PDA

View Full Version : shoe pulling for flat class



staceyk
Mar. 31, 2011, 09:41 PM
Hi,

I'm not a hunter rider but read the article in the Chronicle Connection on pulling shoes for flat classes. I am interested in this -- it seems so strange?! I guess I would assume that a horse normally shod would be a little "gimpy" having shoes removed I wouldn't think that aluminum compared to barefoot would be that different. I'd think that pulling shoes that often would damage the hooves pretty badly, or is it just done at finals?

If I missed an existing thread on this I apologize. Could someone explain this practice to me (it's effectiveness mostly, but also how it works, how widespread it is). Thanks!

SaturdayNightLive
Mar. 31, 2011, 09:46 PM
It's only done for REALLY big classes and, even then, only on the horses that might have a chance at a ribbon. Pulling the shoes can make an 8.5 mover a 9 mover, but I don't think it makes much more difference than that. In a competitive class, this could mean the difference between getting a ribbon or not.

If the horse is going to be ouchy, its people won't pull the shoes.

It's a matter of knowing if pulling the shoes will help and if they will help enough to make a difference for each particular horse.

MHM
Mar. 31, 2011, 09:51 PM
There have been several threads on it, but in a nutshell, most reasonable people would only do it once in a while for a major, major show like Devon, Pony Finals, or Indoors.

The horse or pony would get the shoes pulled just before the hack, and reset right after the class, often with the feet wrapped up in between, so usually there is not much damage to the foot. If you have a horse with tender feet, you wouldn't do it.

It may make a horse move a hair better, and if you have one that is in contention at one of the major shows, you would do your best to be competitive.

staceyk
Mar. 31, 2011, 10:56 PM
If this is true I guess I'm not sure why it's newsworthy. I was starting to think it was something people did at every show. Thanks for the followup!

Napoles
Apr. 1, 2011, 05:17 AM
We have aluminium plates put on for the big shows here. Put on the week before the show and worn for the duration (that includes Working hunter i.e. jumping classes).

wanderlust
Apr. 1, 2011, 06:04 AM
It's really not a big deal, and I can't believe Hope wrote a two page article about it (and that the Chronicle connection covered it). If the horse has good feet, they pull them at the ingate, and tack them back on as soon as they are done, using the same nail holes. Only for major shows- Devon, Menlo, etc. Of all the things that goes on at big horse shows with the hunters, this is so far down the list of things to worry about.

Maybe they should have had an article about the magnesium injections that are dropping horses dead in the barn aisles? Now *that* would be worth a two page article.

MHM
Apr. 1, 2011, 09:58 AM
Wanderlust, it's probably a bit easier to find people willing to admit to pulling shoes. :(

Madeline
Apr. 1, 2011, 10:51 AM
If I didn't know that this really went on, I would suspect that this was an April Fools thread...

Anne
Apr. 1, 2011, 11:39 AM
Most American show hunters live in aluminum shoes as a matter of course.

STA
Apr. 1, 2011, 02:15 PM
Go to a show such as Capital Challenge, the line is out of the Farrier's stall having the shoes put back on after the hacks.
A good Farrier has no problem pulling and repalcing the shoes.

NCRider
Apr. 1, 2011, 02:45 PM
Seems to me that it would save $ and would save the horse some trouble if you just banned this practice. That way everyone's in the same boat. I understand that if a lot of people are doing it and it truly improves the impression of the gaits, then other people would have to to be competitive, but why not just prohibit it. Seems better for the horse to avoid unnecessary unshoeing reshoeing.

staceyk
Apr. 1, 2011, 06:19 PM
Banning -- that's what the author of the article suggests. Horses that routinely go barefoot (there are some, apparently), would have the advantage in that case, if you believe that barefoot horses move better. I'm not crying too hard over the expense, I suspect at this level people aren't skipping meals to pay the farrier bill.

I still can't quite believe that a horse that is routinely shod would go better immediately after having shoes pulled. But it must be so?

Mardi
Apr. 1, 2011, 10:35 PM
[QUOTE=staceyk;5521742
I still can't quite believe that a horse that is routinely shod would go better immediately after having shoes pulled. But it must be so?[/QUOTE]

On one of the previous (and lengthy) threads on this subject, someone posted videos of their very nice horse at Devon. One video was jumping, the other was taken in the flat class. The horse had his shoes pulled for the flat class.

Simply put, the horse looked off in the flat class. Not lame, but you could tell something wasn't right in the front. Your eye went right to it. His way of going was very affected, as his rider wanted it to be. In the jumping video, his movement between fences looked normal.

Many said that his way of moving in the flat class was exactly as the judges want them to go, and that's why shoes are pulled.

If you can find that thread, and the videos, it will clearly demonstrate the way movement is affected, and you can judge for yourself if it looks better or not.

Mardi
Apr. 1, 2011, 10:51 PM
The writer of the article in Chronical Connection says that at a large west coast show, her horses placed better after their shoes were pulled.

For a rider to admit that in spite of all her efforts and training, placing in a class came down to whether her horses were wearing shoes or not, is really something.

I hope the owners didn't read that ! They'll want their training money back.

fourmares
Apr. 1, 2011, 11:01 PM
The funny thing is that there is absolutely no way of knowing if the horse would have placed the same on that day, in the same class, against the same company and under the same judge with the shoes on as it did without... so pulling the shoes might actually make no difference at all and it's just perception... and I suspect that this is the case. I'm quite sure that the judge doesn't look at the bottoms of the horses feet when he or she makes their decision.

wanderlust
Apr. 2, 2011, 12:35 AM
Simply put, the horse looked off in the flat class. Not lame, but you could tell something wasn't right in the front. Your eye went right to it. His way of going was very affected, as his rider wanted it to be. In the jumping video, his movement between fences looked normal.

Many said that his way of moving in the flat class was exactly as the judges want them to go, and that's why shoes are pulled.

If you can find that thread, and the videos, it will clearly demonstrate the way movement is affected, and you can judge for yourself if it looks better or not. Uh, he won the hack. At Devon. Just because it isn't what you are used to looking at or prefer doesn't mean he was off.

Big_Grey_hunter
Apr. 2, 2011, 12:49 AM
The funny thing is that there is absolutely no way of knowing if the horse would have placed the same on that day, in the same class, against the same company and under the same judge with the shoes on as it did without... so pulling the shoes might actually make no difference at all and it's just perception... and I suspect that this is the case. I'm quite sure that the judge doesn't look at the bottoms of the horses feet when he or she makes their decision.

It's not about whether the horse has shoes or not, so no the judge doesn't look at the bottom of the feet. They look at pointing toes, free shoulder, flat knees, etc. That can be affected by removing shoes

Mardi
Apr. 2, 2011, 01:21 AM
Uh, he won the hack. At Devon. Just because it isn't what you are used to looking at or prefer doesn't mean he was off.

Yes, I understand he won the hack. He's a lovely horse.

As I said before, when I say off, I wasn't referriing to lameness.
My goodness, often times you can feel the difference when your horse throws a shoe ! What do we say then ? We say he feels off on that foot. "Off" meaning
"different".

Please....we all know that the way horses go when barefoot is not the same than when shod.
That's why people take the shoes off at shows. If there was no visible difference, then the shoes would stay on.

I'm not clear why people get upset when someone talks about the visible difference in movement.
Isn't there supposed to be a visible difference ?

GreystoneKC
Apr. 2, 2011, 09:47 AM
Simply put, the horse looked off in the flat class. Not lame, but you could tell something wasn't right in the front. Your eye went right to it.

I remember seeing those videos. I do not remember the horse seeming NQR at all. If I remember correctly it won that flat class, at DEVON. It did move differently from jump class to hack class, but I didn't see anything that "wasn't right in the front"...

GreystoneKC
Apr. 2, 2011, 09:49 AM
As I said before, when I say off, I wasn't referriing to lameness.My goodness, often times you can feel the difference when your horse throws a shoe ! What do we say then ? We say he feels off on that foot. "Off" meaning "different".

Saying something "wasn't right in the front" comes off a lot more like you mean "off" in the more commonly used manner than in a "different" manner. Just saying...

Jsalem
Apr. 2, 2011, 10:42 AM
Said horse is my horse. He moves lower across the ground and with less knee when his shoes are pulled. He has great feet. If he loses a shoe at home (which is rare) he can be turned out until the farrier gets there. Doesn't bother him at all.

Now, if the powers that be think that it's detrimental to pull a horse's shoes for 15 minutes and the practice needs to be banned..... then how about longeing? How about limiting the number of warmup jumps or the number of horseshows? I mean really, of all the things to get worked up over. Most trainer/owners know which horses can hack barefoot (once or twice a year) without ill effect.

wanderlust
Apr. 2, 2011, 10:50 AM
The writer of the article in Chronical Connection says that at a large west coast show, her horses placed better after their shoes were pulled.

For a rider to admit that in spite of all her efforts and training, placing in a class came down to whether her horses were wearing shoes or not, is really something.

I hope the owners didn't read that ! They'll want their training money back. Do you know *anything* about the hunters? Anything at all?

Because if you did, you wouldn't post the above. You'd know that the hack (aka 'flat', aka 'under saddle') is judged on the quality of the movement of the horse. But clearly you don't know, and you are just trying to be nasty.

Go back to the dressage board and be a jerk there, we have enough of them here already without needing help from someone who doesn't know anything about the discipline and just wants to snark.

Mardi
Apr. 3, 2011, 10:34 PM
Saying something "wasn't right in the front" comes off a lot more like you mean "off" in the more commonly used manner than in a "different" manner. Just saying...

Yes, agreed. I should not have said "wasn't right in front". Should have simply said "he goes differently" with his shoes off.

My words should have been chosen more carefully; what is understood around the barn, has been misunderstood here.

My apologies.

Mardi
Apr. 3, 2011, 11:35 PM
Do you know *anything* about the hunters? Anything at all?

Because if you did, you wouldn't post the above. You'd know that the hack (aka 'flat', aka 'under saddle') is judged on the quality of the movement of the horse. But clearly you don't know, and you are just trying to be nasty.

Go back to the dressage board and be a jerk there, we have enough of them here already without needing help from someone who doesn't know anything about the discipline and just wants to snark.

Hi.
How are you ?
Yes, I know about hunters. Been around them, their trainers and riders, all my life.
One of my closest friends is a top hunter trainer, and has been for many years. And if it helps, I recently attended a clinic given by a very well known east coast hunter trainer (female) who spoke to us entirely about a hunter's way of going, with her demonstration horses (mostly imported warmbloods) and videos of classes in Wellington. Believe me, I get it.
And I also like they way they go.

Now that we got that out of the way, let me explain something to you.
If the trainer who wrote the article in the Connection was from another discipline: western, dressage, saddlebreds, Arabians, etc., and said the same thing: THAT THE HORSE PLACED BETTER AFTER ITS SHOES WERE PULLED, I would have been left with the same reaction: That the TRAINER is under the impression that it was the removal of shoes that improved her horses' placings, and not her training and riding.
That's quite an admission from any trainer: "Gee, the horse placed better, but I had nothing to do with it !" That can't be right, can it ? Did she really mean to say that ? Does she really believe that ? I hope not. Because if it's true, why have a trainer ?

And that brings us back to the point of her article.....that the hunter division ought to go back and rely on RIDING and TRAINING to have a good round on the flat, instead of pulling off a horse's shoes to get the job done. She seems to have the the best interests of the hunter division in mind. Wouldn't you agree ?

MHM
Apr. 3, 2011, 11:46 PM
Oy. :rolleyes:

There is a point beyond which you can't "train" a horse to move better. The horse's conformation (and shoeing!) determine whether it's possible for that horse to be a 1, 5, or 10 mover.

You might improve a horse's movement somewhat by helping it balance better or what have you, but if Bert DeNemethy came back from the grave at his best, even he couldn't "train" an eggbeater into a hack winner in the hunter division. And he was pretty darn good.

karlymacrae
Apr. 4, 2011, 05:03 AM
And that brings us back to the point of her article.....that the hunter division ought to go back and rely on RIDING and TRAINING to have a good round on the flat, instead of pulling off a horse's shoes to get the job done. She seems to have the the best interests of the hunter division in mind. Wouldn't you agree ?

Shoes don't affect your "round on the flat", they affect your horse's movement. It's also why a LOT of hunters put aluminum shoes on their horses; they're lightweight, and they don't affect a horse's movement. The bottom line is that shoeing affects movement. Have you ever been to the track? Racehorses wear aluminum shoes because they won't affect the horse's movement/speed. And while it's completely unrelated, and opposite, another example would be weighted shoes on Tennessee Walkers.. they weight them so the horses lift their legs up higher.. but soring/weighting TW horses is abusive and a whole 'nother thread.

You can't train a horse to move past it's abilities, unless you can change their conformation - which is impossible.

Big_Grey_hunter
Apr. 4, 2011, 06:44 AM
Hi.
How are you ?
Yes, I know about hunters. Been around them, their trainers and riders, all my life.
One of my closest friends is a top hunter trainer, and has been for many years. And if it helps, I recently attended a clinic given by a very well known east coast hunter trainer (female) who spoke to us entirely about a hunter's way of going, with her demonstration horses (mostly imported warmbloods) and videos of classes in Wellington. Believe me, I get it.
And I also like they way they go.

Now that we got that out of the way, let me explain something to you.
If the trainer who wrote the article in the Connection was from another discipline: western, dressage, saddlebreds, Arabians, etc., and said the same thing: THAT THE HORSE PLACED BETTER AFTER ITS SHOES WERE PULLED, I would have been left with the same reaction: That the TRAINER is under the impression that it was the removal of shoes that improved her horses' placings, and not her training and riding.
That's quite an admission from any trainer: "Gee, the horse placed better, but I had nothing to do with it !" That can't be right, can it ? Did she really mean to say that ? Does she really believe that ? I hope not. Because if it's true, why have a trainer ?

And that brings us back to the point of her article.....that the hunter division ought to go back and rely on RIDING and TRAINING to have a good round on the flat, instead of pulling off a horse's shoes to get the job done. She seems to have the the best interests of the hunter division in mind. Wouldn't you agree ?

Let's say on a scale of 0-100, a horse is a 90 with no training. The trainer gets on and gets the horse balance, lifting its back, etc. and the horse becomes a 99.3. Remove the shoes and he's 99.9. In a class with eight 99+ movers, removing the shoes can mean the difference bettween no ribbon, a low ribbon, or first place. The shoes did not replace training or the horse's natural movement, it just gave that last .6 points that could bring home top places. Now, adding .6 to a 70 mover would be pointless. Removing shoes on the 99.3 mover in a class of 80 movers would be pointless. But once of twice a year in the TOP shows, it can make a difference.

GreystoneKC
Apr. 4, 2011, 09:37 AM
Let's say on a scale of 0-100, a horse is a 90 with no training. The trainer gets on and gets the horse balance, lifting its back, etc. and the horse becomes a 99.3. Remove the shoes and he's 99.9. In a class with eight 99+ movers, removing the shoes can mean the difference bettween no ribbon, a low ribbon, or first place. The shoes did not replace training or the horse's natural movement, it just gave that last .6 points that could bring home top places. Now, adding .6 to a 70 mover would be pointless. Removing shoes on the 99.3 mover in a class of 80 movers would be pointless. But once of twice a year in the TOP shows, it can make a difference.

Perfect.

Trixie
Apr. 4, 2011, 09:56 AM
For a rider to admit that in spite of all her efforts and training, placing in a class came down to whether her horses were wearing shoes or not, is really something.


I hope the owners didn't read that ! They'll want their training money back.
That the TRAINER is under the impression that it was the removal of shoes that improved her horses' placings, and not her training and riding.
That's quite an admission from any trainer: "Gee, the horse placed better, but I had nothing to do with it !" That can't be right, can it ? Did she really mean to say that ? Does she really believe that ? I hope not. Because if it's true, why have a trainer ?


And that brings us back to the point of her article.....that the hunter division ought to go back and rely on RIDING and TRAINING to have a good round on the flat, instead of pulling off a horse's shoes to get the job done. She seems to have the the best interests of the hunter division in mind. Wouldn't you agree ?

But it’s NOT about the trainer’s training and riding. At all. Hunters is about the HORSE.

A flat class judges the movement of the horse. They need to be able to walk, trot, and canter in a circle in an arena – not exactly a highly advanced thing. In fact, it’s utterly basic. The reason that it’s utterly basic is because they aren’t judging the animal’s training at some advanced level of skill; they’re very simply judging the quality of his gaits.

It is simply EXPECTED that the animal should be able to walk, trot, and canter politely in company. A good ride may enhance the horse’s gaits, but RIDING and TRAINING will never take a 3 mover and make him into a 9.

If we are going to be judging the RIDING of a TRAINER, perhaps they should be riding in an equitation class, where the RIDER, not the HORSE, is judged.

Go Fish
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:11 PM
The funny thing is that there is absolutely no way of knowing if the horse would have placed the same on that day, in the same class, against the same company and under the same judge with the shoes on as it did without... so pulling the shoes might actually make no difference at all and it's just perception... and I suspect that this is the case. I'm quite sure that the judge doesn't look at the bottoms of the horses feet when he or she makes their decision.

That's what I was thinking. How do you really know if it made a difference unless you have some sort of conversation with the judge about it? You can't possibly know if the horses placed below you had a boo boo during the hack. The judge's decision may not have had anything to do with movement at all.

I've won a couple of tri-colors because I was first in the hack. So it does matter, I suppose. Increase your odds, and all that...

Jsalem
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:16 PM
Sigh...... please read the very well phrased responses above. My particular horse moves BETTER barefoot. No, there's no way of knowing how he would have pinned at Devon with his shoes on. That's because I pulled his shoes there. To give him that extra edge. For 15 minutes. And he won the class. And it didn't hurt him in any way, shape or form.

SunkenMeadow
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:25 PM
To all of you who do not understand the difference pulling the shoes can make: please go out and buy yourself some ankle weights, wear them around for a few weeks, then take them off...I think you will feel a small difference...

trubandloki
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:28 PM
I am not sure why so many people do not understand how a horse can move better with out shoes.

southernbell
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:29 PM
I am not sure why so many people do not understand how a horse can move better with out shoes.

Seriously!

Xanthoria
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:47 PM
My queston is if the horse moves better without shoes, why would you ever put them back on again?

The average show hunter only canters slowly around on groomed footing - unless their feet are truly awful there's absolutely no need for shoes to do that.

(And in fact in an ideal world hunter judges would reward bare feet as they'd prove a better conformed horse, eh?) ;) :lol: oh, as if...

If though the horse moves "better" because it's ever so slightly sore without shoes and doesn't show as much action as a result (a much reduced version of the shuffly, flat gaits a footsore horse shows) then owners will put the shoes back on.

In other words "flatter" movement can be pain related. Like going for a run on a gravel road wearing flip flops.

trubandloki
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:49 PM
My queston is if the horse moves better without shoes, why would you ever put them back on again?

Traction when jumping.

Jsalem
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:55 PM
Oh dear lord, xanthoria, have you seen the movement of the horses that we're talking about? Shuffling? Footsore? Horses in pain have a shortened, quick stride, not a long sweeping stride.

My horse wears aluminum shoes. He's too big to go barefoot all the time. That would make him sore. And he does too much work. The footing in our ring at home is great, but we even have to shoe many of the ponies because it's abrasive and wears their feet down. Show horses don't just work in beautifully groomed rings. They unload and walk across gravel at shows. They ride in different types of footing. Our horses trail ride. The shoes provide protection and support. Removing them for a short period of time to ride a class in great footing does no harm.

southernbell
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:55 PM
My queston is if the horse moves better without shoes, why would you ever put them back on again?

The average show hunter only canters slowly around on groomed footing - unless their feet are truly awful there's absolutely no need for shoes to do that.

(And in fact in an ideal world hunter judges would reward bare feet as they'd prove a better conformed horse, eh?) ;) :lol: oh, as if...

If though the horse moves "better" because it's ever so slightly sore without shoes and doesn't show as much action as a result (a much reduced version of the shuffly, flat gaits a footsore horse shows) then owners will put the shoes back on.

In other words "flatter" movement can be pain related. Like going for a run on a gravel road wearing flip flops.

Why would you assume the horse is sore? The shoes are pulled 5 minutes before the class, the hooves are protected with a bootie, the horse hacks for 5 minutes on perfectly groomed footing and the shoes go back on 5 minutes after the class. If you suspected your horse would be sore, you would never pull the shoes. It's a hunter under saddle, the horse has to be sound, not just "serviceably sound"...

SunkenMeadow
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:55 PM
Yes, it's mighty hard to screw caulks into a barefoot

MHM
Apr. 4, 2011, 02:57 PM
I am not sure why so many people do not understand how a horse can move better with out shoes.

It's a puzzlement.

I'll give it one more try.

Steel shoes are generally the heaviest shoes used on a show hunter.

It you have a horse in steel, you might try him in a lighter shoe to see if he'll move better, so you'd put him in aluminum shoes.

For special occasions like Devon or Indoors, you might want to see if he moves even better still if he has less weight on his feet, so you might pull his shoes off for the hack.

It has nothing to do with the horse being foot sore. If you think your horse is any kind of a tenderfoot, the last thing you would do in the middle of a major competition is risk making him sore.

It's not that complicated. If you think it's a bad idea, then don't do it with your own horse.

Xanthoria
Apr. 4, 2011, 03:14 PM
Many people event and do endurance barefoot. You don't need studs til you get onto really slick surfaces (wet grass), and hunters generally have much better footing than most cross country courses.

So if you're saying they're really not footsore whatsoever and move better without shoes they probably don't need shoes at all. *shrug* Seems obvious.

Throw some boots on for trail rides if they are sore on a surface they're not living on.

You do need a qualified barefoot trimmer for success. Walking on gravel should be no problem for example, if the trim's correct.

trubandloki
Apr. 4, 2011, 03:25 PM
No amount of amazing trimming can make a horses feet last longer if they spend a lot of time being worked and their feet are wearing down quicker than they grow.

Trixie
Apr. 4, 2011, 04:21 PM
So if you're saying they're really not footsore whatsoever and move better without shoes they probably don't need shoes at all. *shrug* Seems obvious.

Throw some boots on for trail rides if they are sore on a surface they're not living on.

You do need a qualified barefoot trimmer for success. Walking on gravel should be no problem for example, if the trim's correct.

Some do, some don't. Some feet wear down or chip quicker than others. It really depends on the individual horse and program. And without knowing that individual horse and program, you can't really say that it's "obvious."

rwh
Apr. 4, 2011, 05:32 PM
Said horse is my horse. He moves lower across the ground and with less knee when his shoes are pulled. He has great feet. If he loses a shoe at home (which is rare) he can be turned out until the farrier gets there. Doesn't bother him at all.

Now, if the powers that be think that it's detrimental to pull a horse's shoes for 15 minutes and the practice needs to be banned..... then how about longeing? How about limiting the number of warmup jumps or the number of horseshows? I mean really, of all the things to get worked up over. Most trainer/owners know which horses can hack barefoot (once or twice a year) without ill effect.


Hi Jsalem,

I know you've posted your guy with/without shoes before but I can't remember where and wanted to see the videos again. Would you mind reposting them here for me?

Thanks!

rwh

Jsalem
Apr. 4, 2011, 05:52 PM
Here we go!

Without shoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqsqykQlcVY

With shoes, over fences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9eS9R3L5AA

karlymacrae
Apr. 4, 2011, 08:14 PM
Jsalem, he's gorgeous. And congrats on your wins at Devon!

doublesstable
Apr. 4, 2011, 09:09 PM
Seems to me that it would save $ and would save the horse some trouble if you just banned this practice. That way everyone's in the same boat. I understand that if a lot of people are doing it and it truly improves the impression of the gaits, then other people would have to to be competitive, but why not just prohibit it. Seems better for the horse to avoid unnecessary unshoeing reshoeing.

If a horse goes better in a flat class without shoes and IS NOT lame and shoes can be reset if necessary with no issues, why would you ban this?

Every - HORSE is NOT in the same boat. Some are better movers than others.

BUT every -ONE can pull shoes and may or may not have the same cause of action.

So as far as I'm concerned it's a pretty equal practice and would not be candidate for a ban. Banning is for cruel or hurtful treatment of the horse.

I would say the contrary to pulling a shoe being cruel or hurtful because if a horse can have shoes pulled and not be DQed from a class he's a pretty happy fellow.

Some would argue shoes are cruel and should be banned. :lol: and I may just be one of them. ;)

rwh
Apr. 4, 2011, 09:17 PM
Here we go!

Without shoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqsqykQlcVY

With shoes, over fences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9eS9R3L5AA

He looks like he glides across the ground! Amazing! Thanks for the videos.

doublesstable
Apr. 4, 2011, 09:19 PM
Many people event and do endurance barefoot. You don't need studs til you get onto really slick surfaces (wet grass), and hunters generally have much better footing than most cross country courses.

So if you're saying they're really not footsore whatsoever and move better without shoes they probably don't need shoes at all. *shrug* Seems obvious.

Throw some boots on for trail rides if they are sore on a surface they're not living on.

You do need a qualified barefoot trimmer for success. Walking on gravel should be no problem for example, if the trim's correct.


I agree that barefoot is best. I do know people that put the metal shoes on for jumping because the horse brings up the foot over the jump better. Maybe that is a reason?

SkipChange
Apr. 4, 2011, 10:19 PM
I agree that barefoot is best. I do know people that put the metal shoes on for jumping because the horse brings up the foot over the jump better. Maybe that is a reason?

Jumping a number of large fences puts additional stress on the hooves. This may cause the soles to wear thin, chip, crack etc. Shoes can give them added traction, prevent their hooves from wearing down faster than they grow, make for a sounder horse long term....the reasons are endless.

Hacking around a manicured ring for 10-15 minutes is not the same as living barefoot 24/7 in heavy training conditions, particularly if the horse is worked over any sort of footing that really wears down the hoof.

Lexus
Apr. 4, 2011, 10:29 PM
Here we go!

Without shoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqsqykQlcVY

With shoes, over fences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9eS9R3L5AA


He's beautiful, congratulations!

You definetely know best how to manage your horse. ;)

doublesstable
Apr. 4, 2011, 10:49 PM
Jumping a number of large fences puts additional stress on the hooves. This may cause the soles to wear thin, chip, crack etc. Shoes can give them added traction, prevent their hooves from wearing down faster than they grow, make for a sounder horse long term....the reasons are endless.

Hacking around a manicured ring for 10-15 minutes is not the same as living barefoot 24/7 in heavy training conditions, particularly if the horse is worked over any sort of footing that really wears down the hoof.

I was saying that may be one reason why someone that has a horse that can be perfectly sound barefoot - I do understand about soles wearing thin etc. But I feel there are more reasons to keep a horse barefoot than shod.. but that's another thread ;)

However I have a barefoot 24/7 in jump training and does just fine. :)

karlymacrae
Apr. 4, 2011, 11:52 PM
I agree that barefoot is best. I do know people that put the metal shoes on for jumping because the horse brings up the foot over the jump better. Maybe that is a reason?

No it is not. Not even remotely close.

wanderlust
Apr. 4, 2011, 11:54 PM
Jumping a number of large fences puts additional stress on the hooves. This may cause the soles to wear thin, chip, crack etc. Shoes can give them added traction, prevent their hooves from wearing down faster than they grow, make for a sounder horse long term....the reasons are endless. I'd love to keep my horse barefoot- he is perfectly sound and moves a million times better barefoot. However, walking on the pavement, the mostly-dirt turnouts, and the coarse sand footing of the arena wear his pretty little white feet down to nubs in no time flat. Sound nubs, but nubs nonetheless. So sadly, he wears shoes.

doublesstable
Apr. 5, 2011, 12:28 AM
No it is not. Not even remotely close.


I know there are other reasons.. and it is close because if you think about it; when you put a metal shoe on a horse they "will" in fact pick up the leg/hoof higher..... weight. Don't you see those who use leg weights in jumpers? I think it has relevance. (shrug)

trubandloki
Apr. 5, 2011, 08:06 AM
Here we go!

Without shoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqsqykQlcVY

With shoes, over fences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9eS9R3L5AA
He is gorgeous! Amazing! Congrats on the wins.
And more importantly, thank you for sharing your videos.


I know there are other reasons.. and it is close because if you think about it; when you put a metal shoe on a horse they "will" in fact pick up the leg/hoof higher..... weight. I think it has relevance. (shrug)
Lets pretend there was logic to your thought.
If having heavy shoes on made all the difference in the world to how they snapped their knees up then why is it that a very large percentage of hunter horses go in aluminum shoes (because they are lighter than steel)?

And you might note that hunter horses are not desired to snap their knees up under saddle.

foursocks
Apr. 5, 2011, 08:26 AM
My second junior hunter had ok movement without shoes and a 10+ jump, with or without shoes. However, he also had a club foot and needed special shoes to manage it- which, for him, meant that his shoes were heavier. This ruined his already not-so-lovely trot.

The ONLY time we ever hacked him was if the champion or reserve was in doubt and we needed a couple more points. With his shoes he had an ugly trot, without them it was nice- so why wouldn't we pull them if removing his shoes showed off his movement better? Unfortunately, he tended to be ouchy without them unless the footing was perfect- in my junior days, this was hit or miss. So, we generally just either didn't hack him or tried to minimize how much of his trot the judge was seeing, rode the hell out of it to get him to stretch, etc.

It's all about the show and how to put your horse in the best light possible. This is not rocket science! :lol:

Jsalem
Apr. 5, 2011, 08:34 AM
Good horsemanship is all about judgement. This bit or that bit? One more warmup fence? Etc, etc. Sometimes we make the wrong call. And then good horsemanship is about doing what's best for the animal.

I first became aware of pulling the shoes for a big flat class at Jr Hunter Finals. We had a beautiful mover. We were beat by a lovely horse that had his shoes removed for the class. The next day was the final round over fences. I watched that horse come out to warm up. He was ouchy. Who knows if it was because he'd had his shoes removed and replaced the day before, but that was a good bet. The trainer and rider conferred and scratched the horse. They got their blue ribbon in the under saddle but paid the price the next day. They were good sports about it. I was impressed by their good attitude, but I must admit, I felt a little smug about it. We were WINNING the over fences class...... and then pulled the last rail. Ain't horse showing grand?

Trixie
Apr. 5, 2011, 09:29 AM
I agree that barefoot is best.

I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement about this when that isn't remotely the case.

Barefoot is fine for some horses. My horse is barefoot and regularly does 3'6" jumpers - and we had decided long ago that if he ever needed them, he would have shoes. But if he didn't show us he needed them, he wouldn't.

I have another horse in my barn who can't even be out in the fields without shoes. We pulled his shoes when he got here for a little since he had hind shoes on his front feet and his feet were overall a total mess. He wasn't sound, so we put front shoes on him and he's much better. No amount of good trimming is going to fix the fact that he's got crappy ex racehorse feet.

Others? Their feet wear down quicker than they grow.

Part of being a horseman is doing what's best for the individual horse, not sticking to tenets and theories that don't always hold. It's also not as if people are pulling shoes on a regular basis, nor if it on ANY level left a horse sore. Sore horse = not a hack winner.

doublesstable
Apr. 5, 2011, 09:55 AM
He is gorgeous! Amazing! Congrats on the wins.
And more importantly, thank you for sharing your videos.


Lets pretend there was logic to your thought.
If having heavy shoes on made all the difference in the world to how they snapped their knees up then why is it that a very large percentage of hunter horses go in aluminum shoes (because they are lighter than steel)?

And you might note that hunter horses are not desired to snap their knees up under saddle.


I didn't use the word "snap" did I? And I know how a hunter needs to go.

Clearly a horse moves and jumps differently with shoes than barefoot. IMHO.

And to go a bit further; for these big shows, they will pull front shoes for the flat class - why not the jumping class?? I would guess because of wear and tear to the hoof that normally wears a shoe, but again, a horse goes differenly with a shoe.

Aluminum shoes I get it - it also helps so they don't have to pull the shoe in the flat class hoping to get the daisy cutter movement...

doublesstable
Apr. 5, 2011, 09:57 AM
I don't understand how you can make a blanket statement about this when that isn't remotely the case.

It wasn't meant to be a blanket statement, it was simply a "short" statement without explination or detail on my thoughts.

It really doesn't matter anyway because this is not a barefoot debate and I don't want to make it one.

MHM
Apr. 5, 2011, 10:11 AM
Is anyone else starting to wonder if the original article was written mostly to increase traffic to the new Chronicle Connection? :lol:

I'll bet they've gotten lots of views from this thread. I haven't been able to read the article yet since I'm away from the computer for a few days, and I can't seem to read it on my phone.

Jsalem
Apr. 5, 2011, 10:26 AM
I just read the article and thought it was pretty dumb. The author states that our horses will be better off if we ban the practice of "constantly" pulling off their shoes for flat classes. That's simply not the case. There are much more important showhorse welfare issues that need to be addressed.....

Trixie
Apr. 5, 2011, 10:36 AM
Honestly? I thought it was pompous. “Because I truly care about my horses and have concerns for their well being.” REALLY? Really? Is she suggesting that those that pull shoes don’t care about their horses well being?

It’s a bit over the top. If the author doesn’t agree with the trend, why, pray tell, is she PARTICIPATING in it?

southernbell
Apr. 5, 2011, 10:38 AM
That could be one of the most ridiculous articles I have ever read!

There are a lot worse things going on in the hunters that should be banned before pulling shoes at a big hack becomes a hot button topic!

Jsalem
Apr. 5, 2011, 10:40 AM
I agree~! If the author isn't comfortable pulling shoes, then don't. She just doesn't want anyone else to get the edge.

I've seen my farrier tack a shoe on, then pull it off because he's not happy with the way it's placed. I've had my vet or farrier pull a shoe to check for an abcess or to see if there's too much sole pressure under the shoe. What's the big deal?

I know which horses in my barn can be lightly trail ridden when they've pulled a shoe and which horses mustn't step foot out of their stall until the farrier comes. I know which horses are a good candidate for pulling shoes at Devon or Pony Finals and which horses aren't.

wanderlust
Apr. 5, 2011, 11:34 AM
I didn't use the word "snap" did I? And I know how a hunter needs to go.

Clearly a horse moves and jumps differently with shoes than barefoot. IMHO.

And to go a bit further; for these big shows, they will pull front shoes for the flat class - why not the jumping class?? I would guess because of wear and tear to the hoof that normally wears a shoe, but again, a horse goes differenly with a shoe.

Aluminum shoes I get it - it also helps so they don't have to pull the shoe in the flat class hoping to get the daisy cutter movement... I've had three horses who I can categorically say are MUCH better with their front end in aluminum or barefoot than in steel. The others either lived in steel (jumper) or aluminum and I had no basis for comparison.

doublesstable
Apr. 5, 2011, 06:07 PM
I've had three horses who I can categorically say are MUCH better with their front end in aluminum or barefoot than in steel. The others either lived in steel (jumper) or aluminum and I had no basis for comparison.

My horses have always moved more "Hunter-ish" either barefoot or aluminum. Big horse jumps better with the steel.

I would guess, just like most horse related things - it's all individual so that's why I think it's okay to pull shoes for a flat class... each horse is different and as an owner or trainer etc. it is their job to know the horse and do what is best for the horse and then what helps them perform well.

Sunset Ponies
Apr. 5, 2011, 07:37 PM
Here we go!

Without shoes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqsqykQlcVY

With shoes, over fences:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9eS9R3L5AA

I think these videos are a perfect example of why pulling shoes at the big shows has its advantages.

In the over fences video I see a horse that at most competitions will win or get a top ribbon in the hack class. He is a beautiful mover.

With the shoes off he moves just a little bit better and that pushes him into the category of being impossible to beat. This is Devon, so he is in the ring with a bunch of horses that usual win their hack classes wherever they go. That "little bit" is the difference in this ring, where everyone has proven they are hard to beat.

I also have to add that when this is done at Pony or Junior Hunter Finals, they are given a score for the hack. The actual placing is important, but the score is what makes the difference overall. Those extra couple of points can make the difference in the end.

doublesstable
Apr. 5, 2011, 07:47 PM
I think these videos are a perfect example of why pulling shoes at the big shows has its advantages.

In the over fences video I see a horse that at most competitions will win or get a top ribbon in the hack class. He is a beautiful mover.

With the shoes off he moves just a little bit better and that pushes him into the category of being impossible to beat. This is Devon, so he is in the ring with a bunch of horses that usual win their hack classes wherever they go. That "little bit" is the difference in this ring, where everyone has proven they are hard to beat.

I also have to add that when this is done at Pony or Junior Hunter Finals, they are given a score for the hack. The actual placing is important, but the score is what makes the difference overall. Those extra couple of points can make the difference in the end.


:yes: :)