ridecamp@endurance.net: Re: low heel, high heel

Re: low heel, high heel

Duncan Fletcher (dfletche@gte.net)
Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:24:59 -0800

Is the lower heel foot really larger (that is, would a cross section of the
hoof taken at right angles to the face of the front hoof wall be any
larger), or is the sole larger solely because of the lower angle (e.g., a 1
inch tube that is sliced at an angle has a larger surface area than one
that is not? Not disputing the theory (at least for horses where the
problem was not inutero), but raising a question.

Duncan Fletcher

> From: Truman Prevatt <truman.prevatt@netsrq.com>
> To: ridecamp@endurance.net
> Subject: Re: low heel, high heel
> Date: Thursday, April 03, 1997 5:38 AM
> >L Eisele wrote:
> >. She talked about crookedness and when a horse
> >> leans or pops (not sure if the same) a shoulder, the foot on that side
> >> is usually lower and larger compared to the foot on the other side. A
> >> result of leaning and crookedness.
> >
> >Are you saying if you correct the shoulder, the foot will correct
> >itself?
> >
> >Lauren
> I believe that this is also the theory that Tony Gonzolas (sp?) proposed
> Total Balanced Motion. I have also heard Deb Bennett's theory on this
> it does make some sense. In many cases the lower heeled hoof is also
> larger which implies more weight which would validate the theory of
> on that leg.
> Truman
> Truman Prevatt
> Sarasota, FL

Home Events Groups Rider Directory Market RideCamp Stuff