How do you read our standard of perfection?

[~Lisa~]

I realize it is pretty vague in our rule book but I am wondering do you personally feel there is a standard or do you feel it is simply all about the height or??

I have been having this discussion with friends and am curious what everyone else thinks

 

[PNARanch]

I realize it is pretty vague in our rule book but I am wondering do you personally feel there is a standard or do you feel it is simply all about the height or??

I have been having this discussion with friends and am curious what everyone else thinks

 

[PNARanch]

I realize it is pretty vague in our rule book but I am wondering do you personally feel there is a standard or do you feel it is simply all about the height or??

I have been having this discussion with friends and am curious what everyone else thinks

 

[sfmini]

Which registry?

AMHA has a group working on a rewrite.

 

[hobbyhorse23]

Which registry are we talking about? At AMHA shows height seems to be weighed more than it is in AMHR while at AMHR shows the Arenosa/Shetland type is a big winner as the perfection thing is seen as long legs and a narrow body. I think there is certainly an impressive type that judges place in both registries.

Leia

 

[~Lisa~]

Either registry really as both right now are about the same in specifics - no doubt beautiful horses are winning in both registries but this is not really about that at all.

Just having discussions with friends about is there a standard or is it simply height - is there ever such a thing as a off type mini? or would that only be one who is taller?

With so much talk about minis with more substance, more refined- draft style I am just curious how people read the standards

I guess my question is for those that are breeding how do you decide what to breed for? the fad in the show ring now? the extreme types of minis? A more in the middle type?

I realize we all should be breeding what we like but as someone who used to breed minis it was somewhat frustrating to try and figure out what exactly one should be breeding for (talking type here not of course sound- healthy minded and bodied animals)

 

[Michelle@wescofarms]

Here's the AMHA standard.(I got tired of digging to find AMHRs)

AMHA Standard

General Impression: A small, sound, well-balanced horse, possessing the correct conformation characteristics required of most breeds, Refinement and femininity in the mare. Boldness and masculinity in the stallion - the general impression should be one of symmetry, strength, agility and alertness. Since the breed objective is the smallest possible perfect horse, preference in judging shall be given the smaller horse, other characteristics being approximately equal.

Size: Must measure not more than 34 inches at the withers, at the last hairs of the mane.

Head: In proportion to length of neck and body. Broad forehead with large prominent eyes set wide apart. Comparatively short distance between eyes and muzzle. Profile straight or slightly concave below the eyes. Large nostrils. Clean, refined. Even bite.

Ears: Medium in size. Pointed. Carried alertly with tips curving slightly inward.

Throat-Latch: Clean and well defined allowing ample flexion at the poll.

Neck: Flexible, lengthy, in proportion to body and type and blending smoothly into the withers.

Shoulder: Long, sloping and well angulated, allowing a free-swinging stride and alert head/neck carriage. Well-muscled forearm.

Body: Well muscled with ample bone and substance. Balanced and well proportioned. Short back and loins in relation to length of underline. Smooth and generally level top-line. Deep girth and flank. Trim barrel.

Hindquarters: Long, well-muscled hip, thigh and gaskin. Highest point of croup to be same height as withers, Tail set neither excessively high or low, but smoothly rounding off rump.

Legs: Set straight and parallel when viewed from front or back. Straight, true and squarely set, when viewed from the side with hooves pointing directly ahead. Pasterns sloping about 45 degrees and blending smoothly, with no change of angle from the hooves to the ground. Hooves to be round and compact. Trimmed as short as practicable for an unshod horse. Smooth, fluid gait in motion.

Color: Any color or marking pattern, and any eye color, is equally acceptable. The hair should be lustrous and silky.

It's very generalized IMHO, but as long as many breeders (and those that do volunteer to run the organizations choose to view it as a height registry not a 'breed' I don't see much changing.

Personally I've always wanted Miniature Horses recognized as a breed, but I do like the variety of draft, saddle, arab, quarterhorse - just miniaturized versions of the big guys. How cool would it be to go to a show of all miniaturize draft horses?

 

[Leeana]

This has nothing to do with the original post...but I've been feeling slightly opinionated lately so ..

I don't think it is right to set another breed as part of your breed standard - that has always really BUGGED me. I know a lot of people breed for Arabain type miniature horses but to say the Arabian is our breed standard / the type winning in the show ring is sort of (hmm...whats the word im looking for, it will come to me..). Why stop there? Shoot higher! I just don't like the idea of using another breed to set the standard for our breed. Anyway, have you seen the horses winning at the Nationals....they do not look like Arabians....

I'm in the process of going straight shetland and I know what the type of pony I want on my show string and in my pasture. I don't need to set another breed as my standard for that. I want big bay ponies with Chrome, extreme movement and correct conformation that can compete in todays classic show ring and improve on that as need be...I do not ever want to set another breed as the standard for the breed I am focusing on and lose sight of that.

I think our goal should be to produce conformationally sound horses and ponies that can compete both in halter and performance and not use another breed as our standard. That is just me and my little opinion that means more to me then it does to anyone else so ...

 

[bevann]

This has nothing to do with the original post...but I've been feeling slightly opinionated lately so ..

I don't think it is right to set another breed as part of your breed standard - that has always really BUGGED me. I know a lot of people breed for Arabain type miniature horses but to say the Arabian is our breed standard / the type winning in the show ring is sort of (hmm...whats the word im looking for, it will come to me..). Why stop there? Shoot higher! I just don't like the idea of using another breed to set the standard for our breed. Anyway, have you seen the horses winning at the Nationals....they do not look like Arabians....

I'm in the process of going straight shetland and I know what the type of pony I want on my show string and in my pasture. I don't need to set another breed as my standard for that. I want big bay ponies with Chrome, extreme movement and correct conformation that can compete in todays classic show ring and improve on that as need be...I do not ever want to set another breed as the standard for the breed I am focusing on and lose sight of that.

I thik the standard is very vague.I have been in Minis over 20 years having come from a big horse background.I am concerned with the ultra refinement being pinned in the right today.I look at the SKINNY legs and wonder how long before (as in many other breeds)there is a halter type and a performance and no one horse who can win in all aspects.I have seen it in many breeds English type Quarter horse who do well under sadle and jump and can't get a second look in the halter classes.Appaloosas going in the halter classes at the big national show with legs in wraps yanked off at the last minute before the class and put on ASAP after coming out of the ring(so the over muscled legs don't break down)The racing Arabian looks nothing like the beautiful halter Arabian.Are we headed in that same direction with our Minis?Beauty(in the eye of the beholder)being sacrificed for function.This is just my opinion and I am sure there are lots who will disagree with me.

I think our goal should be to produce conformationally sound horses and ponies that can compete both in halter and performance and not use another breed as our standard. That is just me and my little opinion that means more to me then it does to anyone else so ...

 

[ruffian]

"I don't think it is right to set another breed as part of your breed standard - that has always really BUGGED me. I know a lot of people breed for Arabain type miniature horses but to say the Arabian is our breed standard / the type winning in the show ring is sort of (hmm...whats the word im looking for, it will come to me..). Why stop there? Shoot higher! I just don't like the idea of using another breed to set the standard for our breed. Anyway, have you seen the horses winning at the Nationals....they do not look like Arabians....

 

I'm in the process of going straight shetland and I know what the type of pony I want on my show string and in my pasture. I don't need to set another breed as my standard for that. I want big bay ponies with Chrome, extreme movement and correct conformation that can compete in todays classic show ring and improve on that as need be...I do not ever want to set another breed as the standard for the breed I am focusing on and lose sight of that."

The miniature is a "New" breed - being around only 30-40 years. Many other breeds -such as the Arabian - have been around for hundreds of years. When you see an Arabian, you know it. When you see a Quarter horse, you know it. These are well defined breeds. Miniatures are still evolving. I was at the Tennessee show last weekend, and saw some absolutely gorgeous "arabian type" miniatures that were under 30" tall. I know, I measured them. They are certainly the "Arabian Type". This appears to be where AMHA is headed.

There were also quarter horse type, even a rather heavy drafty type. They did not do as well as the Arabian types. But their owner's appeared to love them and that's just fine.

I breed for the "Arabian Type". Yep, I'm setting another breed TYPE as my standard. Because I want a pretty head, long neck, fine boned. I'm NOT breeding Arabians, I am breeding for "Arabian type"{.

Leeana you are also breeding for a specific type - there are a hundreds of ponies out there that are not bay with lots of Chrome, that are pure Shetland. You are just more closely defining what type of Shetland you want. I am doing the same with Miniatures.

"Which registry are we talking about? At AMHA shows height seems to be weighed more than it is in AMHR while at AMHR shows the Arenosa/Shetland type is a big winner as the perfection thing is seen as long legs and a narrow body. I think there is certainly an impressive type that judges place in both registries."

I am very proud that my stallion took 4th at AMHR Nationals and Won at AMHA. So there are horses out there that can do well in both registries.

At last weekend's show (AMHA/AMHR) I saw more refined horses - not extremely Shetland type - doing very well. But it's all in a day's show - that person's opinion at that time at that location.

So what do we do with the standard? I like the AMHA standard. I feel it is representative of what is in the show ring today.

 

[love_casper]

I'm guessing (...and kind of hoping really) that what happens in our breeding is what they've done in the big horses.... there is a different type for halter vs performance.... heck there's even totally different types inside performance!

Take Quarter Horses - There's the big beefy looking halter types that are nothing but big muscles and small feet. Most people don't ride their halter QHs, at least until they are done showing. The whole idea of "form to function" is no longer relevant in the halter world. These horses don't do anything but advertise people's breeding farms.

The Western Pleasure types are the really refined build, low neck sets, peanut pushers, thin legs.

The Reiners and cow horses are built more on being able to use them, round toplines, built for slide stops, pretty small.

There are always those stud ads that advertise how their stallion has produced winning offspring in "halter and performance" but seeing as how they look so different they give the impression of different breeds... you know the same horse winning a high level halter class won't be reined cow horse of the year.

What we have right now in our breed is the only thing distinguishing good farm/ bad farm is are they breeding halter quality horses. I'm hoping as more people find opportunity for showing their horses in places other than the breed ring that more types become accepted and bred for. Perhaps as CDE becomes more popular we'll discover that a different type is needed. I would love to see more definition there.

Original question, do I think there's a type? Yeah, all the horses that won classes at the last AMHA show I went to looked the same to me, no matter what classes they entered. I just doubt that those horses could be top competitors in CDE, it look like their legs would snap!! The discription is so vague, what everyone "should" be breeding for seems to be whatever wins in the big halter shows that year. That changes as people breed for extremes of what they see winning. Just as in the other big horse breeds, what I see happening is the good features being emphasised until that's all there is of the horse. As in QHs with their muscles, I think it's minis and necks. You'd never see a horse with such an obscenely improportionately long neck in any big breed. (Anyone know that in QH and Arab conformation, the desired proportions are equal neck, back, and hip?) Even draft horses also have backs and big hips behind their large necks. Long necks win - we breed the longest necks to be found - if people only ever follow the halter ring, we'll have horses with tails growing out of their withers.

Now try to get THAT horse to do advanced level dressage.

 

[pinkapache]

 

. As in QHs with their muscles, I think it's minis and necks. You'd never see a horse with such an obscenely improportionately long neck in any big breed. (Anyone know that in QH and Arab conformation, the desired proportions are equal neck, back, and hip?) Even draft horses also have backs and big hips behind their large necks. Long necks win - we breed the longest necks to be found - if people only ever follow the halter ring, we'll have horses with tails growing out of their withers.

 

 

Aint this the truth!!!

 

[disneyhorse]

 

. As in QHs with their muscles, I think it's minis and necks. You'd never see a horse with such an obscenely improportionately long neck in any big breed. (Anyone know that in QH and Arab conformation, the desired proportions are equal neck, back, and hip?) Even draft horses also have backs and big hips behind their large necks. Long necks win - we breed the longest necks to be found - if people only ever follow the halter ring, we'll have horses with tails growing out of their withers.

 

 

Aint this the truth!!!

I don't know... ever see an American Saddlebred? I think they have the miniatures beat in the neck department. And yes, they DO breed for tails coming out of their withers.

Andrea

 

[love_casper]

I don't know... ever see an American Saddlebred? I think they have the miniatures beat in the neck department. And yes, they DO breed for tails coming out of their withers.

Andrea

You know, I was thinking that after I posted. Course I hate it in the big horses too.... once I got to ride someone's show Saddlebred... her withers were literally in the middle of her back, and the girth came down exactly halfway between her front and back legs, right in the middle of her belly. That's just annoying! If she had been ridden western, the back cinch practically would have been a bucking strap!

Oh what we do for fashion.

 

[JMS Miniatures]

Our standard of perfection to me is to breed a good horse with the following criteria. Plain and simple. Does not matter what the horse looks like as long as it has good conformation according to our standard.

Like some have mentioned pretty soon its going to be you have your halter horses and you have your performance horses. Very rarely have I seen a horse go win in a halter class to go out and do a performance class like driving for example. I have seen a few and I really like those horses who can do halter and driving. Thats why I like the versatility class.