This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
Corner By Judy Wardrope Matching Forequarters to a Hindquarter, Part Three I


n this last article of the series we will once again look at one hindquarter and three different forequarters in order to improve our analytical capabilities. However, this time we will be looking at a less-than-ideal hindquarter.


Hindquarter (below) – This horse has a poor lumbosacral placement (LS) as judged by a line drawn from the top of one hip to the other hip being so far forward of the palpable dip just in front of the high point of croup. This does not allow for maximum athleticism and severely limits the ability to compensate for any other disadvantages. He would be at risk of developing a hunter’s or jumper’s bump. Unlike the hindquarters used in the first


two articles in this series, the rear triangle on this horse shows that the femur side (point of buttocks to the stifle protrusion) is actually


1


shorter than the ilium side (point of hip to point of buttock). This construction causes the horse to move with his hocks out behind him and limits the reach of the rear hoof under the body. It also puts additional stress on the hind leg, particularly from hock down. This horse also has the highest stifle


placement—just at the bottom of his sheath— which would equate with a shorter stride and very little scope over fences. Combined with the short femur, this severely limits his abilities at anything requiring scope or extension.


Forequarter #1 – This horse shows a pillar of support emerging well in front of the withers for lightness of the forehand. The bottom of the pillar emerges into the rear quarter of the hoof, as seen on the left fore, for maximum soundness. (The left fore was used because of his forward stance on the right fore.) Where this horse


gains even more lightness of the forehand is the rise of humerus from elbow to point of shoulder. In addition, his base of neck is well above a high point of shoulder, making him light on the forehand. He would be quick with the forelegs when jumping and exhibit a fair amount of knee action on the flat. If this forequarter


were combined with the hindquarter above, the horse would still be limited by the problems of the hindquarter’s construction.


56 September/October 2014


Conformation


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68