Shires and Clydesdales

 OK, I have been REALLY nerdy and looked up a couple of the differences...

Shires have a longer stride, (and a stronger back, due to being bred originally to be ridden).  Clydesdales are more "vertical" in motion.

Clydesdales tend to have a lot of white and roaning.  If it's got lots of white or roaning, it may well be a Clydesdale.

 Great!

The things I found in a horse encyclopedia:

1. Clydesdales have some amount of Shire blood in themselves; Shire is their ancestor

2. Shires are much bigger, top height of Clydesdales is 16.2 hands, while Shires go from 16.1. to 18 hands

They both go up to 1000kg (160st) which means that Clydesdales should look a bit more stocky.

Colors: Shire - mostly black although grey, bay and brown are acceptable
           Clydesdale - bay, brown or black are usual, with some roans and greys

p.s. still, I can't say I would know which is which, seen only on photos, but I think you've seen Clydesdales
 

Meaning:

1. This is a Shire

2. This is a Clydesdale

3. And here are both of them - the nearer being a Shire horse

I don't see much difference in this photo, but so be it...

Note - I have no idea where did I get this images from, I'll remove them if necessary     

 I think a couple of them were Shires.... but most were Clydes.  Thanks!  I feel like I have learnt something today!

kaluha

top height of Clydesdales is 16.2 hands

I agree Clydesdales are MUCH bigger than 16.2. My TB is about that height. When I was at the Royal WInter Fair in Toronto in the wash stall with about 8+ Clydes they were HUGE!!!!! I think Shires can be solid color too. Clydes are always brown body, black mane and tail with the feathering. 

I love draft breeds. I think they are SO cool. I am not sure but I do not think the Shire is a prominent breed in the States. I know we have Percherons, and Clydesdales, but I have not seen many Shires. 

cat0

kaluha

top height of Clydesdales is 16.2 hands

All of the Clydesdales I've ever been around are much taller than that --  17 - 18 hands.

 A lot of more modern Clydes are, due to this kind of obsession with making the small even smaller and the big even bigger.... so some Clydes have been crossed with Shires to make "bigger clydes".

The feeling I'm getting is that it is a BIT like the differences between the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (english) and the APBT.  The APBT is a little taller and lighter, more athletic.  The Staff is built like a tank.... similar weight but shorter!  So think of the Clyde as being like the Staff... and the Shire like the APBT.  Not a GREAT comparison I know, because Clydes and Shires have TOTALLY different ancestry and I don't think the same can be said of Pits and Staffs.  But as far as the size and weight goes.... see what I mean?

 I saw your pics, Chuffy, they were great :)

As for Shires in the US - I've come across a good number of Shire-TB crosses that people use for foxhunting out in Virginia. I think the added equine mass makes them feel more secure when roaring around the countryside, but often they're pretty impossible to keep really fit and they end up being unable to keep up with first flight. Not all of them, though - I've seen a few really really nice ones :)

Chuffy

 A lot of more modern Clydes are, due to this kind of obsession with making the small even smaller and the big even bigger

Yes, it could be that your Clydes are much different than what we have around here. 

If you think about it, the "tanks" of the draft world may be the Suffolk Punch.

http://www.suffolkpunch.com/info/photoalb.html

That's easy.....Shire's drink Earl Grey and Clydsdales drink Budweiser!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Tena

4HAND

Shire's drink Earl Grey and Clydsdales drink Budweiser!

Now, why didn't I think of that?! 

p.s. I have done a presentation about Bud and Clyd... 

Chuffy

cat0

kaluha

top height of Clydesdales is 16.2 hands

All of the Clydesdales I've ever been around are much taller than that --  17 - 18 hands.

 

 A lot of more modern Clydes are, due to this kind of obsession with making the small even smaller and the big even bigger.... so some Clydes have been crossed with Shires to make "bigger clydes".

The feeling I'm getting is that it is a BIT like the differences between the Staffordshire Bull Terrier (english) and the APBT.  The APBT is a little taller and lighter, more athletic.  The Staff is built like a tank.... similar weight but shorter!  So think of the Clyde as being like the Staff... and the Shire like the APBT.  Not a GREAT comparison I know, because Clydes and Shires have TOTALLY different ancestry and I don't think the same can be said of Pits and Staffs.  But as far as the size and weight goes.... see what I mean?

Shires and Clydes in the US can reach higher - some as large as 20 hands.  The Shires tend to be more close-coupled, and as mentioned before, there are fewer roans among the Shires.  The ones in the photos on the other thread looked like Clydes, but of course, photos can be deceiving.

I like the comparisons! Too Funny! 

There is a Robin Williams video "An Evening with Robin Williams" where he describes linebackers as "head...neck optional". I use that decription to describe the Percherons used in weight pull competitions. Those things are TANKS!!!! Massive shoulders that seem to go all the way to their ears. They are not big for draft horses but they are strong!

Most of the horses for showing that everyone wants to have, the European warmbloods, are a hybid of TB blood crossed with draft horses to get the desired out cropping. So the hunt horses in VA are just that too.