AFA certification

[stephenson forge]

As an AFA Examiner, I feel I should try to clarify my perspective of the Certification process. I read a lot of misinformation about AFA Certification by people posted on these boards. This is not intented to offend people, but to inform them of what my feelings are about the Certification Testing process.

First, a Certification testing is not an educational event. It is a test to gauge your practical skills and academic knowledge of anatomy and physiology. It is not required that any farrier stand for this test. But instead, if you are so inclined, to have your work evaluated in order to gauge
your progress in conventional farrier practice. If you do not agree with the standard, do not take the test. Or, join me in trying to change the Certification process.

Myself personally, had shod horses for about 15 years before I took my first
Certification test. After 15 years, I felt I had a pretty good handle on horse shoeing. Needless to say, it opened my eyes to people and standards (not necessarily AFA shoeing standards). I thought I was a hand until I met the likes of Dave Duckett and had some discussions about farrier practice and had a chance to observe his practical skills. This process does not have to be sanctioned by the AFA. I do feel that you do have to go through some kind of educational process and be tested to learn the material. The reason is, I don't think horse owners or the performance of the horse is a good way to judge our competency. I have personally seen a calf roping horse that competed at the National Finals Rodeo several years and have a couple hundred thousand dollars won off of him in that time, do his job, then limp out of the arena. The shoeing may or may not have been a factor in his lameness. But, he did compete and win at the highest level while lame.

Steve Stephenson CJF

[George Geist]

Steve,
What exactly is it that you would like to see changed?
George

[stephenson forge]

George......... Thanks for the reply. The first thing that comes to mind is to judge a front and a hind, I don't thing horses have pairs of feet , generally.
Steve

[calshoer]

I would consider joining the AFA again and re-taking the test only on one condition. That they Xray the feet *afterward*, and use the accuracy of the shoe fit around the bone as a large part of the grading.
I nearly passed the test about ten years ago. Passed in everything except two elements of my my shoe board. (I got an 81 or 82 on the practical, the only person higher than intern to pass that portion that day , and a 94 on the written).
Passed everything but my clips and the rocker toe (which the examiner was a total **** about ).
I even forged (and passed) on a swedge heel shoe made on the spot because at the last minute they decided they would not accept wedge pads for the "raise the angle" shoe. (see, I CAN forge a bit :D )
However the problems I have with the test is not with the shoe board.
My clips stunk back then ,and deservedly failed.
(they are far better now) .

The problems I have is the requirement for testing with a perimeter fit. Yeah yeah , I know it is supposed to test being able to shoe to a specific specification. But if the specification is wrong biomechanically for the horse, why test to THAT spec?
I think that a certified farrier should be able to actually locate the coffin bone inside the foot , and know if the coffin joint is broken back, apply the shoe accurately around the coffin bone no matter whwere the dorsal hoofwall is, and realign the joint. Withuot X-rays. And get it right, within some parameter. It CAN be done, if the farriers learn to look at something other than the edge of the foot.

Therefore , the test should be to show that you are able to shoe to the bone, determine where you are going to place the breakover point *relative to the bone*, and create a slight heel first landing when you are done.
How to grade this??? With Xrays taken AFTER the shoeing. :eek: Yep.
If everything else passes, like the foot prep, flat shoe fit, sole relief, nailing ,clinching , finish, etc, but the farrier missed the predicted mark on B/O by say 1/4" or 3/8", they should fail. Hard test for sure, but to the betterment of horses.

Patty

[Phil Armitage]

Hey Steve welcome to the forum, you have come to the right place if your looking for ideas to make changes. You and many others have had light bulb moments with Ducket, I did 7 years ago while working for my mentor, he had me study decodeing duckets dot. How is that any different than farriers today haveing the same experience with NB. Sounds like the same thing to me. There are alot of farriers on this forum that have expressed there views for many years.

[George Geist]

Steve,
Much to Patty's disappointment we all know that no Natural BS format will never be incorporated into the test.

As an examiner can you tell us what changes have been made or are going to be made with the re-working that is currently underway?

Personally, although I have publicly attacked the integrity of some testers, I see no real need to radically change the practical aspects of the test. I know things will evolve and change over time but its not really that bad as is.

Problems I have seen are not insurmountable. Most can be eliminated just by following their own rules. One thing I would like to see examiners do is to take control of the thing as their supposed to. Too often they take an arms length approach to it and let the testers run the show. Dont know if its because their outsiders and the testers are all local boys or what. I can only speculate but I have seen this getting progressively worse until I quit observing these things a few years ago.
George

[stephenson forge]

Patty........Thank you for your reply. I think if NB protocall was used for the certified certification level, it would not change the pass or fail rate. The problem I think we both see is the standard or protocall cannot be achieved.

I have known Gene since 1990 and his NB principles have matured into a method that is not unlike any good horse shoeing system. Any good farrier respects the hoof capsule. Trimming to landmarks on the bottom of the foot has been used for at least a hundred years as well as impression material, frog support pads, impact pads, rolled toes, rocker toes, set back toes. In my opinion, good farriers all over the world have been using these principles for years that they have learned from "Dollar & Wheatly" and "Russell",and more recently Dave Duckett.

It would be interesting how much a farrier that uses Gene's protocall could learn if he/she took a written test and practical test administered by Gene.
I would think they would be suprised at their gaps of knowledge of the process. The same can be said about a conventional test of farrier skills and knowledge.

I don't think there is any point in you taking a test. I think you should develop your own test. You will find ,as I have, that with most of the problems seen in hoof care is not a problem of theory, but a lack of the basic skills and knowledge.

Thanks. I am always open to constructive criticism.

Steve

[Cyber Farrier]

Steve,
Much to Patty's disappointment we all know that no Natural BS format will never be incorporated into the test. George
Is there really a need to go dragging down the level of a good conversation with a ****** reference such as that? You're an intelligent person, George. Keep the level up there.

Baron

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

[deletia]

calshoer in gray

The problems I have is the requirement for testing with a perimeter fit. Yeah yeah , I know it is supposed to test being able to shoe to a specific specification. But if the specification is wrong biomechanically for the horse, why test to THAT spec?

Who says a perimeter fit is "wrong biomechanically" for both ends of every horse? Certainly not Archimedes! At any rate, as you note, the CF and CJF practicals test one's ability to shoe to an arbitrary standard, they're not tests of one's opinion relative to the needs of the horse on either end.

I think that a certified farrier should be able to actually locate the coffin bone inside the foot , and know if the coffin joint is broken back, apply the shoe accurately around the coffin bone no matter whwere the dorsal hoofwall is, and realign the joint.

Balderdash. One does not change the parameters of a test in order to meet the preferences and prejudices of the testee. If that were so, I wouldn't have taken algebra twice.

Withuot X-rays. And get it right, within some parameter. It CAN be done, if the farriers learn to look at something other than the edge of the foot.

The basic flaw in such thinking is that it fails to differentiate between fronts and hinds and fails to take into account what the horse does for a living. e.g., Fronts are not shod like hinds; hunters are not shod like jumpers; pacers are not shod like trotters; cutters are not shod like reiners, ad nauseam. The CF and CJF practicals are simply tests of one's ability to shoe to a well defined standard, they do not attempt to address the needs of the horse, neither do they pretend to do so.

Therefore , the test should be to show that you are able to shoe to the bone, determine where you are going to place the breakover point *relative to the bone*, and create a slight heel first landing when you are done.

Nonsense. There is no credible scientific evidence that suggests shoeing both ends of every horse in such a manner increases the horse's biomechanical efficiency; in fact, it can be argued that shoeing the hinds of a horse in the manner you describe actually decreases biomechanical efficiency. Dead Greeks rule.

How to grade this??? With Xrays taken AFTER the shoeing. Yep. If everything else passes, like the foot prep, flat shoe fit, sole relief, nailing ,clinching , finish, etc, but the farrier missed the predicted mark on B/O by say 1/4" or 3/8", they should fail. Hard test for sure, but to the betterment of horses.

Disabuse yourself of the notion that non-pathological, non-therapéutic shoeing is about "bettering the horse". Real world, pragmatic trimming/shoeing is about meeting the needs of the horse by first recognizing, then doing, whatever it takes to enable the horse to do whatever it does as best it can. Argumentum ad absurdum: If "bettering the horse" were the object of the exercise, then the horse could not be used by mankind in any way, mankind's interaction with horses would be limited solely to the provision of husbandry.

Everybody takes a shot at the CF and CJF practicals from time to time and anybody has the right to criticize the test if it pleases them to do so. On the other hand, one's credibility takes a major hit when that criticism is apparently based on specious reasoning and sour grapés - but it's a free county. Nobody is forced to stand for the AFA's CF or CJF practicals, but for more than 20 years they have been the most credible tests of a farrier's motor skills in the United States for the very reason you attempt to denigrate them: they test one's ability to forge and shoe to an arbitrary standard.

[Phil Armitage]

Patty........Thank you for your reply. I think if NB protocall was used for the certified certification level, it would not change the pass or fail rate. The problem I think we both see is the standard or protocall cannot be achieved.

I have known Gene since 1990 and his NB principles have matured into a method that is not unlike any good horse shoeing system. Any good farrier respects the hoof capsule. Trimming to landmarks on the bottom of the foot has been used for at least a hundred years as well as impression material, frog support pads, impact pads, rolled toes, rocker toes, set back toes. In my opinion, good farriers all over the world have been using these principles for years that they have learned from "Dollar & Wheatly" and "Russell",and more recently Dave Duckett.

It would be interesting how much a farrier that uses Gene's protocall could learn if he/she took a written test and practical test administered by Gene.
I would think they would be suprised at their gaps of knowledge of the process. The same can be said about a conventional test of farrier skills and knowledge.

I don't think there is any point in you taking a test. I think you should develop your own test. You will find ,as I have, that with most of the problems seen in hoof care is not a problem of theory, but a lack of the basic skills and knowledge.

Thanks. I am always open to constructive criticism.

Steve

Steve no criticism from me, I agree with everything you said. I will add that I think this trade needs more educators, like Gene. To pass on what they know to guys like me craveing to learn. Gene is an excellent educator. He also taught me what it takes to be a good teacher. If I am still around god willing maybe my second carreer will be an educator. Makes a great way to keep earning a liveing as your back gets older. I would think there is enough buisness for many educators, considering how fast the equine marked it growing.

By the way, I found that Gene's NB principles do exactly what you said is lacking in the trade. It teaches Basic skills and knowledge. My shoeing instructor said the same thing and therefore that is what he focused on. He was a non AFA member and not certified and did not believe in wasting time playing in the forge, when you can buy everything you need right off the shelf.

The only reason I continue to learn how to use my forge and anvil is because I like it and I also find it is easier on my body.

[George Geist]

Baron,
Will do. My apologies.
George

[stephenson forge]

Hey Guys.............. Thank you for your welcome! I have been involved in the AFA certification process for 10 years now, as a examiner and committee member. It has been a continual frustration to me that myself and the minority of members have been out voted for years. Things like matching pairs of feet, trim tissue for cosmetic reasons etc. etc. Things will not change until we get some support from the general farrier population. AFA Certification Committee Chair Dick Becker is a good man, he could use some help!! He has some good ideas , but they have to pass the board.

Steve

[George Geist]

Steve,
Just the certification committee or the entire BOD?
George

[Phil Armitage]

Hey Guys.............. Thank you for your welcome! I have been involved in the AFA certification process for 10 years now, as a examiner and committee member. It has been a continual frustration to me that myself and the minority of members have been out voted for years. Things like matching pairs of feet, trim tissue for cosmetic reasons etc. etc. Things will not change until we get some support from the general farrier population. AFA Certification Committee Chair Dick Becker is a good man, he could use some help!! He has some good ideas , but they have to pass the board.

Steve

Tell me what I need to do, I am a member and I plan on becomeing certified, but would like to see some changes and things added. I am not for makeing things easier, more difficult and more challengeing would be fine with me. Just want to see good ideas and concepts added. I also have no problem with keeping traditional skills as forgeing and handmakeing. If the standard required makeing the shoe to be a perfect piece of art work with out any hammer marks left in the shoe, I am all for learning and doing it.

[stephenson forge]

George.............Both. To answer Phils question.. Any Member can attend committee and board meetings.

Steve

[calshoer]

Much to Patty's disappointment we all know that no Natural BS format will never be incorporated into the test.
I do see you aplogized to Baron, I will also accept it.
Because you are not the only one who read N.B. into what I said, I will reiterate.
I said *nothing* about natural balance. Not one word. I was talking about farriers better understanding the insides of the foot and being able to better read it.

I referred to being able to indentify the true coffin bone location, and shoe around that ..... isn't that what most farriers strive for anyway ?

Tom, Too much non pathological, non the****utic shoeing completely misses the mark. The farrier could not recognize hoof capsule distortion. It has nothing to do with the horse job or whether it is fronts or hinds. That lack of the farriers ability to recognize detrimental changes in hoof form has to change. That is what I am talking about. What in heck is wrong with that?

To both Tom and George, I said the farrier could predetermine the breakover point relative to the bone. I never said WHAT measurement! And then he/she actually had to achieve it in his or her shoeing..what is wrong with that? For the test I don't give a flip if they want to set it at 1/4", 1/2" or 1" ahead of the bone , but the ybetter be able to know where it actualy IS. Most don't.
Patty

[beslagsmed]

Hey Guys.............. Thank you for your welcome! I have been involved in the AFA certification process for 10 years now, as a examiner and committee member. It has been a continual frustration to me that myself and the minority of members have been out voted for years. Things like matching pairs of feet, trim tissue for cosmetic reasons etc. etc. Things will not change until we get some support from the general farrier population. AFA Certification Committee Chair Dick Becker is a good man, he could use some help!! He has some good ideas , but they have to pass the board.

Steve

Steve,
The only think I can say, is get the standard by which a shoe board is judged the same. Why can a shoe fail with one examiner and the same shoe pass with another? Also like you I think a front & hind would be great.

Mikel

[Bill Adams]

Mikel,
There is a new study guide with much more detailed shoe requirements. Call the AFA office. I'm on my third go at the shoe board and I can see where I should have done different.
As a matter of fact I belive it was some *&%#!%! named Steve who failed my board, but he passed my practical and written so I guess he's ok anyhow. Hi Steve, welcome aboard.
I understood at the certifications (and contests) that it could be worked out befor hand with the judge or tester if the horse needed something a bit different, and if all else fails you can reshoe it after with a pair of backward Cytecks if you want to.
My $0.02,
Bill

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

calshoer in gray, deletia

Tom, Too much non pathological, non the****utic shoeing completely misses the mark.

You know this because?

The farrier could not recognize hoof capsule distortion.

Who are you to say what constitutes "distortion"? In the real world, all feet look good in a win picture, sound is as sound does, and a zero on the AAEP scale is a Good Thing.

It has nothing to do with the horse job or whether it is fronts or hinds. That lack of the farriers ability to recognize detrimental changes in hoof form has to change.

By definition, "detrimental changes" imply a pathological condition; however, changes, per se, can be resultant of DNA mandate, environmental adaptations, or artificially induced according to use and are not necessarily pathological. Furthermore, biomechanical efficiency is intrinsically related to primary function and the primary function of fronts and hinds is quite different and also varies considerably with use.

That is what I am talking about. What in heck is wrong with that?

What's "wrong with that" is your attempt to define an ideal model without regard for DNA, environment, or use; followed by your claim that any horse that does not conform to your personal model has undergone "detrimental changes." In reality, all horses' feet will not fit in the same box because each has different needs; feet on different ends of the horse won't fit in the same box because they have different functions.

One may or may not choose to test one's ability to meet the AFA's standards of farriery, but attempting to denigrate those standards on the basis of specious reasoning is unseemly and reeks of sour grapés.

[Red Amor]

My bloody oath youve sure got a way with words Tom;)

[Dianne Lemmon]

Stephen,

When will the CF shoe boards be judged more to a CF standard? It seems the judging of the CF shoe boards are so strict they are judged more to a CJF standard. I have seen whole shoe boards thrown for one poor modification. Wouldn't it be better to have a grade for each shoe tallied for a passing total much like the way the live shoeing is judged?
Perhaps I am missing the point of judging it this way.

Dianne

[George Geist]

Dianne,
The shoe board used to be arguably the part of the test with the fewest complaints. When Dennis Manning stepped down as chairman of the certification committee it was then co-chaired bt 2 guys. I cannot remember who they were maybe some of the other guys do.

At a meeting of my state farriers association, one of our guys who happened to be a tester had just returned from a meeting of examiners and testers. He told us all that the plans were to get real anal about the shoe board.

From things I have heard since on this forum and elsewhere, it appears that it has come to pass. This can be accurately assessed as the only thing those 2 guys will be remembered for.
George

[Mike Ferrara]

My bloody oath youve sure got a way with words Tom;)

Don't he though?

[calshoer]

Tom, Too much non pathological, non the****utic shoeing completely misses the mark.
You know this because?
Because I get to fix lots of them. Both over the years in my private farrier practice, and during the time I spent at the university ,on those cases. (for those who may doubt that I really DO have lots of experience shoeing lame horses for a living) And the farriers in most of the cases I have been called to work on were attempting to do good ordinary non the****utic shoeing.He/she didn't SEE the problems in the foot until it became clinical. .

Who are you to say what constitutes "distortion"? In the real world, all feet look good in a win picture, sound is as sound does, and a zero on the AAEP scale is a Good Thing.
And a lot of winners are clinically LAME,Tom. AAEP consoders a toe first landing as lame. Not a zero. The winners are sometimes not as quite as lame as the rest of the class. I want to puke when I see some show classes.
Those I get called in for are certainly not zero because they are vet referrals.

I probably see the same changes in hoof capsules as hoof distortion as you do , given that your prescribed shoeing shown here in the past looks somewhat like natural balance anyway. We are probably ona lot closer track that you want to admit.
But you are so into just starting a fight that it wouldnt matter if I tried to discuss the details of what I consider hoof distortion anyway. So I won't.

I am not going to get in the rest of this with you because we have been over and over this before. You are free to belive and do whatever lights your lamp. And I'll do mine. And I bet when you take of the gloves look closer, there are actually many similarities.
Patty

[T.N. Trosin]

Stephen,

When will the CF shoe boards be judged more to a CF standard? It seems the judging of the CF shoe boards are so strict they are judged more to a CJF standard. I have seen whole shoe boards thrown for one poor modification. Wouldn't it be better to have a grade for each shoe tallied for a passing total much like the way the live shoeing is judged?
Perhaps I am missing the point of judging it this way.

Dianne
I've wondered that myself Dianne. With all of the stuff that has gotten easier the shoe board seems to have gotten tougher to pass. There seems to be more of an emphasis on the shapes of the shoes than the modifications.

[T.N. Trosin]

Dianne,
The shoe board used to be arguably the part of the test with the fewest complaints. When Dennis Manning stepped down as chairman of the certification committee it was then co-chaired bt 2 guys. I cannot remember who they were maybe some of the other guys do.

At a meeting of my state farriers association, one of our guys who happened to be a tester had just returned from a meeting of examiners and testers. He told us all that the plans were to get real anal about the shoe board.

From things I have heard since on this forum and elsewhere, it appears that it has come to pass. This can be accurately assessed as the only thing those 2 guys will be remembered for.
George

(My appologies if I am wrong Steve) but I think it was Steve Stephenson and John Vogit who were named to replace Dennis Manning.

[Tom Stovall, CJF]

calshoer in gray, deletia

Because I get to fix lots of them [non-pathological, distorted hoof capsules?]. Both over the years in my private farrier practice, and during the time I spent at the university ,on those cases. (for those who may doubt that I really DO have lots of experience shoeing lame horses for a living) And the farriers in most of the cases I have been called to work on were attempting to do good ordinary non the****utic shoeing.He/she didn't SEE the problems in the foot until it became clinical.

By your own admission, you weren't dealing with non-pathological shoeing, you were dealing with horses that were clinically lame. At issue is your claim of hoof capsule distortion in asymptomatic horses.

Re: In the real world, all feet look good in a win picture, sound is as sound does, and a zero on the AAEP scale is a Good Thing.

And a lot of winners are clinically LAME, Tom.

Do tell? If so, might one assume all track veterinarians and all show vets are incompetent and incapable distinguishing a lame horse from one that's sound for purpose?

AAEP consoders a toe first landing as lame. Not a zero.

You digress needlessly: An AAEP zero presumes normal landing.

The winners are sometimes not as quite as lame as the rest of the class. I want to puke when I see some show classes.

So? Again you digress needlessly. At issue is your contention of the commonality of hoof capsule distortion in non-pathological presentation, not the clinically lame.

I probably see the same changes in hoof capsules as hoof distortion as you do , given that your prescribed shoeing shown here in the past looks somewhat like natural balance anyway. We are probably ona lot closer track that you want to admit.

No ma'am, we're poles apart. When I'm responsible for a shoeing regimen, it's invariably based on the conformation and use of the individual (i.e., My perception of the horse's needs: Feet considered in pairs; front and hind feet considered according to function.), not any guru's idea of the way things oughta be, or in accord with the junkscience that pervades the industry. I see each horse is an individual and Archimedes still calls the shots.

But you are so into just starting a fight that it wouldnt matter if I tried to discuss the details of what I consider hoof distortion anyway. So I won't.

You can quit the discussion whenever it pleases you to do so. I'll do the same. :)

[stephenson forge]

Thank you for your questions about Certification Standards, I will try to answer them as best I can. There is a new book on the standards now available from the office if interested. It has drawings in it of shoe fit, shoe display mods etc. I orginally drew these for the Ed committee work book.
They should make things a little clearer, I hope! The committee is trying to get approved a system to stamp shoes of your shoe display that have passed, this means you just remake the ones that need work. It also lets the next examiner see how the ones that passed were scored. This should point out some discrepancies if there are any. As the shoe fit is the most improtant part of the shoe display It should be tough.

George...... I was one of the co-chairs for a while. The statment about what we got done while committee chairs hurts! I think if you will review the minutes of these meetings you will find I proposed several things that got voted down. The short list was as follows; shoe a front and hind instead of pairs, trim standard, more practical modifications for the shoe display,send info to the office via e-mail, etc. The other item that was suggested was if the process to make the modification on the shoe for the display would not be the same used in the field, it was not realistic to ask for it on the test.
You should understand that three or four of us get out voted on most of these issues. There are ten committee members, see the problem? Steve

[fairweatherforge]

Dianne, the CF and CJF are of the same standard. Contrary to popular belief, the CF is not a lesser standard than the CJF. And the TE endorsement is also of the same standard.

[Jason Maki]

Steve,
When you say "not as would be done in everyday work" do you mean odd combinations of mods; or that the high quality of the shoe display is unrealistic in everday work?
Jason

[stephenson forge]

Jason......... The thing that brought this up was that some clinicians were straightening the branch of a keg shoe then hockey-sticking the toe to make a shoe like a French hind. We proposed this was beyond what we were asking for on the test.
Thanks

Steve

[Jason Maki]

I agree, that would be excessive.
BTW. I am glad you are here putting in the time to pass on info and see how the process is perceived by the "general public".
Jason

[George Geist]

Steve,
Just passing along what I hear from people who were there. For obvious reasons there are limits on who I will name on the internet but if you would like to discuss these things privately I'm open for that too.

Perhaps it was inappropriate to say what I did but I cant help but notice that people are having a lot more trouble with the shoe board now than in the past and it can be argued that that is perhaps the most subjective part of the test.
George

[Dianne Lemmon]

Dianne, the CF and CJF are of the same standard. Contrary to popular belief, the CF is not a lesser standard than the CJF. And the TE endorsement is also of the same standard.


Perhaps judging standard is an incorrect term, insert scoring. It just seems like there is one overall score to a shoe board and not scores based on individual criteria/requirements of each shoe, then tallied. Perhaps this has changed in a last few years.

I know several people here have questioned the scoring method of the shoe boards.

Also, If all 4 levels of certification are judged on the same "standard" then why have all these different classifications? Are not the levels based on experience.

Dianne Lemmon CF+2/3

[Phantom Farrier]

Folks,

The "Standard" for the "Shoe Board" is in black and white, etched in stone and drawings are provided. There are no varialbles as in the shoeing portion, therefore the examinee is expected to produce shoes which accurately fit the description. It is a narrow window between pass or fail and the modification itself isn't always the problem.

As a long time tester, most often the shoes fail for one of two reasons - level and fit.

John :)

[fairweatherforge]

I think the last thing you want on the shoe display is more scoring criteria. I'm not a big fan of the points system. Take the practical for instance. You see a nice everyday job coming along, now throw in the points system. That flat foot that would have past with no 10 point system. Now oops, that flat foot isn't so flat anymore. Little dip in the toe, what's that maybe an 8? Lateral heels rolled slightly, 7? Oh no the medial heels rolled slightly 6? And since the testee wants to see the scores, technically the tester can't let him proceed and see if he fixes it when he burns the shoe on.

The shoe display isn't as tough as everyone makes it out to be. You have all the time in the world to make it. If you finish your shoe display and look at it hard and grade it. If you think , its a nice job it will probably pass, its gonna fail. When you get done and say, I could do this a little better, that a little better, and throw that nice display away and make a new one. Then you know your on your way to passing.

And the standard stays the same with each classification because each test just keeps getting more indepth.

[Rick Burten]

Folks,

The "Standard" for the "Shoe Board" is in black and white, etched in stone and drawings are provided. There are no varialbles as in the shoeing portion, therefore the examinee is expected to produce shoes which accurately fit the description. It is a narrow window between pass or fail and the modification itself isn't always the problem.

As a long time tester, most often the shoes fail for one of two reasons - level and fit.

John :)

John,

At last we find common ground for agreement :D

That said, I too have often felt that once a shoe passes, it should not have to be re-done if other shoes don't pass. Even with that, since the candidate has all the time he/she needs to build that shoe display, the scoring/evaluation is going to be strict. It used to be that the shoes had to fit a pattern of the candidate's choice. Even then, most candidates failed because they couldn't produce front shoes that fit the same pattern and hind shoes that fit the same pattern. In an effort to alleviate the problem, the AFA created front and hind patterns (available for purchase for a reasonable sum) that a candidate can use as the template to which the shoes must fit. Even with that, candidates continue to fail because they don't fit the shoes correctly.

Additionally, the requirements for the square toed shoe(one of the shoes the candidates seemed to have the most trouble forging correctly), were modified so that sharp corners did not have to be created. Instead, the standard now says "the leading edge is straight and the lateral edges(or corners) are not excessively rounded. And, there is a schematic drawing of what is being asked for. And, that is true for every single shoe modification.

Interestingly enough, one component of the Shoe dDisplay Guidelines states:
"Candidates shoes will be marked Pass/Fail or become property of the AFA."

I take this to mean that either the AFA will take possession of the candidate's shoes so that they cannot be re-submitted elsewhere, or that each shoe of the display will be marked Pass/Fail in which case, those shoes that pass can be re-submitted and should not be re-judged. I don't have the answer to this. Perhaps Steve or John will. (note: I don't have the answer because this year I decided to relinquish my position as an Approved Tester. I did this because for the last two years I have not worked at any certifications. There are, I suppose several reasons for this, but I felt that perhaps by opening up a slot, a new tester might be used to more advantage. Personally, I think we have too many testers and that they are under utilized and therefore their work as testers is somewhat proscribed, to the detriment of the candidates.)

[Donald Ruff]

Rick,

You stated the AFA has templates for front and hind patterns that are to be used to fit your shoe to when forging out your shoes for the shoe board portion of the examination process. Since I am making a shoe board every week in preperation for this portion of the examination I guess I am out in the dark since I do not have these templates.

How does this process work with the templates? They are chosen upon what basis? I assumend that every shoe on the board was to be forged for the same foot, am I misunderstanding the rules?

Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Don Ruff

[Dave Purves]

Folks,

The "Standard" for the "Shoe Board" is in black and white, etched in stone and drawings are provided. There are no varialbles as in the shoeing portion, therefore the examinee is expected to produce shoes which accurately fit the description. It is a narrow window between pass or fail and the modification itself isn't always the problem.

As a long time tester, most often the shoes fail for one of two reasons - level and fit.

John :)

Sometimes it depends on "who" is reading the standards. I had shoes MADE by one examiner, FAILED by another. The standard is the same, but those who judge the shoes must judge by the standards set forth.

Dave

[cowboy_bc]

Hi all,

Sometimes it depends on "who" is reading the standards. I had shoes MADE by one examiner, FAILED by another. The standard is the same, but those who judge the shoes must judge by the standards set forth.

Dave

You know if an examiner fails a shoe (I think) they should be prepared to demonstrate the ability it took to get their certification and make that shoe right there and then.

Kevin

[T.N. Trosin]

The committee is trying to get approved a system to stamp shoes of your shoe display that have passed, this means you just remake the ones that need work. Steve

Steve:
You are saying that the shoes will be stamped, did you mean with a hot stamp of some sort?

[Dave Purves]

Hi all,



You know if an examiner fails a shoe (I think) they should be prepared to demonstrate the ability it took to get their certification and make that shoe right there and then.

Kevin

That's pretty much what happened to me. He passed the shoes, and had me make a rocker toe. When I returned he decided he didn't like my square toe and trailer (same shoe) so he sent me out to make one of those also, and followed me, he made one, I made one, then he told me to make one for the other foot so I could take them home and nail them on. I did, he congratulated me, and then procedeed to break my barshoe welds. So at the next certification I went to, I took his square toe and trailer. That was the shoe that failed. "It wasn't a square toe, it was a blunt toe" to quote the examiner that failed it.

Dave

[stephenson forge]

Thanks for the questions guys.......I don't think Rick meant you have to use the AFA patterns for the shoe display. The Study Guide (revised July 2005) states and I quote "While no specific pattern is designated or specified, candidates should work from a pattern plate/hoof. Candidates may use a pattern plate of their own design or purchase a set of pattern plates through the AFA Office".

The proposed process for stamping the shoes is as follows: The examiner will judge the shoes and stamp the modifications that have passed. You will only have to remake the modifications that need more work. At the next certification, the examiner there will look at both the shoes that passed and the ones that did not. This should help the standardization of scoring because the next guy will see what you passed or failed. If your working to take any level of certification I strongly suggest you get a copy of the new study guide, things have changed,and it's clearer what is expected. Call the office!!

Steve

[Rick Burten]

..I don't think Rick meant you have to use the AFA patterns for the shoe display. The Study Guide (revised July 2005) states and I quote "While no specific pattern is designated or specified, candidates should work from a pattern plate/hoof. Candidates may use a pattern plate of their own design or purchase a set of pattern plates through the AFA Office".

Thanks Steve, your clarification is exactly what I meant. The reason the AFA has templates avaliable is because so many candidates do not seem to be able to make their shoes to a pattern plate of their own design. Personally, it seems to me that we have yet again, '****ed down' the requirements by making available, pre shaped hoof templates for those who cannot interpret/understand instructions on their own.

[Gary_Miller]

Additionally, the requirements for the square toed shoe(one of the shoes the candidates seemed to have the most trouble forging correctly), were modified so that sharp corners did not have to be created. Instead, the standard now says "the leading edge is straight and the lateral edges(or corners) are not excessively rounded. And, there is a schematic drawing of what is being asked for. And, that is true for every single shoe modification.
The biggest problem I see with the shoe board is the human factor. There is two much subjectivity that is based on the testers prefrence on what he thinks/wants in the shoe.

A perfict example is the wording in the square two directions. Define "not excessively rounded". What does that mean? Is a 1/2" radius excessive or is 1/32" inch radius excessive?

Now if the standard was the lateral edges should be no more than 1/8" in radius then there is no room for subjectivity. Because it is defined.

There are many other examples:

Proper nail placement and fit? Where is that standard. What I think is proper may not be to you.

Smooth finish? How smooth? Rough side of the rasp smooth? Fine cut side of the rasp smooth? Fine finishing file smooth? Or 100 grit sandpaper smooth?

No sharp edges? Is a razor blade sharpness too sharp? If so is a squared edge too sharp? Is a 1/16" radius too sharp?

I know some of what I have written is rediculus but it gets the point across.

Some how the subjectiveness of the human factor need to be removed as much as possable. Its not all there yet.

Gary

[George Geist]

Steve,
None of us were aware that there was any problem with the old shoe board rules or judging. If it is true that they decided to make changes to this as I have heard could you tell us why?

If it is not true then I will stand corrected
George

[Phantom Farrier]

Dave,

Originally Posted by Dave Purves
Sometimes it depends on "who" is reading the standards. I had shoes MADE by one examiner, FAILED by another. The standard is the same, but those who judge the shoes must judge by the standards set forth.

Dave

Just because a set of shoes is made by an examiner is no guarantee that I or any other tester or examiner will pass them - they must be made with the appropriate elements included and fit the designated pattern. Have you tried them? It's not all that difficult - no time limit - follow the instructions - make good quality everyday shoes, fit with everyday modifications and fit them to the patterns using the fitting standard as directed in the "Standards Booklet" and you will be on your way.

The "shoe Board is part of the Certified Exam and must be taken seriously by the candidate. As much preparation will go into your modifications as your written or practical portions.

Certification is a worthy goal for those wishing to acheive excellence. There is no better compliment paid to a farrier than to be validated by ones peers.

Good Luck.

John :)

[Gary_Miller]

The reason the AFA has templates avaliable is because so many candidates do not seem to be able to make their shoes to a pattern plate of their own design. Personally, it seems to me that we have yet again, '****ed down' the requirements by making available, pre shaped hoof templates for those who cannot interpret/understand instructions on their own.
Now this part of the test is the easy part. Shape a shoe to look like a front shoe, and one to look like a hind shoe and make all you other shoes match these.

Or you could just use a good shaped shoe you pulled off and make your shoes to match.

Now that I think I can handle.

Gary

[stephenson forge]

Steve,
None of us were aware that there was any problem with the old shoe board rules or judging. If it is true that they decided to make changes to this as I have heard could you tell us why?

If it is not true then I will stand corrected
George

George........ The problem with the old study guide was a lot of candidates could not decipher the written descriptions, in my humble opinion with good cause. Now we have drawings!! John and Rick have accurately answered the other questions.
Thanks
Steve

[fairweatherforge]

I think the biggest problem people have with certifications is preparation. Very few people show up on certification day prepared. And your not gonna be able to get prepared by yourself. If you've never seen a good passing shoe display, then what do you have to judge your own work off of. You really need to find someone qualified to show you the way. Talk to your state association, see if they'll pay to bring in an examiner. Or call you region supervisor and talk to him. Its amazing how many people are willing to offer there time and knowledge to you. Once you know what it is your trying to achieve is makes everything a lot easier. And strive for excellence. Your shoe display should look like a piece of freakin jewelry when your done. Anything less is taking a chance for failure. And when your ready, they can have any scoring they want, because your ready.

[Rick Burten]

Just because a set of shoes is made by an examiner is no guarantee that I or any other tester or examiner will pass them -

John, I gotta tell you that that statement bothers me. If I am officiating at a certification and I make a shoe modification as an example of what is expected of the candidate, and I make that modification(s) to fit the template provided by the candidate, then that shoe should pass muster anywhere in the country. Isn't that what all these Examiner/Tester upgrades are all about? If any Tester or Examiner makes a shoe that won't pass EVERY other tester's/examiner's evaluation, then the system is broken and needs immediate repair.

If the Examiners and Testers don't work to standard, then how can they expect anyone else to do so?

[Phantom Farrier]

John, I gotta tell you that that statement bothers me. If I am officiating at a certification and I make a shoe modification as an example of what is expected of the candidate, and I make that modification(s) to fit the template provided by the candidate, then that shoe should pass muster anywhere in the country. Isn't that what all these Examiner/Tester upgrades are all about? If any Tester or Examiner makes a shoe that won't pass EVERY other tester's/examiner's evaluation, then the system is broken and needs immediate repair.

If the Examiners and Testers don't work to standard, then how can they expect anyone else to do so?

Rick, if you make your "quality" shoe, and knowing you, no doubt it would be, with the proper modifications and fit to the provided template, you are absolutely correct, it would and should pass muster.

There are examiners and testers out there who would not be able to pass the Certification levels. Examiners and testers are not required to take bienniel reviews or re-testing on an annual basis - once a tester or examiner you never have to be tested again - never, unless of course you are talking about the tester upgrade - still no re-testing - sorry Rick.

John :)

[Ben-Sturman]

I am not really comfortable knowing that the testers don't have to be able to do the work at the level they are suppose to be judging and grading. If a tester can't do the shoe mod to the test level then they sure as hell shouldn't be doing the testing. JMO. That's like saying when I taught school that it would be OK for me as a teacher to gives tests to the students that I could not pass. Just having the title doesn't mean having the right to pass judgement unless you can do the work at the same level. Just because they did the work to that level at one time doesn't give them the right for life does it? If were so serious about CE, then shouldn't these testers also have to keep up there skill level to a point as to be able to pass the test they are administering and grading? To tell you the truth, this makes me wonder if taking the test is really worth it now since the testers may not know as much or have as much skill as I am suppose to show. This is how it appears from your statement John, and that's not a very comforting situation to go into. As someone who has had to make and give and grade and explain tests for a living, I don't see this as a good situation, or even fair. If after a person passes certification and they have to do CE to keep that level, then why do testers not also have to do so as testers? You said no retesting for the testers, but what about if the test changes as many would like to see some changes made, what if the changes become an evolving thing as some would like to see? Should not the testers have to keep up with the changes brought about? Have there not been changes made ever to this test? If the testers are not expected to keep up to the level we are suppose to achieve, then why should we try?

In that situation where the tester made the shoe to show the person what to do in his eyes as being correct and acceptable, then that shoe should pass at any testing anywhere, or that tester did not give the person the correct intstructions or example of the proper work acceptable, and therefore failed as a tester. He did not do the work correctly, therefore cannot judge the work correctly. These are just my opinions, but that's the way I see it.

Ben

[Dave Purves]

Dave,

Originally Posted by Dave Purves


Just because a set of shoes is made by an examiner is no guarantee that I or any other tester or examiner will pass them - they must be made with the appropriate elements included and fit the designated pattern. Have you tried them? It's not all that difficult - no time limit - follow the instructions - make good quality everyday shoes, fit with everyday modifications and fit them to the patterns using the fitting standard as directed in the "Standards Booklet" and you will be on your way.

The "shoe Board is part of the Certified Exam and must be taken seriously by the candidate. As much preparation will go into your modifications as your written or practical portions.

Certification is a worthy goal for those wishing to acheive excellence. There is no better compliment paid to a farrier than to be validated by ones peers.

Good Luck.

John :)


Thanks for your input John, but I see that as the problem. My sob story is too long and has been talked about before on these forums. That was just one example. However, if the examiner takes it upon himself to show you what is expected, and fit that shoe to your pattern, and you take it home and clean it up a little without forging (grinding and safing). And you take it to the next test site and it fails, what does that say about the continuity of the standard. I only know of two testers that grade "by the book". And that is to say that if there is no sole pressure, you score a "10". It's my opinion, that many examiners are in it almost for the "glory" of saying they are an examiner, and many times that goes to thier head. Only two of the seven test sites that I went to, did I see the standards booklet in the examiners hand before, during and after the grading. The canidates working toward certification do so, believing that the standard will be graded according to the book, but when one shoe is passed by one examiner, and failed by the next, that should tell you that the standard is either not understood by both, or not being followed by one or both. I don't know the answer. I know that most of the candidates that fail do so on thier own merit and is due to the fact they did not study, they did not practice and they were not prepared. However, some of the horror stories are very real. I didn't believe them until I encountered my own horror story. I'm in favor of certification, but some serious changes must be made.

Dave Purves CF

[Mike Ferrara]

I'm going to stick my 2 cents in. Before I do, I have to mention that I've never been to an AFA certification event in my life and have zero experience in it.

What I do have experience in is specification, testing and quality control of manufactured products. there's no reason that judging a shoe should be any different than inspecting any other product.

I read in this thread that there are now better drawings. That's good. If the AFA has their own patterns they could even make the use of those patterns manditory and then they can put dimensions on those drawings. Put tolorances on those dimensions. Don't use sketches...make real drawings. Make a phone call, fork over a few bucks and have a CAD guy make real mechanical drawing of the shoes you want. Finish can even be specified on the drawing. While visual inspections are common for things like finish a lot of subjectivity can be removed by having a good spec that is understoof by those doing the inspecting.

Checking the dimensions can be made easier for examiners by having a well defined procedure...specify exactly where measurements will be made, how and with what. It's a simple matter (well not always simple but it's done every day) to even make gauges and fixtures that make the process just about fool proof.

This sounds like something the AFA needs to get squared away and the easiest way would be to inlist the help of some one who knows how to specify and test/measure to a specification...but it starts with a real drawing! This might be new stuff to the AFA but it everyday old hat stuff to the whole manufacturing world. Don't reinvent the weel.

Evaluating the shoe board would be every bit as easy as grading the written test if they weren't trying to reinvent the weel...a shoe is just a thing so measure and inspect it like a thing. Grading foot work is a little tougher since not all feet are the same but a shoe is just a thing.

[Phil Armitage]

It sounds like the definitions for makeing a shoe board is more designed for gradeing and evaluation purposes. Even if you follow a pattern how do you eliminate personal opinions on shoe placement "not fit". The pattern should also include landmarks on the foot, widest part of the foot, apex of the frog, junction of the bars, white line, toe corners and heel buttress. I believe the current pattern includes all of this, I recall seeing one at a pre-cert. clinic and if that pattern was parimeter fit, it would be totally out of balance, more like 60% of the foot ahead of the center of the foot. Now if I took the same pattern and was able to set the shoe back with correct heel fit, and make all the modification for that pattern then there would be a problem.

I continue to hear the standard is primarily designed to test the ability of a farrier to perform basic shoe shapes and modifications, how does this test the farriers ability to properly place the shoe on the foot. Placement is as important as shapeing.

[fairweatherforge]

Ben- You can be pretty sure that if you show up to a certification, that there's somebody on site that could very easily pass. Have you ever looked at the credential of most of the examiners. I'd say 90% of examiners are lowering there standards to meet the certification standards set by the afa.

[Mike Ferrara]

It sounds like the definitions for makeing a shoe board is more designed for gradeing and evaluation purposes. Even if you follow a pattern how do you eliminate personal opinions on shoe placement "not fit". The pattern should also include landmarks on the foot, widest part of the foot, apex of the frog, junction of the bars, white line, toe corners and heel buttress. I believe the current pattern includes all of this, I recall seeing one at a pre-cert. clinic and if that pattern was parimeter fit, it would be totally out of balance, more like 60% of the foot ahead of the center of the foot. Now if I took the same pattern and was able to set the shoe back with correct heel fit, and make all the modification for that pattern then there would be a problem.

I continue to hear the standard is primarily designed to test the ability of a farrier to perform basic shoe shapes and modifications, how does this test the farriers ability to properly place the shoe on the foot. Placement is as important as shapeing.

How can they grade something like shoe placement if it's subjective and not every one is in agreement. Those ratios you mention are a model and one that not every one is buying into. Just define where it goes for the test and see if the guy can put it there. The pattern doesn't have to represent a foot that you are making decisions about. The pattern cna be the target shoe location. In other words it's not a foot at all but an arbitrary pattern. A drawing with numbers and a solid way to measure those numbers solves all the problems of testing though it does not result in a perfect test that insures that the testee knows what to do with every horse. I don't believe that the test designers KNOW where exactly where to put the shoe in every case so how can they test your ability to do so? If you disagreed with them you'd have to fail right out of the gate. As I understand it, the shoe board is strictly a test of forge skill and not the a test of ones ability to use forge skill for the biomechanical good of a specific horse.

[fairweatherforge]

since when is shoe placement for the test subjective? Why, if there is 60% more foot in front of the widest part of the foot, can't you fit the heels correctly? How closely do you want the testers to look at these shoes? Do you really want them to be that strict on nail fit and placement on a keg shoe display? The shoe display isn't just about modifications. Symmetry is important. If you think about it, its all fairly simple. Is you shoe fairly symmetrical, are the bends in about the right place, are you using a nail that fits reasonably in the shoe, is it safed and boxed (so as not to hurt the horse or injure him), is it level (not flat, level. inside web shouldn't be hire than the outside web), and can you repeat this process over and over? All of this is very basic everyday work. I think everbody would agree on that. You don't hear saddlebred shoers saying they shoe long footed horses so can you change the rules for me. So just because you may set the shoes back everyday, doesn't mean the rules should change for you either.

[calshoer]

Eric, the rules need to change somehow so farriers are not forced to fit the perimeter of a dressed foot that still has unbalanced sole ratios....if a foot is 60% in front of the widest part, it IS unhealthy and I guarantee the shoe is is not balanced around the coffin bone.
I have yet to see one with those ratios that was centered around the bone when Xrayed.
That is why I suggested the XRay test. Most farriers can not really "see "where the bone is by reading the foot.
If farriers don't practice seeing and correcting a subtly distorted toe, and apply it in their everyday practice, it is harming horses.
It is adding leverage to the end of those toes and CAUSING STRESS to structures inside the foot.

Farriers who practice for that nice perfect perimeter fit shoe to pass the certification wil lfind it very hard to be able to visualize the REAL parameters ofthe cofin bone where it is located INSIDE.Perimeter fitting all the time tends to train your eye all wrong.

Isn't part of everyone's goal ,no matter what protocol they use, to be shoeing accurately around the coffin bone, or centering the shoe around the center of articulation of ther DIP? A shoe with a longer portion in front of the widest part than behind is NOT going to be centered around the bone. It's going to be ahead of the center. Pretty much Guaranteed.
Patty

[fairweatherforge]

If anyone is interested, the Garden State Farriers Association is planning a certification this spring. Please give me any imput that you have to make this an enjoyable certification for everybody. I'm thinking we should have a clinic about a month or so before the test. I'm sure if you want we can find horses for you to practice on. If you live too far away to come to the clinic, maybe we can contact some other state associations to see if they can get a clinic going about the same time.

[George Geist]

Steve,
While I agree wholeheartedly with those who dont want any of this testing ****ed down because that would tend to cheapen what those who came before had accomplished. I also feel that to make these things more difficult than they were before tends to do the same thing.

For example, it used to be acceptable to submit a shoe with a wedge pad as a shoe designed to raise angle. This is no longer acceptable. Although that might be an example of something many people might have seen as too easy, just the same it was accepted for hundreds of test canditates before for 20+ years and is not anymore.

The shoe board has now become a problem as evidenced by all the posts we're seeing on here. This leads me to conclude that this was done deliberately to raise the failure rate. Or it unintentionally had that end result.

Either way, its an unacceptable situation and should be reversed.
George

[Redd Mcintyre]

I have seen precertification clinics listed in some areas. Are they worth the time to attend and are they set up the same?
Redd

[William Johnson]

George,

This is your Lucky Day !! (Again)

According to the Certification Study Guide (Revised July 2005 Edition) in Chapter 3 Section 7 Titled "Shoe to raise Hoof Angle" the 3rd Bullet Point says...

A properly applied wedge pad is an acceptable form of modification.

William Johnson, CF

[George Geist]

William,
That is excellent news. Why have certain testers and examiners not been accepting it then? Or has this recently been changed back? Or is it like some others on here have been saying that many of these guys dont know the rules that their supposed to go by?
George

[fairweatherforge]

I have seen precertification clinics listed in some areas. Are they worth the time to attend and are they set up the same?
Redd

I've seen a couple precertification clinics, only problem they were the day before the test. I was thinking more along the lines of a hands on weekend clinic (2 days). If you practice a few times a week for two to three weeks before the clinic. Then spent 2 days hands on at the clinic. Then kept practicing the month leading up to the test. I'd have to say the end result would definately be worth your time.

[William Johnson]

George,

In the past I have also "heard" that certain examiners would not accept a wedge pad, just as you have indicated. It was, however, listed as acceptable in the previous study guide as well as the Current one. I never personally talked with anyone who actually failed for this reason.

The way I understood the rumor was that a particular examiner had a problem with this and would not accept this. I am aware that the Cert. committee has been working hard to control issues like these and educate the examiners on properly interpreting the standards.

William Johnson

[George Geist]

Ok William,
Here is one that is not rumor but happened to a good friend of mine. A guy whose word I absolutely trust. This guy was stopped because the tester didnt like the way he was shaping a shoe on his anvil. Is there anything being done to prevent any future occurences of that type of BS?
George

[Rick Burten]

Why have certain testers and examiners not been accepting it then?

If the only reason a shoe display failed was because a tester or examiner did not accept a shoe and wedge pad(properly applied), then the candidate would absolutely have the right to appeal and complain. Further, IMNTBCHO, any tester or examiner who was found to be guilty of a violation of the Standards for Evaluating Farrier Certifications, should have his/her position as a tester or examiner terminated immediately and should never be allowed to hold such a position again. Whats the point of Examiner and Tester upgrades if the standards are not only enforced, but followed?

This is precisely the kind of cr*p that was supposed to have ended long ago. I can honestly say that during my tenure as a tester, I never saw any of this going on at certifications where I was one of the officials.

[calshoer]

George,

In the past I have also "heard" that certain examiners would not accept a wedge pad, just as you have indicated. It was, however, listed as acceptable in the previous study guide as well as the Current one. I never personally talked with anyone who actually failed for this reason.I thought they had standardized that element of the shoe display by now.When I took my test back in 1997 at Placerville,Ca, a lot of people showed up with the wedge pad as the shoe to raise hoof angle. On the spot they said they were not accepting them for that element. So I went out to the truck and knocked out a swedge heel shoe, (which passed), but then he failed me on my uneven, somewhat crude clips, as well as the fact I didn't rocker my rocker toe back as far as he wanted (I went half the web,he said he wanted the whole web).So THEN I went out to the truck, and re rockered the toe to where he wanted it and he said it wasn't aceptable because *even though the shoe stil fit the pattern*, the rocker toe had a little LINE across the web in the FOOT surface, where the original rocker had been..like the horse gives a ****. This detail for certified, not journeyman shoes. ....give me a break. That is one reason I never went back again to re do the shoe board. it was chickens..t stuff like that . All I would have had to do to pass, was to re-do two litle elements on the board within two years, but I was P.O'd. Besides I had a freshly broken foot that day and still was the only one to pass my practical... :p

Patty

[George Geist]

Patty,
Funny you should mention that line on the bearing surface of a rocker toe. I remember seeing 2 examiners argue about that at a pre-cert clinic they were hosting.

It helps to know who youre going to be tested by and what they want because I guarantee with the wrong guy on the wrong day you will not pass that test and I dont care who you are.
George