Why wait for a young stallion to fill out?

[Heidilady]

I've been reading about things like a horse has a certain flaw but 'it'll be better when he fills out a little bit' or that 'he looks better now than he did the year before.'

I'm not sure if it's just for reference in breeding horses that'll race til they've matured physically but I certainly don't get it if it's for colts that are supposed to be particularly flashy at age 2 or 3 (or yearlings at sales) which many are trying for nowadays. If a stallion was kind of narrow before wouldn't that be the flaw he'd throw? Why does it matter if he's filled out nicely by age 7 if we're not talking horses that run at that age? And if you look at him then might it not disguise what flaws might show up in his offspring when they're younger?

I just figure I'm missing something. I'd love some explanation.

[Mood Swings]

I think you've brought up a very good point. I was recently told this when I looked at a stallion that has just been retired to stud. I think it sometimes overwhelming when you are looking at stallion after stallion and it becomes easier to ignore certain flaws, especially when you are trying to compare an outstanding pedigree and potentially high commercial value. However everything is a gamble. I am still trying to decide if the benefits outweigh the risks in my mares situation. I certainly do not want to have a foal born with a great page but very narrow because there goes your commercial value. I'm also curious on peoples thoughts regarding this matter.

[summerhorse]

Filling out may make them "prettier" but it won't make conformation flaws go away. It can make some of them harder to SEE though. Best time to see him is when he's still young and hasn't gotten fat, he may not look like a STALLION yet but you'll be able to see his flaws. And filling out won't change his legs one little bit (except to put more weight on them!).

[henthorn]

In my opinion, comparing recently retired racehorses to established stallions is like apples and oranges. It's easier to compare them each within its own category.

The musculature, nutrition, fitness levels, and maturation are totally different in an established stud, due to his change in careers, and his aging. Their necks and hips and backs get stronger and bulkier, as they cover more mares. Most do not retain their previous slender physiques, with emphasis on soundness of legs and their speediness. Now they are judged on overall balance, fertility, race record, produce record.

[LaTroienne]

It depends on the horse: although many horses haven't fully matured by the time of sales, if they have a conformation fault that's really noticeable, perhaps they might not be the best buy.

[sunday_silence]

I didn't find Rock Hard Ten at all appealing when he came off the track last year, but he looks a lot better now. He seems happier, too, which helps. None of this hides his ugly legs, though.

[Toccet02]

My first visit to a stallion barn was a shock because of how HUGE the animals looked.
Breeding muscles, continued growth, and yes, a bit o' tubbiness really combine to make a totally different animal than what one sees at the track.

But yeah, it makes no sense to look at that to judge true build. Not when you can see them more defined, at any rate.

[Heidilady]

Yeah see like with Rock Hard Ten, shouldn't we consider him more on how he used to look than now? I'm glad to hear about how he really used to be. I heard how narrow Real Quiet aka "the Fish" was. Does RQ throw that narrowness?

I figure conformation flaws from before that have become less noticeable are just aesthetic issues. Whenever I read that a stallion's look had improved I had the question of 'well that's great if I'm looking at him or taking a picture but no so much if I wanna send a mare.'

I love that I wasn't just missing something. I figured there must be an aspect of that that I wasn't aware of if the filling out mattered in terms of foals.