Just how much does conformation matter?

D

DD265

Well-Known Member
Joined
12 April 2013
Messages
761
Visit site
Following on from the Calling All Conformation Experts thread, where we're learning a lot about what's positive and negative about various horses, I wondered how much does it actually matter?

What I'm reading the most is long pasterns and low set necks but in the grand scheme of things what does this actually mean for the work and life of the horse? Are there any conformation traits that you would look for or avoid in a horse? Is there such a thing as a perfectly conformed horse or should there be variances based on breed, job?

Conformation has never been my strong point (in fact I would go so far as to say I was pretty much entirely clueless before that thread) but I'm loving learning!
 
Certain confirmation for me is not important, where others are higher.

For example;

Pigeon toed would put me off - straight hocks would put me off bowed tendon would put me off
where as slightly cow hocks would not as many draught have them .


Some want the perfect horse and anything with a defect is a no no, but those horses with an otherwise lovely look, get discarded.


The thing is with horses they are animals who in time can develop defects more serious than those with cow hocks. What I am trying to say is just because you buy a new car does not mean you are less likely to developed faults even when new.

Certain cosmetic faults I see are not necessarily a reason not to buy. That is just me....................................
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do think conformation matters, but there are some things that affect the performance and soundness of the horse more than others. And some that don't matter at all. Things that I would argue do not matter at all, though I am happy to be disagreed with, are:

Head too large or too small, or just plain.

Upright shoulder (it may make for a bumpier ride or less scope but shouldn't matter in the grand scheme of things)

Neck set on low

Back too short

Back too long (this is often seen a weakness but IME I really haven't seen this to be the case).

Upright feet. Again, IME I haven't seen any problems related to this.

Over at the knee. Never experienced problems.

Neck too short or too long.

Tail set on too high or too low.

Shallow depth of girth.

Herring gutted.

Not saying I would buy a horse with these problems but would overlook any of them if the horse was right in all other ways.
 
attitude will overcome a lot of confirmational faults - some of the top event horses are really badly put together.
They'd never do well in showing and top dressage is very physically taxing to to do that with faults is a stretch.

Most normal hacking/ riding club horses - it's make no difference really, can make them slightly predesposed to certain injuries but again lots of other things likely to get them first!!
 
Many conformational faults make the horse weaker and therefore more likely to have lameness issues. However, some horses will have these faults and will never be lame due to them, so it's a numbers/percentages game really.

Back at the knee or tied in at the knee are examples of weak conformation of the forelimbs. However over at the knee wouldn't bother me so much unless it was very over.

I knew a horse with very upright conformation. Shoulders, pasterns (which were short too), hooves, hocks, everything was far straighter then ideal and she was retired at 13 having never been in hard work. The Vet was convinced that the extra concussion caused by the conformation paid a part in this.

Sway/dipped back is weaker than a roach back, but if the back is too roached saddle fitting is difficult.

If you are showing, then having a horse that approaches perfect conformation will be more important.
 
For showing it is very important for everything else handsome is as handsome does if they are fit and able to carry out a discipline and have been doing it for years then they are probably up for it. Youngsters it is probably more important as you dont know what level of work they will stand up to
 
I thought the same after reading that thread. I don't suppose there have ever been any long term studies looking at conformation assessment and length of working life? So there is no real evidence base for any of the suppositions made about conformational traits. I have a youngster with an upright foot, and have spent many hours trawling the net for information on that as a conformational 'fault'. The range is from 'your horse may never work' to 'horses with this conformation can work for a normal lifespan and never suffer a day of lameness', and I have to say that while there are many actual examples of the latter, I didn't come across a single real example for the former. It's interesting, and I think the lack of an evidence base goes right across what we do with horses, with veterinary care being very much included.
 
soloequestrian said:
I thought the same after reading that thread. I don't suppose there have ever been any long term studies looking at conformation assessment and length of working life? So there is no real evidence base for any of the suppositions made about conformational traits. I have a youngster with an upright foot, and have spent many hours trawling the net for information on that as a conformational 'fault'. The range is from 'your horse may never work' to 'horses with this conformation can work for a normal lifespan and never suffer a day of lameness', and I have to say that while there are many actual examples of the latter, I didn't come across a single real example for the former. It's interesting, and I think the lack of an evidence base goes right across what we do with horses, with veterinary care being very much included.
Click to expand...

But then the Internet pretty much runs on exceptions. You would not hear about horses that broke early in the game (or never got to that point) because they are long gone. In addition, they will more likely have been sold to very low use homes or people willing to gamble, who won't be on the Internet discussing the horse unless it's an exception to the rule.

The basic rules date from when horse were used much more thoroughly than they are now. If you relied on a horse for work or as a remount or similar you really could not afford to have it break or baby it along so, in those cases, any flaws were unacceptable. Obviously people with less to spend had to take them and sometimes it worked out but they knew they were gambling. To use the car analogy, why would you buy a car with out of alignment tires? It will chew up tires and likely break faster than one with straight wheels. Although, if you only drive it to the corner, it will probably last some time.

Sport is a bit different because some mild faults are virtually advantages at the extreme. For instance, many people feel a dressage horse that toes in a bit may actually have freer elbow movement. Also, we breed for so many "attractive" traits - movement, pretty head etc - we are going to accept failings in other areas. You are rarely going to get the whole package.

I think people forget, too, that we are talking about moderation. Horses with very extreme conformation faults barely exist in our current experience. Custom breeding has taken care of a lot of it. (I'm actually old enough to remember when it was not uncommon to see horses that looked like Pony Club manual illustrations!) We also interfere a lot more with very young horses - not every straight legged individual was born that way. Added that we can "support" horses much more now. Look at the number of horses on this board who have had medical interventions - can you guarantee none are the result of conformation faults?

So most issues now are moderate at worst, and horses do a lot less work, in a situation where they can be treated for at least the beginning of problems, therefore we get away with a lot more.

It also depends on what you consider "sound". A poorly set on neck may never have any repercussions for a general riding horse, or even a sj'er or endurance horse. But decide you're going to make it a dressage horse and the chances that you will break it go way up.
 
As far as soundness goes, it's a question of physics. Horse limbs are a series of pullies with next to no lateral flexion built in, and if those pullies don't run in a straight line there will be excessive friction, particularly if you are also asking the horse to do corners, or move sideways, or jump, or travel over uneven ground. Any angles too far away from the norm will create strain.
 
TarrSteps said:
But then the Internet pretty much runs on exceptions. You would not hear about horses that broke early in the game (or never got to that point) because they are long gone. In addition, they will more likely have been sold to very low use homes or people willing to gamble, who won't be on the Internet discussing the horse unless it's an exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

But that doesn't negate what I said - this may very well be what has happened, but there is no actual evidence to say that it has. It could just as easily be that there were very few horses who did break...

TarrSteps said:
The basic rules date from when horse were used much more thoroughly than they are now. If you relied on a horse for work or as a remount or similar you really could not afford to have it break or baby it along so, in those cases, any flaws were unacceptable. Obviously people with less to spend had to take them and sometimes it worked out but they knew they were gambling. To use the car analogy, why would you buy a car with out of alignment tires? It will chew up tires and likely break faster than one with straight wheels. Although, if you only drive it to the corner, it will probably last some time.

Sport is a bit different because some mild faults are virtually advantages at the extreme. For instance, many people feel a dressage horse that toes in a bit may actually have freer elbow movement. Also, we breed for so many "attractive" traits - movement, pretty head etc - we are going to accept failings in other areas. You are rarely going to get the whole package.

I think people forget, too, that we are talking about moderation. Horses with very extreme conformation faults barely exist in our current experience. Custom breeding has taken care of a lot of it. (I'm actually old enough to remember when it was not uncommon to see horses that looked like Pony Club manual illustrations!) We also interfere a lot more with very young horses - not every straight legged individual was born that way. Added that we can "support" horses much more now. Look at the number of horses on this board who have had medical interventions - can you guarantee none are the result of conformation faults?

So most issues now are moderate at worst, and horses do a lot less work, in a situation where they can be treated for at least the beginning of problems, therefore we get away with a lot more.

It also depends on what you consider "sound". A poorly set on neck may never have any repercussions for a general riding horse, or even a sj'er or endurance horse. But decide you're going to make it a dressage horse and the chances that you will break it go way up.
Click to expand...

I think you make lots of interesting points, but there are arguments the other way for many of them. For instance, I would think that you probably weren't involved with horses in the 1930s, when they were last relied on heavily for work. Since we'd been using horses for work for hundreds of years before then, you could argue that conformational traits that didn't stand up to hard work would have been bred out of the population long before that point, not after it by the time the Pony Club was around. Perhaps what your experience points to is that the text book picture horses were actually quite good for the job they did and that there are fewer of them around now because we have the luxury of being able to breed for beauty.
My basic point is that I don't think conformation and its effects on long term soundness has ever been measured, so it is possible that many of the things that people say are based on single observations or on tradition rather than hard evidence. I wonder if it would be possible to do a survey on here - ask for information about age, conformation and soundness. It would be reasonably easy to do for top competition horses but I think they are a slightly different ballgame than the ordinary riding horse.
 
Does Fuglyhorseoftheday exist anymore? It was a really interesting blog about badly conformed horses. Who could forget the aptly named Miss Camel or the others with serious conformation faults that graced it's pages?

index.php
 
soloequestrian said:
But that doesn't negate what I said - this may very well be what has happened, but there is no actual evidence to say that it has. It could just as easily be that there were very few horses who did break...



I think you make lots of interesting points, but there are arguments the other way for many of them. For instance, I would think that you probably weren't involved with horses in the 1930s, when they were last relied on heavily for work. Since we'd been using horses for work for hundreds of years before then, you could argue that conformational traits that didn't stand up to hard work would have been bred out of the population long before that point, not after it by the time the Pony Club was around. Perhaps what your experience points to is that the text book picture horses were actually quite good for the job they did and that there are fewer of them around now because we have the luxury of being able to breed for beauty.
My basic point is that I don't think conformation and its effects on long term soundness has ever been measured, so it is possible that many of the things that people say are based on single observations or on tradition rather than hard evidence. I wonder if it would be possible to do a survey on here - ask for information about age, conformation and soundness. It would be reasonably easy to do for top competition horses but I think they are a slightly different ballgame than the ordinary riding horse.
Click to expand...

Re the good ol' days. If you have millions of horses and the need is huge and never ending, you are going to have lots of horses with more extreme conformation because you won't be breeding much surplus and you won't have enough extra stock to be selective. Now we don't need any horses, the only reason to produce them is for sport/profit, so there is no reason to breed or keep anything that isn't pretty close to perfect. This has been further streamlined by AI as location is no longer a limitation so even a hobby breeder can choose the most 'ideal' specimen.

Re horses is text book illustrations. They were educational in that the advice was to, if possible, avoid horses with extreme conformation flaws. Such advice dates back through pretty much all of horsemanship's recorded history, which would suggest it wasn't unimportant. Do you feel that this advice was merely for fashion? Why would it be different than a current mechanic advising that a client buy a well designed, well built car? Of course not every car IS the best built, partly because people prioritise other aspects sometimes, but I don't think too many people will argue that a well built car will last you longer and be more reliable.

Re studies, I agree, there was little objective study and those traditional views were developed mostly from observation and experience. There are more modern studies utilising force plates, video tracking.etc.
 
Whilst certain confirmation faults my predispose a horse to injury, I think poor management or buying a horse that is unsuited to the work you want it to do has a far greater impact on its long term soundness. I am sure we all know of owners who have had a string of injured or lame horses due to the fact they neither fitten or condition their animals for the work they are required to do or care for them properly after work.
I have had horses and ponies with huge confirmation faults but have very successful long sound working lives, it can it be all down to luck.
 
Our horses with 'poor' confirmation have always been the best, funnily enough!

Mind you none of them have had terrible conformation faults.

On the other hand, my well bred well put together welsh mare broke down age 15 and is now field sound. But then, she had quite a 'hard' 8 years of high mileage work and competing etc which could well be a factor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top