# Which is better to show this filly in...



## disneyhorse (Apr 30, 2006)

If I show this yearling filly in a shetland class, which "type" do you think she fits best? She has a foundation seal and is currently 34" as a mini or maybe 36" as a pony. I've only shown minis and don't have a great eye for "type" yet.







If you could tell me WHY she'd make a better foundation or classic, please try to explain too.

Thank you!

Andrea


----------



## kaykay (Apr 30, 2006)

heres kays guess LOL then we can see what lewella, getitia etc say as they are sooooo much better then i am. if she was mine i would probably show her classic. Foundation in my mind would have more bone and substance then this girl.


----------



## lyn_j (Apr 30, 2006)

[SIZE=14pt]I think its more a matter of size.... I show Shirley foundation and she is very refined but smaller than the 42inch Classics. I love your filly by the way![/SIZE]

Lyn


----------



## disneyhorse (Apr 30, 2006)

Yes Lyn that is the condundrum I am looking at... she is a smaller size than a non-Foundation Classic would most likely be, but does not really fit the Foundation "type" that is illustrated in the rulebook.

I am new to the ponies... and really wonder how a true "non-type" pony can be shown if it's otherwise correct and stuff.

Soooo so far one vote for Classic and one for Foundation?



: Anyone else?

Andrea


----------



## keeperofthehorses (May 1, 2006)

lyn_j said:


> [SIZE=14pt]I think its more a matter of size.... I show Shirley foundation and she is very refined but smaller than the 42inch Classics. I love your filly by the way![/SIZE]
> 
> Lyn


I guess I'm going to hijack Andreas thread here a bit.



:

I do have an issue with this comment, Lyn (though you know I love ya and I LOVE your ponies, and really respect your program) :bgrin . There seems to be a problem right now with 'off-types' taking over the Foundation division. Just because a pony is small enough to fit into the division, and carries the seal, doesn't mean it's Foundation in type. Unfortunately, some judges don't seem to get this and I've heard lots of gripes about Classic types that are 'too small' to compete in their own division 'taking over' the Foundation ring. It is basically turning it into an 'under-under' division. Interestingly enough, the Foundation Division came about partly because the same exact thing happened to the Classic Division. It's this reason that the new registry was recently formed (I'm spacing out on the name right now, but they are being very particular about 'type'). "Shetland Pony Society" is part of the name I believe.

Andrea, GOOD on ya for wanting to put her in the right 'type' division! She looks 'Classic' to me, but I'm not a good one to listen to. I'm one of those that is not a big fan of uber-refinement and my eyes see few 'Foundation-type' Foundations. She is a pretty girl, and wow, what a great job on her turnout!


----------



## spazkat (May 1, 2006)

Actually alot of the problem with "type" is that its subjective. Some people want/expect foundation ponies to be almost coarse in type, and show like a welsh with feathers and such. Some see the division as being smaller and only (if at all) slightly less refined or heavier boned than classics. The same problem exists with A papered ponies in the modern/classic debate as well as between modern and modern pleasure. Almost every aspect of the division between types is subjective. I come from hackneys and saddlebreds so a pony that "I" think would be a classic and not enough motion for a modern is going to be VERY different than someone whose background is in british shetlands.

The other factor here is where the pony will place better. The fact of the matter is people want to win, and if the choice comes down to a pony being a so-so classic or a really nice foundation guess what class they're going to show in?


----------



## alphahorses (May 1, 2006)

I would also say size is going to make a difference here.

If you show a Classic in Area II, be prepared to not have classes split by size (while Modern classes are split, often with only 1 or no horses in the class!). If Classic classes are not split by size, your yearling would show against other yearlings as big as 43". Quality is quality, but at some point the height factor still becomes a disadvantage. If they split the classes into Under and Over, I think she could compete in the Under Classic division.

Of course we're not much better off in the Foundation division around here .. I was just looking at the Area II class list this morning and they have weanlings, yearlings and 2 yr olds all in the same combined class! Which means the Foundation gelding and the overo weanling (I posted a photo of her not long ago) will stay home this year. :no: Not even a Classic color class for her to enter!

Sorry .. I'm just getting disgusted with the whole thing!


----------



## txminipinto (May 1, 2006)

I would show her classic but with that said, I might also show her foundation depending on what my competition is. She will have a harder time against the larger shetlands at the local level, but its not impossible to place over them! Good luck with your new girl!


----------



## Belinda (May 1, 2006)

If I can , let me say also The Foundation class was not intended for a height class.. To me as a breeder and from a Judges stand point I like to see a Foundation with just a little more substance than a Classic. It states right in the standard what you should look for in a Foundation.

We must put our horses in the Divison they belong , I show lots of Classics that are under 40" and they are very successful as a Classic.

Mr. Mitz who has won National Grand Congress Gelding Under 2 yrs in a row is now going to be shown as a Over Mini measuring only 37", never did we show him as Foundation as he was NOT Foundation type.

From what little I can tell about your mare she looks Classic in Type.. But again it is very hard to tell from a picture.. I wish you luck with her she looks very nice.

Also to Ronalee , I checked with the office today, and your National Area II show will offer all the Foundation classes split by age. You must be talking about just a reg. show held in Area II.. If you have any questions about it , feel free to give me a call..


----------



## alphahorses (May 1, 2006)

Belinda said:


> Also to Ronalee , I checked with the office today, and your National Area II show will offer all the Foundation classes split by age. You must be talking about just a reg. show held in Area II.. If you have any questions about it , feel free to give me a call..


Yes, the regular shows, not the National Area show. There are 3 shows that are called "Area II...." .. it does get a little confussing.


----------



## ownedbyapony (May 1, 2006)

I also have to agree with Belinda and a couple of the others. I think we need to realize that just because a pony is under 42" and foundation sealed does not make him a foundation. I have always contended as a judge and exhibitor that people need to stop worrying about the extreme classics coming down to the foundation division and start worrying about the refined miniatures coming up ! I applaud you for your concern about making sure your pony is in the right class for her type. :aktion033: The ASPC/AMHR Judges Board of Governors is actively trying to stress the type issue with the current judges and new judges coming in. Placng off-type ponies has been a concern for several years and something we have to deal with through education of both the exhibitors and the judges. From the picture you posted I think your mare would fit nicely in the classic division. I am posting a picture of my stud "Cat" who is foundation sealed and under 42" and in my opinion NOT AT ALL foundation type.



:no:


----------



## disneyhorse (May 2, 2006)

Yes I want to start showing ponies... I want to buy a couple PONY ponies not my minis who also are registered as ponies if that makes any sense... and from what I gather from staunch pony people TYPE is VERY important, not really what is on the pony's papers or who their sire or dam is. I find it SOOOOO fascinating about TYPE because the miniature horse truly LACKS type. I think maybe the miniature horse should go with this TYPE thing like their big shetland counterparts... there certainly are already "foundation" (the old QH style) "classic" which would maybe be the Buckeroo types and "modern" which might be the ultra refined type. The miniature horse has come a long way and still has a long way to go... but I think maybe types would help out the people who so fervently love their "type" that they breed for. The people who love the QH type bemoan showing against the shetlands, and the judges always just pick their preference for type because there is no set standard like in the ponies.

I really do care about doing what is CORRECT and not what is WINNING. I show to learn and improve myself, and nothing more.

Thank you all for your input, I was thinking my mare was too refined to be a Foundation but was a little concerned about her height.

This has been a FASCINATING thread, thank you all for making the Pony part of the Forum here popular.

Andrea


----------



## kaykay (May 2, 2006)

andrea

it is all very confusing in the beginning for sure! I was lucky that when i first started showing our modern pony years ago that I had friends that explained in detail the difference in types to me and how important it was to show your pony in the correct class. I have heard that they are really cracking down on ponies showing in the wrong classes.

I dont think youll ever see miniatures shown by type though. I agree it would be a good thing but the powers that be always say there are way too many classes and divisions now and if type were added the shows would go on forever. It would be hard to cram in type divisions and still be able to finish a show on time. Just think how many classes that would add because the type's would also have to have their own height classes.


----------



## txminipinto (May 2, 2006)

ownedbyapony said:


> I also have to agree with Belinda and a couple of the others. I think we need to realize that just because a pony is under 42" and foundation sealed does not make him a foundation. I have always contended as a judge and exhibitor that people need to stop worrying about the extreme classics coming down to the foundation division and start worrying about the refined miniatures coming up ! I applaud you for your concern about making sure your pony is in the right class for her type. :aktion033: The ASPC/AMHR Judges Board of Governors is actively trying to stress the type issue with the current judges and new judges coming in. Placng off-type ponies has been a concern for several years and something we have to deal with through education of both the exhibitors and the judges. From the picture you posted I think your mare would fit nicely in the classic division. I am posting a picture of my stud "Cat" who is foundation sealed and under 42" and in my opinion NOT AT ALL foundation type.
> 
> 
> 
> :no:


Amber,

I've been lurking on your website and I really like Cat. Exactly, what I'm looking for in my own future herd sire, foundation sealed/classic type and PINTO! Anyway, while I agree that ponies should be shown in their respective classes it makes it hard for those who are honest when judges pick off type ponies!! There has been discussion on another board about doing away with A/B classifications and just showing per type. I can see the pros and cons of this, however, it would have made accumulating points for my classic (yet foundation type) mare easier if I could have shown her in foundation classes. We, as a breed, are getting further and further away from the descriptions in our rule book. Classics and Foundations should be capable of carrying a child or small adult. The ones I see winning (and granted I own one that fits this) would be unable to fullfill this purpose. Ok, off my soap box.


----------

