>>> Of course, the most obvious difference is the length. Are there other >>> things that would account for such striking differences in the necks >>> between these two horses?
Look at the difference in the thicknesses of the necks, and look at the difference in the throatlatches, and how the heads are set onto the necks. Honestly, I don't care at all for that extreme "swan-necked" Arab look. To me, that's a show fad gone awry too. (I don't like those extremely flat Arab croups either. Our Thunder isn't built at all like that horse, thank goodness.) But, can one honestly expect a horse with a neck like that Icelandic's (which isn't an atypical Icelandic neck at all) to be able to flex at the poll to correctly and comfortably do upper level dressage - or even medium level dressage? I can't. But, there's nothing about that neck that would prevent that horse from being a good trail horse, or to keep him from playing around with some low level (repeat: LOW level) dressage. In other words, the neck would prevent him from achieving true collection, but since collection begins in the rear, there's no reason that horse couldn't start some work towards impulsion - driving from the rear. Other qualities/talents he might have might also open up other doors too - I'm just focusing on his neck/headset when I say that. As always, it's simply a matter of finding a job that the horse can comfortably do, based on his conformation, temperament and other talents. I'll take a thick-necked Icelandic over most swan-necked Arabs...necks just aren't THAT big a deal for what I need a horse to do. Karen Thomas, NC
