Corner W
By Judy Wardrope The Old and the New
hen a rider has the good fortune to have a great jumper, he or she is constantly on the search for a new horse to fill the
shoes of the old, retired campaigner. This column will compare the points of functional conformation of a retired competitor and the young mount the rider hopes will be every bit as successful.
Lumbosacral gap (LS) – Both geldings exhibit
a very well-placed LS, one where the dip just in front of the high point of croup is bisected by a line drawn from the top of one hip to the top of the opposite hip. This allows the horse to transfer the power he generates both forward and upward. In some ways, this area also functions similarly to the fulcrum of a teeter-totter; therefore, weakness means less leverage without risking damage. Rear triangle – The ilium sides (point of hip
to point of buttock) and the femur sides (point of buttock to stifle protrusion) are equal to each other in length on both horses. This is a jumper trait as it provides power and stability when the rear spring is coiled prior to takeoff. In addition, both horses show the side from point of hip to stifle protrusion as being the longest side of the rear triangle. This allows the horse to jump
Old
from an open-gallop stride and is consistently seen in eventers that excel in cross-country as well as in jumpers that excel in jump-offs. Stifle placement – Both show a stifle (the
visible protrusion not the actual patella) well below the bottom of the sheath. This low placement allows for a greater range of motion of the hind leg, which equates with superior scope as well as the potential for a long, ground-covering stride. Certainly, both horses have demonstrated superior scope. Pillar of support – Although the stances
differ on the forehand, it can be seen that the line extended through the naturally occurring groove in the forehand emerges well in front of the withers (which adds to lightness of the forehand) and into the rear quarter of the hoof (which adds to soundness) on both geldings. If the stances were the same, the pillar of support would appear
52 July/August 2017
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
