How about a Classic Division in AMHA

Miniature Horse Talk Forums

Help Support Miniature Horse Talk Forums:

joylee123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
1,298
Reaction score
3
Location
Glasco, Kansas
[SIZE=12pt]I liked Parmela's idea of the 26 and under class
[/SIZE]

I have a thought that's been in the back of my head for a while now


How about AMHA having a Classic division
That would allow folks with the "older" style Classic, heavier boned miniature to show and place and have fun too
There are an awful lot of beautiful well put together horses out there that are heavier boned and so haven't a chance against the finer boned horses although some of the heavier boned horses have every bit as good conformation


I'd love to see a Classic division in AMHA

Whatcha think , worth looking into?


Joy
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Leeana

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
8,743
Reaction score
28
Location
Green Springs Ohio
Hmm okay warning you may not like my opinion on this but here it goes ...

I just dont think i would be able to suppot this, i think adding this class would take away from the point of moving forward and improving, there is no need to move backwards. I'm trying to think of a way to say that without being so blatant about it, but i feel adding a "classic" class would not help improve the breed ...it would probably encourage breeding of the "old type" ....not saying the old type is bad, i enjoy seeing a nice QH type miniature that is correct, but i dont feel it would help move forth and improve the breed.
 

RockRiverTiff

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
2,532
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois
To me the real problem is that we are not yet considered a breed, which means that we do not now nor have we ever had a type standard. Yes, we have a standard of perfection, but I feel that's more about balance and good basic conformation than a specific type. That said, it's hard to determine then what "Classic" would be. After all, many horses that were NOT stockier did exist in the earlier years too (like Buckeroo, Rowdy, etc).

I would like to disagree with you a bit Leanna. I don't feel that having different types within the breed is moving backward, especially since variety is one of the main selling points of minis. Quarter Horse breeders put as much time and effort into their breeding programs as Arabian breeders, and I think they would be offended to hear someone saying that because their breed standard is less refined they are not improving their horses. Your statement assumes that the current type is the future of minis as a breed, but they've already shuffled through several other types, and I am sure the trends will change again down the road. Until we do become a breed and set an official type standard (and if we did I would gladly adjust my program to meet those standards), I don't see anything wrong with breeding for what you like (chances are if you like it there are others that do too) as long as it's a good and true representation of its type.

To tie this back to the original question, I think it would be very difficult to differentiate between the "Classic" and "Modern" type in minis when there is no historical basis for either. I can understand how people may feel that their heavier horses are not getting their fair due because of preference for a more refined type, but unfortunately that's what showing is--the judges' preference, which in turn is usually determined by what they intuit to be the breed's preference at the time.
 

Minimor

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
8,683
Reaction score
1,093
Location
Brandon Manitoba
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I do have to say that what I would see happening with a new division like this is more hard feelings about showring "politics" when someone wins the classic class with a horse that someone else feels is too refined to be considered classic. I see the actual results of such a division being somewhat different from what supporters might envision.
 

JourneysEnd

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
911
Reaction score
0
Location
Hockley, Texas
I've often said with all the Shetland / Mini crossing going on we're going to have to start a mini Foundation class in AMHR.
 

Alex

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
0
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I do have to say that what I would see happening with a new division like this is more hard feelings about showring "politics" when someone wins the classic class with a horse that someone else feels is too refined to be considered classic. I see the actual results of such a division being somewhat different from what supporters might envision.
Thats exactally what came to mind when I read this. What may be 'classic' in one's eyes my be too refined to be 'classic'. Currently there are so many politics showing I think this would just add to the mix. It would encourage people to breed that 'old' type of horse to be able to fit in the class, then there would be breeders around the country breeding, some for 'classic' and some for refined. If we ever want to become a breed, we cant have people trying to breed to all different sizes, shapes, styles, and types. Therefore I agree with Leeana that it would be a step back in the wrong direction, when breeding for small arabians is what is current and what is winning. And how would there be a set standard for what a 'classic' is, when each registry has its current "Standard of perfection" So then there would be 2 different types of perfection in peoples eyes, that would'nt be good at all. Then finding judges who whould have to know the knew standard of perfection, which would'nt nessisarily what the rest of the breeders would consider older types that should be winning.

Overall, no I dont think it would do any good.
 

joylee123

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2005
Messages
1,298
Reaction score
3
Location
Glasco, Kansas
[SIZE=12pt]The Shetlands have Modern, Classic and Foundation. It doesn't seem to have negatively affected their being a "Breed"
[/SIZE]

I guess I like both types of miniature and there are at least two "types"


Joy
 

spazkat

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
122
Reaction score
0
[SIZE=12pt]The Shetlands have Modern, Classic and Foundation. It doesn't seem to have negatively affected their being a "Breed"
[/SIZE]
Thats because the ASPC is a blood registry (all offspring of registered parents are Shetlands regardless of height/type/etc)... AMHA/AMHR are height registries.
 

ruffian

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
3,500
Reaction score
17
Years ago they used to have "Draft" type showing in halter.. I do not know why it was dropped..
As a former show manager from 20 years ago, this class never had any entries. Nobody wanted to admit (IMO) that they had draft horse looking minis. Even back then they were going for the finer type.

OK - so to start the flaming - how long does it take to make a breed? Miniatures have been bred now for over 25 years, and now many are registering Shetlands as minis as long as they meet the height.

What's wrong with being a Shetland? Why do they have to be registered as miniatures if they are a blood breed??

We're never going to have a "standard" if anything under 38" can be registered.
 

barnbum

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2008
Messages
2,481
Reaction score
27
Location
Finger Lakes, New York
I don't feel that having different types within the breed is moving backward, especially since variety is one of the main selling points of minis. Quarter Horse breeders put as much time and effort into their breeding programs as Arabian breeders, and I think they would be offended to hear someone saying that because their breed standard is less refined they are not improving their horses. Your statement assumes that the current type is the future of minis as a breed, but they've already shuffled through several other types, and I am sure the trends will change again down the road. Until we do become a breed and set an official type standard (and if we did I would gladly adjust my program to meet those standards), I don't see anything wrong with breeding for what you like (chances are if you like it there are others that do too) as long as it's a good and true representation of its type.
 

horsehug

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
2,379
Reaction score
52
I don't feel that having different types within the breed is moving backward, especially since variety is one of the main selling points of minis. Quarter Horse breeders put as much time and effort into their breeding programs as Arabian breeders, and I think they would be offended to hear someone saying that because their breed standard is less refined they are not improving their horses. Your statement assumes that the current type is the future of minis as a breed, but they've already shuffled through several other types, and I am sure the trends will change again down the road. Until we do become a breed and set an official type standard (and if we did I would gladly adjust my program to meet those standards), I don't see anything wrong with breeding for what you like (chances are if you like it there are others that do too) as long as it's a good and true representation of its type
from me too!

Susan O.
 

PaintNminis

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2006
Messages
1,623
Reaction score
18
Location
Grand Junction, Colorado
I don't feel that having different types within the breed is moving backward, especially since variety is one of the main selling points of minis. Quarter Horse breeders put as much time and effort into their breeding programs as Arabian breeders, and I think they would be offended to hear someone saying that because their breed standard is less refined they are not improving their horses. Your statement assumes that the current type is the future of minis as a breed, but they've already shuffled through several other types, and I am sure the trends will change again down the road. Until we do become a breed and set an official type standard (and if we did I would gladly adjust my program to meet those standards), I don't see anything wrong with breeding for what you like (chances are if you like it there are others that do too) as long as it's a good and true representation of its type
I have to agree with this as well
 

The Simple Life Farm

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2006
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
0
Location
Wills Point, Texas
OK - so to start the flaming - how long does it take to make a breed? Miniatures have been bred now for over 25 years, and now many are registering Shetlands as minis as long as they meet the height.

What's wrong with being a Shetland? Why do they have to be registered as miniatures if they are a blood breed??

We're never going to have a "standard" if anything under 38" can be registered.
I agree, have never thought of it this way before.
 

Jill

Aspiring Cowgirl
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
27,188
Reaction score
527
Location
Spotsy., VA (USA)
I would not be in favor of different halter classes to be broken out in terms of "type". To my way of thinking, it can be compared to financial matters where "free markets work". I feel the same about the halter classes and that it's good one type is preferred over another (but then, I like the current type so I'm biased). Let the market / industry decide what's most desirable basically.

Additionally, though, I have seen horses not the most favored type show amazingly well. My gelding, Sunny, is a great example with so many National Championships in halter and model classes, wins Grand whenever I show him still, and is like a little quarter horse in my opinion. He's not the type of mini a lot of people call the QH type (since a lot use that for blocky/drafty/thick types), but to my eyes, he looks just like a little QH.

Here's a fairly recent picture of a non-typy horse who's got his Halter HOF (with around 200 points), 3 National Championships, 6 Reserve National Championships, and 20 or so Grand Champion wins.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

CKC

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
1,527
Reaction score
0
Location
VA
I can remember showing in a halter class when I first started showing. We were asked to seperate by body type. I don't remember what the show steward called them at the time. I just remember thinking I'm in the "heavier" type. I had no problem showing in it and neither did a bunch of others. I actually liked it.

My new driving gelding(he is not refinded) is really well put together and I would love to someday see him in a halter class. For me I wouldn't care what type is in the ring. A good horse is a good horse.

Kim
 

Bunnylady

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 20, 2007
Messages
788
Reaction score
0
Location
Wilmington, NC
Jill, I have to agree with you about Sunny. That picture of him shouts "Quarter Horse" to me, too! I love that look!


I know it's based on blood as well, but the Welsh have 4 types in their registry. There's a big difference between the section A Welsh Mountain Pony and the section D Welsh Cob, and it isn't just height.

I'm not bashing the Arabian types, I think a lot of them are just stunning. But my personal preference is for an animal that has a touch more bone and muscle. It does seem a shame that a sound, correct, balanced, beautifully put together horse should be relegated to performance only, just because its type isn't stylish this year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

sdmini

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
703
Reaction score
0
He's not the type of mini a lot of people call the QH type (since a lot use that for blocky/drafty/thick types),
As a long time breeder of QH thank you. I don't know if I've ever seen an actual QH built the way some of the minis that are called QH type.
 

Latest posts

Top