Why? I'm very interested in the why. I'm finding studs descriptions of horses as "good looking" baffling. The breeding may look good but I'm finding the horses anything but. If we are only choosing horses based only their breeding and the price of progeny we are doing a great disservice to the thoroughbred as a whole. Of course you may change my mind but I'm just not seeing it in Jungle Cat for example. No one is saying anything about why a horse is supposedly "good looking" and in most cases it's just utterly false. How is this meant to help a mare owner wishing to find the best for their horses. I'm not interested in the list of sires or their performance behind a horse, it's all irrelevant. I'm interested in the horse before me and the make and performance of any of it's projeny. Is that so utterly unimportant today?
@@equestanton1017 You didn't ask this of me, and I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, but I'll give my critique on Jungle Cat. First let me say that I do have a background in judging racehorses, but I'm unfamiliar with this one. Record or pedigree. Starting at the front, I'd say he has an attractive head, with a decently wide face. The head is set well in the neck, but the neck is two or three inches too long, and set oddly in the shoulders. The shoulder however is well developed and produces a good angle to the withers. Nice long forearm and short cannons. No noticeable swelling in the knees ankles pasterns or fetlocks. Though I would say he is very slightly light of bone. The top line of the horse is not the best. The withers a bit too high, the back a bit too low. But the hindquarters and hip are nicely balanced with the front. They at least look like they belong to the same horse. But the head, the shoulder and the hips look like they belong to one horse, and the neck and back look like they belong to another. One too long, the other too short. At a walk, the horse looks nicely athletic with a good overstep, and appears to have a good disposition while listening to his handler. But it still isn't the best walk you might see on a good horse. Most good stallions are supremely masculine, this horse isn't really like that. I'd say, no matter his breeding or race record, you can definitely see why they're only asking 8000 euros for him.
I watched this whole video and I have no idea what this comment means. Most of the horses are shod or partly so, completely normal. No grass, only a stable yard. And all of them look sound and in great kit. So, seriously, what does this comment mean?
![จบจนได้ ! | Black Myth: Wukong #007 [ตอนจบ?]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/DSqvWndF0sw/mqdefault.jpg)
They very elegant
Jungle Cat looks amazing
Why? I'm very interested in the why. I'm finding studs descriptions of horses as "good looking" baffling. The breeding may look good but I'm finding the horses anything but. If we are only choosing horses based only their breeding and the price of progeny we are doing a great disservice to the thoroughbred as a whole. Of course you may change my mind but I'm just not seeing it in Jungle Cat for example. No one is saying anything about why a horse is supposedly "good looking" and in most cases it's just utterly false. How is this meant to help a mare owner wishing to find the best for their horses. I'm not interested in the list of sires or their performance behind a horse, it's all irrelevant. I'm interested in the horse before me and the make and performance of any of it's projeny. Is that so utterly unimportant today?
@@equestanton1017 You didn't ask this of me, and I'm not sure what answer you're looking for, but I'll give my critique on Jungle Cat. First let me say that I do have a background in judging racehorses, but I'm unfamiliar with this one. Record or pedigree.
Starting at the front, I'd say he has an attractive head, with a decently wide face. The head is set well in the neck, but the neck is two or three inches too long, and set oddly in the shoulders. The shoulder however is well developed and produces a good angle to the withers. Nice long forearm and short cannons. No noticeable swelling in the knees ankles pasterns or fetlocks. Though I would say he is very slightly light of bone.
The top line of the horse is not the best. The withers a bit too high, the back a bit too low. But the hindquarters and hip are nicely balanced with the front. They at least look like they belong to the same horse.
But the head, the shoulder and the hips look like they belong to one horse, and the neck and back look like they belong to another. One too long, the other too short.
At a walk, the horse looks nicely athletic with a good overstep, and appears to have a good disposition while listening to his handler. But it still isn't the best walk you might see on a good horse. Most good stallions are supremely masculine, this horse isn't really like that.
I'd say, no matter his breeding or race record, you can definitely see why they're only asking 8000 euros for him.
Denmark
Shoe off, grass, company pony
The Are Sore,
I watched this whole video and I have no idea what this comment means. Most of the horses are shod or partly so, completely normal. No grass, only a stable yard. And all of them look sound and in great kit. So, seriously, what does this comment mean?