Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

> I've noticed that when a line is drawn from the stifle directly up the
> sacro-lumbar joint, it forms a very strong/reliable side of the
> equi-lateral  triangle that should exist on a well-conformed horse,
> regardless of breed.
>     That line might vary a degree or two, but (IMO) shouldn't vary more
> than
> that.
Just to add a bit more detail to this (Frank is right on the mark
here)--the three points that should define the equilateral triangle are
the sacrolumbar joint, the stifle, and the hip joint.  This also requires
a degree of angulation of the pelvis.  Where this goes wrong in too many
Arabs is that for years, too many breeders confused "hip" with "croup" and
bred the well-angulated pelvises out of the breed in pursuit of the "level
croup."  The croup and the hip (pelvis) are two entirely different things.
One can have a horse with a very well-angulated pelvis but with good
muscling over the croup and a good tailset, and still have a relatively
"level" croup.

Furthermore, when one loses angulation at the hip joint as the result of a
too-level pelvis, one also tends to lose angulation on down the hind
leg--which includes the stifle joint and the hock joint.  This results in
a very "open" angle at the hip, where the line drawn from the sacrolumbar
joint to the stifle is not only out of plumb but is also WAAAAY long
relative to the other two sides of the "triangle."

There are several biomechanical implications of this.  One, the horse
loses a great deal of his ability to absorb shock, thus putting more
stress on his hocks and fetlocks.  A great many of these horses end up
breaking down in the fetlocks and sometimes in the hocks.  Two, the horse
cannot generate the "spring" that propels him forward with any particular
efficiency.  Three, the horse cannot get his rear end underneath him as
well, and hence is more limited in the sorts of maneuvers he can do. 
(Going downhill efficiently is one such maneuver.)

> If a horse's stifle doesn't sit on a straight line drawn from the
> sacro-lumbar, it doesn't necessarily mean that that horse won't make an
> endurance horse.
>     As with all things "horses", note it and ride strengthening
> exercises and
> conditioning programs aimed at shoring up what you might consider a
> "vunerability" in that horse's conformation.
Very true.  Every horse should be managed in such a way to try to
strengthen him where he is weak, and to try to capitalize on his
strengths.  And in-depth study of conformation and biomechanics is a great
aid in being able to do this, as it allows one to be honest about one's
horse's faults.  You can't adequately cope with what you don't know is
there.

>     I won't name names, but some of the greatest endurance horse's I've
> ever
> seen (and who have the records to prove it) had a bit of this or that
> wrong  with a leg, a back, a hoof, a mind.  Don't get me wrong, those
> same horses were  trained/conditioned/ridden by horsemen and horsewomen
> who knew their horses  strengths and weaknesses.
<snip>
>     There are hard and fast "rules of the trails" in endurance...but
> having a
> perfectly conformed horse isn't one of them.
Amen!  The "perfect" horse has yet to be born.  It does help to get one
with faults that are not extreme, but within reason, one can work around a
given horse's faults and still enjoy at least some degree of success.

Heidi



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

Ride Long and Ride Safe!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=