 |
Re: [RC] To breed or not to Breed - heidiHeidi, I bought the Crabbet book (not with me, so can't quote the title or author), and in it it gives the history of the Crabbet stud, together with a heap of (then) professionally taken photos. When you see the "look" of those horses and you compare the earlier pictures to the later ones, I know exactly what you mean. The earlier horses - foundation stock - were pretty "ugly" by today's standards and wouldn't even be allowed onto the show grounds today! However, what struck me about them was that they must have been good riding horses - they were solid and looked much shorter than our modern Arabs. I'm a sucker for that old look! You also have to remember that the ones that came out of the desert also had suffered malnutrition, difficult travels, etc. Some are still pretty homely--but most WERE quite rideable--and in fact, most were ridden. Keep in mind the Arabian breed standard--read it, and read the Albert Harris description of what an Arabian is supposed to be, and then ask yourself--which horses fit these descriptions best, the old foundation horses, or the modern show ring horse?? I thought I had a link to the breed standard that was used for years, but I find I don't--it called for a horse with a "flat or slightly concave" face, talked about good bone, a "rounded" horse, short cannons, good riding type, and various other things. The Albert Harris article can be found at the following link, and was used as the Preamble to the Arabian stud books: http://www.sagehillcmk.com/Preamble%20.html Heidi ============================================================ One of the great joys of being a pompous idiot is that you can do and think whatever you want. ~ Homer Safferwiffle ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/ ============================================================
|