Daily Equine Forums

Full Version: Here comes Cloud also
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Here are the two best photos I could get the other day, none of them were very good. Cloud is turning 19, registered APHA. All I know about her breeding is what's on her registration.

Foaled in Florida
Sorrel / Tobiano/Overo (?? I thought it was one or the other)
Sire: The Cowboy JC 7,721,693
Dam: Cloudy Counce, 41,671
Sire's Sire: Jetalong T.B.
Dam's Sire: Cherokee Levan 24,775
DOB: 4/23/87

That's it. Her breeder, who I actually spoke with when trying to trace down the owner before the guy I bought Cloud from, was a doctor who'd had Cloud's mother and wanted a foal out of her. He bred her with a TB, and voila, "On Cloud Nine."

"Hurt Feelings" Preface:

Cloud does not have to win a beauty contest. When I bought her, I didn't so much as look at her feet, that's how much I knew. (And it's about how much I still know.) If she has any reasonable conformation at all, then I got lucky, pure and simple. If she doesn't, then I didn't buy her with any representations that she did. I'm just curious how she ranges within the conformation scope. I would say she's very out of condition. I haven't ridden her much and I don't think she was ridden much by her prior owner, so I don't know if that's something one needs to "see through" or not. Otherwise, any faults she has would possibly explain her gaits and traits, or tell me other info that could be helpful. So candid evaluations are requested and welcomed!

[Image: P1010004.jpg]

On this photo, that is not a 5th leg under her forelegs, it's a shadow on the ground beyond her, LOL!


[Image: P1010003.jpg]

Observations?
OTW;

Why don't you copy and paste the conformation basics, topic by topic, one post at a time, and do your own evaluation. I will add my thoughts to your analysis one point at a time. I think it would be quite educational for those who want to evaluate their own horse which is why I posted the "Basics of Conformation.

Start out with:
BALANCE
The first impression. A side profile of the horse should present a pleasing balanced picture. The head and neck should flow together into the front shoulders through a proportional back to the hind quarters with no one portion of the body over powering another. The horses general condition should be obvious with healthy coat, good flesh without being excessively fat or thin. A good confirmation horse’s over all impression will be pleasing to the eye of both knowledgeable and casual observer alike.


For others who have posted their horse pictures and take the time to do a point by point analysis of their horse I will do my best to response to each one.
the TB in your mare is obvious also some people might call her tovero looks good for 19



OMG, sorry for missing the replies, I'd sort of given up. Thanks both.

Okay, Hook posts...

"Why don't you copy and paste the conformation basics, topic by topic, one post at a time, and do your own evaluation. I will add my thoughts to your analysis one point at a time. I think it would be quite educational for those who want to evaluate their own horse which is why I posted the "Basics of Conformation.

"Start out with:
BALANCE
The first impression. A side profile of the horse should present a pleasing balanced picture. The head and neck should flow together into the front shoulders
<snip>

Okay, right off, I see her withers as a definite "interruption" between a smooth flow from neck to back. I don't know if that's just a normal "high wither" but to my unpracticed eye, them's some loooong withers!

Continued...

... through a proportional back to the hind quarters with no one portion of the body over powering another.


In the photos, I'd say (unpracticed eye reminded again) that she sure looks durned barrel chested here. In the 2nd photo, for instance, the angle makes her hindquarters look waaaay smaller in proportion to her chest area. She doesn't look like that in person, but in the 2nd photo, if I visually separate her front from her back, either we need a bigger butt or a smaller front.


The horses general condition should be obvious with healthy coat, good flesh without being excessively fat or thin.


I forgot to mention that. Her coat looks pretty ratty here. Thick winter coat notwithstanding, I went out to brush her before daughter joined me to hold her for me, and "whups," she had been doing some serious rolling in mud. I curried her down but a lot of it (sides and legs) was very wet. However, weather and schedule ruled. It was a sunny day, daughter was home to hold her for me, so that was the day I photo'd her. Her coat normally has quite a glisten to it, even the winter one. Summer coat, definitely nice and shiny. So re-looking at the photos with just that aspect in mind, she looks pretty natty here.


A good confirmation horse’s over all impression will be pleasing to the eye of both knowledgeable and casual observer alike.


I don't think it's as easy as it sounds for someone with an unpracticed eye, at least as unpracticed as mine is ;-) When riding her in public domain, people have stopped and said, "Wow, beautiful horse!" But they are seeing her in movement. And then they may also just be responding to "a" horse or to a Paint they're not used to seeing. Hard to tell which, but I'm betting most of them are soccar moms who are even less practiced an eye than me.

As for condition (camera angles and dirt shadows aside) she had not been ridden much in the last 2 years before I got her and hasn't much since September either, so she is kind of a couch potato. I do know from watching her when she was under saddle and being worked by someone else (a dressage/eventer type who wanted to hack with her some), she looked about 10 years younger, just by the way she was carrying herself. But she definitely needs conditioning.

So it's hard for me to tell (re balance), but that's my best stab at analyzing it so far based purely on the photos. So feel free to fire away with your thoughts, you ain't-a-gunna hurt my feelings.

Thread Disclaimer: She could be a beautiful horse OR a rather un-beautiful horse as far as confirmation goes, but I didn't buy her for looks either way. I bought her because she's well disciplined, and very easy to ride. Smooth, nice walk and trot (pretty much all speeds at each gait included) -- at least based on others I've ridden, and she was amazingly responsive to reins which impressed me. And to any hint of "go." That said, though, I sure won't make too many claims about any smoothness of that canter, LOL I do not find it "smooth"!
[silly]

Now you also must realize, I had a dog for many years, Spice. Now this was unquestionably a remarkably homely little somebody. And it didn't take any practiced eye to see that. When back from the groomer's (we're talking amazing amounts of long shaggy cockapoo hair removed) what you saw was this skinny, pointy head that was WAY too small for the body, and the body was WAY too long for the legs. My step daughter used to tease her, "Spice, you are some sorry looking little mutt," and you couldn't help but laugh, because she was that. (A brat also.) But hey, LOL.
Carol
Just getting ready for work and have to run but I will go through the basics with you in the next day or so. Should be fun.
Great! It will be fun, but for me also very informative! I appreciate!

I re-read your quarter horse conformation post having tried my hand on that one category (and not knowing whether I'm seeing things right). Proceeding with other categories would take some serious study and some line-drawing on a photo for me to "get it" without coaching. I would like to take a couple of better photos, but will wait until she's not so dirty and I can spend more time than was available. Jenny was in the middle of a project and not wanting to spend more than a couple of minutes holding her, so I just shot the best pix I could, smudges and all.

But in reading further, your later categories talk about top line and her withers are definitely not a smooth line, if I'm reading that right. Her underline is also not smooth, she has a dip behind the elbows (as though a girth was there for years and made an indent lol). Some of that may be due to her age and/or her conditioning, or it may just be her conformation.

The eventing type woman who rode her said if I ever wanted to sell her, let her know. But I don't think that was at all related to conformation, I think it was that Cloud was willing to charge through water, and was instantly responsive to "go, go, go!" (This is a much better rider than I am currently.)

Looking forward to your thoughts on the conformation, and also on whether the "analysis" I've made so far is anywhere near seeing what I'm supposed to be seeing.

Thanks,
Carol
Originally posted by OnTheWay, added comments in green by Hook

"Start out with:
BALANCE
The first impression. A side profile of the horse should present a pleasing balanced picture. The head and neck should flow together into the front shoulders
<snip>

Okay, right off, I see her withers as a definite "interruption" between a smooth flow from neck to back. I don't know if that's just a normal "high wither" but to my unpracticed eye, them's some loooong withers!

Nice well proportioned head, neck suits her conformation. The bump at the withers is probably normal for her age, the withers extending back along her back is a good thing which allows the saddle to be in correct position over her centre of balance.

Continued...

... through a proportional back to the hind quarters with no one portion of the body over powering another.


In the photos, I'd say (unpracticed eye reminded again) that she sure looks durned barrel chested here. In the 2nd photo, for instance, the angle makes her hindquarters look waaaay smaller in proportion to her chest area. She doesn't look like that in person, but in the 2nd photo, if I visually separate her front from her back, either we need a bigger butt or a smaller front.

The first photo shows her much better balanced than the second one. It is evaluation of a horse's conformation from photos can be difficult due to the camera's tendency to exaggerate details closer to the lens. In the second photo her front end seems to be quite a bit larger and she would be better balanced with more hip ( as measured from a point directly under the top of the hip as shown in the Profit marked photo) to the point of her hip


The horses general condition should be obvious with healthy coat, good flesh without being excessively fat or thin.


I forgot to mention that. Her coat looks pretty ratty here. Thick winter coat notwithstanding, I went out to brush her before daughter joined me to hold her for me, and "whups," she had been doing some serious rolling in mud. I curried her down but a lot of it (sides and legs) was very wet. However, weather and schedule ruled. It was a sunny day, daughter was home to hold her for me, so that was the day I photo'd her. Her coat normally has quite a glisten to it, even the winter one. Summer coat, definitely nice and shiny. So re-looking at the photos with just that aspect in mind, she looks pretty natty here.

I think her overall appearance is excellent. She has a good even winter coat so it is hard to judge her level of fitness but I think it is obvious that she hasn't been worked a lot. She certainly looks in good flesh with just a touch of fat evident in her tummy but I would say your feeding program is right on.


A good confirmation horse’s over all impression will be pleasing to the eye of both knowledgeable and casual observer alike.


I don't think it's as easy as it sounds for someone with an unpracticed eye, at least as unpracticed as mine is ;-) When riding her in public domain, people have stopped and said, "Wow, beautiful horse!" But they are seeing her in movement. And then they may also just be responding to "a" horse or to a Paint they're not used to seeing. Hard to tell which, but I'm betting most of them are soccar moms who are even less practiced an eye than me.

As for condition (camera angles and dirt shadows aside) she had not been ridden much in the last 2 years before I got her and hasn't much since September either, so she is kind of a couch potato. I do know from watching her when she was under saddle and being worked by someone else (a dressage/eventer type who wanted to hack with her some), she looked about 10 years younger, just by the way she was carrying herself. But she definitely needs conditioning.

So it's hard for me to tell (re balance), but that's my best stab at analyzing it so far based purely on the photos. So feel free to fire away with your thoughts, you ain't-a-gunna hurt my feelings.

My over all impression is that of a very nice horse. She appears quite well balanced in the first photo, nice eye and head. Good solid straight legs and good well trimmed feet. Colouring is very pleasing to the eye. Good example of a nice horse holding her age well.
The Next Points for review:

TOP LINE
A horse’s top line drawn from the highest point to the withers to highest point of the hips should be basically level, or slightly higher at the withers. The neck should join the withers smoothly and be level in appearance.

If a horse is low in the withers they will have more problems with collection that a horse that is balanced.

The distance from the withers to the point were a line joining the point of buttock to point of hip exiting the back should be approximately 50% of the length of the horses under line.

BOTTOM LINE
The underline should follow a smooth line from the bottom of the withers to the flank of the horse.


Hook, thanks for the input. That's about how I read it... "nice horse holding her age well." She definitely needs to be made more fit and I have a question about doing that (will post elsewhere so as not to take this thread too far off topic because photos aren't needed for that).

But you also mentioned her long withers being an advantage for keeping saddle placed right. This is an ongoing battle with me, due to inexperience probably, but BECAUSE of the length of her withers extending down her back, my tendency is to place the saddle farther back than I probably should. Farrier said even an inch or so too far back and you increase the rockinghorse effect, resulting in an unnecessarily rough canter. (Bingo!)

Can you possibly tell, from either photo, WHERE the front of my saddle should rest notwithstanding the trailing withers?? My farrier placed it once while he was here and I tacked her up as soon as he left, keeping it right there. I took her out back and cantered her just a very short ways and I was feeling a MUCH smoother canter. "A-hah, sez me, this is miles better!"

Well, I haven't been able to get it like that since!!! I can't seem to locate her shoulder blade visually even if I move her front leg back and forth, and I'm very afraid of the saddle bearing down on her there. So I think I'm placing it way too far back.

Is there a way (by reference to either photo) that you can tell me WHERE the front edge of the saddle can be? Because I'd like to try placing the saddle as far forward as possible.

I've paid particular attention to horses getting saddled on RFD shows, and placement is definitely farther forward than I end up with, but those horses seem to have "normal" withers (meaning a beginning, middle and end to them!) so placement is easier recalled, by a long shot.

I know I sure got better results when HE placed the saddle, but thereafter I always get intimidated by those withers, so I know I'm placing it too far back, which is in turn giving me a "square wheels" effect at the canter. (I shoulda marked it with a permanent marker, LOL.)

Other than this aside, thanks for the comments! Will continue with the other categor(ies) later, but that will take a print-out of your example, and of my photo, to draw the lines, etc. The rest is academic in a way, unless you see something I should note in terms of any limitations, etc. She's "a nice horse holding her age well," and that's pretty much what I thought when I bought her. ;-)



quote:
Originally posted by OnTheWay

But you also mentioned her long withers being an advantage for keeping saddle placed right. This is an ongoing battle with me, due to inexperience probably, but BECAUSE of the length of her withers extending down her back, my tendency is to place the saddle farther back than I probably should. Farrier said even an inch or so too far back and you increase the rockinghorse effect, resulting in an unnecessarily rough canter. (Bingo!)

Can you possibly tell, from either photo, WHERE the front of my saddle should rest notwithstanding the trailing withers?? My farrier placed it once while he was here and I tacked her up as soon as he left, keeping it right there. I took her out back and cantered her just a very short ways and I was feeling a MUCH smoother canter. "A-hah, sez me, this is miles better!"

Well, I haven't been able to get it like that since!!! I can't seem to locate her shoulder blade visually even if I move her front leg back and forth, and I'm very afraid of the saddle bearing down on her there. So I think I'm placing it way too far back.

Is there a way (by reference to either photo) that you can tell me WHERE the front edge of the saddle can be? Because I'd like to try placing the saddle as far forward as possible.

I've paid particular attention to horses getting saddled on RFD shows, and placement is definitely farther forward than I end up with, but those horses seem to have "normal" withers (meaning a beginning, middle and end to them!) so placement is easier recalled, by a long shot.

I know I sure got better results when HE placed the saddle, but thereafter I always get intimidated by those withers, so I know I'm placing it too far back, which is in turn giving me a "square wheels" effect at the canter. (I shoulda marked it with a permanent marker, LOL.)




Our standard way of putting the saddle in position is to place the saddle further up on the horse withers than the final position an wiggling int left and right until it slides back and settles into place. There is normally a dip behind the shoulder on each side where the saddle snuggles into position. If you view Cloud's photo that shows her left side I would guess the saddle would cover the spot on her shoulder with the saddle front being about 2 or 3 fingers ahead of the spot.

Cloud's withers appear quite high and with that pronounced dip in her back just behind the withers it would seem to me that the angle of the saddle would not be parallel to the ground but would be low in the back. You should see this affect more with an English saddle than western because the western saddle would tend to bridge across the low spot behind the withers. This would tend to tip your pelvis and hence your back and weight further back than ideal for good balance.

I suggest you place the saddle as described with your normal pad and see if the saddle is low in the back. if it is low get a large towel and fold it several time to make a shorter pad that will support the back half of the saddle to raise it until it is level. If this seems to level the saddle I would investigate the purchase of a "cut-back" pad that will be thicker under the main part of the saddle but not adding thickness at the withers. I am sure Chuck has such a blanket at the Saddle Shop.

I think that you may be moving the saddle back to get it level and this is why it is difficult to get the correct placement. With saddle level in the forward position it will be much easier for you to balance on the horse in the correct balance point.

Perhaps you could post a picture or two with the saddle in place to help us understand better and we may be able to offer some better or more specific suggestions.
Pages: 1 2