Welcome to the NFQHA – Riders not required!
Aug 17 2007
I have been complaining for years about the bad riding I see at many stock breed shows. The hunt seat looks like western with posting, with stirrups too long, loose legs and “puppy paw” hands all too common. A step in the right direction would have been a QH show association that put more emphasis on riding and let the hunters move and carry their heads like hunters. Instead, we got a QH show association where, if you can hang on to the horn and stay upright, you can apparently win a class.
I’m talking, of course, about the National Foundation Quarter Horse Association. I like to rip on the NFQHA anyway, because when I think of “foundation” Quarter Horses, I think of 1300 lbs on eentsy little size 00 feet, thick short necks, and a crappy little knee popping trot stride. (See illustration, at left!) For those of you who keep asking what “nest” is, it’s when the neck runs into the chest with no definition between the two. Like you see right here on your left!
Most QH breeders realized these things were problems, and started crossing these horses on Thoroughbreds and taller, more elegant Quarter Horses to get today’s modern and more athletic Quarter Horse.
This appalled some folks, who think it’s just not a Quarter Horse if it doesn’t look more musclebound that Arnold Schwarzenegger in his prime and move like a fat girl wearing a too-tight miniskirt. So they up and started the NFQHA to “preserve” everything about Quarter Horses that most of the world was saying good riddance to. And I have to say, they have succeeded. Witness these lovely examples of “foundation” breeding.
No, I do not know what is going on with the sorrel mare’s hocks, either. Suffice it to say we’ve taken “cowhocked” to a whole new level!
The palomino is a stallion. Are you scared? I am!
It doesn’t stop there, though. Now they have their own horse shows. They have a page on their site talking about how their shows are “different.” Well, that is one word for it.
ONLY THE HORSE IS JUDGED – Our judges are instructed to judge only the horse, and not the handler, or rider.
We don’t need no stinkin’ riding lessons!
NO SILVER – In the interest of equality for competitors, no silver plate is allowed.
OMG political correctness hits the show ring – fight silverism!
WORKING WESTERN WEAR FOR EXHIBITORS – Exhibitors are encouraged to dress in plain, neat, western clothing suitable for working, or riding. Hats, boots, jeans, and long sleeve shirts are required. Sequins, glitter, and other “fancy” dress are to be avoided.
Well, hell, that just removes the only reason I EVER wanted to show in western pleasure…the clothes!
NO BANDED MANES, NO HOOF POLISH, NO SHAVING OF EARS – To promote versatility, NFQHA expects the conformation horse to look like the performance horse, and vice versa. Also, NFQHA cannot condone practices which limit the horse’s natural protection against dust and insects, such as shaving the inside of the ears, and nostrils. Horses are required to be shown with natural length tails. A bridle path the length of the ear is acceptable, as is clipping excessive facial hair, hair outside the ears, and excessive leg hair.
OK, none of this really bothers me although I am not sure how banded manes are a problem? But then again, it’s good to know there is a show out there willing to welcome my mare whose mane grows on both sides. Oops, she’s half Thoroughbred so she’s not allowed…another hope dashed.
EXCESSIVELY SLOW GAITS TO BE PENALIZED – Horses are to be shown at natural gaits, suitable for a working horse. Excessively slow gaits, depression or dejected expression, and poll lower than withers, will disqualify the horse from the class.
I do agree with this. I wish this was the rule everywhere.
BREED AND COLOR CLASSES – New in 2006 are classes celebrating the various colors of the Foundation Quarter Horse and the Bulldog breed standard. The color classes for Duns/Grullos, Palominos, and Roans judge not only the color but also the horse’s conformation. The Breed classes judge the Bulldog traits and working condition. Horses must also enter a performance class.
Dear God, let’s just encourage the color breeders even more! And WTF is the Bulldog standard? I guess we are back to muscles like Schwarzenegger and moves like a fat girl in a too tight skirt again…
SNAFFLE OR RAWHIDE BOSAL – Horses of any age may be ridden in a snaffle, or rawhide bosal. Some restrictions will apply as to when one or two hands can be used. (No twisted wire snaffles.)
This only makes sense. If you are going to have a show ring full of people who cannot ride, you are less likely to have wrecks if you let them direct rein.
NO WEANLING CONFORMATION, NO HORSEMANSHIP, NO ENGLISH EVENTS – In-hand trail classes will be offered for yearlings and two year olds. NFQHA encourages members to let their babies be babies to develop important social skills. We greatly discourage isolation and overfeeding of babies.
Um, if you guys set the conformation standard and you don’t want to place the overfed okapi types, why is it necessary to ban the showing of weanlings? It seems to me that you’re missing your great opportunity here to give a championship trophy to someone’s shaggy weanling with a bite mark on his ear from his buddy and make a point!
As for no horsemanship, well, I think we’ve already established the NFQHA is going its part not to discriminate against people whose riding sucks. In fact, you have thrown the doors open wide to those people…and that is fine with me…as that way they will not come out to try to buy any of my or my friends’ horses. We prefer our horses not be traumatized by flapping, bouncing sacks of potatoes, if at all avoidable.
As for no English…what happened to you goal of promoting versatility? Maybe that should read “versatility as long as it does not involve doing somethin’ hard like postin’ or ridin’ in one of them saddles that ain’t got no horn to hang on to.”
Yes, come show with the NFQHA – the lazy man’s horseshow association!
249 comments to “Welcome to the NFQHA – Riders not required!”
« Previous 1 2 3
« Previous 1 2 3
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment. Not a member? Registering is free, and you do it here!
roanrider said:
“Oh yeah, and the little anorexic bitches I see at the Foundation AND hunter jumper shows with their jeans/breeches rolled down to the top of their pubic hair and their shirt rolled up to show the bottom of their boobs, now THAT’S classy!!!!”
Ooooh touched a nerve did I? If you’re trying to find out my discipline so you can hurt my feeling… think again. I’ve ridden so many types of riding styles that I have an opinion on most of them and their respective “Princesses. I’m not attached to any one style or discipline.
And I appreciate most all breeds of horses and dogs and cats and goats and sheep and cattle, etc. And I think warthogs are cute. So snotty snarky comments are lost on me.
So no, I don’t think that is classy, never said I did. However they are NOT in the show ring like that are they now.
I think ALL of the crap about how one must dress to compete in ANY discipline just that… crap. Good riding is good riding and a well trained horse is a well trained horse. No amount of rhinestones or silver will change that.
I do agree that clothing should be tidy, clean and well pressed. The horse should be clean and well maintained. All tack should be clean and safe. Showing up on a well groomed healthy horse in clean clothing and riding clean, well maintained tack is respectful of the judge, the other contestents and the riding discipline. However after that it is all a beauty contest and in this case, IMO, a slutty one.
If you think about it, the costumes that are worn for any particular discipline are based on the point in time where that discipline developed.
Hunt outfits were developed in the late eighteenth century and we wear something akin to the riding outfits worn then. Although I will admit that the coats have changed considerably and women don’t have to wear dresses and ride sidesaddle.
Park seat was developed with the advent of riding gaited horses in the park during the turn of the century. Hence the silly dated coat and tails, top hat etc.
Dressage… 16th and 17th centuries.
Western riding developed relatively recently in… duh the west in the 19th century and of the all discipline the attire has changed the most and again, IMO, not for the better.
All of this showing of horses is a game; you’re playing at a game. This isn’t life or death, it doesn’t make the sun shine or the crops to grow. So what if you make your show clothing. I don’t really care. But I do have an opinion that what is worn in the WP rings is neither pleasurable or attractive.
(don’t forget that the 19th century would be the 1800′s)
Yes, but SHOWING pleasure didn’t start until recently – like 1950′s really. Actually, I am not a fan of lots of clothes. My last outfit colors were brown and teal. Yes, I had crystals, but I incorporated myself into my outfit and didn’t think of it as “loud” or “flashy”, but really “unique”.
I actually like what people are wearing now – the retro shirts. When I was showing every weekend, exotic leathers on vests and slinkies were what everyone wore. It was expensive to have my outfit made. A rail shirt costs FAR less to have made by a seamstress. I am not a fan of bright red chaps and bright red blouses… no. I know someone who had an outfit like this when I was still in high school and my mother and I refered to her as “joker girl”.
Don’t get me started on makeup. No. Your 8 year old doesn’t need BRIGHT teal makeup and bright red hooker lipstick to win her horsemanship class. You don’t want to just blend in, but you don’t want to scare the judge either
STORMIE said, “You really like to be rude don’t you.”
Actually, I don’t. Your comments are extremely difficult to understand at times. And when you say things like, “And are you finally getting the point that I feel the same way. I have had to repeat it enough.” then I can cop an attitude. I don’t need that. I try to help and state the facts as I have learned them. When others don’t read what I write, yet respond with statements that tell me they don’t understand, then I can get upset.
When you say things like, “I do not agree 100% with everything the NFQHA or any of the breed groups do but I know a lot of dang good Foundation QHs and they are not what you think they are. They are muscled but not overly so. They have good feet that fit their size and hold up to a hard day work with or without shoes. They are level headed, smart and honest and a joy to ride. Many of them have never seen an english saddle but given the training they could do that too, or drive, or barrle race, or pack the kids around the yard or herd cattle, or whatever.” that tells me that you don’t realize that ANY horse can do all those things. It doesn’t even have to be a good horse, or even a registered horse. It can even be a mustang. So what makes a “foundation” horse special or different than any other AQHA horse? That was my original point.
Then you said, “I disagree about the TB blood. It is getting to the point that the added TB blood in the AQHA horses is not doing any good. The idea that we have to keep adding the TB in is not solid from the stand point of developing a breed of it’s own.” To which I replied many times why QHs as a breed needs TB blood.
I think we agree that QHs should be versatile. I was pointing out that in order to have performance ability and agility, speed blood is required. If not, we’d see all the “foundation”-bred QHs (who are far removed from obvious speed blood) dominating the performance events, and I’m not just talking about AQHA.
Forthefutureofthebreed said:
“And, the horse you posted might be a performing fool, but he lacked the class to gather an admirable amount of halter points or WP points.”
Jeebus Christos roasting in effin’ Hades–PLEASE STOP acting like performance ain’t squat without halter wins. Halter wins SUCK in most breed show rings as it rewards EXTREMES that usually mean lack of athletic ability esp in the AQHA or Ayrab world. So please spare us that halter equals class crapola. I run screaming from HALTER wins because it takes a hella horse to overcome that disadvantage. And lets not talk about that shit WP cuz that is certainly not what good horses or horsemanship is about these days for cryin’ out loud!
While I’m not a QH person, I grew up w/one that was fast as hell, could turn on dime, had great feet/bone and a can do attitude over jumps, around barrels and cutting cattle. He was 15h, lean, attractive and hot and my best horse ever at 40% Tb blood.
However, I think the AQHA made a mistake in not limiting the amount of TB blood. Outcrossing is good but it doesn’t make any sense that a horse that is almost entirely TB blood can be a papered QH. The Appendix registery should be entirely separate and NOT compete in QH circles. Not saying they aren’t great horses but they shouldn’t be designated as QHs.
forthefutureofthebreed
I’m not going to bother going back and digging stuff up. I don’t remember for sure if it was you or someone on here that got pissy with me I got pissy with the rest of it. You have come off as rude even when I was nice to you.
I’m going to quote this whole thing:
“When you say things like, “I do not agree 100% with everything the NFQHA or any of the breed groups do but I know a lot of dang good Foundation QHs and they are not what you think they are. They are muscled but not overly so. They have good feet that fit their size and hold up to a hard day work with or without shoes. They are level headed, smart and honest and a joy to ride. Many of them have never seen an english saddle but given the training they could do that too, or drive, or barrle race, or pack the kids around the yard or herd cattle, or whatever.” that tells me that you don’t realize that ANY horse can do all those things. It doesn’t even have to be a good horse, or even a registered horse. It can even be a mustang. So what makes a “foundation” horse special or different than any other AQHA horse? That was my original point.”
Really how does that tell you that? It doesn’t because I never said that only a foundation horse can be that. Remember the post that started this. She was basicly saying that they are small footed, bad conformation, and a number of other nasty things. I was point out how not all of them are. That the “Good ones” was talking about where these things. I was talking about horses I personally know not the whole group. If you reread that it should be pretty clear because of this part of it “I know a lot of dang good Foundation QHs and they are not what you think they are.” Clearly it was not a “This is a foundation” statement.
“Then you said, “I disagree about the TB blood. It is getting to the point that the added TB blood in the AQHA horses is not doing any good. The idea that we have to keep adding the TB in is not solid from the stand point of developing a breed of it’s own.” To which I replied many times why QHs as a breed needs TB blood.”
I think we agree that QHs should be versatile. I was pointing out that in order to have performance ability and agility, speed blood is required. If not, we’d see all the “foundation”-bred QHs (who are far removed from obvious speed blood) dominating the performance events, and I’m not just talking about AQHA.
I agree we need some speed blood to get the perfromance and such. Not sure why then you want the performance horses to then have halter points based on todays “halter horse”. With the extreme that they have the halter horses now that is like saying I want my GSD to be judged by the standards of a Poodle for conformation classes. I think that the halter classes need to be altered also but I get off topic. sorry
I agree we need some speed blood but does that mean that we have to keep putting it in forever? Until a breed is going good enough to stand on it’s own without added blood it isn’t really a breed but still in that mixing stage. There is enough good AQHA horses right now that we could close the books IF they had a better standard and inforced it. It isn’t like we don’t have a lot of good speed lines now. But like I said they would need to set the standard and inforce in the breeding and showing.
The way you make it sound is that you think that we should keep adding this speed blood in for the rest of the time we have QH’s. You do not see this in other breeds. At some point the QH is going to have to stand on it’s own hooves. Everytime we add more and more TB blood the QH’s start to look more and more TB’s. YES I KNOW not all TB’s look like that and that a QH is very close to some lines of the TB’s but we are both smart enough to know that they are not doing anything to control which lines of TB are allow in…..maybe that is something they should do.
STORMIE, it most certainly did read as though you were defending foundation QHs, not just the few that you knew. But that’s beside the point. If I took that wrong, I apologize. We agree there.
I have NEVER stated that I believe a good performance horse should halter with “today’s halter horses”! Absolutely not! I think something would need to change before I believed that! That is why I stated that many of these foundation horses wouldn’t halter even by yesterday’s standards. It’s a pretty sad thing what has happened to today’s halter horses.
Regarding TB blood. Yes, I believe that outcross (TB) blood needs to continue, as long as there are people out there linebreeding the crap out of certain horses to “maintain a type”, or for the win. High percentage TB HUS horses are not the majority. If they were, then I can see your point. But they’re not. They are a very small part of the big picture here, and I don’t see them increasing in numbers any time soon where it will affect the breed as a whole. As I said before, 67 years isn’t a whole long time to call a gene pool this size of AQHA’s “good enough”. 300 years, maybe. But not 67. It took a whole lot longer than 67 years for the Quarter Horse to evolve, just up to the point where Peter McCue arrived on the scene.
As far as a “breed standard”? There isn’t one, and hasn’t been for a very long time. As soon as people started breeding for specific events, any previous breed standard went out the window. The only standard that should be “enforced” is quality. Propagating “foundation” QHs isn’t preserving anything. It is adding to the already huge population of extremely poor to mediocre horses out there, all in the name of “preservation”. Let me ask this: If something is obsolete, or near extinction, why did that happen? Obviously, the type wasn’t valuable to enough people to continue breeding them. It certainly isn’t because the breed itself was near extinction. If foundation QHs were so good at everything, everyone breeding QHs would be breeding them and winning with them.
Hey guys that don’t like halter due to the current trends there is an alternative in AQHA. It’s called Performance Halter, and AQHA just implemented it this year. I believe it is a great concept and a step in the right direction.
Here’s how it works . . .
A horse must have an ROM in a performance class (min 10 points) to be eligable to show in Performance Halter.
You can only show in one halter class per division. So if you show in Open Performance Halter you can’t show in Open Halter.
1st and 2nd place horses in the Performance Halter division show in the grand and reserve class of their sex division. Believe it or not there have been a Performance Halter horse that stood grand and reserve grand!
A judge a long time ago told me that a judge can only judge whats in the ring. If you don’t show you can’t place. So, if all that’s in the ring are the big bulky, posty hocked, straight pasterned horses – one of them are going to win. That’s how trends get started. Hopefully with a few more Pleasure Halter horses taking the grands and reserves will change the face of halter as we know of it today.
Well If foundation Blood is bad then Hollywood Dunit, High Brow cat and Smart Little Lena should all be cut from the breeding market. I have a Bodee Boonsmal that is a finished cutting horse which is also reg. Foundation. So there are so top of the line proformance horses that are foundation.
I must say its about time SOMEONE put a stop to shaving ears and whiskers – a pet hate of mine. I show my horses (English and dressage) and REFUSE to shave the ears out or remove their whiskers! I think its just wrong. (and i dont think shaving looks any better anyway??)
Oh, my aching scroll finger.
Der, have I failed some sort of IQ test? Is there really not a more elegant, concise way to get thru all the comments so one can post one’s own thoughts, hopefully with some relevance, and little redundancy?
(I had to use a lot of big words, since I was feelin’ so dumb on computer things.)
Okay, Forthefuture said:
“As far as a “breed standard”? There isn’t one, and hasn’t been for a very long time.”
Oh. Not being a QH person, I hadn’t heard this–and if it is true, that is the worst thing I’ve heard yet, in all this debate.
Surely, if the studbooks are EVER to be closed, with a nice gene pool to draw upon, then there is an actual GOAL of what this breed, the QH, is supposed to look and act like? Surely?!
At least all QH folks agree on keeping four legs, right?
Oh, and kudos, grullogal, whatever your differences with breed politics and such, for pulling an individual with a heritable defect out of the gene pool. Great lifeguarding, there
BLUEWILLOW – If there IS a breed standard, I have yet to see it. Which one of the various types would it be? Racing? Halter? Western Pleasure? Cutting? Reining? HUS? Trail horses? All-Arounds? Team Penners? I couldn’t begin to guess…
Now, if you’re talking about the 1970s or thereabouts, then I can tell you what that standard was. The AQHA Supreme Horses. Those were the ultimate Quarter Horses. Ones that could run AAA time, perform well in the arena at various events, and hold their own at halter. They earned the highest possible title AQHA has. And there hasn’t been one since Lucks Easyfanta Boy, who was linebred Three Bars (TB) and over 50% Thoroughbred blood.
Before that, it was the Poco Bueno types. But they found out quickly that they couldn’t do a whole lot except maybe cutting, and they rode like a jackhammer. The old cowboys who rode a lot of range here out west preferred the TB crosses. They could go all day, and gave a pretty comfortable ride, and sure enough, they also had plenty of speed, intelligence, and cow.
forthefutureofthebreed
Nope I was defending the good foundation horses I know. It’s funny really, a lot more AQHA horses are actually foundation then what many believe. The owners just didn’t list them with those groups for whatever reason.
I thought it was you that said something about the good foundation Performance winners didn’t have halter points so that they didn’t count. Sorry if that wasn’t you. The whole comment thing on here is confusing with so many posts to read over.
Did you see that little write up in Horse Ill.(or maybe it was Horse and Rider). There is a Halter horse group starting up. It didn’t say if it was just QH or not but that they where going to announce it at the AQHA show. Something about the focus on Conformation but not what type of conformation. I’m hoping not those odd looking halter horses with the bubble butt cheeks and poles for legs. The first time I saw one of those I couldn’t look away. It was like a car wreck, you don’t want to look but you have to.
The trouble is that you will always have people linebreeding to certin horses. Even if you linebreed to your speed blood enough you end up with some fugly odd horses that are dominant in those genes.
But there needs to be a standard. As it is you can take 5 QHs and ask someone if they are all of the same breed. More then likely the answer is no.
Have to run. this is one topic on the FHOD that could go on forever and no matter what ideas come up AQHA is not going to change.
STORMIE said, “It’s funny really, a lot more AQHA horses are actually foundation then what many believe. The owners just didn’t list them with those groups for whatever reason.”
The “for whatever reason” is right here on this blog.
Of course most QHs have plenty of foundation blood. The good ones have plenty of outcross blood, because the breeders knew that in order to improve what they had, they had to breed out. Linebreeding over and over and over to the same horses doesn’t gain a thing. Even Hank Wiescamp, the Linebreeding King, used plenty of outcross blood. It was usually to sons and grandsons of Three Bars (TB).
Yeah, I have a fully eligible foundation bred horse with the FHR. She is a nice mare and very well-bred (not just well bred by foundation standards), but I haven’t registered her b/c A. she is technically a breeding stock paint, but is all QH (were talking 100%) and B. it doesn’t make any sense.
The stallion she is currently bred to wouldn’t qualify. He is bred Doc Bar both sides (diff generations) and crossed beautifully with her the last time. She’s a pretty mare, but he just is more athletic than she could ever be. Both of them are very versatile horses and great horses for anyone to ride.
Most people who show AQHA aren’t interested because it makes no sense. If you horse is a great horse, it’s contributions will speak for themselves! They won’t need FHR, FQHA, FQHR, or NFQHA papers to declare this – everyone will know it. I know a quality horse when I see one – foundation papers or not.
COLORISNTEVERYTHING – You got it. If a horse can’t cut it with their main registry, then they aren’t quality enough to begin with. When I see horses registered in a secondary registry, I don’t usually have a problem with that. Many APHA horses have PtHA papers, and many of those are used to create half-Arabian Pintos, etc. But if they show exclusively with those other registries, and aren’t competitive enough to show with their original registry, I do question their quality. I see it all the time. APHA and PtHA, or AQHA and FQHR, NFQHA, etc. Forget about the BEHA, and stupid organizations like that. They have no validity in my mind.
I have an awesome little mare that can be registered NFQHA. She is not overly muscled, and her feet fit her body. She has no conformational challenges either. She is completely solid red with a great disposition and I would be proud to breed her. Maybe I should go join the NFQHA so I can win everything.
But you are right I wouldn’t take the horses you showed in the pics if they were giving them away. I think there were some breeding for color issues in there. If that’s all I saw of NFQHA horses I would be down on the association too.
I’ve been to several NFQHA shows working the concession stand for a youth riding club fundraiser. The quality of horses sucked. Poorly conformed and ugly. The people who used saddles with silver covered the silver with duct tape. Now that was attractive. It also seemed that since they were showing “working” horses, it wasn’t necessary to wash or groom before the show. My daughter was allowed to ride her Jackie Bee mare in the arena during the lunch break. You should have seen the contestants faces. She had several ask her if she were going to be competing in the speed events. They breathed a sigh of relief when she said No. My daughter said that it seemed that the main requirement for the NFQHA is that the horses be ugly and at least they were consistant LOL.
I know a NFQHA person who coaches a youth horse judging team. She told the kids that horses should have a nest. It meant that the horses were stout. The kids could never figure out why the sucked in the conformation classes. Kind of sad isn’t it?
“Regarding fugly horse “breeders” – A breeder of any particular breed of horse (or dog or whatever) should have the goal to breed for the improvement of the breed.”
Interesting, because I thought that a breeder should always breed for the STANDARD of a particular breed.
That breed, be it horses, dogs, cattle, whatever, has already established the STANDARD – the ideal example of that particular breed.
Breeding to “improve” a breed has always seemed the height of arrogance to me. I see what “improving the breed” has done to a number of breeds. I look at Arabians and what “improvement” has done to them, providing us with a formerly versatile breed now known as valuable “LIVING ART” but incapable of carrying a saddle. I see Irish setters who have been “improved” to such a degree that they are fragile and couldn’t set their ways out of paper bags. QH that have been “improved” to the point that they are pasture pets by the time they are ten because the conformation (read feet and legs) won’t stop them from continually breaking down.
Collies that can’t herd, Pointers that can’t point. Most of the “improvement” is faddish and leads to extremes.
“IMPROVING” the breed = big ego, AFAIC.
I’ve been reading this thread for 3 days now (have a life so sometimes have to go do things, like walk the dog and attend a reining show) and have come to the conclusion that there are some interesting ways of thinking out there.
First – could care less about a Foundation Registry – doesn’t matter one iota to me – just apparently a marketing ploy.
However I do care strongly about the foundation quarter horse; such as many of the reiners I’ve listed before.
forthefutureofthebreed maintains that there must be TB in the quarter horse make-up for it to be successful. I guess that is correct; since the overwhelming majority of AQHA registered horses go back to mutt mares bred to TB stallions. But to maintain that horses such as Joe Cody are predominately TB; well I just don’t buy it.
I think it’s admirable that people who pedigree research can go back to the 4th generation; when there is the opportunity for (in that generation for up to 16 ancestors to contribute to the gene pool), where each ancestor only contributes 6.25% of the 100% of the genetics of the individual and tout the Thoroughbred-ness of the individual. Hmmm, interesting logistics. For instance, Trashadeous, go back to his great, great, great grandsire/dam lines – there are no TB. Gills Bay Boy (some may recognize as the barrel-racing great Scamper) has only 12.5% TB blood – counted from his Great,Great,Great Grand sire/dam lines. Two horses make up his TB blood, Three Bars 1X and Gidget Tee (a 1/2 TB mare) 2X. Frenchman’s Guy {considering again the great, great, great grandsire/dam lines} (awesome looking horse, great barrel/roping horse producer) has only 28.16% TB blood, mostly either Three Bars himself or Three Bars offspring. Joe Cody, I wasn’t able to complete; he appears to only have 6.25% (same 16 ancestors in the Gr,Gr,Gr, grandsire/dam lines) up to 31.26%.
Fascinating stuff; but unless you are tight linebreeding/inbreeding you can’t increase the percentage of TB from long gone ancestors [which most here agree are the TB ancestors you'd like in your AQHA horse]; unless you are adding new TB blood; and I think most here are in complete agreement, unless you are particularily choosey, you aren’t adding the “right” TB at all.
I also really don’t understand all the bickering about using TB lines to improve the quarter horses that compete in Western Pleasure, or Working Hunter or Jumping or Hunter Hack, since so few people think that those activities are well-judged or worthy of putting your horse in anyway. There are plenty of posts that trash the AQHA version of any English class or the Western Pleasure classes.
Halter horses can carry quite the preponderance of TB blood and win at halter, which appears to be a dubious honour. The majority that win appear to be offspring of Impressive; he was 50%, so he definitely ups the percentage of TB in the individual’s background, but I’d hardly consider him a stellar example, he was too heavy to race, he had foot problems that precluded him from performing and an assistant at Tommy Manion’s ranch said his temperament sucked (baseball bat by the stall).
All of the participants here who have performing Impressives; I’d take a serious look at the other side of your pedigree, or thank the horsie gods for small favours.
For what it’s worth
06 AQHA WS Aged Stallion = 21.89%TB (for those that are having trouble with this that means that this horse is 78.11% QH)
06 AQHA WS Sr. Cutting = 9.39%
06 AQHA WS Sr. W Pl = 0% (4 generations back)
06 AQHA WS Sr. Wrkng Hntr = 37.5%
06 AQHA WS Sr. Reining = (Could be as high as 25% – can’t find any info on his dam – but I doubt his grandparents were TB)
06 AQHA WS Sr. W Cow Hors = 3.13%
06 AQHA Sr. Barrel Racing = 28.14%
06 AQHA Jumping = 50%
06 AQHA Yearling Stallion – 3.13%
06 AQHA WS Jr. Cutting = 0% – 4 Generations
06 AQHA WS Jr. W Pl = 12.51% (Three Bars + Impressive – In 5 generations not one horse repeated – mostly scatterbred)
06 AQHA WS Jr. Wrkng Hntr = 50%
06 AQHA WS Jr. Reining = 3.13%
06 AQHA WS Jr. W Cow Hors = Possibly 25% – missing dam’s info.
06 AQHA Jr. Barrel Racing = 25%
FIRST DOG – I’m not quite sure what to say. Very “impressive”. Gosh, you can sometimes trace a horse’s pedigree all the way back to the fourth generation? Wow! And each horse in a generation contributes an equal amount to the subject horse? Wow. That’s some concept! That sounds suspiciously like FQHR’s self-serving theory. And how did you translate my post that Joe Cody was “at least 40% TB blood” to mean “predominately TB”? BTW, my calculations are accurate. But shouldn’t one be able to complete the pedigree information in order to arrive at accurate figures?
First of all, if you are only counting horses in the first four generations of a pedigree, your percentage calculations are a bit skewed. Your examples are not worth much at all because they are not accurate.
Second, if you believe that only the first four generations of ancestors count for anything, you are sadly mistaken. One must be aware of the sibling relationships among ancestors to truly understand the possible influence upon any horse. If you are not a serious pedigree researcher, then you should not post such inaccuracies.
To Nat; I don’t think we can link Supreme Champions to Thoroughbreds per se; but rather to one exceptional horse – Three Bars.
I’m sure you’ve done the math; but if 26 of 46 Supreme Champions have Three Bars in their pedigree at least once in 3 generations, that should smack anyone upside the head that wishes to produce VERSATILE AQHA horses; use Three Bars; don’t use Secretariat, or Storm Cat or whoeverwhatchmacallitthatplacedthirdinthederby. Use the specific TB bloodline that produced the winner.
Granted I’m not a professional pedigree researcher. In 5 generations there are 62 potential genetic providers. If you have to go so far back to find something decent; whether TB or foundation, me thinks you try too hard. If the Something Decent appears once in 62 ancestors and beyond 4 generations, I highly doubt the effect Something Decent is having on the individual being discussed. For god’s sake; we trash individuals here who extol the virtues of their stallion who has one decent individual in the 5th generation, why give kudos to someone who does the same thing; but happens to be doing it with TB blood.
And this is what I’ve been using to figure out %ages; the percentage of contribution (aka percentage of blood) is determined by the way genes are passed from the parents to the progeny. An individual inherits one set of chromosomes, and the genes they carry, from its sire and a second, homologous (equivalent) set from its dam. Thus each parent always passes on (contributes) 50% of its genes to each of its offspring and it therefore seems reasonable to expect that 25% of an individual’s genes will come from each grandparent, 12.5% from each great-grandparent, and so on.
Each generation of ancestors in a pedigree contributes 100% of the genes for the target animal (proband). So the percentage of contribution from each ancestor at a given generational level is 100 divided by the number of ancestors in that generation. Since the number of ancestors doubles in each preceding generation, the contribution from each ancestor in each preceding generation is halved.
However, this is not like mixing paint! Percentage of blood for ancestors beyond the parents are probabilities, not certainties. When a male passes on one set of his chromosomes, they will include a random selection of the genes he inherited from both of his parents, but there is no guarantee that the genes he passes on will contain an equal amount from each of his parents and in fact it rarely is. There is even a small chance (very small) that he will pass on those genes from only one of his parents. On the other hand, the more times that an ancestor appears in a pedigree behind different offspring, the more likely it will be that the percentage of genes passed down from each of its parents will be closer to 50%.
By the time we get back 10 generations, the contribution from each of the 1024 ancestors would, in theory, amount to slightly less than 0.1%. The more often an ancestor appears, the more significant the major genetic contributions.
First Dog said: To Nat; I don’t think we can link Supreme Champions to Thoroughbreds per se; but rather to one exceptional horse – Three Bars.
Nat: Yes Three Bars was a very influential TB when it comes to AQHA Supreme Champions. He sired a high percentage of them and was the grandsire of several. However, there were many other TBs contributing to the successes of the AQHA Supreme Champions. For example the TBs behind Leo, and Spanish Joy (All Time Leading Dam of AQHA Supreme Champions). Of course in Spanish Joy the TB ancestors are farther back in her pedigree, but she is pretty heavily influenced by them.
First Dog: I’m sure you’ve done the math; but if 26 of 46 Supreme Champions have Three Bars in their pedigree at least once in 3 generations,
Nat: I’ve done my research and do know that Three Bars had a big influence. However, the equation is much more involved than just one TB when you research farther than just the first 4 generations. Just as a sire and dam influences the get, THEIR sire and dam influenced them and so on and so on. One of the greatest lessons we can learn in breeding horses is “Like to like begets likeâ€. The AQHA Supreme Champions where all quality horses that came from quality horses improved upon throughout the generations, by breeders that understood that lesson.
First Dog: that should smack anyone upside the head that wishes to produce VERSATILE AQHA horses; use Three Bars; don’t use Secretariat, or Storm Cat or whoeverwhatchmacallitthatplacedthirdinthederby. Use the specific TB bloodline that produced the winner.
Nat: Three Bars is a totally different type of runner and type than Secretariat or Storm Cat. Three Bars was a sprinter and built as such, much like a QH – while Secretariat and Storm Cat are distance horses and built accordingly. As a matter of fact there are many TBs that look some much like QHs in build you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.
That being said a lot of breeders still do value Three Bars breeding, I’m one of those. I also like Azure Te and Depth Charge and not opposed to breeding to a TB if the right one comes around.
Diane said “Interesting, because I thought that a breeder should always breed for the STANDARD of a particular breed.
That breed, be it horses, dogs, cattle, whatever, has already established the STANDARD – the ideal example of that particular breed.
Breeding to “improve” a breed has always seemed the height of arrogance to me. I see what “improving the breed” has done to a number of breeds.
This is an EXCELLENT observation.
FIRST DOG – Percentage of blood and percentage of contribution are two totally different things. You need to know this.
Those who reach far back in a pedigree to find one famous ancestor to lay claim to are nuts, yes. But those who research pedigrees as a serious business know that the ancestral influence far back in a pedigree can be substantial, depending on how many times that ancestor is duplicated, and the sibling relationships that are in the pedigree.
You are contradicting yourself, first by saying the contribution is equal for some ancestors, but random for others. Like I said, contribution and percentage of blood are two different things. Don’t believe everything you read.
Since you’re so pedigree savvy, certainly you’ve heard of MtDNA, and the contribution of certain things passed on only through females.
If you are not a professional pedigree researcher, please don’t write about something you are not an expert at.
PANDORA and DIANE – Breeding for the standard of any particular breed is no more than maintaining or propagating more of the same. Breeding for the improvement of a breed is reaching for higher standards. It is not changing what the breed is, nor is a responsible breeder who breeds for the improvement of a breed going to change things for the detriment of a breed. It is not arrogant to strive for improvement. It is naive to think that things are just hunky dory the way they are. All things go through constant revising and upgrading. That is how great horses are created. You are referring to those who ruin a breed by creating extreme examples of certain characteristics of a breed, such as extreme heads with Arabians, extreme way of going for performance horses, or extreme muscle mass with QH halter horses. Those are the things that take away from the original breed standard. Those who criticize those who breed for the improvement of a breed are usually people incapable of breeding a superior quality animal.
forthefutureofthebreed said: PANDORA and DIANE – Breeding for the standard of any particular breed is no more than maintaining or propagating more of the same. Breeding for the improvement of a breed is reaching for higher standards.
The breed (any breed, any species) standard is to be the STANDARD OF PERFECTION. Used to be, at least, back in the day.
So how does one IMPROVE on the standard of PERFECTION?
How is it that YOU plan to improve your breed? What are your goals and objectives that your breed standard doesn’t meet?
As I firmly believe, there are far too may “improvements” taken to extremes, and God forbid it should win in the show ring, because that’s when everybody jumps on the bandwagon. And that’s when breeds go to hell in handbaskets.
DIANE, if the breed is so perfect, then I guess there is no need for improvement, is there? I should just go breed foundation Quarter Horses, and make sure they are of popular colors with a gazillion crosses to Poco Bueno and be done with it. I’ll just keep breeding the same of what is out there now and have one of those big production sales each year, sell a hundred foals, maybe make some money. That would be breeding for the breed standard, wouldn’t it?
It’s too bad you don’t understand that I do not agree with the extreme examples, also. I can guarantee you I won’t be “contaminating” the breed with what I produce from my breeding program.
forthefutureofthebreed said: “Those who criticize those who breed for the improvement of a breed are usually people incapable of breeding a superior quality animal.”
Puleeeeze….take out that deeply wedged “self proclaimed authority on all breeding principles” stick outta your tightly clenched buttocks. Learn to accept disagreement with a little more grace than you’ve displayed here. LOL
Christ, I don’t know which is more annoying-fugly, ignorant breeders or the long-winded know it alls with messianic complexes beating everyone down with their “superior bleatings”.
Stop taking yourself so effin’ seriously on a BLOG and breeeeathe…….;)
PANDORA – What the hell is wrong with being serious and passionate about what one does? Is that some sort of fault? I realize that many people aren’t serious about breeding horses, but that doesn’t make me wrong because I am. The subject matter here is very serious stuff, even though there is a lot of joking around with it. And, FYI, I AM a noted authority on what I do, including many aspects relating to what I do. It’s not a joke to me. When I see someone spouting off about something and I know they are full of shit, I’m going to say so, just like everyone else does. I am concerned about accurate information. I’m not concerned about a bunch of My Little Pony people thinking they’re experts on things they know nothing about. And just because YOU don’t like or agree with what I say, or how I say it, doesn’t make you queen shit and me wrong. So, no, I don’t have to sit idly by and let a bunch of idiots try to run me down while arguing with me about something they don’t know much about. I know exactly what I am doing. So YOU get off your high horse.
anniebanannie said…
“Dressage… 16th and 17th centuries.”
i suuuuure hope youre referring strictly to conventions of dress, because if you havent even HEARD of xenophon (400 BC)… step AWAY from the equine.
lifelike001 said:
“i suuuuure hope youre referring strictly to conventions of dress, because if you havent even HEARD of xenophon (400 BC)… step AWAY from the equine.”
I see, how interesting. If I don’t know about Xenophon his subsequent contributions to dressage, then I’m supposed to not be near horses? Is that correct?
If you had read my post you would know that I was referring to how equestrians as a group tend to stick with a riding costume because that is when the discipline became popular in competition. I said nothing about anything else.
Although the principals of dressage haven’t changed much since Xenophon, he and his cohorts did not compete in contemporary dressage events.
Dressage competitions or exhibitions as the DP’s would rather call them did not become fashionable until much, much later than 410 BC.
Competative riding attire for a discipline usually mimicked the clothing worn by society in the time period that it was made popular.
For what ever reason, tradition being the biggest culprit I suspect, the clothing worn in contempory competitions got “stuck.”
Yes, western wear in original pleasure classes represented the clothing worn on western ranches in the 1950′s and 1960′s. However, UNLIKE other riding disciplines the clothing worn in western classes have changed significantly. In my opinion, it has not changed for the better.
However, I take exception with the premise that one can’t discuss a discipline if they don’t know the entire history. I’m not sure why I shouldn’t either be near or discuss horsemanship if I didn’t know about Xenophon’s contributions to horsemanship. Please do explain.
DIANE, if the breed is so perfect, then I guess there is no need for improvement, is there?
No, you’re just not getting it.
The BREED STANDARD is perfect, the individuals within the breed are not.
We’ve all heard it a gazillion times, there is no perfect horse. As breeders, the goal should be a perfect horse WITHIN THE STANDARD GIVEN BY THE BREED ASSOCIATION. So when you say that “Breeding for the standard of any particular breed is no more than maintaining or propagating more of the same. Breeding for the improvement of a breed is reaching for higher standards.”, I disagree vehemently. HOW DO YOU IMPROVE ON PERFECTION??? What is a “higher standard” than PERFECTION?
diane said…
“No, you’re just not getting it.
The BREED STANDARD is perfect, the individuals within the breed are not.”
To what breed standard are you referening to? The AQHA’s? If so can you quote me what it states in their rule book regarding the breed standard?
Go look it up, there is NO breed standard. I get tired of people saying a horse doesn’t meet AQHA’s breed standard, because it does NOT exist.
DIANE, all that is fine, IF there is a breed standard, and IF that breed standard is perfection. There is no longer a breed standard, at least not within AQHA and APHA.
If breeders do not strive to continually improve a breed, then the breed will at some point, cease to exist as a viable breed.
The minute a breeder believes they have bred the best horses that can be created, that is as far as they go, and as far as the breed goes.
One look around will tell you that over the last few decades, not many breeders breed responsibly. There are many poor quality horses, a gazillion mediocre horses out there, and very few exceptional ones. A responsible breeder will continually strive to create better horses, while maintaining the breed type. In other words, a responsible breeder isn’t going to try to turn their QHs into Arabians. If they’re lucky, they will create horses capable of contributing to the breed in the long run. That is not easy to do. It takes a LIFETIME of study and observation to even begin to get a grip on how to consistently breed top quality horses; ones that would not only preserve the breed, but with the best interest of the horse at heart. It is very easy to breed for the mediocre “breed standard”, such as you see many foundation QH breeders doing.
I am not sure why that is so hard to understand.
The mission statements of both APHA and AQHA say, “To collect, record, and preserve the pedigrees…”.
It is up to the individual member breeders to breed quality horses consistent with the perceived breed standard or type. Of course, everyone’s perception of “ideal” will vary. That is why you see such diversity among the types of horses within a breed. Money is always going to play a huge part in dictating those types according to what wins.
It is my belief that what wins today isn’t necessarily in the best interest of the breed in the long run. After careful study and observation for many years, I believe I know what bloodlines and what type of horses will assure the longevity of these breeds. It is my goal to breed such horses, whether they are popular today or not, and whether anyone agrees with me or not. I don’t care about making money. What I DO care about are the horses and the future of the breed. Now whether you agree with my opinions or not is completely irrelevant. I am secure in my knowledge and that’s all that matters.
DIANE, all that is fine, IF there is a breed standard, and IF that breed standard is perfection. There is no longer a breed standard, at least not within AQHA and APHA.
Well, there you go. My bad, I don’t deal with stock breeds and didn’t realize you have no breed standard. That really says a lot to me.
Every breed of dog sanctioned by the AKC has a breed standard. Every horse breed with which I’ve personally dealt has a breed standard.
Gotta have a lot of respect for an organization that can’t put into words what the ideal of the breed is.
And, DIANE, my stallion was bred to 12 mares this year. One is mine, the rest belong to others. Of those outside mares, two were bred by the FOUNDER of APHA. If that is not breeding within the standards of the breed, I don’t know what is. I also illustrates just how young APHA really is. If people believe that the gene pool of a breed that young is already good enough, with no need for improvement, they are sadly mistaken. AQHA is no different, and is only about 20 years older than APHA.
The Thoroughbred is a breed that is centuries old, yet there are still improvements being made. And that’s within a pretty tight, closed gene pool. Horses are breaking records all the time. Breeders are constantly looking for ways to improve upon that breed, and how to consistently breed fast horses who can stay sound. That’s just racing. Imagine all the attributes one can breed for with AQHA and APHA.
It takes a very long time to sort out a gene pool and breed horses that hopefully inherit the good points, while responsible breeders cull the ones that have genetic faults. Responsible breeders have limited access to the members of that gene pool, too. And the crappy fugly horse breeders aren’t the ones breeding for improvement.
DIANE, there WAS a breed standard in the beginning. In fact, with AQHA, there were TWO breed standards, or two different types of QHs – the racing QH and the bulldog type QH. Guess which type went on to achieve the highest honors AQHA offers? And here we are, discussing the pros and cons of foundation QHs. The QH evolved into the finest, most versatile breed of horse on earth; a type of horse that could dominate almost any single event a horse can do except endurance racing, and I’m sure there are exceptions to each one.
Fast forward to a couple of decades ago, where the “bigger is better” mentality arrived on the scene. If a horse with the most muscle wins some big time halter classes, well then, a bigger, more muscled up horse must be bred in order to win! Enter HYPP.
If the tallest horse with the sweepy movement wins in HUS, well, we must make taller, more sweepier horses! Buy up any old TB mare that is over 17 hands with a huge stride, breed her to the most popular HUS QH stallion and there you go. And so on.
So, it is my intention to breed horses that represent the best type of horse horse with exceptional versatility and beauty, and correct conformation that allows for athleticism, while retaining the best proven bloodlines that allow for the improvement of the breed to continue.
I’m really sorry I don’t know how to put it any differently. I don’t breed dogs. I know nothing about them, so I am not going to breed them. If a particular breed of dog has a breed standard, and there are already perfect examples of that breed standard, that’s fine. It does not apply to horses, whose gestation is a bit longer than dogs. One could have ten or more generations of dogs in ten years. That can’t be done with horses.
“The QH evolved into the finest, most versatile breed of horse on earth; a type of horse that could dominate almost any single event a horse can do except endurance racing, and I’m sure there are exceptions to each one.”
Well, there I’d have to disagree with you again.
As far as versatility, show me a QH that’s even performing, let alone winning, at CDE. Show me a park QH. Of course, they weren’t built for endurance, fast twitch muscle and all. High level dressage? Maybe for those 3/4 TB QHs, but essentially, no.
Most versatile breed? Nah.
DIANE, is that all you could pick apart in what I said?
Of course there are events that QHs wouldn’t be as good in as other breeds. I was generalizing, because horses who dominate any of those events you are bringing up could not do all the other events that QHs can do. That was my point. They are the most VERSATILE of any breed, and there have been QHs who dominated at almost every event. I guess it was too much to expect that you would assume gaited horses and driving ponies weren’t included in my generalization.
FHOD said…
move like a fat girl wearing a too-tight miniskirt
I am LMAO… that is too true!
ftfotb said: I was generalizing, because horses who dominate any of those events you are bringing up could not do all the other events that QHs can do. That was my point. They are the most VERSATILE of any breed, and there have been QHs who dominated at almost every event.
Let’s see, there are Arabians and Morgans doing reining, cutting, western pleasure, English pleasure, hunt seat, jumping, park, carriage driving, park harness, cde, endurance, dressage, oh, just about anything a horse can do. And a few event, too!
So as far as breed versatility, I don’t think the QH cuts it.
DIANE, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
DIANE, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I guess that’s true.
anniebanannie said…
“Please do explain.”
because ignorance is dangerous to horses and hateful to me. if you dont read books, how can you know jack?
riding and not having heard of xenophon is equivalent to starting a band without having heard of the beatles. so stupid, backward and demented its barely POSSIBLE.
Legendary breeder and horseman Greg Ward put it best when he said that ‘the only problem I have with Thoroughbred blood in my Quarter Horses is when there isn’t any’.
I say that’s about right.
oh_for_crying_out_loud said…
Legendary breeder and horseman Greg Ward put it best when he said that ‘the only problem I have with Thoroughbred blood in my Quarter Horses is when there isn’t any’.
I say that’s about right.
Oh, man, I could not agree more! Thanks for posting that!
Beau said…
I love how self righteous you all are. I don’t hate AQHA. I don’t like AQHA horses who’ve got too much TB influence, they don’t fit what AQHA horses are supposed to be at all. Plain and simple. And trust me, I can judge a good horse. And I also know what the original standard of a quarter horse was. A solid, athletic, horse, with a level mind. A horse who could stand up to hard ranch work, and who had enough sense to know how to work a cow. Well muscled, with hooves in proportion to their body, that could put up with the work they were required to do, while still going barefoot. That’s the standard that FQH breeders strive for, one that’s been lost in AQHA.
And First Dog gave a whole list of exceptional foundation horses. Go look them up.
To me, the above statement is so blatantly ignorant, I have to laugh.
The only standard that foundation breeders breed to is one of PATHETICNESS. I LOVE the foundation quarter horses, but I HATE the foundation registries for being so ignorant and profoundly closed-minded.
How can you have any respect for ANY registry that denies the importance of HERDA research and information? How can you have any respect AT ALL for them, when they advocate linebreeding Poco Bueno still but HATE HYPP?! At least the HYPP horses have a halfway decent shot at having some normalcy in their lives… the HERDA horses live their lives in agony with THEIR SKIN SLOUGHING OFF.
By saying you align yourself with the foundation registries, to me, you lose all your credibility. That’s like saying you think George W. Bush is a great president, or that Dick Cheney is an honest and upstanding citizen.
Why don’t they change the name to ‘National Foundation of Continuing To Breed What Was Bred Away From By People Who Knew What They Were Doing.’ Because that would be more accurate.