Undesirable croups?

[Stick]

Hello horse-friends, I have croup questions.

As I'm now getting into Belgians and Forest Horses (with the intention of getting into Norman Cobs) I'm now running into what seems to me like crazy slanted croups. As I am not a person with a huge real-life horse background, I'm hoping you guys can clear some things up for me.

Are these two breeds prone to croups that are considered extreme and undesirable, or is it generally expected and accepted for them? I'm asking mostly about this game itself, but I would like to trend my results toward matching their real-life counterparts as much as possible.

If there is a known tendency for these breeds to get extreme croups that are considered undesirable, have people had luck in breeding away from that? And if so, what would you consider an example of a croup to aim for and one that is too extreme? I only have a basic account, so I'll be judging mostly by sight.

Any help on understanding the general thoughts and feelings on crazy croups would be appreciated!

[BlackOak2]

Hello horse-friends, I have croup questions.

As I'm now getting into Belgians and Forest Horses (with the intention of getting into Norman Cobs) I'm now running into what seems to me like crazy slanted croups. As I am not a person with a huge real-life horse background, I'm hoping you guys can clear some things up for me.

Are these two breeds prone to croups that are considered extreme and undesirable, or is it generally expected and accepted for them? I'm asking mostly about this game itself, but I would like to trend my results toward matching their real-life counterparts as much as possible.

If there is a known tendency for these breeds to get extreme croups that are considered undesirable, have people had luck in breeding away from that? And if so, what would you consider an example of a croup to aim for and one that is too extreme? I only have a basic account, so I'll be judging mostly by sight.

Any help on understanding the general thoughts and feelings on crazy croups would be appreciated!

It does look like a lot of real normans do have a similar croup.
Take a look at these images I pulled from the net:






I don't know really anything about this breed, so I need to get my own information from the net as well.
As for forest and belgians on-game... I've had the experience of crossing these two and getting extreme slopes on these. I didn't like it either, but I also have had foals that didn't. Double check your parent horses or switch them out. You'll get the same type of slope, but if you're careful about who you breed two and what foals you keep, you can regulate how much you get. However, if it does get too extreme, throw in a cross-out breed to either arab or turkmene to help with the slope, it will angle the hips back upward (I wouldn't really recommend the turk, because then you'll also get the downhill slope of the back as well, but then again, it may offer just the genes you want).

So, according to the net, these horses are similar to what could be considered a 'robust thoroughbred'. Is used in both driving and under saddle and is known for it's long trot. So, personally, I'd focus on getting strong movement and increasing strength.

Eyeing the areas of improvement for strength and movement:
You'll be aiming for more of a roman nose.
You'll want a medium to shorter neck.
You'll want sloping withers (looks like a hollow right there at the shoulders, rather than a high back). Like the horse's neck is set on the back, rather than in front of the horse, look at the first real picture of a norman.
The point of shoulder needs to be low (I can't really explain the visual of this, I have trouble picking it out myself, but it's the spot at the very front of the horse's chest, in front of the front legs, you want it as far down as possible).
You'll want the croup area to have a bit of an angle, but not to the point of being ugly... I'd follow the real norman pictures I'd linked. That should work. Movement is enhanced with this area flattened, but strength is enhanced the further downward angled it goes.
Also, with this angle, the length between the butt point and the hip points needs to be long, the longer the better.
You'll also want as 'backward' a stifle as possible (think of this as 'forward'='in front of the point of the hip' and 'backward'='in back of the point of the hip' that helps me a lot to visually see it).
Thick legs.
Short back.

So except for the point of shoulder, the AC belgians are quite similar to what you want to aim for:





If or as you angle their slope uphill (to help emphasize a bit of strength), that 'ugly' croup will look quite a bit better. Both of these two belgian examples are a bit further than what you want (the croup angles), however most of the other points I covered that you probably want to aim for, these horses already have it.

Hope that helps!

[Stick]

.

Oh wow, that isn't the information I'd been expecting (I'd guessed it would've been just a "here's an ugly forest horse vs a good one" sort of thing) but yeah, this is extremely helpful in a lot of ways I hadn't expected! I'm looking at the Belgians and Forests I have now and am trying to compare them to some of the information you've given here.

Forgive me if this is super basic stuff, but... like I said... I'm not a horse-person in real life, so I'm still new to a lot of it. By what you're describing, it sounds like there are two different factors when it comes to croup-shape: the length from hip-to-butt, and the angle that it slopes at. Is one of those more responsible for extreme/ugly croups than the other, or is it the balance of those two things that make a horse look normal vs abnormal? To me, some horses just seem more "bony" and full of angles in their rump area, and I'm trying to learn what I'm actually looking at.

Maybe someone could help me look at a few of this generation of Forests I have to help me see what is considered normal and what is considered undesirable:
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1747330
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1748715
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1788448
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1788933

And as for my one fully-mature Norman I have so far, how balanced and/or accurate does she seem?
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1723230

[BlackOak2]

.

Oh wow, that isn't the information I'd been expecting (I'd guessed it would've been just a "here's an ugly forest horse vs a good one" sort of thing) but yeah, this is extremely helpful in a lot of ways I hadn't expected! I'm looking at the Belgians and Forests I have now and am trying to compare them to some of the information you've given here.

Forgive me if this is super basic stuff, but... like I said... I'm not a horse-person in real life, so I'm still new to a lot of it. By what you're describing, it sounds like there are two different factors when it comes to croup-shape: the length from hip-to-butt, and the angle that it slopes at. Is one of those more responsible for extreme/ugly croups than the other, or is it the balance of those two things that make a horse look normal vs abnormal? To me, some horses just seem more "bony" and full of angles in their rump area, and I'm trying to learn what I'm actually looking at.

Maybe someone could help me look at a few of this generation of Forests I have to help me see what is considered normal and what is considered undesirable:
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1747330
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1748715
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1788448
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1788933

And as for my one fully-mature Norman I have so far, how balanced and/or accurate does she seem?
http://www.horseworldonline.net/horse/profile/1723230

I am right there with you that a lot of the pony style (for strength) horses do look really bony and hip-y. They ARE ugly... like U...G...L...Y... you ugly! (I know I'm dating myself with that a bit) Ha!
But there are those with extreme angles like this that look quite a bit better.
Yes, there are two separate things and they probably both contribute to that ugly look, perhaps three... like I said, with a better, slightly uphill build, that hip point on the very top won't come across looking like we can hang a hat on it.

Take a look at the following examples (I'm just focusing on the hang-the-hat hips for these). Every one of these have the hip length and angle similar to the above AC belgians. They are all deeper and longer (with the exception of the palomino which just about matches them), with two exceptions, they're all built with that uphill grade and none of them are obese (like those two above AC belgians).
The last two I linked, I did so, so that you can see what they look like fully trained (since that will also change the way they're filled in).











By simply changing the angle of the way they're built, it can take care of quite a bit of that 'hang-a-hat' hip-y look.

***
We'll start with your norman.
If I were to use what I offered up:
Roman Nose: 8 out of 10 (pretty good)
Med - Short Neck: 7 out of 10 (actually probably a touch too short)
Sloping Withers (aka sloping shoulders): 4 out of 10 (rather more 'upright', but this horse falls right in the middle of the line - still you want as sloped as you can get)
Point of Shoulder: 8.5 out of 10 (close to perfect - getting to be nearly as low as possible)
Angled Croup: 5 out of 10 (even though it looks angled, this horse falls just deeper than middle... what can I say? This surprised me as well. When I look at them, it doesn't make sense, but that's the conformation evaluation breakdown)
Length of Hip: 6.5 out of 10 (it's long, but not excessively so, would want much longer)
Backward Stifle: 10 out of 10 (just about as far as possible: Great!)
Thick Legs: 9 out of 10 (great!)
Short Back: 5 out of 10 (falls right in the middle, could want much shorter)

So your norman hits on some points (really well), but misses on others.

***
Now for the forests:
Shellshock and Ghoststone have hip angles and lengths much like the belgians.
But Ghostblood and Reshade have hip angles and lengths that are reversed... well, not so much reversed as they're both equal. These two probably look a little more eye-appealing then the other two.
Perhaps what makes the 'hang-a-hat' hips is when the hip angle becomes more sloped then the hip is long.
But for use toward your ideal norman...
Shellshock
Roman Nose: 10/10
Med - Short Neck: 10/10
Sloping Withers: 8/10
Point of Shoulder: 9/10
Angled Croup: 8/10
Length of Hip: 7/10
Backward Stifle: 10/10
Thick Legs: 8/10
Short Back: 4/10
Ghoststone
Roman Nose: 10/10
Med - Short Neck: 9/10
Sloping Withers: 7/10
Point of Shoulder: 10/10
Angled Croup: 9/10
Length of Hip: 8/10
Backward Stifle: 10/10
Thick Legs: 8/10
Short Back: 4/10
Ghostblood
Roman Nose: 10/10
Med - Short Neck: 7/10
Sloping Withers: 7/10
Point of Shoulder: 10/10
Angled Croup: 8.5/10
Length of Hip: 8.5/10
Backward Stifle: 10/10
Thick Legs: 8/10
Short Back: 4/10
Redshade
Roman Nose: 10/10
Med - Short Neck: 5/10
Sloping Withers: 7/10
Point of Shoulder: 10/10
Angled Croup: 8.5/10
Length of Hip: 8.5/10
Backward Stifle: 10/10
Thick Legs: 7/10
Short Back: 5/10

Those numbers I offered you are for your use, I made them up to describe the possible 'best' when considering optimizing body conformation (the visual look) when using just strength and movement as the focuses. However, as I considered what I offered, I also took notice that the possible 'best' also falls right in line with what the net offers for a visual norman.

Considering the forest horse as a 'base' breed for the norman, it's not really all that far off for the body conformation. Back lengths is a weak part and I think overall build needs to be a little heavier.

I'm not sure I answered what you needed though.

[Gaagii]

Blackoak2 supplied some useful info. For realism I was working on Norman Cobs a while ago so just a bit of info on the breed.

Le Cob Normands (a light carting draft not really a heavy working draft now) at the Paris 2011 Show. As you can see croups vary from noticeable (9:08) to more level (9:14). Compared to French heavy breeds like the Boulonnais, as example, not so pronounced. With Norman Cobs, irl, the croup can't be too sloped as that'd affect the free moving gait they've got (the Boulonnais' gait is sort of "choppy").

Nuit de Carnaval

Not exact but close to their look irl. They're not too heavy, they don't really have roman noses (they've Arab/Barb ancestry), they've muscular sloping shoulders, broad strong hindquarters, thick necks, and short backs.

[Stick]

Oh wow yeah, a lot of that is really helpful (especially how different those fully-trained croups look! I had no idea they fill out that much). In trying to absorb all of this, I now have a few other questions. The most important of which is... could you give me an example of a horse that is uphill and one that isn't? That's another one of those terms that I'm not totally sure I understand correctly.

.

Ah! And this covers most of my other questions. This is all extremely useful information, thank you. I was curious as to what a HWO version of a Norman Cob might look like, so this is a great starting point.

If we used my one mature Norman gal there as a starting reference point, what would be changed on her to make her better match the Norman Cob standard?

[BlackOak2]

Oh wow yeah, a lot of that is really helpful (especially how different those fully-trained croups look! I had no idea they fill out that much). In trying to absorb all of this, I now have a few other questions. The most important of which is... could you give me an example of a horse that is uphill and one that isn't? That's another one of those terms that I'm not totally sure I understand correctly.

I regularly get these two swapped, so I have it written down and I need to check it every time I write about it. I haven't yet figured out a good way to remind myself the difference between the two.
The only way I have to describe it is to say 'from the hips forward'.

Downhill (from the hips forward) makes the racer.
Uphill (from the hips forward) makes the log puller.
And both of these aren't on where the back is, rather it's the two topmost points of the horse's back, the withers and the hip. At least, that's the way I look at it and haven't found it incorrect yet.

The racer, downhill from the hips:



The log puller, uphill from the hips:



And an example of almost even (there's a little favoring of the downhill side):



Of course, saying that such conformation 'makes' the racer or the log puller is a misnomer. But it's the way I remember that those types of back builds benefits speed versus strength.

[Gaagii]

.

Ah! And this covers most of my other questions. This is all extremely useful information, thank you. I was curious as to what a HWO version of a Norman Cob might look like, so this is a great starting point.

If we used my one mature Norman gal there as a starting reference point, what would be changed on her to make her better match the Norman Cob standard?

She isn't bad. Only things to note: the face (middle neither roman/concave), point of shoulder (low), hip angle (more to flat), hip length (long), leg thickness (middle not thick), middle to short back, and middle croup.