Regarding horses in real life

[Malakai10]

Hi everyone

I tend to draw a lot - horses most commonly - and so I tend to research them a lot. I only ever draw from my head, I never copy photo's when drawing - at most, I have diagrams of the skeleton, muscles and movement with some pictures of eyes and eyes; horses with painted on skeletons and muscles, with a couple of pictures of actual horses, just to help get some muscular definition or where the coat shines.

There is one thing that I have not yet been able to figure out: is this horse engaging their hindquarters.

So, I've looked at all these videos, websites, and images; trying to figure out what a horse that is engaging it's hindquarters looks like. They keep on describing the back legs as 'trailing' for horses not working properly and the back as 'disengaged'. Yet, when I look at videos and images, side by side to compare, I literally see no between the two (I can only see the difference in head position - and I know that that isn't a good indicator.) What's up with this? What does it actually look like?

I would also like to ask: when I look at an image of a horse in the game, it looks realistic, but there's something that's just off about that let's me know it isn't a photo of a real horse; I just can't work out what it is. Are the horses' body shapes ever so slightly off? Is the colour too consistent? Is the resolution just a bit low so that the pixels outlining the body are noticeable?

I'd like to if metaphors and similes could be avoided in the answer, please? I think very literally (with the whole 'trailing of horse's hind legs', my head just thinks: 'these things barely move and they never come under the body'. Saying 'dragging their hind legs', makes me think of their legs not lifting at all, just their fetlocks flexing and the hooves been dragged completely along the ground.) And, if posting images (please do!) could you put a comparison photo and describe the difference?

Thanks and have a great day!

"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while, I was a suspect." -Stephen Wright
"Drawing is not the same as form, it is a way of seeing form." -Edgar Degas
"The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer." -Ed Murrow

[BlackOak2]

Hi everyone
...

I don't know if I can be of much further assistance, but I understand what you mean and I've had trouble picturing the same as you described it. So I've thought of it in the following ways:

A horse dragging their hind feet actually drags their feet, scrapping them along the ground. It's a lazy horse and often such a horse will trip and stumble over nothing along the ground.

Really a horse that is disengaged in my mind is right what you described, often it can only be 'seen' from the front half, but can be noticed in letting their back feet drag the dirt rather than picking them up and planting them down. The words 'strung-out' also helps to get the picture in the mind, it makes a horse look a little more like it's everything they can do just to keep their legs underneath them, their nose is poked way out in front of them, with a low-hanging neck and they appear to be a bit sway-backed, especially with their hips swaying from side to side, rather than moving their back legs up and around. This is probably best described as picturing a sphere right on either side of where the leg bones attach into the hip joints. A lazy horse will 'describe' their movement with the sphere rotating while looking down at them from above, meanwhile, a collected horse will 'describe' their movement with the sphere rotating while looking at them from the side. This is the way I describe it to myself.

So the way I help myself to 'see' a collected horse from a strung-out horse if I'm just looking at the hind legs is to watch how their hooves lift off from the ground, the more lift, the more energy and the more engaged the muscles must be.

This picture of the muscles may also help:


These muscles: 28, 29 & 30 must be used more to bring the leg up, under and then forward during collection, and also be able to stretch out when the leg reaches back. In a lazy horse, these muscles need to much less work as the upper muscle 'p' or 'medial gluteal muscle' (the main muscle over the top and back of the hip bones) and the long muscle down the rear will 'pull' the leg along.
So maybe the best way to look at the difference between a horse that is strung-out and a horse that is collected is to think about whether the horse is engaging the 'under' muscles or dragging with the 'over' muscles.

That's mostly how I look at it myself.

As for the slightly-off realistic look of the site, I think it's mainly the crispness of the colors, it's just too uniform. I've noticed that the roans look perhaps a little more real then the flat coats, so it could be that in real horses, even on tv, we can 'see' the individual hairs. That's my opinion.

Does this help at all?

[Malakai10]

Hi everyone
...

.

Does this help at all?

That was a brilliant explanation! Thanks so much; I think I get it now! The muscle usage helped the most; although I had to think a bit to get the sphere one. :D :D

Just re-watched the comparison videos - so, it's like the collected horse is using all of its leg to move, but the disengaged horse is using just the thigh to move, yes?

[Malakai10]

...

I don't suppose you happen to know how much a horse can arch its spine? Or how great an angle they can create with their hip and femur? I managed to mess up one of my drawings by sloping a horse's hips too much, but I really do not want to redraw the hips because I've put a lot of decorative tack in the drawing that has far too many tassels. So now I'm spending far more effort on trying to find out how to spend less on the drawing than it would take for me to redo the hips (and yet, somehow, my brain says that I am wasting less time and effort by not redrawing. Got to love senseless logic )

[BlackOak2]

That was a brilliant explanation! Thanks so much; I think I get it now! The muscle usage helped the most; although I had to think a bit to get the sphere one.

Just re-watched the comparison videos - so, it's like the collected horse is using all of its leg to move, but the disengaged horse is using just the thigh to move, yes?

It's Great! that you got it. I really wasn't sure if my examples would offer any help at all, so I'm sure I'm just as excited as you are right now when it made sense for you.

Yes, the collected horse uses all of it's leg muscles and a horse that drags it's leg is using the most minimum muscles it can, the thigh (also one of the biggest in the body). Just like every animal there are the upper (I think they're also called superficial) muscles and then the deep muscles. The upper muscles, the ones that can easily be seen right through the skin are like the 'lazy' muscles. When any animal uses collection, it engages the deep muscles along with the upper muscles, so instead of just a step of a foot planted helter-skelter (and causes a stumble), we get balance, like if the rock beneath us suddenly shifts, we can compensate, because we have already engaged the deep muscles.

I don't suppose you happen to know how much a horse can arch its spine? Or how great an angle they can create with their hip and femur? I managed to mess up one of my drawings by sloping a horse's hips too much, but I really do not want to redraw the hips because I've put a lot of decorative tack in the drawing that has far too many tassels. So now I'm spending far more effort on trying to find out how to spend less on the drawing than it would take for me to redo the hips (and yet, somehow, my brain says that I am wasting less time and effort by not redrawing. Got to love senseless logic )

I'm similar; often I'm lazy about things, but by being lazy I actually use more energy, for instance, instead of sharpening my pencil, I'll just get up and go get a fresh one. Hah! But I also know how it is to start anew... I have a hate-hate relationship with that.
So using the horses on our site is a great way to help explain this. First, the skeleton layover, because the skeleton conformation determines how far the muscles can stretch and in what way (please pardon the gray shadow):



You can easily tell the hip angles that these three horses have. The way these hips sit will determine how the muscles sit, but since muscles can only stretch so far, the bones' positions and angles will limit how these muscles can move. The top horse, the one built more for something like log pull, will be able to bring those hind legs far forward, by doing this, the spine will be able to flex much further down in an arch that reminds me personally of the american-blooded german shepard or a hyena. So if you're having a problem with the upper arch of the back, you can create a much more exaggerated hip angle like the top horse and bring those legs much further under the horse's stomach, however, don't forget about the angle of the neck, in order for the arch of the back to be upward, the neck much stretch downward to apply the necessary counterweight (think of bending a stick, both hands must bend in the same direction to create an arch).
The middle horse has a much less hip angle than the first. Although this horse has a wide-sweeping leg movement, both under the stomach and out behind, this horse will have a much greater difficulty bringing those hind legs as far underneath it's stomach as the first horse, likewise however, this second horse will have a much greater stretch behind than the first horse. This second horse won't be able to arch it's back as far upward, but will be able to hollow out it's back more than the first (again, to hollow out the back to an exaggerated degree, the neck will have to come up).
Now the third horse. This horse's hollow back can naturally look like a sway-backed or broke-backed horse, with a huge hollow and generally will also walk like they've been sway-backed all of their lives. These hips are very difficult for the horse to engage because all the weight of this horse's back end is centered on the point where the hip attaches to the backbone, rather than balanced over the knee area (the first joint in the actual hind leg). Because of this, the legs of this type of horse don't often naturally engage either, you'll probably find the long muscle down the butt of the horse a little more developed than in other horses because it probably needs to lift the leg up (using 'r' muscles) and swing it forward rather than picking it up and pulling it forward (using muscles 28). This type of hip angle will not allow much back arch and you will probably find that the hips will arch down to compensate for collection instead. Also, this horse will have to bring it's neck into heavy use to help lift the stomach up for proper collection. This horse may not even be able to track well either. Most horses can walk with their rear hoofprints reaching beyond where their front hoofprints have landed. This horse may not be capable of that kind of reach. However (now for what makes this third design useful), this weird, exaggerated hip angle does allow for this horse to have a much higher stretch behind, it should be able to kick up higher and should be able to drive out (breaking from the racing gate) much stronger. Because it's rear legs are naturally longer than it's front, it's reach is a little better (like how a jackrabbit's rear legs overreach it's front). Perhaps by having such a hip and back connection, these muscles and bones can allow much greater movement and stretch than other conformations, but it can seriously limit how much muscle mass it can carry. By putting too much weight on compromised points, things eventually break. Also, with so much stretch, the muscles can tear and can only retract so far; the longer it is, the less short it can become, the shorter it is, the less stretch it has.

Of course, if none of this really helps fix your drawing, there's always the scratching tree or bush that can help... or the human that's applying tack in just the right position. Then, no picture should be perfect; the imperfections are what brings perfection to life seized in a select moment. Maybe the horse has an injury it's overcome?

[BlackOak2]

As an additional note:
I think (personally) a good suggestion (for a basically conformed horse) of how high a horse can lift it's back (arch it's back), is to take the natural set then picture a saddle on it's back (general purpose english is fine) and where the saddle seat is, is the total arch the horse's back can achieve. However, keep in mind that the arch is separate from the actual rise or collection of a fully trained or well-trained horse. A horse that has been taught how to control it's muscles for collection can actually lift it's back upward by using it's stomach muscles almost to the point of putting a level along it's spine. I used to ride a horse that could pick his back upward five inches, going from resting position to collected position while barely moving his neck and not shifting his feet.
Arch is different from back lift. Arch is using the two hands on a stick, hips have to rotate underneath, neck has to bend down. Lift is done almost entirely from stomach muscles, it doesn't create an arch (or isn't supposed to), it simply straightens the back (puts a straight rod down the vertebrae) by lifting it upward. By combining these two the arch and the lift for the back, the deep muscles that line the horse's underside (chest, ribs, legs, even the bottom-side of the neck) can be engaged directly and fully creating the ability to collect.

[Malakai10]

As an additional note:
I think (personally) a good suggestion (for a basically conformed horse) of how high a horse can lift it's back (arch it's back), is to take the natural set then picture a saddle on it's back (general purpose english is fine) and where the saddle seat is, is the total arch the horse's back can achieve. However, keep in mind that the arch is separate from the actual rise or collection of a fully trained or well-trained horse. A horse that has been taught how to control it's muscles for collection can actually lift it's back upward by using it's stomach muscles almost to the point of putting a level along it's spine. I used to ride a horse that could pick his back upward five inches, going from resting position to collected position while barely moving his neck and not shifting his feet.
Arch is different from back lift. Arch is using the two hands on a stick, hips have to rotate underneath, neck has to bend down. Lift is done almost entirely from stomach muscles, it doesn't create an arch (or isn't supposed to), it simply straightens the back (puts a straight rod down the vertebrae) by lifting it upward. By combining these two the arch and the lift for the back, the deep muscles that line the horse's underside (chest, ribs, legs, even the bottom-side of the neck) can be engaged directly and fully creating the ability to collect.

Thanks! This does help quite a bit :) I think I'll have to edit the hips, I really don't want the horse in the drawing to have extreme hip conformation (and I want her to be able to kick out a fair bit; 'tis meant to be a drawing of what I'd like Shadowmere to look like and, given that horse's compulsive need to fight dragons... I think she needs to be able to have a bit of reach with her kick.)

[BlackOak2]

Thanks! This does help quite a bit I think I'll have to edit the hips, I really don't want the horse in the drawing to have extreme hip conformation (and I want her to be able to kick out a fair bit; 'tis meant to be a drawing of what I'd like Shadowmere to look like and, given that horse's compulsive need to fight dragons... I think she needs to be able to have a bit of reach with her kick.)

Perfect! So good to hear it helped.