I used to only shoe on the front of it was needed. Years down the road I came to the realization that if shoes were needed on the fronts or back, they’re needed all around. But that’s just my opinion.
And I get that you think your trim is good, and maybe it is, but it might not be. Your refusal to share pix makes me think you really aren’t sure.
No, I just don’t feel like taking them and I’m sure if I did, some of you would criticize the way I took them.
My question was if it’s common or if it would look weird to only shoe behind.
I’m confident in my vet and farrier team. I’m not some local yokel. I know a balanced foot when I’m looking at one.
What qualifications do you have that you think you would know better?
There are some very qualified posters on this board. JB is one of them. But, as always, advice is worth what you paid for it on the internet.
The reason people are asking is because we see this all the time - you can have the biggest, best name farrier and vet team on the planet, but still have a setup that isn’t working for the horse. We see very accomplished horse people with some wildly out of balance farrier jobs, and plenty of “local yokels” with immaculate feet and sound horses 
.
Bruising in particular is a thing that IS very rare to only have on the hinds with bare fronts. That’s why asking about the trim isn’t assuming you’re uneducated or your team is backwater. It’s a valid line of questioning, and getting so defensive IS a bit odd. You’re under no obligation to post pics to appease the internet, but they’re not off base to ask.
Only shoeing behind is totally normal and no one will blink. The REASON is what’s being discussed.
And with your answer I know you’re being defensive. I never said I was more qualified than anyone. I gave you my experience about shoes on my horses and I know a couple posters on here are aces on balanced feet so I tossed in my opinion of their opinions for free. 
Also, as a “local yokel” myself, I take a bit of offense to that line of reasoning. I may not be going to the Olympics, but my horses are very well taken care of and I’ve learned that horses don’t have bad feet by nature. There is always a reason.
How would we know that your horses are well taken care of?
Post photos to prove it. If you don’t, maybe they aren’t and you just think they are.
Then start your own post and discus it. That wasn’t my question.
They are off base to insinuate that I don’t know a balanced hoof when I see one.
What makes any of you more qualified to decided if I’m right?
I said they are correct, take my word for it and move on.
Well, you insist on making me post photos so you can tell me if what I said was correct or not. In other words, you think you are more qualified than me.
Many, many of us are very familiar with @fivestrideline and her horses, as she’s had several threads on them, with lots of pictures. So yeah, we actually do know that her saying they’re well taken care of, is reality. It’s really not hard to find her threads in which she discusses a lot of things, and adds a lot of pics.
which is exactly I gave a link on HOW to take them. They may not end up the most perfect pics for evaluating small details, but they are also VERY easy to take to the point any major issues will be easily seen.
Honestly, if I had a horse who only had hind feet like you describe, I’d be getting xrays done to see what might not be visible from the outside, or to prove that whose who have educate eyes CAN see from the outside, is actually reality, such as thin soles, negative palmar angle, lateral imbalances, and more
Why? If you only knew how many threads there have been on “why is my horse’s back so sore”, “why does my horse refuse to jump”, “why won’t my horse canter”, with the “his feet are fine, my vet and farrier say so”, and yet simple pictures show the feet are FAR from fine, you would understand why people are a bit skeptical until proven otherwise.
But if you want to just put shoes on the hinds, go for it. I hope you’re not just covering up a problem that will only get worse and come back to bite the horse in worse ways than just bruising.
Much better said than what I came up with 
.
And yeah, I’m a bit of an open book, for better or for worse. I’m always learning and trying to improve, though.
Take heart, you’re not the first poster to ask a question with the answer you want firmly in your mind. I’ve probably done it myself. But the clue to giving you “your answer” lies in the fact that you don’t want to discuss what might be happening with the feet, you just want to know if anyone will make fun of you for only shoeing the back. Why don’t you just ask your trainer?
And I’m not demanding you post pictures, I didn’t ask you to and I couldn’t care less. I simply added my two cents to the “to shoe all around, or not to shoe all around” discussion.
I am getting one shod only behind this week for extra support. It’s a Hunter. Do what’s best for the horse.
Thank you!
Maybe you’ve already done this, but I would recommend getting X-rays of the hinds to shoe off of, especially with a young horse. Then you can also assess if there’s possibly anything else going on to cause the abscesses while ensuring the shoeing job is being done as accurately as possible for the horse’s needs.
Otherwise I don’t think there’s anything “wrong” or “weird” about only shoeing behind. Do what the horse tells you it needs.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
