Big-Moving Minis Must Go ...

[Yaddax3]

A proposal will be presented at Convention to address the influx of big-moving, high-stepping Shetlands into the AMHR world. I happen to have one of these high steppers and I fully support this proposal, which would create a separate class for them.

The proposal, by the way, is not mine.

At AMHR Nationals, all six horses in Pleasure Driving Over (36-38) were high steppers with a Shetland background. Minis that were winning National titles in Pleasure Driving just a few years ago can't compete in that division now.

My fear is, all the minis who once were dominant in Pleasure Driving will switch to Country Pleasure Driving, which will impact the minis who once were dominant in Country. And where do they go? Western Country?

We run the risk of making some terrific Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis obsolete unless the big movers/high steppers have a class all their own.

It appears that the two proposals related to measuring at the withers are, in part, an attempt to tamp down the influx of high-stepping, high-withered Shetlands whose last hair of the mane happens to drop quite a way down from the top of the withers. Creating a class for these horses will level the playing field.

I don't want to mess with the current way of measuring because going to a withers measurement will destroy some breeding programs.

In ASPC, we have Modern, Modern Pleasure and Classic divisions to address the variance in movement. It is time to do that with minis, too.

I don't see a downside to this proposal. If you have a high stepper, you're already competing against them. If you don't have a high stepper, you'll no longer have to worry about competing against them. And if you're a trainer, you'll now have another class for a client to show in.

 

[CLC Stables]

This division already exists. It is called Park Harness. How is the division going to be decided. What will allow a horse to be entered in to this division, and what will stop them from going into the divisions that they already are entered into.

There has to be a point folks where we as a registry ACCEPT CHANGE, rather than going against it and adding more classes so that our horses don't have to evolve.

I am sorry but eventually if we keep adding classes people will NOT come to shows (and most will say oh sure they will) but a show will no longer be able to be held in 2 or 3 days. THey will be week long shows because of the amount of classes that everyone is wanting to add in.

 

[CLC Stables]

Bob I am not trying to negate your post either, I see everyone's perspective, I truly do.

My other comment I wanted to say is we need not make divisions of a show for trainers to add extra clients (no offense to my trainer friends) and I still think the issue would not disappear with the adding of this division. People are still going to enter their horse where they see it best to win, which often times is NOT in the correct place.

 

[Yaddax3]

This division already exists. It is called Park Harness.

Park Harness is an option, and it was an option during the AMHR Nationals that wrapped up the other day. And there was no more than two minis in any Park Harness Over class.

As it stands, you can't mandate that a high-stepping mini go into Park Harness. With the aforementioned proposal, high-stepping minis can be coaxed into this newly created class if judges make it clear they would be penalized for extreme action in they stay in the Pleasure class that has been offered for years.

I'm all for AMHR evolving, as long as it doesn't make obsolete many of the driving horses already competing.

 

[CLC Stables]

What about REDEFINING the standards for Country, Pleasure and Park. Western has some SPECIFICS that really limit that class IE the 5 inches above the wither for a headset. What if we redefine those other classes to carry some specific requirements that would distinguish a true difference.

 

[drivinghoss]

The Pleasure Driving division was very good at the AMHR Nationals this past year.

However none of the horses in the Pleasure stakes were Park Harness horses.

A Park Harness horse would break well above level, further more a Park Harness horse would have more hocks then any of the Pleasure horses had.

People need to realize that the Miniature horse has evolved as have training techniques. We should be proud of how the horses in the show ring look like show horses.

 

[CLC Stables]

However none of the horses in the Pleasure stakes were Park Harness horses.

A Park Harness horse would break well above level, further more a Park Harness horse would have more hocks then any of the Pleasure horses had.

YOU ARE SO RIGHT WITH THIS STATEMENT. I agree 100%. My wife used to show a park horse in the arabs, and she just giggles when she sees a park class. Kinda sad.

 

[Minimor]

I would agree with Rob (CLC)and have to ask this:

Why would anyone expect the division to stay the same over the last 5 or 10 or 20 years? Halter horses today don't look anything like halter horses of 20 or even 10 or 5 years ago (and IMO that is a good thing).It is nice to see that today's Minis have some length of neck and a good length of leg under them.

It's my understanding that some years ago a daisy cutter way of moving was the Country Pleasure standard. CP horses didn't have to have knee or hock flexion. To me, that is not a CP horse, nor is it a good way of moving. I like good knee and hock flexion on all my horses. They can have good "lift" and still have good extension along with it, though many don't seem to believe that. I've got some good moving horses, all of them with good knee & hock flexion--many of them I would class as Country Pleasure type--I wouldn't put them into Pleasure and I sure wouldn't put them into Park. Likewise I've got some I would label Pleasure Driving but again, they are not park horses.

For me "excessive action" in Pleasure would mean the horse's forearm is coming up way above level when he trots. Level or just a smidgen above level would class as Pleasure for me. CP would mean the forearm is not quite level but maybe getting close to it, and the horse wouldn't have quite the high headedness nor the animation of the Pleasure horse. In turn the Pleasure horse would not display quite the attitude and animation of the Park horse.

I don't think I would change things to try and force the divisions to look the same as they did several years ago. In fact, I know I wouldn't.

 

[~Lisa~]

We run the risk of making some terrific Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis obsolete unless the big movers/high steppers have a class all their own.

Bob I am glad someone else is seeing that there is a issue here -I am not sure what the answer is but I do know we need to think long term about revenue and there is a lot of very nice Pleasure and CP MINIS who have no where to go and handlers who will decide to go elsewhere which many can say tough cookies however I personally do not want to lose their $

I am not interested( no offense meant )in what a Park ARAB or CP ARAB or Morgan look like I am not breeding nor showing Arabs or Morgans or any other breed. These are minis not any of the above breeds or any other breed. I am not sure why there is such a dislike for a mini to look well like a well conformed talented mini

This is not about sore losers or talentless horses it is about mainstream quality horses who will quickly have no where to go and many worrying and concerned not about who is winning but about the financial stablity and popularity of the breed as a whole.There is a reason these minis are so very popular and while of course change happens I am not sure why we want to completely change things that made the Miniature horse as popular as it is today.

I guess I am one who does not find it shocking that a 30 inch mini would not move the same as a Arab Park horse or a Hackney. I would not expect a QH to drive and move the same as I would a Hackney

I do not know what the answer is and I am not sure an added class is the answer

however I do know that there is nothing wrong with or no reason to point fingers and scream sore loser to those breeders who have taken great pride in improving the miniature horse while keeping it the same horse that has grown so popular. I am looking foward to Convention will be interesting to hear how others feel.

 

[rabbitsfizz]

OK, I have seen quite a few posts where people do not wish the place of measurement to change because this would negate people breeding progammes...or similar statements.

So, what is the difference between changing all the classes, and thus negating the goals someone has been working towards, and changing the place of measurement?

Added to which, changing to the withers would be eased in, over a number of years, giving people plenty of time to look ahead and adjust their stallions accordingly, whereas once a class is changed it is changed, maybe this does not happen overnight but it happens with no concessions made to anyone's breeding programmes!

 

[ruffian]

The big moving - yes PARK horses that were in pleasure aren't in Park Harness because there's no place to go. There are only 2 classes, over and under. It doesn't have the prestige of any other class. Other divisions have Ladies, Gentlemens, stallion, gelding, mare, and size splits. Since cross entering isn't allowed, most folks choose to enter where they have more choices. If you enter Park, you get one class and the stake.

CP you get Ladies, Gentlemen, Mares, Gelding, Stallion, and several size splits. Why haul all the way to Nationals to show one class? I wouldn't.

Some of The horses being shown in Pleasure do belong in Park. In MINIATURE HORSE Park driving. Not Shetland Park Driving. So those MINIATURES that move well and high, with a higher head set, maybe not breaking level and maybe their head isn't straight up with hocks moving 12" off the ground, but Park in the Miniature horse world, should show in park. The ponies moving like a Hackney belong in Park or at Congress.

IMO the Park moving horses in Pleasure need to be penalized. I went to a judges seminar, and asked why horses with excessive movement aren't being marked down, I was told BY JUDGES AND FUTURE JUDGES that there is no such thing as excessive movement in Pleasure. So until the JUDGES are being trained on what to look for in the Miniature Horse Pleasure class, might as well save our breath.

 

[kaykay]

I was at the same clinic and it made perfect sense to me. Dont know why anyone would penalize a horse for being a great mover in a Pleasure class? That clinic was given by some very well respected judges and I do respect their opinion.

The thing I dont understand is why its sour grapes when people oppose a person winning but its not sour grapes when people oppose a horse? To me its sour grapes either way.

All of this stuff on people and horses is constantly evolving. Thats just how it goes and I would hate to see us stop at a standstill and not improve.

Now having said that I do not believe that improvement has to involve a mini with ASPC papers. Just breed a better moving miniature. Thats the goal right?

I feel bad for people that have to defend their wins because of who they are but I also feel bad that now that some also have to defend their horse.

I have been told over and over there is no more room to add classes/divisions.

Honestly Id rather see a novice division added verses another driving division.

Just my two cents

Kay

 

[Mominis]

I can totally see why AMHR wouldn't add park classes (like Ladies', Gentlemens', etc.) since they have trouble getting participation in the Over and Under classes alone.

There is no park option for futurity driving horses either, so the young horses with big motors have no choice but to compete in pleasure if they want to compete for futurity money.

 

[mad for mini's]

Ruffian : Love your post, very well put.

ETA: Stormy : Very nicely put. Way nicer than I would have been able to word my feelings.

 

[stormy]

There is a Park class, two horses entered, one was a Park horse (in my opinion) and one a pleasure type. If Park horses would move into the Park class (that is already offered) numbers would increase and divisions would be added but the owners need to have the guts to put their horses where they belong first!

Again some of us DO NOT AGREE THAT PARK TYPE MOVEMENT IS BETTER THEN PLAEASURE TYPE!! They are differant, one is not BETTER then the other, one is NOT an improvement over the other anymore then Pleasure movement is better then Western Country Pleasure...they are each unique, beautiful and desirable within the breed.

(and frankly guys I am sick of this sour grapes stuff when those who show Pleasure and love the plaeasure type movement ask why Park horses aren't in the Park class. Why is it not sour grapes when Shetland owners say they moved to AMHR because small ponies can't place in Shetland but is sour grapes when miniature breeders suggest we put the modern movers in an appropriate class???)

 

[Minimor]

ruffian--a good moving horse is a good moving horse regardless of breed. Sure, Morgans don't move like Arabians, Arabians don't move like Quarter Horses who obviously don't move like either Morgans or Saddlebreds...(and I admit that what I would call a good moving QH would likely be one that is more TB than QH and sure wouldn't get anywhere in the QH show ring...I wouldn't expect a good moving QH to be anything like a good moving Morgan) but where on earth is the rule that states that Miniature horses must be poor movers with no knee or hock flexion? Everyone would be happy if they were still doing their stiff legged little trots?? I don't have any under 30" horses but do have a 33" gelding that can trot level--if I were to show him it would be in pleasure driving, not country pleasure. Overall he sure isn't a park horse. He is also PURE Mini...I don't know how far back you'd have to go to find a registered Shetland in his pedigree (somewhere behind Buckeroo I suppose would be the closest)...and he sure shouldn't have to be put into any "high stepping pleasure driving" with a bunch of Shetlands. He doesn't look anything like a Shetland--he looks like what he is, a 33" Mini.

Lisa--you're being contradictory again. You don't want all these old time breeding programs with their old time/old type movers ruined by the modern show ring trends, but it is okay to ruin other breeding programs, those that are raising the B size horses that will become worthless if the measurement rule is changed to make heights smaller.

Left as things are no one's breeding program is ruined. The majority of Mini owners never show at Nationals. The majority of the high stepping driving horses and Shetland halter type horses are shown at Nationals and at shows in certain other areas (we are not seeing those horses showing here in western Canada for instance) so I venture that many people in many places will continue to buy the type of horses that is most common in most areas. Making changes to eliminate the taller B horses will certainly ruin a number of breeding programs. Poof, just like that they are gone. Doesn't matter if the effective date isn't for 2 years yet, as soon as that rule change gets passed, those programs are done, because that breeding stock will instantly become worthless. And no, you can't justify it by saying they can show pony, because there are plenty of broodmares and even stallions that are up there in the taller heights that are AMHR-only. Showing as ponies isn't an option for them.

And the concern about money...I personally don't think it will be the issue some say it will. Supposing all the ponies and high-stepping horses dropped out of Nationals. How many horses would that cut from the total number entered? How much money would that take away from Nationals? Not just the ponies and high steppers themselves, but any non-pony and not-so-high-stepping entries that those same owners may bring along. Supposing those owners all stayed home & didn't enter any of their horses. How much difference would that make to the numbers?

What is the exact wording of this high-stepping class proposal? Is it one class? A whole division? How many classes in that division? Is there a divsion for Unders and a division for Overs? Or is it Overs only? I ask because I have just in the past week talked to owners who are saying that the thing to do is get more Under sized ponies that can be shown in AMHR Under classes. It will be interesting if these people start coming out with more ponies that are 34" and under.

And you know--I think a lot of the problems would go away if our measuring rule could be enforced. If all stewards were strict about square stance when measuring, if all stewards at Nationals measured the same way, on a level surface. I can't tell you how many people have now told me that while their horses were getting measured by a certain steward on an uphill surface the majority of the big name/big stable horses were getting measured on the level by a different steward, because many were refusing to be measured by any but that one steward...nor how many complaints I've heard about horses that measured in right at the top of the height limit for a specific division--and it doesn't matter if it were the 32-34" class, the 34-36" class or the 36-38" class--horses that measured just small enough to squeak by into that class were out in the ring with horses that were much taller than they were. Too many people and too many different people for that to be just a fantasy on their part. There is something wrong there somewhere. If all those horses were measured into the division they truly belong in, with some being measured out completely, would level the playing field a lot.

If no one can figure out how to make the measuring fair, how does anything think they are going to enforce a rule that states "excessive action to be severely penalized"??

 

[targetsmom]

Maybe if shows OFFERED the same number of classes for Park, Pleasure, CP and WCP, the entries would very soon get divided up more the way they should be? Just add up all the classes, divide by 4, and make new labels for the classes. Either divide classes in each driving division by gender of horse, height, gender of driver, or whatever, just so long as they are all the same.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Yaddax3]

Just to be clear:

After reading several posts, I can't be sure if anyone thinks I'm in sour grapes mode or supportive of this proposal because I don't have a high stepper and don't want to compete against one.

I do have a high stepper named Enchanted Hollow King Zebulon, who won five National Championships and seven Reserve National titles in Pleasure Driving Over and Roadster Over in Youth, Amateur and Open classes at AMHR Nationals.

I believe Zeb will be competitive against any Pleasure or Roadster mini out there. I'm not worried about him. I'm worried about Pleasure Driving Over classes shrinking because many folks will move their long-time Pleasure horses into Country Pleasure and that currently top-notch Country Pleasure minis will have no place to go.

Several people have mentioned Park Harness as an option. I'm lucky enough to own a Viceroy. Not everyone has one because they are expensive; we were lucky to find one at a reasonable price and refinished it. Anyway, some folks feel it is a competitive disadvantage to show in a two-wheel cart in Park Harness.

Park would not work for our family because of the limited number of classes, particularly in Youth. Three of my children showed Zeb in Pleasure Driving in their age group at Nationals; only one could have shown him in Park because just one Park class is offered for Youth.

The easiest thing for me to do is to pipe down and let Zeb compete in Pleasure Driving classes where most of the minis don't have his motion. But I'm trying to look at the big picture here, and not be self-serving. And the big picture, as I see it, is that many very good national champion Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis are on the road to being obsolete. And if not obsolete, they likely won't be winning at Nationals any more.

I go back to something I mentioned in an earlier post: If we can separate Moderns from Modern Pleasure and Classic ponies based on look and movement, why can't it be done in AMHR?

 

[~Lisa~]

The easiest thing for me to do is to pipe down and let Zeb compete in Pleasure Driving classes where most of the minis don't have his motion. But I'm trying to look at the big picture here, and not be self-serving. And the big picture, as I see it, is that many very good national champion Pleasure and Country Pleasure minis are on the road to being obsolete. And if not obsolete, they likely won't be winning at Nationals any more.

I go back to something I mentioned in an earlier post: If we can separate Moderns from Modern Pleasure and Classic ponies based on look and movement, why can't it be done in AMHR?

Bob I appreciate your speaking up and appreciate that rather then push any agenda or be self serving you have a ability and forethought able to your your experience as an exhibtor to see the big picture on AMHR as a whole.

I think sometimes we all get so caught up in trying to "prove" our own point we lack the ability to truly see the big picture

 

[disneyhorse]

Bob...

"Big Moving" is a pretty general term when it comes to motion. This is where the driving classes get a little tricky.

I'm not sure a lot of those Over Pleasure minis have "too much motion" and need to be "moved to Park" just because way of going and training affects a lot of this.

Park horses should have very high, snappy action but they don't really have the ability to extend, so basically they will look like they are prancing in place. When asked to "extend" they don't necessarily go "faster" but there should be a dramatic change in the height that they are trotting. This ability does NOT come easy for a lot of horses, who rely on the ability to move FORWARD to get that "big trot" that so many people are griping about. Even in the Modern Shetlands, you will see very, very few Park Harness ponies showing, because the talent and athletic training needed to produce such brilliant, controlled motion is very rare/hard to come by/very experienced,intensive training is involved. Oftentimes artificial appliances are used to teach the horse/pony how to work the muscles UPWARDS without getting any forward progress. It is like extreme collection and very, very few horses are capable of that, and very few trainers are able to train that as well. The few "true Park" horses I have seen, they just take your breath away but I have also seen the skill and finesse needed to coax that sort of motion out of a horse.

I personally feel that the Miniature Horse is simply evolving. The miniatures ten years ago moved WAY bigger than the miniatures of the 1980s, and the miniatures of TODAY move WAY bigger than the miniatures of the 1990s.

Breeders are carefully selecting stock that are more and more athletic. People who drive, want to drive a horse with a big motor in the Pleasure classes. No driver/trainer picks a horse with poor athletic ability to show in the ring.

I think people just are not used to seeing such big action in the little guys, but I'm also guessing a majority of miniature people are also not used to seeing what a "true Park" horse moves like, either. It's new. Many mini people don't come from a background where they showed Park Arabs/Morgans/Hackneys... but that doesn't mean they can't learn.

Andrea