Lets *see* your definition ...

[Leeana]

With Carins proposal, it has had me thinking and looking more at type especially in the foundation and classic divisions. Everything is a learning process and im sure we all have our own opinions on what is classic and what is foundation, i know i have seen horses in foundation classes and thought what in the world is that person thinking.

So, i thought maybe if we all gave a few examples of what we feel is foundation type and what we feel is classic type based on our take of each type standard and possibly why they feel that horse is foundation type vr classic type, maybe a few of us could learn a little something or why they would show that horse in the foundation class rather then the classic division or vice versa.

I'll start ...

This is Royal Salsa. I showed him in 06' as classic, then this past season as a foundation and he placed much better in the foundation classes. He has a bit more bone and subtance to him, although he still has a hooky clean neck. He has a more 'powerful' and built like a tank feel to him. He is 39.5'' and i do think he is a decent example of a foundation pony, correct me if i am wrong.

Royal Salsa FOUNDATION

I really feel this filly is very much Classic type. She is going to mature around 45' so obviously she is going to be a tall over division classic, but she is deffently the refined classic type. Now, of course she obviously couldnt show in the foundation division bc for 1) she is not elg. and 2) she is going to go over 42''. Extremely refined and stretchy. I think she is good example of the Classic type. Even if she was to mature at 39'' i would still show her as a under classic and not a foundation (if she was elg.).

Alpha Farms Magical Melody CLASSIC

Also, a quick question regarding this topic that i should throw in. Do you feel a Foundation should be judged any different on movement then a classic? For the judges out there (adam

), do you look for anything different for movement between the two?

Lets keep this fun and educational

 

[alongman]

Leeanna -

I think that you are quite close in your description (and pictures) of what the difference should be for Foundation vs. Classic. If you don't mind, I'll use your horses as my description as well so that people can look at two pictures initially (if you don't want, please PM me and I'll remove this post).

Let me start by saying what the rulebook describes as the "ideal shetland". There is wide diversity of types in the Shetland Pony breed and type varies to a degree from one geographic region to another. The correct Classic American Shetland Type should be based on Form Follows Function. The description of a Foundation vs. Classic is limited which leaves much room for interpretation.

With that said, we should analyze each animal as it is to be placed into a division - a halter animal vs. a driving animal (and then pleasure, open, country, etc...)

The chestnut horse. He does have a thicker bone configuration consistent with what I recall as being the "pony when I was growing up". This is how I tend to refer to the Foundation Shetland division. He still exhibits all the "parts" that are required for good conformation - a solid barrel, wide chest, nice shoulder (although maybe verging on a little steep for my liking) and excellent topline. For a Foundation pony, his neck is almost too extreme for my personal liking. Albeit, very nice and refined - I would expect to see it on a more Classic division horse. His expression is bright and alert as I expect it should be. He does have a more Foundation-typed head, however. I use this term to mean the more straight and slightly less dished head than we are seeing on the Classics. All-in-all, a good example. I think that placing him in a Foundation class would be appropriate. If we look back to the Form Follows Function - I would say that this pony would be an excellent halter prospect - based on the angle of his shoulder, I would say he has less action in the front end which would either make him a country pleasure pony. Would I be close?

The pinto filly. Again, I think appropriately placed in the correct division as a Classic mare. She does have the "dainty" look of a female as well as less bone mass than the pony seen above. She has a lot of nice parts also, which will help her in her Form Follows Function. I like the shoulder on this mare - nice angle which probably allows her great freedom in her front end action. This shoulder angulation also gives her a more upright neckset and therefore a more contoured shape to her neck. She does have a more feminine and refined head typically seen in the Classics of today. If comparing, I would say that the pony above has a better topline (more halter horse-like) as the filly below has a more muscled rear which is allowing a more powerful rear end to "move". Thus I would wager that this filly is probably more geared to a performance career.

Now, on to movement. When I look at any animal moving - I want to see freedom of movement. I don't want to see for better terminology, a piston, movement. Meaning up and down without covering any ground. I also don't want to see the horse straight legged and throwing his feet out in front of him. A good shetland, of any division, has this freedom. If we look at the pictures you posted, namely the filly, you can see the "rolling" of her front leg as she is moving out. This is a very open type of movement with little holding her back. At the same time, she has decent hock action that is allowing for decent propulsion when she's moving. Again, this motion combined with her above features, makes her a more Classic division horse. I'm looking for pictures of a good moving Foundation pony to compare. But, if you took the movement of the filly and made it more subtle, that would be close - movement is quite similar in both divisions.

Based on what this filly looks like moving, she trots lower than I would expect to see of an Open Pleasure pony, I would say that she also would fit into a Country Pleasure division in her performance career.

I hope that this helped, or at least didn't confuse the living daylights, out of you..... again, feel free to PM me with questions if more personal or post here and I'll try to help out.

 

[alongman]

Please feel free to ask any other questions.

 

[Leeana]

Thank you Adam

.

You are exactly right on the money with the movement

. The chesnut has lower extended action while the filly has more action in the hind end and very flowing on the front.

Here is a photo of the Foundation trotting at what is 'normal' for him ..

Adam thank you agian

 

[alongman]

Leeana -

The chestnut picture you posted is an example of what I would consider to be straight-legged movement. This isn't exactly what I meant when I said "rolling" movement. By rolling, I mean that the horses have a bending reach (more oval shaped movement) than a pendulum type movement. Does that make sense? Now, this picture may simply be catching this horse at the follow-through portion, or the end of the reach, as he is pulling back.

Again, my two cents.

 

[Erica]

Here's a very small Classic, as so many times I hear foundations are related to the small ponies not big enough to compete with the taller classics, instead of what type they are.

Jesse is 36" as a Sr. gelding and of course now hardshipped into AMHR. But as a two year old when I showed him Classic he was 35.25". He took grands as a stallion and later as a gelding both against the horses that towered over him.

I think Lewella looked him up and said he didn't qualify for a foundation seal through his dam, but even if he did and him being as small as he is I would still show him Classic. He's much to extreme I think to be foundation, and really his motion is boarding too extreme for classic, as the way I read the rules they aren't suppose to be extreme in motion either.....

 

[alongman]

Good example Erica. He was one that I was trying to find information on - he is a prime example of a "little" Classic holding his own. A good horse is a good horse no matter what the size!

 

[Erica]

Yep Adam, I just LOVE him. He's just got a cool personality - so very sweet but then explodes in the ring to this other facade.

And here's the reason I even mentioned above that he's almost a tad extreme in motion for Classic in some respects; though of course, unbridled I am able to get him more of a extended/springy (like listed in the Classic as acceptable) not as powering stride as he is very capable of doing (more Modern) in his 36" body.

 

[ponyarab]

Yep Adam, I just LOVE him. He's just got a cool personality - so very sweet but then explodes in the ring to this other facade.

And here's the reason I even mentioned above that he's almost a tad extreme in motion for Classic in some respects; though of course, unbridled I am able to get him more of a extended/springy (like listed in the Classic as acceptable) not as powering stride as he is very capable of doing (more Modern) in his 36" body.

Erica in my opinion you some of the most gorgeous horses and maybe someday I will be the proud owner of one.

 

[alongman]

Erica -

He shows another good example - a horse can fit more than one category. With his motion in harness he can definitely cut it as a more modern like horse. If you show him as a Classic though, this would be a case where a good handler, such as yourself, can see that and handle the horse appropriately to make it fit the class.

 

[Lisa Strass]

Here's an example of an ASPC mare that qualifies as Foundation by pedigree and size, but we showed as a Classic (and now as a mini). I think her bone structure is VERY refined which is why we showed her classic.

She's the only one with the Foundation Seal that we own, so I don't have any good examples of what I think a Foundation type is to show.

 

[alongman]

Lisa - Beautiful mare! I think you made the right decision. She's pretty extreme for a Foundation but seems to exemplify Classic (and mini).