Minimor
Well-Known Member
For starters, the above is rather poorly worded. It conveys the impression (at least it did to me) that the OP believes that refinement is a bad thing, and therefore a stocky type horse is automatically better than a refined type of horse.By showing only the most "refined" horses aren't we (guess since I don't show, I should say you) perpetuating the trend and keeping some darned good looking stockier horses out of the ring? If the judges see more QH type minis in the ring it just might cause them to consider "best" horse rather than most "refined" horse.
In actual fact there are some (many) very nice QH types that are showing and winning. I can name several judges that are known to appreciate the stock horse type, and that's in my very limited Miniature show experience. However, that doesn't mean that these same judges want to see "stockier horses" as such. They are still looking for refinement in those horses--because as the others have already pointed out, refinement doesn't mean (as I think some are taking it to mean) spindly horses that look like they will blow over in a strong wind.
People do tend to use "QH horse type or stock horse type" as a polite alternative to "coarse pony type with poor conformation" in many cases, and I think that 'politeness' conveys the wrong impression to many people. Stock horse type is one thing, just plain "thick set" is quite another. But if someone posts a photo of their horse for critique & asks "will this horse do well in halter" I can just about guarantee that the person who comes on & says no, that horse is much too dumpy and thick set to do well at halter is going to get blasted big time for being rude and mean. So instead people say the horse is rather too much stock type to be what the judges like, and that perpetuates the belief some people have that stock type horses cannot do well at halter...sigh.
Generally I don't think it's even a case of the judges preferring stock horse type or Arab type or Shetland type--because while Minis do sort of have characteristics of those types, they are still "different" in that they are Minis and none are exactly like any of those big horse breed types. From what I've seen, most judges want to see horses that have some substance to them--good conformation, longer legs, clean neck, length of hip with good muscling--they want to see the topline nicely rounded, but they do not want to see FAT. Most judges probably don't want to see a horse that is built like a brick sh--house, with a chest that's as wide as the horse is tall and a rear end that is two ax handles wide....there may be a few that like that look, but I have yet to observe any that go for that conformation. There are a few judges that actually want to see the horses looking anorexic as opposed to well rounded with a good strong hip, but I believe there are more judges who do not want to see anorexic (my word for those horses whose owners believe thin = refined and therefore they keep their horses scrawny to make them look finer) nor do they want to see horses that are naturally very, very slight with a weak croup and/or very narrow chest...those few that do look as if a strong wind would blow them away! To me those horses are not "refined"--I would say they "lack substance". Likewise my "good substance" does not = short legged &/or thick bodied/thick necked. In my view the ideal show horse has both substance and refinement--the two do not contradict each other.
I hope I've managed to convey my point & am not just rambling!