but should exhibit refinement and sharpness
of features. The well-shaped head is carried relatively high,
with small, alert, pointed ears set close, large eyes set well
apart, a fine muzzle with large nostrils, and a straight face
line. The neck should be long and well-arched, with a clean
throatlatch, and it may tie low into the chest with a more
vertical appearance. The Saddlebred has high withers, with
a long, sloping shoulder and a short, level back. The ribs are
well-sprung, allowing for maximum function. The croup
is level with a well-carried tail coming out high. Legs are
straight, with broad, flat bones, sharply defined tendons,
sloping pasterns, and good, sound hooves."
http://www.ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/asc/asc118/asc118.pdf

Seems the Australian Saddlebred registry also specifies that the back should be short and strong:
http://www.saddlebredaustralia.org.au/typeconformation.cfm
Back: short, level, strong, broad

So, why exactly does the ASHA not seem to have the word "short" in their description?

maybe because as the parent association they feel it isn't necessary?

And I certainly disagree with the other I bolded regarding the neck set in low on the chest -ugh! (and not in the ASHA description)

Level croups, which I like, have been thought NOT good in many Sport horse circles I have found. Of course, finding a 5-g Saddlebred with a level croup is rather unlikely, though a high carried tail (natural) is possible.

Beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder...we are all a bit prejudiced.

[kirribee]

The description that we have on our website (saddlebreds Australia) is a brochure taken off of ASHA website on conformation a couple of years ago.

The brochure can be found here :https://www.asha.net/promotional-downloads

[D_BaldStockings]

Thanks for posting the brochure.

Interesting how the wording changed from page 1 to page 2...

And not meaning to insult the artist, yet the head appears atypical, the croup short and the pasterns upright on the drawn image. Appears to have been taken from a not-quite-side-view photograph which resulted in some foreshortening that was not apparent to the artist the entire forehand appears appears out of scale compared to the hind.

Don't mind me, I was 'raised' on images of TB's, Morgans, and Arabs so my rulers don't match others' at times.

Short-coupled is never mentioned anymore and I was always taught that was a mark of strength whether the back in front of the loin was short or longer.
I am so antiquated -or is that ossified?

Page one is the standard as it appears in USEF and on the ASHA site.

[D_BaldStockings]

links to some very useful anatomical drawings
The horse skeleton from above
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-37208-1901891683:recno=13:resultset=2:format=F:next=html/nffull.html:bad=error/badfetch.html&entityimageSize=l

from the side
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-37208-137526113:recno=18:resultset=2:format=F:next=html/nffull.html:bad=error/badfetch.html&entityimageSize=l

note especially where the wither ends in the back, where the lumbar (loin) vertebrae begin(no ribs attached) and where the pelvis joins the spine (l-s joint).

There is no flexibility in the thoracic spine (ribs prevent this), the functional flexibility in the back of the horse is all at the lumbar vertebrae. The pelvis itself does a tremendous amount of tilting in addition.

Note also that the shoulders are without 'collarbones' and the rib cage has some abiliy to be raised /lowered/ twisted between the shoulder blades -though the thoracic spine remains inflexible.

The entire horse collection of plates -there are pages and pages in this book, and other animals to compare to the horse.
http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/WebZ/FETCH?sessionid=01-37208-137526113:recno=18:resultset=2:format=F:next=html/nffull.html:bad=error/badfetch.html&entityimageSize=l

[SmartAlex]

And not meaning to insult the artist, yet the head appears atypical, the croup short and the pasterns upright on the drawn image. Appears to have been taken from a not-quite-side-view photograph which resulted in some foreshortening that was not apparent to the artist the entire forehand appears appears out of scale compared to the hind.

I would bet that the artist simply took one of Shirley's retouched photos (such as the Status Symbol portrait below) and traced it. Let's just say that Shirley took some liberties, and made every popular stallion in the late 60s/ early 70s look as though they were cut from the same cookie cutter.

[Tazsprout]

I really, really like the fact that we have this site to discuss conformation (as some of you know, an interest of mine), so please, let's play nice. I don't know what it is about conformation that turns people so... um.. edgy. We all have different ideas about what is "desirable" and for that matter, how a long back is defined.

When ever I see that "back should be 1/3" statement (and you see it EVERYWHERE), the immediate question I have is "what are you MEASURING?" For some its peak of withers to LS joint, others do back of withers to LS joint. Currently there is a column in Practical Horseman (which I enjoy), but as far as I can see, that first line dividing the horse in to the first third is placed at random.

The second question should always be "desirable FOR WHAT?" Dr. Bennett said this first, I am just stealing it from her. There are situations in which "short and strong (and not very flexible) is the way to go (sprint horses) and when "longer and more flexible (but less strong) is better for your needs (distance horses, open jumpers, comfy riding horses, some gaited horses).

I think the other thing that made those backs get long is the desire for gait AND speed, which, I think, works better with a flexible (and therefore longer) spine.

[D_BaldStockings]

I really, really like the fact that we have this site to discuss conformation (as some of you know, an interest of mine), so please, let's play nice. I don't know what it is about conformation that turns people so... um.. edgy. We all have different ideas about what is "desirable" and for that matter, how a long back is defined.

When ever I see that "back should be 1/3" statement (and you see it EVERYWHERE), the immediate question I have is "what are you MEASURING?" For some its peak of withers to LS joint, others do back of withers to LS joint. Currently there is a column in Practical Horseman (which I enjoy), but as far as I can see, that first line dividing the horse in to the first third is placed at random.

The second question should always be "desirable FOR WHAT?" Dr. Bennett said this first, I am just stealing it from her. There are situations in which "short and strong (and not very flexible) is the way to go (sprint horses) and when "longer and more flexible (but less strong) is better for your needs (distance horses, open jumpers, comfy riding horses, some gaited horses).

I think the other thing that made those backs get long is the desire for gait AND speed, which, I think, works better with a flexible (and therefore longer) spine.


Thousands of years before today, horses were selected based on durability over a lifetime of use. People tried to distill their observations into predictions of what would be the best conformation for uses of each period.

Meanwhile, horses had to live within the constrints of mankind; if you want to see 'good' leg conformation, see photos of horses that live in large semi-feral herds that range over territory, since only the reasonably conformed make it to maturity under terrain challenges: for instance horses of the Asian Steppe, South American Pampas and North African dryland regions.

In more primitive horse cultures mares breed annually and many work part of the year. Fending for themselves is not optional. It is a bit heartless, but the foolish, the weak, the infertile, the ornery, simply do not survive to reproduce.

As we moved to modern times where horses are expected to perform for 2-20 minutes in horse shows or on race tracks, with ideal feeding and care, and artificial assistance to crooked legs, bad constitutions, poor temperament, infertility, no mothering instinct, etc. conformation became more open to discussion and more variants became acceptable.

There is a huge difference between acceptable and desirable.
Flawed horses can be successful performers. But to the extent those flaws are limiting, they should be bred to horses with excellence in their flawed areas.

Then, of course there is beauty, or type. Most type differences are advantageous to the horse in his use by mankind -higher withers, stronger backs, higher set and longer necks, more powerful hindquarters to balance the extra load, metabolic changes for increased speed and size, amenable temperament, 'prettiness'.

Yet type appearing without 'good functional conformation' is a long term detriment to the species, let alone the breed: horses that are successful as young horses but by age 7 and up are used up, washed out, lame, sore, etc.
Or riding horses that pound their riders uncomfortably in the saddle but look spectacular to a judge on the ground.

Thirds:
1. measure from a vertical line going through the highest point of the withers to the front to a vertical line going through the point of the horse's shoulder (proves a long and sloping shoulder with mechanical advantage of the longer lever greater muscle attachment surface and extension/contraction).
2. measure from highest-point-of-wither vertical line to a vertical line drawn through the point of hip (defines the area to look to for heart girth depth measurement, amount the withers extend back into the back (mechanically a good thing), rib spring and extension of ribs to the rear (important for room for internal organs and lung capacity).
3. measure from point of hip vertical to a vertical through the point of buttock giving you the available motor for the horse based on pelvic length.

The point of the thirds is to have balanced proportions in the horse, not to slavishly measure to the micron. In general, better bred horses approach the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 measure, while wild stock has more in the middle and far less on the ends: the functionality of the horse to digest and reproduce in the wild are superceded by tthe desired locomotor work function of the horse for mankind .


If you stare at enough well-conformed horses your eye becomes trained and seeing good conformation brings pleasure while bad becomes ugly. -has nothing to do with whether you love the critter with the offset knees, sickle hocks, upright pasterns, no chest to speak of, etc.

[D_BaldStockings]

The l/s joint allows you to measure the length of loin, which is longer than most people think, since this flexible part of the back begins at the first vertebrae without ribs attached (the t/l joint) and is located about where the lowest part of the back, slightly behind the withers is. The ribs arch outward and rearward, making most believe it is further back.

Note to all: the L/S joint is also where the pelvis attaches to the spine, regardless of how far the point of hip is in front of actual link up or how far the head/top of croup (visual location of vertical extension of the pelvis above the spine) is above the spine. I hear a lot nowadays about L/S placement but find that most people are judging external markers that are a bit inaccurate, especially muscular development and saying the L/S has different placement than it does on x-ray. The prominent muscling on a trained jumper's croup and gaskins make a very different outline than the well-developed loin and stifle/flank of a dressage trained horse. The L/S joint hasn't moved, but the muscles are different.

This is one reason old time breeders and trainer said "tops may come, but bottom's never" meaning that training can develop the muscling desired, but the lower legs that the horse has now are not going to improve.

As you say, it is only my opinion :)

[Tazsprout]

We'll have to have a measuring party. The only horses I see who are divided in thirds when you drop a line from the peak of the withers are those with withers that extend a pretty long way into the back.

Now I am being the contrarian! I've worked with a LOT Of feral horses on the east coast (those island herds) and also from out in Nevada, and lots of them are 1) ugly and 2) badly conformed. And contrary to popular opinion, some of them have feet that are disasters. So I wouldn't make a blanket statement about looking for "good" conformation among the feral.

Conformation is like art! We may not know much about the science behind it, but we know what we like. Of course, different "we's" like different things... just like art.

[Tazsprout]

Holy toledo! Just read the prior post. Neck that ties in low on the shoulder??? WHAT are they THINKING? Sounds like a receipe for nailing down a horse's front end. Low neck coupling is desirable in sprinters...

I guess this works if you have the double S curve neck thing going on..

[Rockyroad]

How young can you really tell is my question? Is there a time in a foals life when you can see what youll get... assuming it all stays together? There seems to be a time in a puppies life when you can more accurately predict which ones are show prospects. How do YOU judge foals? Also I have a 10 day old you can critique... if I can email pics for someone to post for me- PM me

[Peris Mom]

There's an old saying, which I've heard quoted in MANY circles, not just Saddlebreds: "Look at him at 3 days, 3 months & 3 years"....

[Rockyroad]

Well in that case Perismom, Im a very happy colt owner. This particular guy is by County Treasure and he looks pretty good!