Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff
Hi Gwen,
I'M not saying anything one way or the other about sickle hocks, only
passing on Dr. Holmstrom's findings. The results of the study
(as Dr. Holmstrom explained it to me) indicated that sickle hocks were
found in the young, untrained horses and in progressively fewer numbers
as the horses progressed upwards through the upper levels, until there
were no sickle hocks at top levels. However, the study also was
considerably more detailed than simply saying a horse was sickle-hocked
or it wasn't, it specifically measured a large number of specific joint
angles---therefore while horses with "slight angulation" of various
sorts were present at top levels, horses which DR. HOLMSTROM---NOT
ME---typified as "sickle-hocked" were not. Precisely what joint angle
at which a horse moves from "slight angulation" to "sickle-hocked", I
don't know. From my conversation with Dr. Holmstrom, I got the clear
impression that we were discussing some rather acute angles, not
"slightly sickle" as you typify your 23-year old mare, Count Dorsaz and
Raffles. Dr. H even told me that SOME increased angulation seems to be
desirable in dressage horses which must perform extremely collected
movements and must be well under themselves to perform, ie, piaffe and
pirouette, but again, we are not talking extremes. Please don't take my
statements regarding Dr. Holmstrom's study out of context---I think
there's a big difference between a horse with some angularity and a
horse with excessive angulation---which is what I believe Dr. Holmstrom
was referring to when he called overangulated horses "sickle-hocked".
For what it's worth, when discussing applying the results of this study
to endurance horses, Dr. H made the observation that often horses which
have increased angulation in the rear ALSO have increasingly acute
angles in the shoulder and pastern joint. A laid back shoulder is a
nice thing but long sloping pasterns in an endurance horse is not, WHEN
the angle is excessive, because it puts too much strain on the tendons
and leads to unsoundness.
As far as "sickling not being a bad thing if the horse is holding up",
that's fine if you already have a horse that you are willing to work
with. But if you're going out and looking at prospects, how do
you know that horse IS going to hold up? Isn't it better to try and
find a horse with as few conformational weak links as possible?
However, I think we're arguing semantics here, don't you? I (and as far
as I could tell, Dr. H) have no problem with angulation. I do have a
problem with excessive angulation.
Susan
> I don't think slight sickling is bad IF your horse is holding up- HECK ALL
> You people with COUNT DORSAZ and RAFFLES in your pedigrees better take a
> GOOD look at those back ends! :)
> BOTH were slighlty sickle IMHO.
> I have a 23 year old mare here who is as clean as a whistle and is slightly
> sickle. Now, I am breeding AWAY from it, and succeeding, but she's still clean.
> Count Dorsaz took top awards in England.
> Also I think I would be MUCH more worried about STRAIGHT hind legs than
> slightly overangulated. I have seen MANY straight stifles that caused
> problems down the line. ALso, just today I observed a nice otherwise QH colt
> who had WONDERFUl bog spavins and there wasn't a THING wrong with him
> otherwise! :) ( At least he appeared to have nice angulation and legs in the
> rear!)
> Go figure.
> Just MHO
> gwen
> Sickle hocks, on the other hand, did not appear in the top
> >level horses, so somehow or another, they were a weakness that kept
> >horses from top-level performance.
> Gwen Dluehosh
> Desert Storm Arabians
> 1156 Hightop Rd, #89
> Blacksburg, VA 24060
> 540/953-1792
Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff