By Judy Wardrope Uphill Battles (Part 1) I
recently received an email through my website from a woman wanting to get my view on something. “There seems to be some confusion about an uphill horse, and what makes him uphill. You have been referenced a few times, and I’m just curious what your take is, as I’ve read your site, articles, and intend to buy at least one book, and have seen nothing regarding uphill versus downhill and how you determine which a horse is.”
Seeking a Definition I responded to her that uphill is not a term I use in regards to functional conformation, but later the question haunted me. What is an uphill build? One hears the term often enough. Is there an objective and accurate description? Ask different people and you get different responses. Some say a horse is uphill if the withers are higher than the croup. Some say that the elbow has to be higher than the stifle in order for the horse to be uphill. Those are both objective descriptions, but are they accurate? I know! I’ll look at the linear scoring handout I
received at a KWPN inspection before I start going through all the photos I have of top horses. Yes, “Body Direction” is included in the inspector’s scoresheet and scored from uphill (good) to downhill (bad). The accompanying explanation for all types (dressage and jumping) states: “The direction of the body as compared to the horizontal. A horse is harder to collect when built on the forehand (downhill).” Umm... Where are the objective descriptors in that? But wait; there’s a diagram with a line showing body direction. Yes, the line is higher at the front of the horse than at the back of the horse, making it ‘uphill’ in comparison to the ground line, but it is neither parallel to the illustrated horse’s topline nor to the illustration’s underline. Huh? The rear of the line does appear to start at the point of buttock, an objective and repeatable reference point, but it emerges part way up the underside of the neck, where there are no reference points. I sure hope this is not one of those I’ll-know-it-when-I-see- it explanations. (The KWPN is not the only registry to use subjective terms.) I’ve seen Saddlebreds that most would consider
very uphill, but I do not see many of them at the upper levels in the Olympic disciplines. I have seen
Quarter Horses that most would consider downhill that are very light on the forehand. Come to think of it, I have even seen draft horses that are light on the forehand. This column often contains the objective factors
for determining lightness of the forehand as well as the differences in construction from discipline to discipline in order to help people pick the right horse for their purposes. Maybe defining uphill movement will help define an uphill build.
Movement versus Build I recall talking to a couple of Olympic dressage judges regarding uphill movement a few years ago. One said her definition was a shifting of the horse’s balance more to the hindquarters, and the other expanded that by saying that the horse shortens the overall frame, loads the hocks and elevates the forehand. True, but so do cutting horses and reining horses. Obviously those factors alone still don’t narrow the definition down enough. I have seen so-called uphill horses with such
limited range of motion to the scapula that they were very ineffective movers. At one clinic, two of the hands-on horses provided a wonderful contrast. One was a Warmblood mare nearing 18 hands with a prominent wither that most would say was built uphill, yet she had a much shorter range of motion to the foreleg than the 12.2-hand pony with a fairly level topline. People were shocked when they witnessed the difference in ranges of motion. They had to re-evaluate their perceptions, and were more open to shifting their thinking when I explained the mechanical differences. It is human nature to look for a quick and
universal label because that is what is easiest. However, that means we may be right sometimes, but we may also be wrong. If we use objective measures that determine that a horse has the build to excel at a particular disciple, then we will be far more consistent in our predictions. We can discern whether the horse is capable of uphill movement, whether he can perform a Grand Prix dressage test, whether he can elevate the forehand sufficiently to clear fences, whether he is designed to be naturally light on the forehand and whether he is built to last.
Warmbloods Today 71
Conformation
Corner
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
