Here is one today of a horse that needed an over sized shoe and some lateral support. I "REALLY" thought the horse needed some support:







A half-assed attempt with a pair of Grand Prixs:

Here they are nailed up; feet were awful!

Broken pelvis or what? How was his stance and movement before and after the shoeing? What was so awful about the feet?

calshoer wrote:
EPM; I just didn't like the integrity:cool:

EPM and he didn't fall over on you....nice work.

calshoer wrote:
Hell, she is jumping and getting lead changes!

I have a few that I put onion heels on. They are gona graduate to fish mouths.

It took me some time to realize that the mere shape of a shoe does a about all for lateral support. Meaning that there is no need to forge out the branch with the risk of not being able to get out enough or getting the slope too close to the heel.

Just by shaping the shoe for (lateral) support you can do a whole lot more to provide abaxial support. Way more than you could ever hope to achieve just widening the lateral branch forging wise that is.



Ronald Aalders

Why was a fish-mouth heel indicated?

Rick Burten wrote:
Slightly over shod and a forging excercise!

Ronald Aalders wrote:
I disagree Ronald. Widening the branch adds more ground surface and provides more support than a shoe with the same width and reshaped. The benefit of doing this is the shoe can be fit without having excess shoe beyond the hoof capsule which is a must in muddy paddock unless you like going back and replacing shoes.

I noticed before that you also appear not to agree to the reasoning behind reducing break over forces (DP) either Phil.

Where a excessively long break over length compared to the support length has heels pushed into the ground, simply because the amount of foot surface in the posterior part of the foot is bigger than the anterior part (if and when the COA is not the middle between support and break over) from a DP point of view, likewise will a wider laterally supported foot "float" more than the medial part in the LM view. Simply because the surface on the lateral side is bigger. The foot/sole itself supports too.

Now for the amount of surface we can easily calculate that the few millimeters added by widening the lateral branch are greatly outweighed by reshaping the lateral branch, offsetting it and allowing more support to the lateral side. Have a look at the picture and try and find the COA here too. With a few anatomical differences (the width of the joint for one) that COA is the natural/normal middle of support for LM purposes also.


Ronald Aalders

Jaye Perry wrote:looking at the pics besides the epm is this an older horse?

Ronald Aalders wrote:
You also have to factor in the thickness of the shoe. I can see where reshapeing the branch would offer support, but not as much in my opinion as increasing the width of the material. Width and thickness are part of the equation. I am glad you brought up breakover in this discussion. I also think the width of the shoe in the toe has the same effect as the width of material in the heels. Ground reaction forces, width and depth of the shoe and fit effect the mechanics of a horse.

Take a broad toe with increased width in material, you now have a toe weighted shoe that offers more float when it impacts the ground. This may be what you want depending on the situation with the horse, however it could also exasperate another problem.

Reduceing the width of material is also another tool, when you are attempting to figure out a package.

I do not think this is simple at all. May I suggest running this by someone like Hayden Price who has looked at a variaty of shoes with gate analysis. I am still learning ground reaction forces and conformation.

Phil Armitage wrote:
I think you mean "Hayden Price"?