# Please show examples of Classic vs. Foundation yearlings/youngstock



## susanne (Jul 22, 2007)

My yearling filly is registered ASPC classic, with foundation certification, but an earlier thread regarding showing according to type, not papers, has me wondering.

Scarlet is still underweight (esp. in this photo), although we're making progress on that. Condition aside, she is very light-boned (leggier than this photo suggests), but that may change as she matures.

For now, would she be more appropriat shown as classic rather than foundation?

I'd love to see photos of ASPC yearlings/2-year-olds and hear what categories you have shown them in.

Scarlet Ribbons


----------



## Leeana (Jul 22, 2007)

She looks small enough to hardship AMHR (if she isnt already?) when she is an adult. I would do that if she makes height and show her as a miniature personally.

She looks pretty short, i dont think she could compete with the taller classics. My 38'' showed as a Classic last year and he looked so silly when i go back and look at pics from Worlds lol. I would show her foundation





Edited for spelling


----------



## disneyhorse (Jul 22, 2007)

She looks more foundation to me. Classic ponies are VERY extreme and I agree your pony looks more "mini" to me too. That's what I usually think when I think "foundation."

Here is a yearling Classic (not foundation type) from Country Classic Ponies (I bought my modern mare from them, the Bowers) and I think he is a good example of Classic type to compare your filly to.






Now, my little mini stallion is heavier boned (well he is only a 34" mini!) and I would show him as a Foundation classic if I showed him in ASPC. He is a better example as a Foundation than the colt pictured above:


----------



## susanne (Jul 22, 2007)

Thanks, Leeana...we will definitely hardship her into AMHR as an adult, assuming she doesn't go over. You're absolutely correct about her height...she is just 34" as a short yearling, and while she may yet have a huge growth spurt, we're hopeful that she'll stay under.

We have a limited number of ASPC shows in the northwest, so we won't be doing a lot of showing as a Shetland, but we'd at least like to give it a go...especially at Oregon Gold (so we can show both her and Mingus at a single show, LOL!). We'll also register her Pinto, as the shows are much more frequent.

Thank you, Andrea! Great examples, and Scarlet really certainly does look much more like your mini/Foundation stallion than your Classic. (Scarlet is reading over my shoulder and says she wants a date with him when she grows up!)

How tall is your Classic colt? He is gorgeous.

Our lack of ASPC shows is obvious in my learning curve (all uphill...)


----------



## Belinda (Jul 22, 2007)

disneyhorse said:


> She looks more foundation to me. Classic ponies are VERY extreme and I agree your pony looks more "mini" to me too. That's what I usually think when I think "foundation."


Hi I have to put in my two cents for what they are worth.!!! *Classic are NOT EXTREME * !! Read the standard under General Desription



: *"EXTEMES IN LENGTH OF NECK, BODY, AND LEGS AND ACTION ARE UNDESIRABLE !! *

Actuall your mare is beautiful but to me looks extreme and to me from a picture looks more on the Modern Pleasure side.

I understand that type is more than likely in the eye of the beholder as we are having a very very hard time defining type it seems in the foundation..

As for the little Red & white filly , that this post is about I think the person that said she might do well as a Mini was right on target... She looks a little refined to be a Foudation .. My understanding of foundation is more SUBSTANCE !! A little more BONE !! NOT fat , but overall Substance.. I have a

Sen. Stallion that I am showing he is only 37" and has done very well in the Foundation divison so size is not really a big issue...As they can only be 42" max.. Here is a picture of him





And this is my yearling Classic filly that has also done very well and she measures as a SHETLAND 36" as a Mini 34 3/4" She has been Grand at both Area V and Area 4, and she holds her own when showing in the shows where the sizes are not divided.. So what I guess I am saying is it does not matter about the height it is about the Type !!



:


----------



## susanne (Jul 22, 2007)

Thank you so much, Belinda!

This entire thread is so educational, and the more I learn, the more I realize I need to know.

Off to study up!


----------



## kaykay (Jul 23, 2007)

getting down the types are the hardest part of shetlands. I agree with Belinda that to ME andreas guy looks modern pleasure.

Here is Star showing as a classic






Getitia showed jet in foundation (as a weanling) and we have shown him foundation this year but next year I believe i will show him in classic. Hes pretty much right on the line between foundation and classic. But becuase there are so few foundation geldings showing in my area we will just do classic next year. But we started foundation this year so we will just finish in foundation. To tell the difference on jet you kinda have to see him next to a classic. Maybe stories owner will come post a pic. Hes related to jet and is definitely classic.

Jet Foundation weanling last year






oops all my pics from this year of jet are too big

heres black who is registered foundation. but if i show him as a pony i would definitely show him in classic


----------



## Filipowicz Farm (Jul 23, 2007)

Have not shown any of our double registered as Shetlaand except for this year. Our 2 year old stallion was over 37. Question to show as Foundation does he not have to go back 5 generations Classic to be shown that way? We showed him up against the 44 .Classic but he was more Foundation but was told he had to shown as Classic


----------



## kaykay (Jul 23, 2007)

heres what the rulebook says on foundation

foundation Shetlands shall be the result of mating of Division A to Division A for four generations. Foundation will be required to acquire verification from the American Shetland Pony Club.

Height for foundation

1 yr 40" and under

2 yr 41" and under

3 yr 42" and under

Height not to exceed 42" for exhibition purposes only


----------



## Leeana (Jul 23, 2007)

I really think PtHA or AMHR would prob be her best bet. To me, in my honest opinion she doesnt fit the Foundation 'look' or what is summed up as a foundation and what i see showing in that division and also at the same time she is not going to be as competitive w/ the classes bc she is just to tiny.

She just looks more 'miniature type' then 'pony type'. I think Miniature when i look at her for some reason lol.


----------



## Lisa-Ruff N Tuff Minis (Jul 23, 2007)

I would have to say I to think the OP horse looks like a mini and would show best in that.

Here is our R/aspc foundation stallion and to me anyway he is pretty foundation - I am just entering the world of ponies and will start showing next year however I have several friends with ponies and am always picking there brain

I have found that the ponies really seem to get there substance in there second year and seem to be much more typical yearling gangly (like large horses) then minis-especially the moderns

-although I have to say I would not consider classics very extreme and really many modern pleasures are not very extreme either however I have learned (was the first thing I learned about ponies) that extreme is very much in the eye of the beholder - as is type which makes it very hard for those getting into ponies and wanting to learn and show in the right "type" class


----------



## txminipinto (Jul 23, 2007)

I agree that the OP filly is very refined, and while short, is too refined to show as a Foundation (think QH when you think Foundation). I would show her as a Classic and then when old enough (and short enough), show her as mini where I think she'd do really well!!



:

Now, to muddy the waters a bit, here are my 3 _Foundation Certified _ ponies.

Heaven's Gate Special Design: pictured as a yearling. Top 3 in the Congress Classic Yearling Mare OVER for 2006.






She had a good run as a Classic, but we plan on showing her Foundation next year as a 3 yr old. She's a little heavier built and has a shorter neck than I like for a Classic.

Happy Hooligan, OK: pictured as a yearling, shown this year as a 2 yr old.






I showed him in March as a Foundation and got the gate. He's been doing better as a Classic and will be shown in the Over division. I think he's a good example of a typical Classic you see shown today. This picture isn't the best.



:

Texaco MGS: yearling Classic OVER






This boy is pretty extreme compared to most Classics. In fact, he could go Modern Pleasure if I desired to show him that way(and shoe him and bunge him). He is also Foundation papered and goes back to Michigan's Action Jackson as a grand sire! It would be a cold day in H*LL before I ever showed him Foundation.

Out of my 3, the mare, Design is the most "Foundation".


----------



## mendocinobackofbeyond (Jul 23, 2007)

Hi All: Something else to muddy the waters. A lot depends on which section of the country you're showing in. Go look at the OR Gold website and look at the lovely mare that was the Supreme Champion at the 2006 Show. She was shown Classic and won everything as a Classic, going on to be Supreme Champion. In the midwest, which seems to favor a bit heavier Classic, she'd probably be considered Mod. Pleasure. Remember OR Gold was a 3 judge that year (is 4 now), so she didn't win under just 1 judge -- all 3 picked her and 2 were long time well respected judges (both having judged Congress). It also depends which judges are judging. Some prefer the extreme Classic and others more bone and substance. The problem is that ponies are not cookie cutter in design. They can look very different from someone else's and yet still be a Classic. If you can find it, go look at pictures of Lust's Woodsman, called and considered the King of the Classics. When I saw him, I nearly fell over and was amazed at the people who said we breed extreme.

Also we have a trend out here (West Coast) wherein ponies are being shown Classic, finishing to the Classic HOF and then are being 'bumped up' into Modern Pleasure. Aaaarrrgh. And this from someone who is correctly accused of breeding extreme Classics. We may breed extreme Classics, but to my mind at least, it's either a Classic (even if Extreme) or a Modern Pleasure and if you show it TO THE HALL OF FAME in one division, it should not then be 'bumped up' into the next division. However, and this is the danger, if the trend continues, then gee whiz by golly, we'll do it too and so will other breeders -- which will be a disaster, and really muddy the waters for the Classics. Ta, Shirlee


----------



## Lewella (Jul 23, 2007)

Just about everything on my website is Foundation Certified. (http://www.platteridgefarm.com) I don't consider most of them Foundation though. None of my Royal ponies are Foundation - they are all Classics. Willowlawn's Mr. Unique is certified - he went Reserve Grand and both Congress and World as a Yearling - OPEN MODERN and is Modern Hall of Fame! Oneka's Supreme Surprise is certified - she's Modern Pleasure.

Now which ponies do I consider truely Foundation in type? Here are a couple of examples from my herd:

McCalls RedneckWoman of PlatteRidge (two year old in this picture)






Vienna Lou-Ed (upper teens)






Hopwood's Silver Peace Rose & Hopwood's Silver Laketa (they were 2 - I no longer own Keta)






Wauk-A-Way Brave Bear (think he was 3 in this picture - his Quarter Horse butt shot! LOL)


----------



## KrazyHorses (Jul 28, 2007)

Lewella said:


> Vienna Lou-Ed (upper teens)


She's always been my favorite!



:


----------

