Gary_Miller
08-15-2005, 11:51 AM
This is a countinuation of the NB discussion that was started in the tread "Lets say all the AFA want to do is raise the bar." in the political arena.
Pointing out that claims of the faithful and junk science do not confirm a hypothesis is an equal opportunity employer.
Where is your evedence that this is junk science?
What exactly is the hypothesis you keep refering to?
On your perusal of the posts on this forum, it will become obvious that some proponents of NB claim their way is best on the basis of scientific endorsement.
Please direct me to these posts as ether I can't find them or they are not there.
I don't know how you were taught, but the physical laws governing levers have been in existence since before the Last Supper.
I was thaught to par out the sole along the hoof wall so I would have a rookie line, and that the toe lenght should be around 3 1/4 to 3 1/2 inches. Sometime this method required removing some live sole. After carefull contimplation and study, I have come to the conclusion that it just does not make any sense at all to remove live sole.
Please redirect me to your paper on levers as I can not find the link.
Just a thought, but you might to ponder the difference in the primary functions of fronts and hinds and consider the reason an efficient setup in front can be, and often is, inefficient behind.
Since I'm new to the career would you please help me out here by explaining the difference. This will ensure I understand them the way you are meaning. That way we will be on the same wave lenght.
I don't know about "bogus", that's your term; I do know about "untested."
Bogus means junk, untrue, not correct and I gues you could us untested as well.
So as one of the old timers in the field (An old timer to me would be anyone who has practiced for 15+ years). Please explane to me why you think that the NB shoeing methodology is wrong, and which shoeing methodology/protocal do you think is the best and most correct?
Gary Miller saidMaybe they were but take them out of the picture and it all makes sense. After all farriers have been making square toed shoes and setting shoes back to quicken break over for a very long time.
Which means?
If we don't include the wild horse studies, and we for simplification say that the NB shoe is just another square toe shoe which is set back in order to help brake over and since farriers have been doing this for decades. Then the NB methology is not incorrect and has been proven over time. So all Gene Ovick has done is profect the principle manufactured and marketed a shoe and a method of appling that shoe that is benifical to the horse.
Thanks for the advice, but I find my small knowledge of physics and anatomy serve me better than joining the NB club. I'll just have to miss out on the secret decoder ring.
Why would anyone with you knowledge and understanding at least study and understand a diffrent method/procedure. No one ever said you needed to join the club just understand the principles behind the method/procedure.
As I see it, blind adherence to a single way of doing things is not, "just another tool", it's a religion.
I have never ever head anyone say that this was the only way to do things. But from your posts it seems that you are the one with the blind adherence to a single way of doing things (I.E. Tradtional Farriering).
Thats enough for now.
Tom now be nice remeber I'm the rookie who is just trying to learn and understand. This is your time to be the teacher and help me to understand.
Gary
Pointing out that claims of the faithful and junk science do not confirm a hypothesis is an equal opportunity employer.
Where is your evedence that this is junk science?
What exactly is the hypothesis you keep refering to?
On your perusal of the posts on this forum, it will become obvious that some proponents of NB claim their way is best on the basis of scientific endorsement.
Please direct me to these posts as ether I can't find them or they are not there.
I don't know how you were taught, but the physical laws governing levers have been in existence since before the Last Supper.
I was thaught to par out the sole along the hoof wall so I would have a rookie line, and that the toe lenght should be around 3 1/4 to 3 1/2 inches. Sometime this method required removing some live sole. After carefull contimplation and study, I have come to the conclusion that it just does not make any sense at all to remove live sole.
Please redirect me to your paper on levers as I can not find the link.
Just a thought, but you might to ponder the difference in the primary functions of fronts and hinds and consider the reason an efficient setup in front can be, and often is, inefficient behind.
Since I'm new to the career would you please help me out here by explaining the difference. This will ensure I understand them the way you are meaning. That way we will be on the same wave lenght.
I don't know about "bogus", that's your term; I do know about "untested."
Bogus means junk, untrue, not correct and I gues you could us untested as well.
So as one of the old timers in the field (An old timer to me would be anyone who has practiced for 15+ years). Please explane to me why you think that the NB shoeing methodology is wrong, and which shoeing methodology/protocal do you think is the best and most correct?
Gary Miller saidMaybe they were but take them out of the picture and it all makes sense. After all farriers have been making square toed shoes and setting shoes back to quicken break over for a very long time.
Which means?
If we don't include the wild horse studies, and we for simplification say that the NB shoe is just another square toe shoe which is set back in order to help brake over and since farriers have been doing this for decades. Then the NB methology is not incorrect and has been proven over time. So all Gene Ovick has done is profect the principle manufactured and marketed a shoe and a method of appling that shoe that is benifical to the horse.
Thanks for the advice, but I find my small knowledge of physics and anatomy serve me better than joining the NB club. I'll just have to miss out on the secret decoder ring.
Why would anyone with you knowledge and understanding at least study and understand a diffrent method/procedure. No one ever said you needed to join the club just understand the principles behind the method/procedure.
As I see it, blind adherence to a single way of doing things is not, "just another tool", it's a religion.
I have never ever head anyone say that this was the only way to do things. But from your posts it seems that you are the one with the blind adherence to a single way of doing things (I.E. Tradtional Farriering).
Thats enough for now.
Tom now be nice remeber I'm the rookie who is just trying to learn and understand. This is your time to be the teacher and help me to understand.
Gary