Downhill and Uphill Trials Compared 289 



me to try everything else at first, but it was due to these observations 

 on the uphill grade that the possibility of their benefit first suggested 

 itself. 



The effects of various shoeings for the downhill grade differ in 

 many respects materially from those of the uphill movements, but 

 there is a happy medium that will moderate the difficulties of both 

 ways of going. Weight in front is more prohibitive of extension than 

 it is behind on the downhill grade, for the front legs fold in a back- 

 ward manner, while weight on hind legs with their forward unfolding 

 favors extension. Weight in front on an uphill grade, however, does 

 not cause so much folding of knee and is apt to slightly increase front 

 extension, while behind it has the effect of increasing the hock action 

 and thereby somewhat lessening the hind extension. 



Longer toes at either end will often cause trouble going uphill by 

 checking the extension. In Fig. 190-6 the longer front toes or longer 

 fore legs the heels having also been raised by the greater angle 

 caused much greater total variations going uphill, as in Fig. 2O7-A, 

 than it did downhill, as in Fig. igo-B. They were: 



Fore Hind 



Near. Off. Near. Off. Totals. 



Uphill 4.98 5.75 6.28 6.28 (23.29) 



Downhill 3.51 2.99 3.33 4.43 (14.26) 



Besides, the stride was shorter and appeared to be a little labored. 

 This check to the front extension and the fact that the hind heels were 

 higher (53 in A and 52 in B), and therefore the toe leverage 

 prompter in A than in B, decreased the distance between the extrem- 

 ities. In the subsequent shoeing of B, with different lengths of toes, 

 we have the total variations : 



Fore Hind 



Near. Off. Near. Off. Totals. 



"Uphill 3.94 4.20 5.17 6.44 (19-75) 



Downhill 5.06 5.37 4.77 7.75 (22.95) 



which is a better handling of feet going uphill, but a change for the 

 "worse downhill. The somewhat equalized lengths of toes brought 



