Breed lists & show structures

"Gezellig" is a Vanner customized by Ruth Sheridan of Portmanteau Equine Art. (Photo courtesy of his creator.)

Gypsy Horses are the breed that judges see throughout the showing day. The first ones usually end up in the Carriage Breeds class. This makes some sense, since one of the more popular hobby names for this (problematically-named) breed is “Vanner.” The next place they appear is one of the classes in the Draft section. It’s also possible that a few stragglers will later show up in the Other Purebred/Mixed Breed class in the Others section.

You could also argue that because “NAMHSA considers breeds that routinely fall at 14.2 hands high or less to be ponies” (NAMHSA Breed Cross Reference, p. 1), they should go in the Pony section. Ruth said she has shown Gezellig (pictured at the top) as a pony. (Some breeders produce “Miniature Gypsies”, which are closer to small ponies in size.) 

When the questions about Saddlebreds came up at BreyerFest, I started thinking about breeds and how American model horse shows structure sections and classes. Moving the Saddlebreds from the gaited section was unpopular, but giving the hairy cob breeds a clear place in the classlist was overdue. Were there other problems like that? What else had I overlooked because I was only focused on the current class in front of me? 

After considering those questions, this is the list that I came up with, in no particular order.

1. Cobs of all types do not have an obvious place. We do not even have a consensus about which section to assign them. 
2. When there is an Other Pure/Mix Breed class in an overall Others section, the callbacks will have realistic horses going up against an assortment of other species and unrealistic creatures. This takes “not like-with-like” to a whole new level! 
3. What do we mean by “Light Breed”? What rationale is used to rule a breed in or out of this section? 
4. We do not treat the ability to perform an alternate intermediate gait consistently across breeds. 
5. Some breeds are paired in classes or placed in a section that puts them at a consistent disadvantage. (Standardbreds paired with Thoroughbreds are a good example.) 
6. Our classes and sections do not necessarily distribute entries evenly. This is especially problematic when shows have the traditional two- or three-horse class limit. (Ask a hobbyist with a fondness for British pony breeds how often they have to leave competitive entries at home.

Breeds that do not have a designated horse or pony section can end up on a callback table that looks like this.
(Breyer’ Brighty’ and ‘Better Than Revenge’ appear courtesy of Liz LaRose. For more about Breyer’s dragon horse ‘Merlin’, click here.)

Those were the problems that came to mind when I began thinking about how I would change the breed list. What these issues have in common is that, while our stated goal is to group “like with like,” our show structure lacks a consistent approach for determining what needs to be similar. What aspect of breed identity governs similarity? Does having the same purpose matter? Or is it having the same show and turnout traditions? The controversial position taken regarding Saddlebreds effectively said, “The percentage of horses performing a ‘natural’ lateral gait is the primary consideration.” The negative response to this said, “That is not giving us breed groups that are alike in a useful way.” 

So, which qualities would? 

What I kept coming back to was the way breed type is so closely tied to body shape, and how body shape is really about changes in angles and proportions. When I teach new hobbyists how to assign breeds to models, I use a system that focuses on that. I use the same system to organize information in my “Painting More Realistic” series of books. I decided that if I wanted to create a breed list that made sense, that was where I should start. In the next post, I’ll explain that system.