BaroqueAgain1 wrote:Fed Biz is handsome, but...is he a little over at the knees?
Would that be considered a conformation fault, or is it behind at the knee that is bad?
Both are bad in different ways, I was just thinking upthread how Curlin's legs are mildly frightening from a conformational point of view (pinfiring aside he's over at the knee, plus he is slightly downhill and there was something off about his hind legs too. What an amazingly talented horse he was on the track, to be so successful in spite of his conformational flaws. Imagine how much more of a beast he might have been if he had a 'clean' confo. Also he's lucky he's a handsome bugger).
Given biomechanics, being over at the knee is not as handicapping as being back at the knee, however it makes the horse more vulnerable to injury, and it is best to let them mature more if they are (so, delays in hitting the track). I've noticed a lot of racing tbs are actually over at the knee (including stallions standing at stud) because it for the most part doesn't impede movement itself. I also read that there are some theories stating that it isn't necessarily genetic and the reason so many tbs have this flaw is specifically because they're raced so young, so that they are not born with the flaw so much as they develop it from the stress of racing on their growing skeletons.
Being back at the knee however can completely mess up the biomechanics of moving and inflicts additional stress on the tendon and joint. I suspect this is a much less common flaw in horses over all because in the wild that would get them eaten pretty quick and even in a domestic setting until the last century when horses became pets or a luxury rather than a necessity/work animal, they probably wouldn't have lived long/survived the rigors of labour.