Re: Re: long backed arabians

["Heidi Smith" <heidi@sagehillcmk.com>]

> I am not necessarily advocating long backs, but two of the best horses I
> have owned , were slightly long backed.
<snip>
> I would, however, stay away from those without STRAIGHT backs- a definite
> 'broken line' between back and top of croup, has not been successful for
me,
> and resulted in a horse that appeared to have back trouble. JMHO and few
> years experience.

I'd agree that strength of loin and overall construction of the back are
also immensely important.  I've seen a tremendous increase in back
pathology, though, in the last 20 years as I've vetted rides, and it
corresponds very closely to the craze for longer-backed Arabians in the show
ring.  And lamenesses resulting from back pathology also seem to me to be on
the increase.

No horse is perfect, and often strengths in one area can overcome weaknesses
in another, such as a strong loin and good coupling making up for a back
that is longer than ideal.  All horses have to be evaluated by looking at
the whole horse, not just a collection of parts.  Nonetheless, I've gotten
to the point that backs, loins, and couplings are the first place I look
when evaluating a horse (along with overall balance), even before looking at
legs.  I've found that a poorly balanced horse or one with an inadequate
back/loin/coupling is more apt to eventually go lame than is one with an
outstanding body and back but a few minor leg faults.  (Not advocating poor
legs, either--just making an observation.)

Heidi