# Purpose of just having 2 shoes?



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

As some of you know, I am English but I have lived in the US for 10 years. I battle with myself to not be stuck in my ways and stuck in the things I know and understand. 
One of those things is the American habit of front shoeing horses and not the rear. 

The only benefits of this that my narrow mind understands is:
1) less injury to horses in pasture who are kicked
2) less cost (but it's not that dramatic)


Does it not unbalance the horse to be shod at the front only? Could it possibly create uneven hoof growth? 

I guess I just don't see the purpose or benefit of it, so please share your thoughts and educate me. I am unlikely to do it, but I would like to know the purpose/reasons/benefits. 

Thanks


----------



## lilruffian (Jun 28, 2010)

Most only put shoes on the front feet as the horse bears more weight on its front end & therefore work can be harder on their front feet. This is usually done on horses with tender feet and not necessarily for competition reasons as many people in the area dont shoe their horses at all unless absolutely needed. I've also know people who go to the mountains only putting shoes on the fronts for the above reasons.


----------



## twogeldings (Aug 11, 2008)

I usually just have all four done myself, but the front feet do seem to be a lot more tender (weirdly enough!) then the back. If I'm not trail riding, my boys go barefoot. But if I'm riding frequently out on gravel and paved roads, then they get a shiny new set of shoes.

But, I can see the point of only shoeing the front. Like I said, I avoid shoeing as much as possible, so if I could _really_ get away with only the fronts then I would. Buuut...I'd be worried about those unprotected back hooves


----------



## HowClever (Feb 16, 2010)

My boy Rex has front shoes on at the moment. He is quite significantly more tender in his front feet than his back. A large part of this is probably because of the underrun heel, long toe and flat soles that we are in the process of correcting. 

His feet are a million percent better than they were now and giving him the support of the shoes on his fronts has really freed him up.


----------



## dressagebelle (May 13, 2009)

Some horses just wear their front feet down more than their back since their front feet bear much more weight than their back feet do. For some people it is cost, if the horse "needs" shoes, but can do okay without back shoes, then its a bit cheaper than getting all four feet shod, but generally thats not why people just do the front in my experience. Definitely safer in pasture. Most pastures in my area won't allow a horse to be in pasture if they have back shoes. Front shoes are okay. Some horses wear their front feet down unevenly, but are fine with their back feet, and so need corrective shoeing in the front only. It doesn't unbalance the horse unless the trimming and shoes aren't done right. I applaud you for not wanting to just do something or say something is how it should be done, just because that is how you've always been taught, or what you've always seen as how its done, and are instead looking to further your knowledge on why they are done that way in a place like the horse forum, where you will get many different opinions from many different people from all types of places and backgrounds.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

ok so I understand the tender argument, so why not just shoe all around or put boots on the front? I am sure that they can be more tender at the front, but does that make them not tender at the back?

It's little money to shoe the rears if you are doing the front, if you are in a tight spot I can see this, but typically why make a habit of it?


Dressagebelle, if they are wearing down, they would not wear down a shoe the same way as they would a hoof, so it still doesn't make sense to me. I can get 2 or sometimes 3 uses out of each shoe from farrier visits, so that's 12-24 weeks worth. 

I think maybe, in my mind, and as I said I am closed minded about what I know, but I think it is the 'they will do ok' argument with the back feet argument that bothers me - as the owners see a need for front shoes, but just not 'as much' for back feet. It just doesn't make sense as the same thing is happening, just to a lesser extent. 

Many stables in my area will not allow rear shoes too, I can see what they are saying, but I think it is a cultural thing. You would be hard pushed to find a horse in England that is not shoed all around unless they are total farm animals.



Thanks all for your input, I don't mean to sound like I am bashing if I am coming across that way.


----------



## Tennessee (Dec 7, 2008)

I only put fronts on High Five because that's all he needs. His back feet are, for some reason, stronger than his front. 

Gracie has all four on.


----------



## Delfina (Feb 12, 2010)

My QH has front shoes only.

A farrier trimmed her front feet WAY too short and as a result, she bruised both of them. New (and competent) farrier said I could put a wide shoe on her, to get her up off the bruise until it healed or I could turn her out to pasture until it healed. She was barely walking in the pasture, so I decided on shoes. As soon as they were on, she was happily running around and no longer in any pain.

Since I have no intention of keeping shoes on her long term (doesn't need them, she has incredibly fast-growing, rock hard, excellent hooves), it made no sense to shoe her rears which weren't bruised and didn't need them. 

My barn has no issues with horses being shod all the way around. 8 horses there right now, 2 have fronts only, 2 have shoes on all fours and 4 are barefoot.


----------



## riccil0ve (Mar 28, 2009)

The simple answer is why put shoes on feet that don't need it? Good boots are expensive, and while it is cheaper in the long run, it's not always easy for everyone to fork out all that money for the boots. I would be in that position, I could either not get my girls trimmed for several months and save up for good boots, or I could put two shoes on my horse. Does that make sense?

Alex, I don't think you're riding your horse enough if one set of shoes can last you three times, lol. When Ricci is in real work, her shoes barely last the six weeks.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

Ricci, I think I do a different kind of riding, I am in an arena with soft footing. If I were on a trail I could agree, but my riding has little effect on his shoes. And honestly I am a little peed off that you think that my question is about a commitment to riding rather than an honest question. 
I could ride Lucas every day and not make a dint of difference to his shoes because I ride on a good solid ground all the time. If I wanted to trail, I have dogs that I can walk. 

I can understand the argument that front shoes are less than boots and the thinking behind this. But does it not unbalance the horse? I cannot imagine walking in one short heal shoe and a flat, I realize I balance on two and not four feet, but all the same, I wonder. 


Delf, I completely understand that.


----------



## Adareous (Jan 27, 2011)

Horses don't usually wear their back feet as badly as their front feet. So we put front shoes on to protect the fronts and cause less wear. Why shoe the backs if they don't need it. Shoes arent natural either so again, why shoe the backs if they don't need it.
The reason to shoe all fours, when you're showing, when you do alot of road riding or riding on stones and you want to protect the back feet.
Maybe the farriers in England charge the same amount to shoe all 4 or do it as a matter of fact and people are used to it. In the US farriers usually charge double or more to shoe all 4's rather than 2. Many are becoming very educated and specialized and are charging more for their expertise and alot of people just would rather have 2 fronts than 4 shoes. Plus, alot of farms that turn horses out together, like me, would rather not have hind shoes because once in a while the horses get into a kicking match and hind shoes can do alot of damage.


----------



## Delfina (Feb 12, 2010)

I have no idea on unbalancing. I haven't noticed any difference in my horse after having just fronts put on compared to how she moved prior to going lame from the crappy trim job, so I never thought about that.

Since my barn has no issues with fully shod horses (same farrier does all the horses), I would think that if only front shoes weren't good for the horse that the farrier would want to put them on all four feet. It wasn't a cost thing for me, I told the farrier whatever she needed, I was more than willing to pay for and he said she only needed fronts. Same visit, he recommended all 4 for a gelding in the barn, fronts for another horse and barefoot for all the rest. 

Our farrier is due out soon, I'll ask have to ask him about this!


----------



## tinyliny (Oct 31, 2009)

I think Alex's question is a good one, and I have pondered that practicality of the front only shoeing myself . One thought would be that having the rear feet bare might improve the traction? I know when I ride with my friend whose horse is barefoot, he has amazing traction, when my horse will sometimes have his shoes slide on concrete or on roots.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

ALexS, It is deffinatly not an american thing. 

UK ponies are very often only shod in front or shod at all, so your argument that you wont find something not completely shod is rubbish. there is a big thing at the moment in the show ring because ride judges wont ride anything that is not shod all round and studded all round yet most people don't want to shoe and stud a horse that doesnt need it. Infact you will probably find more unshod or fronts only then you will fully shod.

Not one of my ponies is shod at the moment. Stan used to be shod in front only.

This is because a horse will wear down its front feet quicket then its back feet, also on a well balanced horse leaveing shoes off at the back means the horse wont slip on the roads (because a horse will always slip behind before they slip in front) and it means you don't have to stud up every time you go for a ride

My farrier who is one of the best in the UK will not shoe a horse unless he absolutly has to and when he does he very often only puts fronts on. It doesnt unbalance them at all.

Also it is likely that some yards wont allow new horses with back shoes on because the horses will do so much more damage if they kick one anouther when they do have back shoes on.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

Faye, I didn't mean for my argument to be rubbish, or that I was really having an argument, my knowledge in England is 10 yrs old, at least, and my issues living abroad is that I stick to what I know. I wanted to have a discussion about it so I could learn more rather than an argument. 

I have not encountered studs here, although I had them at home (in England), here they put two lumps of borium on the shoe that you cannot remove or change for the conditions. 

I am interested,how do you deem your farrier as one of the best in the UK? I am not doubting that he is great, but what is the criteria for judging against other farriers?


Thank you Tinyliny! I have always respected your posts, so it is nice to know I am not a nut in over thinking things. I am happy to keep mine shod all around, but I would like to know the argument as to why I do this, other than it is just because I always have. 

Del, thanks for asking and thinking about it. I don't have an answer either, that's why I asked. I am glad you have a good farrier that is not ripping you off.


----------



## Sarahandlola (Dec 16, 2010)

Here in Ireland a lot of horses only have front shoes including mine. 

I only put front shoes on mine because we go on hacks on the roads etc. It is also cheaper like people say.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

He is currently a Fellow of the WCF, which is the highest achievement possible for a farrier. He lectures all over the country and sometimes into Europe, he specialises in remedial farreiry and is often asked to help by the major vet hospitals all over the country. He was the onsite farrier for Aintree untill a horse there put him in hospital one too many times. 
So yes - one of the best farriers available.the only downside is that he is so **** popular he can be impossible to get hold of unless you quite litteraly book 8 weeks in advance!


----------



## natisha (Jan 11, 2011)

I've shod some at times & only_ had_ to do the fronts. The fronts seem to wear & chip more readily. Front shoes are also useful for horses who have trouble keeping proper angles barefoot so they actually help with balance. Correct angles seem more difficult on the front feet than the backs.

One of my horses has a very minor club foot & wears a tiny shoe just over the toe area otherwise that toe will break off to nothing. The rest of that foot is unshod as are all her other feet.
Some Saddlebreds are front shod only to encourage hoof length & higher knee action, though all 4 is more common while showing in that breed.

Each horse's individual needs determines how many feet, if any, needs shoes. Some people just like the look of 4 shoes when showing, while a reiner will need slide plates on the backs, for example. Many variables come into play when deciding how to shoe.

I have not noticed any difference in balance with 2 shoes vs 4.


----------



## mbender (Jul 22, 2009)

I have a question. Awhile back I had my quarter horse shod on all fours. Now I'm no expert or know much of why people shoe just fronts other than the wearing of the fronts.

My question: in Western and Dressage, doesn't a horse need his backend to come up underneath him in order to get the desired gait (not sure if that's the word I want). If a horse is shod only in the front, doesn't the backend become weaker? Maybe I'm talking out my arss. Don't know. I just know that all the power comes from behind.

In western pleasure the horse needs that backend under him for a nice easy lope. 
In Dressage, (I know nothing of) a horse uses their backend for many of the required movements. Makes them round up better right? So the purpose of only putting front shoes on for the purpose of more wear doesn't make sense. I would think it would throw a horse off balance and make them use their frontend more than the backend. 

What do you guys think? Am I wrong?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Peggysue (Mar 29, 2008)

Horse carry 65% give or take of thier weight on their front end causing more wear and demage to those feet is why I shoe only the front as needed...that said there are times mine have all four and timea they are bare depending on what I am doing...sorry about typos no spell check on my phone


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

ditto what peggy sue says. Also By not shoeing at the back you give the horse added grip on the surface perticularly on grass (the other option is to shoe and stud) thus makeing the horse more confident about takeing the weight back onto his hind as he feels he is less likely to slip.

I know when I was going enough work to warrent shoes all round on stan (doing 2-3 hours of road work a day every day) he was very very unsure of his footing and reluctant to go forwards unless he had studs in. 
When he had just fronts on him he was quite happy to canter down a hill on grass.


----------



## HowClever (Feb 16, 2010)

Can only speak from my experience, but Rexy has much better carriage since I have shod his front feet. He works beautifully from behind (for the most part) now, where before he was almost permanently on the forehand. 

Even his movement loose in the paddock is better.


----------



## Speed Racer (Oct 21, 2009)

Alex, as has already been stated, I only have front shoes on JJ because he bears most of his weight on his front, and he's far too tender footed to go without shoes.

He seems fine without back shoes, but should he give any indication of being overly tender when I start to put him back into heavy work, he'll get 4 all the way around again.

Casper is barefoot and will remain so. Being an Arabian, he tends to have rock hard feet. Mack is also barefoot, because he's fine without shoes.


----------



## Peggysue (Mar 29, 2008)

see I think the shoes have more"bite" and traction then bare 

I think alot of it has to do with the way you were taught and tradition within your style of riding.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

Not on grass or tarmac they dont. Thats why studs were invented and road nails. smooth metal on a slippy surface is not good, I've seen enough horses end up on thier sides on grass because they couldnt keep thier feet due to shoes.

I personaly think that if you have shoes on then you should stud up to prevent slips.
When stan had fronts on he had road nails in to prevent slipping on the steep hills round here.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

Thanks for responding everyone, it's interesting how differently we all do things.


----------



## damnedEvans (Jan 23, 2010)

Our horses have shoes on only if they are used for riding. They have shoes only on their front feet to reduce the possibility of injure in the pasture. There where many times when we thanked God that they didn't had shoes on their hind feet.


----------



## Peggysue (Mar 29, 2008)

see Faye I have seen different on pavement..I have four horses they got let out....so they were coming home two horses fell..one horse had four shoes, one had two and two were bare....the two that were bare fell....on grass I haven't noticed any difference


----------



## riccil0ve (Mar 28, 2009)

AlexS said:


> Ricci, I think I do a different kind of riding, I am in an arena with soft footing. If I were on a trail I could agree, but my riding has little effect on his shoes. And honestly I am a little peed off that you think that my question is about a commitment to riding rather than an honest question.
> I could ride Lucas every day and not make a dint of difference to his shoes because I ride on a good solid ground all the time. If I wanted to trail, I have dogs that I can walk.
> 
> I can understand the argument that front shoes are less than boots and the thinking behind this. But does it not unbalance the horse? I cannot imagine walking in one short heal shoe and a flat, I realize I balance on two and not four feet, but all the same, I wonder.
> ...


No no no no! That's not what I was saying! I was just teasing. I'm just surprised a working horse can wear the same shoes for three cycles. I mostly ride Ricci in the pasture, but keep shoes on her for when I do venture out. The pasture is dirt/sand/grass and we still couldn't wear the same set more than once. It just seems bizarre to me. The only horses I knew that could do that were the therapy horses who did several lessons of mostly walking a week. Sorry for the misunderstanding. =]


----------



## Arksly (Mar 13, 2010)

mbender said:


> My question: in Western and Dressage, doesn't a horse need his backend to come up underneath him in order to get the desired gait (not sure if that's the word I want). If a horse is shod only in the front, doesn't the backend become weaker? Maybe I'm talking out my arss. Don't know. I just know that all the power comes from behind.
> 
> In western pleasure the horse needs that backend under him for a nice easy lope.
> In Dressage, (I know nothing of) a horse uses their backend for many of the required movements. Makes them round up better right? So the purpose of only putting front shoes on for the purpose of more wear doesn't make sense. I would think it would throw a horse off balance and make them use their frontend more than the backend.
> ...


Even though the power mostly comes from behind and they may take a little more weight on the hind end, the majority is still on the front end. Also, when they are not being ridden (which is most of the time) they still go around how they usually would. 

When we had Jesse with all four shoes on (they were really bad when we got him and needed a lot of correction) he would actually wear down his back shoes more than his front. It happened to be that he would just drag those hooves, causing wear.

My last horse, Hermes, had excruciatingly sensitive front hooves. He could barely walk on concrete without shoes, pads, and some sort of filler. Just to get his front hooves shod it was incredibly expensive. So, adding the hind ones did make a considerable difference.

I don't think it puts them off balance too bad and I'm sure it might feel a little funny at first, but it's nothing that they can't get used to. I could understand having only the left side shod putting them off balance (almost like when you only wear one shoe).


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

riccil0ve said:


> Alex, I don't think you're riding your horse enough if one set of shoes can last you three times, lol. When Ricci is in real work, her shoes barely last the six weeks.


_Ricci...I know you are teasing Alex, but we have also got more then one use out of a pair of STEEL shoes, and stone dust is more abrasive then what (I think) regular arena dirt is. However, aluminums dont seem to last as long as steel._


_We always shod all 4 because of the fact the horses were on stone dust all the time, and it would wear their feet down to sore in no time. _

_The barn I ride at has all the ponies bare, then all the school horses have just the fronts done. Most of the boarders horses have just the front two, however there is maybe a handful (if that) of horses that have all 4. Not sure on the reasoning, but I would assume because the horses are turned out in groups, so no rear shoes because of that....then the fronts would give them a bit more push for jumping in dirt/grass. The horses with all 4 either jump higher then 3', or are competing a lot on different ground, so they want to be able to put studs in._


----------



## raywonk (Jan 9, 2011)

Ok I have an anwser for the why are they not unbalanced with only two shoes on. Wacht the way the farrier trimes the feet for the shoes and wacht the way for the none shoes. It is diffrent. I think that is why they are not unbalenced. The farrier compensates for it.


----------



## riccil0ve (Mar 28, 2009)

Twice for the average working horse makes sense. But three?! I just can't wrap my mind around it, lol. Ricci also gets steel shoes. In the four years I've had her, all but six shoes bent when they were pulled. Some of them, when we did a lot of road/trail riding, you can actually bend with your bare hands once they've been pulled.

Again, I was just giving Alex flack. My apologies. =]


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

Sorry for over reacting Ricci, I had a bug up somewhere last night. 

My farrier comes out to me every 6 weeks, and I usually get 2 times out of every shoe, occassionally it has been 3 times. 

Raywonk, I didn't know that. I will ask him when he is next here.

Ricci, I have only once had a shoe bend and that is when I fired my last farrier for not removing the nails before removing the shoe. He just yanked it off taking hoof with it.


----------



## riccil0ve (Mar 28, 2009)

Oh it's no problem, Alex! We have our days, and I could have done more to show I was joking.

It would be interesting to know if it does unbalance the horse, I've never thought about it. But I shoe all-around. Please do ask your farrier and let us know what he says. I'd ask mine, but she's a BT, lol. It'll probably be a biased answer. =]

Although, I've heard from most BT's that farriers generally trim barefoot horses like they would put a shoe on, even though they don't. So I'm not sure if the farrier actually trims te bare hinds any different than the shod fronts.


----------



## Delfina (Feb 12, 2010)

My farrier is supposed to be out Saturday, since he is really, really slooooooooow and has 6 horses to do, I'll have plenty of time to ask him (trainer is estimating he'll take 6-7 hours).

Jore


----------



## riccil0ve (Mar 28, 2009)

Oh my. Good thing we don't pay farriers by the hour, eh?


----------



## Delfina (Feb 12, 2010)

I'd be BROKE!!!

He's one really amazing farrier but oh is he sloooow. You literally have to wake my trainer's gelding up in-between each foot. He's shod on all 4 feet and knows the farrier will be taking over an hour to do his feet, so he passes the time by getting a good nap in.

I am hoping my 4yr old behaves. 20mins in the cross ties seems to be his max. Around minute 22, he turns into a frantic, basket-case. May have to have 2 feet done, then throw him in turnout for a few hours and then do the other 2.


----------



## AlexS (Aug 9, 2010)

My farrier is wonderful, and he will explain everything about the hoof in his hand, other than that he flirts - these seem to be his only two topics of conversation.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

see unfortunatly my farrier is not my type and also rather married and non flirty! his apprentice on the other hand is a real good looker witha a lovely soft irish accent and is very very flirty (what irishman isnt!!)


----------



## Kayty (Sep 8, 2009)

I have got my dressage horse shod only in front, and also my boy that is semi retired at only 8 due to arthritis in his hocks. 
Bob, my dressage horse has very solid hind feet and does not need shoeing behind, why waste the money on shoes if he doesn't need it, and why weaken strong feet by driving nails through them every 6 weeks? 
His fronts need to be done as a previous owner left an abscess untreated which then turned into white line disease, so he needs some more support in front. 
And to answer mbenders question a couple of pages back about the hind end becoming weaker if only the fronts are shod as far as dressage horses go - absolutely not true  My boy can most certainly use that hind end of his, the weight of shoes is really not that great when you think about how much the horse weighs, it's not going to make too much difference. 

My retired boy, he is shod only in front because his fronts are 'weak TB feet'. His backs are not great, but I need to leave him bare behind, as when you shoe the hinds it stops the hoof acting as a shock absorber, and so the joints of the leg end up taking the impact, particularly the hock. Having shoes was making him sorer than without shoes.


----------



## kim_angel (Oct 16, 2007)

I have front shoes on Toby because without them he goes lame. He has to have special shoes because he has Navicular.


----------



## VelvetsAB (Aug 11, 2010)

riccil0ve said:


> Twice for the average working horse makes sense. But three?! I just can't wrap my mind around it, lol. Ricci also gets steel shoes. In the four years I've had her, all but six shoes bent when they were pulled. Some of them, when we did a lot of road/trail riding, you can actually bend with your bare hands once they've been pulled.


_Yup....but the third time we normally saved them for to put on a colt eventually. No point in giving them brand new shoes for half the work._

_If the nail gets nipped before it gets pulled out, and your farrier knows that you like to reuse shoes, they will try and prevent them from being bent. It might take a bit longer to pull them off, but it CAN be done._


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

Here's another variation of the two shoes only:

Endurance rides around here have a lot of gravel. We like to use hoof boots since after that many miles horses will get bruised soles (you could also use pads). Since we have difficulty keeping boots on the back feet we shoe the backs only before a ride. So boots on front, shoes on back.


----------



## Hunter65 (Aug 19, 2009)

gottatrot said:


> Here's another variation of the two shoes only:
> 
> Endurance rides around here have a lot of gravel. We like to use hoof boots since after that many miles horses will get bruised soles (you could also use pads). Since we have difficulty keeping boots on the back feet we shoe the backs only before a ride. So boots on front, shoes on back.



Hmmm never heard of that before, interesting. I am going to put fronts on Hunter this spring as he was so tender on a couple of rides last year I had to get off and lead him. My friend has boots on her horse but they seemed to be a pain. She had to get off and readjust them a lot. I am only going to shoe for the spring/summer and leave him barefoot in fall/winter


----------



## gottatrot (Jan 9, 2011)

The type of rides we do can make our horses sore in front even with shoes on, but they don't seem to bruise in the back if they have shoes on. 
It is hard to find the right boots that fit well and don't rub, but once you find the ones that work for your horse it's great. You can put them on and not touch them for 25 miles or more. I use Renegades for one horse and Epics for the other.
If your horse pulls a front shoe on an endurance ride it's trouble. But if you lose a boot you can just put another one on. If you put a front boot on with a front shoe on the other side your horse is unbalanced and I wouldn't ride too far that way.
If your horse pulls a back shoe it's not such a big deal. I'd either just ride that way or else pull the other one and keep going.


----------



## ButtInTheDirt (Jan 16, 2011)

Well, the mare I bought last year had shoes on only her front feet because she was a trail horse and they were planning on going on a rockier trail with her. They were sort of like cleats, but of course not as threatening-looking as cleats on a sports shoe for people. But it's a reason, so I thought I might as well share even though I no very little of horseshoes myself.


----------



## slc (Jan 30, 2011)

The answer at the barns I've been at, has never been 'why put on hind shoes if you don't need them'.

It's a complicated issue and people have many reasons. 

For one thing, many horses spend most of their time at pasture, and very little of it working, being ridden, driven, etc. They may only be used for a month or two in the summer. And when they are worked, it's very, very light work. 

Given this light amount of work and infrequent riding, they don't much tend to wear down their feet, and many people have them go without shoes entirely.

Or...they may put on only front shoes, in order to save money. Since the front hooves often get more broken and chipped, and tend to more easily flare or get sore heels, they'll have the farrier shoe the front feet only. 

Too, a good many American horses have Navicular disease or Navicular syndrome. Front shoes might be used to prevent the navicular horse from getting too sore. Or they may be needed to hold the pads on, that are sometimes used for Navicular or sore heels or other problems.

But a good many horses don't wear hind shoes for other reasons.

I think the most frequent reason is that people think that if a horse does not have its hind shoes on, if it kicks, it won't injure the horse it is kicking. This is a very widespread belief. People believe that. So, a good many people take off the hind shoes in that belief.

However, the only time traines I worked for (or with) removed hind shoes, was when we had a horse with arthritis in the hocks. Rather than having the shoe influence the way he's going and 'stabilize' the horse's motion, removing the shoes off the horse with spavin (arthritis) in the hocks, allows the foot to twist, turn and move in whatever way the horse finds most comfortable. The horse then is allowed to even more freely adjust his stride as he needs to.

That one is a very old trick, and I'm not so completely sure it is always the best thing for the horse. It is usually better if the arthritic horse is dropped down to an appropriate level of work for however bad his arthritis is.


----------



## mbender (Jul 22, 2009)

Yesterday I was watching eventing. The horses wore shoes on all four feet. This was done somewhere in England area. Now at this time you can tell the grass was wet. In eventing, your pacing your horse as you come to jumps, trying not to break that pace in order to get a good time. As most of you said, people don't want to put rear shoes on for the fact of slipping. Why would they shoe all four on these horses?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Delfina (Feb 12, 2010)

I asked my farrier and he said that having shoes in front only doesn't unbalance the horse because it's taken into consideration when he does the back feet. So for a horse with only front shoes, he does the front feet first, then the hinds to ensure it's properly balanced all the way around.


----------



## faye (Oct 13, 2010)

mbender said:


> Yesterday I was watching eventing. The horses wore shoes on all four feet. This was done somewhere in England area. Now at this time you can tell the grass was wet. In eventing, your pacing your horse as you come to jumps, trying not to break that pace in order to get a good time. As most of you said, people don't want to put rear shoes on for the fact of slipping. Why would they shoe all four on these horses?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You will find that all those horses had serious studs in.

As I said if you dont want to go to the hassle of studding up every time you ride then no back shoes is the better option.

Eventers on the other hand will stud up thier horses to give them better grip and to put studs in you need shoes with stud holes!


----------



## Peggysue (Mar 29, 2008)

a properly balanced horse won't slide anymore then a barefoot horse the problem is many farriers when applying shoes don't balance the foot as well


----------



## slc (Jan 30, 2011)

I disagree - one of the biggest reason for shoes is traction on different surfaces. There's a difference that is visible and I've seen this for a good many years. No matter how balanced the foot is trimmed, there are surfaces on which, shoes get better traction. It's that simple.

Many people kind of go way overboard with removing shoes and not using them even when obviously the horse needs them. Soundness, injuries, traction on specific surfaces, protection - if shoes were so useless, they wouldn't have been used for thousands of years.

But shoeless, bitless, saddle tree-less, these are very, very hot issues on the bulletin boards with a huge contingency for '-less'. How about br*less, clothing-less and board check-less?


----------



## Peggysue (Mar 29, 2008)

slc said:


> I disagree - one of the biggest reason for shoes is traction on different surfaces. There's a difference that is visible and I've seen this for a good many years. No matter how balanced the foot is trimmed, there are surfaces on which, shoes get better traction. It's that simple.
> 
> Many people kind of go way overboard with removing shoes and not using them even when obviously the horse needs them. Soundness, injuries, traction on specific surfaces, protection - if shoes were so useless, they wouldn't have been used for thousands of years.
> 
> But shoeless, bitless, saddle tree-less, these are very, very hot issues on the bulletin boards with a huge contingency for '-less'. How about br*less, clothing-less and board check-less?


 
Where's my like button??


----------



## crimsonsky (Feb 18, 2011)

i've gotten lucky and have managed to have horses that can go (and do well) barefoot. if possible i like to keep them that way. however, there was a period of time when i first got my TB and he came to me shod all the way around that i continued on with that until winter when i had them pulled and we haven't gone back to shoes since. 

as far as the fronts only - i've seen plenty of people do that but i honestly have no idea what the justification is for it. things to think about...


----------

