rockyxrio
Active Member
I personally don't think the problem is particularly the horse being unhappy, it's putting strain on joints when he's under three years old - reducing his risk of staying sound long term.
Disgraceful? Golly, I'd like to see what you think of some REAL abuse then.
The horse is going very nicely, being professionally ridden and showing lovely paces. The majority of horses are broken at three; leaving them later "to mature" just wastes time (and might explain why there are so many "green" 6,7,8 year olds out there). As long as the trainer knows what he is doing there is no harm. I've bred WB's for many years and all mine are broken at three, save for a few exceptionally gangly, backward types. Most successful competition horses are broken as three year olds, most racehorses are broken younger. Comparing this horse with something from Dragon Driving is just silly.
I just think they should've waited until at least its third birthday to get on it personally.
I don't think many people are advocating waiting until it's six.
I just think they should've waited until at least its third birthday to get on it personally.
It's different to racehorses (though I don't agree with that either), a racehorse retires LONG before a dressage horse. Barring a disaster, a dressage horse should stay sound and able to compete into its late teens. The amount of young horses written off today at five/six/seven makes me sad - and the rise of pushing them younger and younger can't help.
But it's not "the rise of pushing them younger"......horses are traditionally broken to ride at three (and in the more distant past they were usually broken to harness before that); it is the "leaving to mature" that is the modern "thing".
If he is a May foal would leaving him till he was actually three had an impact on his stallion grading? Apologies if this is a stupid q.
This horse hasn't turned three. And I'm betting it's been under saddle for at least several months. So best case scenario, it was broken at 2 1/2.
But it's not "the rise of pushing them younger"......horses are traditionally broken to ride at three (and in the more distant past they were usually broken to harness before that); it is the "leaving to mature" that is the modern "thing".
No, not stupid at all. The grading is usually held annually, so if he was a late foal he would have to go to the "3 year old" grading no matter what date it was in his 3 year old year. When I had my late-foaled 3 year old graded he had been backed and ridden for 3 weeks prior to his test, and he looked a lot like this guy, and was presented this way too. A couple of months either way would not make that much difference.
Usually what happens to tradition is that, science comes along and says something different. Everyone goes "ooh that's interesting"... and then carry on as if nothing had happened.
Usually what happens to tradition is that, science comes along and says something different. Everyone goes "ooh that's interesting"... and then carry on as if nothing had happened.
Recently I attended a very interesting vet talk , they had found no correlation between starting young and unsoundness but they did find the work has to be the right type of conditioning .
The work was done on racehorses .
Recently I attended a very interesting vet talk , they had found no correlation between starting young and unsoundness but they did find the work has to be the right type of conditioning .
The work was done on racehorses .
I hasten to add, just because someone calls themselves a professional, doesn't always mean they are doing the right thing.
Does no one else think the stallion looks like a spider???