I understand that in many disciplines such as Western Pleasure, pencil necks are desirable. Why?
It looks disproportionate, unbalanced, and ugly, particularly on bulldog-like quarter horses. Stock breeds are generally muscle on top of muscle. Just massive. And then they have a skinny little neck. I don't see the appeal.
Where do you draw the line between a pencil neck and a knife neck? They both look scrawny and shapeless to me.
I will say, one thing I absolutely love about Victor is his big ol' muscley neck. Not thin, but not too cresty, and very curvy and solid. Thoroughbreds are notorious for having knife necks. I think we owe a big thanks to the racing industry for that one. Them and their careless breeding.
I can't stand it when a horse doesn't have a nice substantial neck. Horses I buy must have a nice neck and a nice ass. Those are my biggest peeves.
Does this not look a bit ridiculous? This big, massively muscled QH with that little bitty neck?
How does having no neck affect a horse's performance?
This sad little bay horse has a knife neck. The only difference I see is that he has no muscle whereas the other two have sufficient muscle and still have skinny necks.
Neither are pretty.
Now compare this one. Yes it's an Andalusian and crestiness is what they're famous for, but still. It looks a lot better and in proportion. Baroque horses are usually pretty bulky too, and their necks actually match the rest of their bodies.
I'm not saying horses should be bull necked or too cresty, but pencil/knife necks are a bit ridiculous.