On Sat, Jan 13, 2007 at 10:20:04PM -0500, Karen Thomas wrote: > That was pretty lame, you're right. Not only are most pony-sized, but > you've seen Falki. As big as he is, he's just a hair too tall to be > considered a MEDIUM pony. Big Falki, is just barely a "large pony." Not > only are most pony-sized, but most would be considered "medium ponies" for > showing purposes. Small ponies are considered under 12.2H, mediums over > 12.2H-13.2, and large ponies are over 13.2H-14.2H. Honestly, I'd bet > Gudmar may not know what pony-sized is. Has he spent any time watching pony > classes at shows I wonder?
ok, i know i just said semantic arguments are dumb, and i seriously believe that. but this made me wonder: are we focussing too much on the aspect of height, as opposed to, say, cannon-bone size, in our american definition of the category "pony"? i mean, who really gives a hoot how high the critter's withers are? that tells you zippo about whether it can carry you comfortably, what it might be able to pull, or any other practical concerns. stjarni is the shortest-standing equine at the barn he's at right now, but i bet he's either first or second in weight-carrying ability (there's a belgian who's enormous and big-boned, but i've heard draft breeds are not the best for carrying heavy riders....) --vicka
