Something old, something new…
Aug 06 2007
Many times in the past months, I’ve commented on the changes in the Appaloosa breed over the past 20-30 years. I personally am a big fan of the fact that AQHA and TB blood has been introduced and that the show standard for ApHC has become a horse who has a pretty head, elegant neck and flowing tail. However, I know that there are people out there who prefer what is now referred to as the “foundation” Appaloosa. Something that has the classic Appy look and does not look conformationally like a Quarter Horse with spots.
So today I set out to see what I could find of the old style Appies and see if I could find some that had the “look” but were still improvements on what the breed used to be. I was not disappointed. I found excellent examples of both ends of the spectrum!
This time I’ll start with the one I like. These folks are breeding spotted sport horses, and they are breeding good ones!
Nobody would mistake this guy for anything but an Appaloosa. If he were painted chestnut, he’d just look like a breeding stock Appaloosa. He has the foundation type head, and that tail looks like it was the best he could do, try as he might. He’s got super loud coloring, enough to please any Appaloosa fan. This horse has a fantabulous shoulder, he’s compact, and he has an elegant neck (though set on like a jumper’s – not a western pleasure horse). He’s standing a bit splay footed and he looks like he’s a bit over at the knees, but considering he is used for eventing and fox hunting, among other disciplines, I am willing to bet that is age/work related. Overall, this is a cool horse, and one that definitely earned his right to keep his testicles. Unsurprisingly, his offspring are doing very well in equally competitive endeavors.
Then there’s this.
This is a compendium of everything I have criticized about Appaloosas. With that downhill build and that stunningly straight shoulder, I can only imagine its trot feels much like riding in a 1970′s era Jeep. It’s got the world’s shortest croup, a short neck, and very little muscle overall. The head is similar to the first horse’s with perhaps a little less jowl – but isn’t it amazing how much better that kind of head looked with a good neck attached to it?
The stick tail is just icing on the cake! Poor appy, can’t even get the flies off…
I can’t remember where I found the 2nd picture, so I am not alleging this animal is being recommended for breeding or anything. Just using it as an example of what not to create in the Appaloosa breed! If you want to preserve a “classic” type, fine, but don’t preserve conformational defects that impair athletic ability and lead to unsoundness.
Just posting this one because I had to – the fugly stopped me in my tracks. Of course, she already has a baby and you can buy them as a 2-in-one package for just $1300, which the seller assures us “is a BARGIN” – “becasue I have found a couple of Paint mares that I want to get.” Ah yes, there’s nothing like mixing up your backyard breeding program by swapping over to another colored breed you can produce crappy examples of! Variety is the spice of life!They also claim this mare has points. In what they do not say. I cannot imagine. The only point I see is on the top of her hip. I know it’s a bad pose, I know, but there isn’t any way on earth to stand this mare up and have her look good.
129 comments to “Something old, something new…”
« Previous 1 2
« Previous 1 2
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. Not a member? Registering is free, and you do it here!
Arabgirl – I already did breeding quality Arab vs. non breeding quality Arab on June 8th, but I know what you are asking for and that’s different. I’ll be happy to put that on my “request list.”
P.S. Considering the description of the Nez Perce horses by Lewis & Clark, doesn’t it seem more reasonable that the original Appaloosas were more TB in type than anything else, i.e., good light saddle horse conformation? Is it just our U. S. obsession with cowboys & indians that has turned (most but not all) Appies into QH clones? Whenever I ask why women so outnumber men in hunt seat/dressage/eventing (as opposed to western events), the answer is always, “It’s the pants!” So…Appies got turned into QH because guys don’t like to wear riding breeches (and yet so many of the top European show jumpers, dressage riders, are men, and of course, the gutsy eventers here and abroad. Do they just spring full blown at Advanced/Grand Prix level? Where are they on a daily basis in my (our) riding life? Sigh.)
Here is a link to a site on that first horse his name is Dance with wolves.
http://www.tresaisonstud.co.uk/dance_with_wolves.htm
Well, I didn’t mention the stallion’s name because I wasn’t sure if that was “the done thing” but sadly his breeding *is* unknown. Not for want of researching and trying, over the years, but he was approved (and absolutely rightly so) before the British Appaloosa lot closed their book, and as far as I know he was and is registered with the USA counterpart. I know the horse and I know the owner (who is a smashing person).
The British Appaloosa is a completely different animal to the US counterpart, with, as was said before, very little US type blood, mainly through a stallion called “Amazing Blue” – the rest used to be mainly made up from various spotted lines of horses, ranging from heavy hairies (think GV spotted rather than striped) to TB types and Irish Hunter types with the occasional Knabstrupper thrown in for good emasure.
Ok – there is a Dance With Wolves horse listed in the ApHC pedigree database but I don’t think it is this stallion. The ApHC does list a horse by this name as a 1990 Stallion and chestnut (both the age and color contradict what is posted on the stallion’s site)so I do doubt it is him. He may be registered under a different name with the ApHC but he really does look more Knab to me than Appaloosa. It is interesting to note, in case this IS the stallion listed in the ApHC database, that the ApHC Stallion Dance With Wolves was sired by Ha Dar Shado and out of a (gasp) Quarter Horse. I for one am quite fond of the Quarter Horse outcross and find my horses have plenty of color and more than enough pretty and talent. To each his own. For those with the quarterloosa comments: while I don’t choose to own or find Foundation Appaloosas appealing, I do not trash those horses or those who own them….I don’t think it is asking too much to ask for that same courtesy. There are more than enough Appaloosas and venues to enjoy them to satisfy all types.
Pandora, he truly is an amazing looking animal with what appears to be stunning movement. I love the photo they have of him at 18 years of age – still quite magnificent!
Okay, i have in my hand a British Appaloosa Society promo folder with a picture of the initially posted stallion, Dances with Wolves, being ridden side saddle. Unfortunately, it says nothing about the horse’s specific pedigree. However, the accompanying letter from my English friend refers to him as a “Dutch Appaloosa,” so I doubt he carries Har Dar Shado breeding and is a different “Dances with Wolves” than the ApHC registered one. He notes that a chestnut son of DWW was sold at an auction he attended, that the 3 year old was 16.2-16.s, was gorgeous, and went for about 2,900 pounds ($6,000). This was in 2001.
P.S. Here’s a strange thing about the British Appaloosa Society. They have 3 classifications of registration: Main (Horses enter the Main Register on a graded basis and it is only open to animals with correct pedigree qualification.), Annex (This is for animals who have one parent which is a Main Registered Appaloosa and one from Permitted out crosses, i.e., registered TB, QH and Arab), and Part-Bred (This is for animals from ANY BREEDING (my emphasis) that have at least one registered Appaloosa parent or grandparent.
Interestingly, they told my friend that he could ONLY register a Part Bred that was BY AN APPALOOSA STALLION – i.e., he could NOT register an Appaloosa sired by his Holsteiner stallion out of a registered Appaloosa mare. The Appaloosa parent for a part bred MUST be the stallion.
Worldclass, I understand your distaste/objection re nasty comments about QH crosses, and don’t really mean to offend. I really don’t have a problem with one on one crosses when someone wants a particular bloodline, etc. It’s a “recovered” breed. While I wish the books were closed, that ain’t the case and it is still a permitted cross. However, I do very much object to the continued outcrossing to the point where you have a 15/16ths QH with no spots, no characteristics, etc., only 1/16 Appaloosa by blood and it is CPO’d and registered as an Appaloosa. If one had a horse that was 15/16th SHIRE and 1/16th Arabian, would you refer to it as an Arabian. It’s like homeopathic remedies: Diluted to the point where there’s none of the original (Appaloosa) left.
Smarrujo – interesting stuff! Yeah, I seriously doubt the ApHC horse of the same name is this guy – the one in the ApHC would be older than this guy. The color thing alone isn’t enough to convince me as I have a lovely dun gelding that is registered as a bay so Lord knows they have plenty of color mistakes in the records! In addition, the stallion shown doesn’t look like he’s got an AQHA dam for sure! Interesting to me that the British registry would allow non-Approved breed mares but not stallions….for the life of me I can’t see the sense in it.
And one last thing – yes, its the pants!!! lol I too have pondered where these advanced male riders come from because we sure as heck aren’t seeing them in the “lower echelons” lol I mean, they had to come from SOMEWHERE!!! I’m a woman and I still hate the pants…my ever expanding backside doesn’t need to be showcased like that!
Smarrujo (you need an easier screen name! lol) I do totally understand what you are saying and I didn’t mean to jump on the defensive but in rereading, I guess I did – sorry. Because I show halter, I do like to outcross from time to time because I do want my horses to be competitive and sometimes the best cross I can find is a quarter horse. I do breed those outcrosses back to Appaloosas and I do agree that 15/16 quarter/appaloosa does not really make an “Appaloosa” except by ApHC rules. On a positive note, as a breeder, I have found that when all else is equal (color, quality, etc) my clients will pick the appxapp over the appxqh so that is encouraging. I do think the FPD classes have helped in that respect and hope to see them grow more.
Looking at arabgirl’s comments, could I suggest a post comparing US/UK/other countries’ version of the same breed/type? Arabs are a good one, as, I think, are Shetlands. I know the Shetland and the American Shetland are offically different breeds, but I think it’s interesting to look at the difference in them considering they share a name.
“”But ApHC isn’t looking for that: They are breeding Herefords at halter, downhill conformation, big butts, tiny feet and no color – “”
First off, “The ApHC” doesn’t do any breeding– it only registers what people choose to breed within their rules. That said, there ARE some ApHC carded judges who prefer big ‘ol beasts as you described in a halter class- but as another post-er said, that looks like it is beginning to change. Also remember that showing at halter is only one small slice of the entire ApHC Appaloosa picture– halter has less entries than many other classes at an ApHCshow, and 80% of ApHC members don’t show breed shows at all.
“”Regarding that stallion: I find it hard to believe, then, that he is ApHC registered with an unknown pedigree. The only scenario I can imagine is if ApHC simply accepts the British Spotted Horse Society registration as valid”"
Currently the ApHC does not just accept the UK Appaloosas accross the board. Prior to around 1980, pretty much anything with color could be hardshipped in, so un-pedigreed spotted horses both in the U.S. and in other countries were being registered up through the 1970′s. The fees got higher and higher to hardship a horse with unknown breeding until 1986 when it stopped altogether except for geldings and spayed mares. Since then, however, the ApHC DID have at least two different “open windows” (open then shut, never permanent) where they allowed horses from other registries full registration with ApHC– I think the intent was to help international Appaloosa breeders who might not have met previous deadlines, or might have let ApHC papers lapse, to “catch up”.
“”Is it just our U. S. obsession with cowboys & indians that has turned (most but not all) Appies into QH clones?”"
I am not sure about “most”– yes Appaloosas bred for some of the show ring disciplines have been headed that direction for many many years, but those horses bred to show don’t necessarily represent the majority of Appaloosas– they might be the most advertised and the most visible type, but that doesn’t make them the most numerous type. Again, even in the show ring, I think this is changing. over the past few years I have attended numerous regional shows as well as the World and National Appaloosa shows, and I think I see a re-surgence of all-around horses, especially in youth and non-pro. The fastest growing in-hand classes are NOT the traditional halter classes, but the Hunter In Hand classes, which just expanded again in Youth and Non pro. Winning horses in this class are tall, athletic, sweepy-moving horses with a smoother body type– I would say more TB influence than QH– and most of the adult HIH winners are also being shown under saddle, so there is definitely some to “form to function” being seen here as well.
Eastowest – I should have been more precise. Of course, ApHC is only a registry – but the shows they sponsor/the judges they card have, in the past, and to judge by the pics in the Journal still do, tend to go for the extremely QH looking Apps. In fact, there was a specific article in the Journal where Appy judges interviewed stated that they “liked the solid ones, they’re easier to judge,” and “I really like Appies now that they look more like Quarter Horses (!)”
Now, admittedly, I stopped going to breed shows circa 1990 when I retired my Old Painter/Red Eagle horse who was a retired eventer/hunter/jumper. At age 19, he won circuit champion at a breed show without ever having to jump off. Sure wasn’t much competition from the QH clones. When I showed him at breed shows, I only showed him over fences. They wouldn’t give him the time of day in flat classes – and he was a horse that won and placed at Open shows in Hunter flat classes and over fences. But at those shows, they picked the WP horses under English tack, and to judge from the pics (again in the Journal), they still do. Bigger, fancier movers – but ridden in a way that NO open show judge would place (I concede that if ridden properly some of these horses WOULD be competitive on the open circuit).
Another pet peeve about form and function, since you bring it up: Every notice the numbers of horses in classes at the National and Worlds. You look and see 30 or 40 horses in Hunder Under Saddle – and maybe 10 (if you’re lucky) that actually do the over fences classes! WHAT?? Hunters that jump fences??? – Heaven forbid! ROFLOL
It was certainly my undrstanding that this particular horse – Dances with Wolves – was not American ApHC registered and wouldn’t be encompassed within any grandfathering, since to judge by the materials my English friend sent me, he’s not in the US, but in the UK.
You say changes are happening, but I sure don’t see it in the pics I see in the Journal of winning horses. I showed my horse when instead of “Hunter in Hand” they had “dressage suitability.” ApHC judges couldn’t get that right, so leave me room to doubt that they get Hunter in Hand right either, especially when I see how the HUS horses that win go (again, judging by pics in the Journal).
While I grant that many, many Appaloosas are NOT QH clones, and many people show their (often unregistered) Appies open and are quite successful in many disciplines, the fact remains that the horses pictured in the Journal, and the horses that ApHC judges prefer, tend to be the example to OTHERS of what the breed is/was. So that brings you to the QH clones,” because THAT is what most of the publicity and statement as to what the breed is/should be goes to. When someone who is not a knowledgeable Appy person picks up a copy of the Journal, they see page after page of predominantly QH conformation, minimal color, WP way of going and form that image of “what an Appaloosa is,” and some of them walk away saying, “If I wanted a QH, I’d buy a QH.” Then they go to a breed show and see the same thing -class after class of minimally colored (if colored at all horses).
A friend of mine had a lovely Foundation App/TB LOUD colt for sale. She got call after call asking “Will he halter.” She had to keep telling them, “only for “most colorful or hunter in hand,” and they all decided that they didn’t want him – he didn’t look like a QH. Double Sigh.
Sorry to be so long winded, but I still doubt there is much improvement, though I agree that the popularity of the FPD classes may help.
>>>>>It was certainly my undrstanding that this particular horse – Dances with Wolves – was not American ApHC registered and wouldn’t be encompassed within any grandfathering, since to judge by the materials my English friend sent me, he’s not in the US, but in the UK.
I don’t know if this horse is ApHc registered– I was just explaining how, given his age and location, it was indeed possible, given the “open window” that ApHC offered to Appaloosas registered with other registries (including registries in the UK and other internationally located registries) a few years back.
>>>>>You say changes are happening, but I sure don’t see it in the pics I see in the Journal of winning horses.
What you see advertised in the Appaloosa Journal is exactly that– paid advertising. Its not ApHC sponsored or limited to any particular discipline– anyone who buys and runs an ad can feature any type of Appaloosa they want to in it! So if those with big muscular halter horses are buying more ads, that is what you will see more of.
>>>>So that brings you to the QH clones,” because THAT is what most of the publicity and statement as to what the breed is/should be goes to. When someone who is not a knowledgeable Appy person picks up a copy of the Journal, they see page after page of predominantly QH conformation, minimal color, WP way of going and form that image of “what an Appaloosa is,”
In the past several years the Appaloosa Journal has run artictles and features on Distance programs, Foundation breeders, Appaloosas playing polo, serving in therapeutic riding, working on ranches, doing the Chief Joseph Trail Ride, winning at cowboy mounted shooting… the ApHC/the Appaloosa Journal is not ignoring the variety of Appaloosa types and interests– BUT they are also not turining down those buying and paying for ads…. and those showing seem to be paying for more “big” advertising. So are you saying A) the newcomer you are talking about is swayed more by the flashy ads for halter/pleasure Appaloosas than the rest of the Appaloosa Journal content? or B) breeders/enthusiasts with other types of Appaloosas are not advertising big enough and often enough in the Appaloosa Journal? or c) both?
Yes, I know they run articles on Appies participating in other disciplines – but those are usually minimal compared to the “mainstream” halter/WP types. Yes, it is paid advertising and perhaps the people who breed Foundation and/or more “middle of the road saddle horse” type Appies SHOULD promote their horses more. What I am saying is that when someone who doesn’t know the history of the breed picks up the Journal, he sees what is WINNING. It doesn’t matter that those are paid ads – they are still what Appaloosa judges deem “winners,” and therefore those QH conformation, minimally colored horses are shown as the kind of horse you need if you want to win on the Appaloosa circuit. That, of course, doesn’t mean that you can’t hunt out a more suitable, non QH/non-WP type/non-halter type horse for your particular discipline. That certainly is what I did. I dipped my feet into breed showing for a few years with my Appy jumpers/eventers/dressage horses and then got the heck out, wasn’t what I wanted. When I am at open shows, I get told they’ve never seen Appies as nice as mine – all the ones they know are either “fugly” horses or “the same as Quarter Horses.” So whatever the TRUTH may be – the IMAGE is that the QH clone is what wins at shows recognized by ApHC and is the “ideal Appaloosa.”
I have to defend my 20 yr non-registered Appy. My daughter posted that she is fugly and while she may not have a beautiful head, she’s a wonderful babysitter and back up horse. All the kids learn on her and my novice riding friends love to ride her. But the point is that we love her and still know not to breed her! Here’s a pic of a friend who hadn’t ridden in 20 years till she had a blast with our Dixie.
http://lh5.google.com/kdhuff1/Ro5oeSuxLvI/AAAAAAAAAig/OdCtIYX6-Tc/S5000257.JPG?imgmax=512
Okay it looks like what came up was my entire day of horse camp pictures. I just wanted one #P9018350.JPG I’m not sure if I should edit this or not. Or even how you get back into to edit. I don’t see an edit button.
>>>>> What I am saying is that when someone who doesn’t know the history of the breed picks up the Journal, he sees what is WINNING. It doesn’t matter that those are paid ads – they are still what Appaloosa judges deem “winners,” and therefore those QH conformation, minimally colored horses are shown as the kind of horse you need if you want to win on the Appaloosa circuit.
Hmmmmm, maybe people see what they want to see…. or if they greatly like OR dislike something, they are quicker to notice its presence and miss the presence of other things (improvement, change,decline, etc). maybe you or I or both are guilty of the above—because it seems we are not looking at things/seeing things the same way. I will say I have had several people in the last few years tell me they are seeing MORE variety, MORE athletic horses, and MORE color in the Appaloosa Journal as well as at the shows. You said you have not attended an Appaloosa show for years– maybe things have changed since you quit. Anyway, here are a few RECENT World/National/Regional Champions who are colored, in my eyes NOT extreme QH type, NOT huge musclebound monsters, and NOT gimpy peanut rollers (the “breed show frame” headset in a few classes is lower/more more level than I prefer, but I can tell from the photos/videos of these horses that the lower set is trained, not permanent, LOL)
http://www.silveroaksfarm.net/Undertack.htm
http://www.royalblueacres.com/handsofhonor.htm
http://www.appaloosajournal.com/ad/Top10%20Showcase/sacred_dream.html
http://www.bhranch.com/real/BackToBlack.htm
http://www.appaloosa.org/zippy.html
http://www.followmefarm.com/zip.htm
All I can say is come to Austraila- no fugly appies down here. We’re still ‘versatile’ ; meaning we can do more than look good or go round in one event. We have no HYPP, we still breed for good minds, legs and conformation. And we’re good enough to be beat the other western breeds at thier own game LOL.
easttowest –
good comment, BUT huntseat horses are not supposed to carry themselves that way, no matter what breed they are. So why train them to go so wrong?
Has anyone else noticed how TINY the near-fore on that ‘old-style’ appy is?
Apologies if you have, I aven’t read everything.
(Formerly smarrujo, for the ease of those who had trouble with my name).
Eastowest – Perhaps we do see what we want to see. It would be interesting for each of us to take a recent issue of the Journal and start counting Quarterloosas v. Appaloosas. An issue with the National or World show results would be best, since those are what are promoted as the best of the breed. My recollection is that every time I do such a count, the solid Quarterloosas outnumber the Appaloosas. I will grant that the TRUE performance horses – the gamers, the jumpers, the reiners, the heading and healing horses, etc. usually ARE what I think of as true Appies – generally with a good build (not extreme QH) and color. But the halter and WP horses are the ones who grab (pay for??LOL) the attention and are what catch the general public’s eye. Or perhaps it’s regional. I’m in California, and when I see Cal Western’s little promos and ads, its the Beefaloosas that dominate it’s pages. I can think of one set of trainers in particular: They have nice reiners – lean, athletic, colored horses. And then they have their stud and Beefaloosas that win at halter. Just keeping up with the Joneses, I guess. They know what they need to perform, but they know what WINS for their clients who only want to do showmanship, halter, and show their “versatile” horses – i.e., WP and Eq – they can walk/trot/jog. Big whoop.
I love the first one, the second one looks like one rough ride! Don’t care so much for the 3rd either, too QH like. When I got into Apps (back in the dark ages) there was lots of fugly around BUT at least at that point the all around horse was still popular, most halter horses could ride just fine, in fact they often raced, showed under saddle and did endurance too. And they looked like apps still. Here’s my guy, never EVER EVER win a halter class but you never did see a prettier mover or one that could outlast him and a disposition like a big dog. http://pets.webshots.com/album/207159798YaaxAu
I haven’t seen any horses for sale that would match his athleticism. His pedigree is on allbreed. Almost all foundation or app to app except for a couple unknowns way back and one famous standardbred WAY back. Guess maybe that’s where the head came from! But you don’t ride a head!
The problem (besides people breeding fugly horses just for color, any color) is that because it has app coloring people assume it is an Appaloosa when they may not have an actual Appaloosa in the pedigree for 4 generations. So all fugly spotted horses are apps whether they are Apps or not.
But the current “App” with the hideous halter conformation, the HYPP, the sheer solidness of them (goes for the Paint show world too) just disgusts me. If I wanted a QH I’d just go get a QH. Why don’t these people? Because they don’t know enough about conformation to be able to judge a horse with a pattern? Because they think a smaller breed might be easier to win with? Whatever, I wish they would stick to ruining their QHs instead.
Alas, I know why. I just recently heard about the entry fees for AQHA World. Anywhere from $500/class to $1500/class. Ouch. App World is $85/class. Hmmmm…. If I wanted to show on the World level, what breed would I go for?
OMG! The first stally you posted… Well, I know him!
I have some photos of a little colt by him (stunning potential sporthorse type) if you’d like to see
I looked at the middle one for a long time until I realized what it reminded me off… teh way its hind end compares to the front, the way its moving… reminds me of an elephant.
Okay, I know this was posted in AUGUST and it’s now DECEMBER, but I’m a new reader and am just getting around to reading the archives. Just as a heads up, I’m not here to critque, just inform.
The second horse was either owned or produced by the people who bred my Appaloosa. I have seen that picture so many times but for some reason cannot find it on their website tonight (they switched things around a few months ago and it’s now kind of hard to find things). Yes, this mare is not ideal, however if I remember properly she’s a bit on the older side, and was very possibly pregnant durring this picture (which would explain the stomach).
These people have bred some very fine horses, and I’m not saying this because of “emotional ties” to my own. They somehow found a way to take this: http://www.jumpers-appaloosas.net/Robinpics.htm and this: http://www.jumpers-appaloosas.net/images/DynaFoals/Dyna.jpg and produced this: http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y279/UsernameHere02/Ink2001.jpg
Their broodmares may not be the prettiest, but they have managed to produce a good crop of well moving, conformationally correct (as close as any) horses, that make wonderful show horses for riders of all ages.
Sorry again for this being December and commenting a post made in August. I am now done informing.
I don’t have a picture to prove it, but I’ve seen an appy with a tail that could beat her’s. I was watching a show at a farm, it was an, I don’t know, advanced schooling show? Ya, let’s say that. All of the horses there were gorgeous, well behaved and all of the riders were good riders. Half the horses there were probably stallions and ALL of them were well behaved! They were even walking stallions right by each other with mares all around them without them so much as flattening their ears at each other (so take THAT people who say all stallions are fire-breathing man-eating monsters!). Well, amongst all of this sheer beauty and amazing riding, there was one horse and her rider that made me wish I were blind.
This little mare was so freakin’ long I don’t even know if she KNEW she had a butt. Seriously. Her tail was made up of nothing more than a few strands of hair. I seriously thought something was wrong with her because it was bad even for an appy. Her mane wasn’t a far cry away, either. She had a skimpy little neck that I was surprised it could hold her head up and beady little eyes. She looked like she was somewhere between a yearling and a two year-old. Now, the rider rode with her stirrups so long that her legs were straight (as in, she might as well have been standing up straight) AND she was on her tip-toes. She had the reins short and the little mare’s head WAY up. This was a dressage show, so as you can imagine this was highly frowned upon. And I normally like appies, but I have to say, this mare’s coloring on top of everything else wrong with her would have made her FHOTD’s poster child horse thing. The only good thing I think I could say for her was she had nice (though kind of skimpy) legs and a good shoulder.