Search this Topic:
Nov 9 14 11:04 AM
Horse and I, we're dancers in the Dark
Facebook Twitter Blog Book
Nov 9 14 1:10 PM
Nov 9 14 3:09 PM
Nov 9 14 4:33 PM
Nov 10 14 12:55 AM
Nov 10 14 6:00 AM
Nov 10 14 7:53 AM
Nov 10 14 8:07 AM
Nov 10 14 4:12 PM
Nov 10 14 7:44 PM
Nov 10 14 11:43 PM
Nov 11 14 2:32 AM
GoTheDistance wrote:And understand none of my horses are a topic to this conversation, nor whom I'm talking about in this discussion.
Basically, some members here blow smoke out their asses with their
critiques. It's interesting to see the background of some people
offering critique in this section of the forum as a whole.
GoTheDistance wrote:Has anyone ever provided proof of their claims that certain horses won't hold up?
I mean, we get a lot of posts saying this horse will break down, that horse won't be able to do this work, etc.
Do we have any studies that show the percentage of long-pasterned horses
that break down under workloads? Long backed horses that fail?
Straighter shoulders incapable of jumping? And at what angle?
but no study done it seems to the amount of horses breaking down or
not for certain faults(like pasterns, backs, hocks, knees, etc).
What you posted was preferences of judges and their opinion on the
*best* build for a jumper. But at what angle does it prevent a horse
from safely jumping? Define upright in angles and the mechanics behind
it.to determine if the shoulder is too upright for jumping.
I'm not even talking just this horse, I'm just curious at what info is
behind the worlds when people claim a horse isn't suitable or *will*
break down. Is it an opinion with fact and mechanics, or opinion
talkingin generally because so many here go "upright shoulder, no
qualified to jump" yet there are quote a fee horses with a "meh"
shoulder angle that are decent jumpers.
So it's at WHAT angle does the mechanics no longer allow a safe jump? At
what height will it interfere and where do we draw a line on what is
We're not talking optimal/perfect because I'm willing to best half the
horses in show rings around here and anywhere, doing so successfully,
wouldn't pass the "FISH confo critique" test that some members give.
I just find it interesting. Because I'm curious where that knowledge is
coming from, or of they're just harpingto critique whatever they can.
GoTheDistance wrote:I'm simply
curious to see if those spouting off with their critiques actually know
what they're saying andhaving any knowledge behind it.
Didn't an old member once post a picture of Hickstead that wasn't
recognized, and several members went on about how he wasn't suitable and
would not be a successful UL before his identity was revealed.
This was a very long time ago, so my memory may be blurry on it.
But I don't think enough people are actually aware of minor limitations
vs extreme. A straight shoulder, for example, is not an immediate
write-off for a competition horse but members here quickly dismiss the
"It had a straight shoulder, not a jumping prospect"
But again as an example, still some angulation to a straight/closed
shoulder could still easily allow clearance up to 1.10M/1.0M. That is
still a competitive level and would be just fine for your average rider.
More consideration needs to be taken before dismissing horses, especially for lower level.
Nov 11 14 11:15 AM
Nov 11 14 2:26 PM
Nov 11 14 2:39 PM
Nov 11 14 2:56 PM
Nov 11 14 3:33 PM
Nov 11 14 7:02 PM
Nov 11 14 7:07 PM
Nov 11 14 7:33 PM
But when in doubt, start taking personal shots right?
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.