290 Gait of the American Trotter and Pacer 



about a greater distance between the extremities. In other words, the 

 shorter toes in front caused an easier extension uphill and a less 

 labored motion. This condition, though not yet satisfactory even for 

 the uphill movements, proved neither an improvement for the downhill 

 trial. This was therefore not the happy medium looked for in the ad- 

 justment. 



When it comes to the many combinations that can be arranged for 

 a better balance, we shall find that but a few will equalize the manner 

 of going in both directions. The expected change shows itself in more 

 or less extreme form in both trials, but the purpose of these compari- 

 sons is to establish if possible a happy medium of averages, which 

 would keep the animal going at its best both ways. 



This may be further illustrated by giving the extensions in Fig. 208 

 of the two uphill trials of shoeing given under Figs. 106 and 107, this 

 being, however, made without toe-weights. Fig. 106 shows the front 

 shoes with toe-weights. For better comparison the downhill ex- 

 tensions appear alongside of those made uphill. We have here a de- 

 creased extension of the near fore (from 2.16 in. to 0.48 in.) and an in- 

 creased extension of the off hind ((from 0.24 in. to 0.72.). In front 

 this difference seems to be due to the higher angle (50) of the off 

 fore, which gives that foot an easier leverage at toe, and this readiness 

 to extend is helped by the greater weight of shoe. The fold of the 

 knee is not so great as it is going downhill, hence the effect of the 

 weight (9 oz.) is toward slightly greater extension. Therefore, the 

 near fore with its lower angle (49) and lighter shoe (7 oz.) loses its 

 greater extension of 2.16 in. over the off fore, and the result shows 

 its extension to be but 0.48 in. over that of its opposite mate. Downhill 

 that higher angle of the off fore, with its heavier shoe, had a tendency 

 to increase the fold of knee and to put into elevation what force it put 

 into extension going uphill. Its opposite mate, the near fore, had 

 therefore the advantage of that checked extension of the off fore 

 downhill and was placed ahead of the off fore. 



Let me again call attention to the main point, the most palpable 

 point in fact, in the difference between the uphill and downhill loco- 

 motion of the horse, by stating that the equalization of the action of 



