Breeding for Form.

[Stoneface]

I think the defining difference in the field-bred and show-bred dogs are in their temperament. Anyone on this board knows how driven our field-bred dogs are. They have all that heart. You can see the same thing in humans. Look at Terry Fox, he ran across Canada and limped the whole way. Compare him to the millions of people in the world who didn't have the physical disabilities he had that wouldn't have had the heart to do it. But, if Terry had not had his health issues, he would have made it across the continent in much stronger fashion. (Thinking about it, I don't think he actually finished, but you get my point.)

It seems that most field breeders are doers, not thinkers. The opposite is true with people breeding for function, they're thinkers, not doers. We spend almost all our time working our dogs and talking about how good-looking they are, how much point they have, how big they run, how classy they are. We don't read ANYWHERE near as many books because "proof's in the pudding," right? Whereas show folks, if you know many, have a higher ratio of breeders who take a more "scholarly" approach to their program. They read books with scientific backing, they don't run their dogs on birds ANYWHERE near as much as we do, but spend most of their time evaluating and talking about a dog's shoulders, topline, chest, etc.

Consider the end-all, be-all of endureance - English Pointers. You have gobs of dogs at Ames every year and about 90% are Pointers. Ameican Pointers are an anomaly. Pointers from the other parts of the world (this is from experience, just from what I've heard from others) can't keep pace, and certainly not for any length of time, with our American Pointers. Even Bob Wehle said in his Wing & Shot videos that the English-bred pointers were stoic and less animated, couldn't hang with our dogs. But, consider then the practices of breeders since Pointers have come to America. Gobs of dogs have been bred and Gobs have been culled, keeping only the select few who are total freaks of nature. Who hasn't heard the story of those immortal breeders who go off to camp with 200 dogs and come back with ten? Do you think they sat around on their horses and said, "You know, Buster over here has really nice shoulders, long neck, nice feat and, man!, look at that angulation! I think he's making the cut." Or did it go more along the lines of, "Rebel sure is a nice dog, see the way he's quick off the line and, "bleep", look at all that drive. You know, he runs so big we lost track of him the other day and found him, twenty minutes later, standing a Sharpie with a 12 o'clock tail and high head. I think he's making the cut."

I think the show folks are (with a few exceptions) much more key on a dog's structure and form and field dog folks are much more key on drive and instinct. I think our dogs ride their adrenaline through the lack of form and show dogs too often lack the heart to reach the level the field-bred dogs have. Moxy's conformation and angles are a mess, I mean she's just one UGLY dog. Irish can vouch for that. But, she is a joy to run because she has so much charisma and gusto. She's been beat off the line by every bracemate she's had and just isn't fast. She's snappy, but not fast.

[Cajun Casey]

I think the defining difference in the field-bred and show-bred dogs are in their temperament????. Anyone on this board knows how driven our field-bred dogs are. They have all that heart. You can see the same thing in humans. Look at Terry Fox, he ran across Canada and limped the whole way. Compare him to the millions of people in the world who didn't have the physical disabilities he had that wouldn't have had the heart to do it. But, if Terry had not had his health issues, he would have made it across the continent in much stronger fashion. (Thinking about it, I don't think he actually finished, but you get my point.)

It seems that most field breeders are doers, not thinkers. The opposite is true with people breeding for function, they're thinkers, not doers. We spend almost all our time working our dogs and talking about how good-looking they are, how much point they have, how big they run, how classy they are. We don't read ANYWHERE near as many books because "proof's in the pudding," right? Whereas show folks, if you know many, have a higher ratio of breeders who take a more "scholarly" approach to their program. They read books with scientific backing, they don't run their dogs on birds ANYWHERE near as much as we do, but spend most of their time evaluating and talking about a dog's shoulders, topline, chest, etc.

Consider the end-all, be-all of endureance - English Pointers. Not even close. You have gobs of dogs at Ames every year and about 90% are Pointers. Ameican Pointers are an anomaly. Pointers from the other parts of the world (this is from experience, just from what I've heard from others) can't keep pace, and certainly not for any length of time, with our American Pointers. Even Bob Wehle said in his Wing & Shot videos that the English-bred pointers were stoic and less animated, couldn't hang with our dogs. But, consider then the practices of breeders since Pointers have come to America. Gobs of dogs have been bred and Gobs have been culled, keeping only the select few who are total freaks of nature. Who hasn't heard the story of those immortal breeders who go off to camp with 200 dogs and come back with ten? Do you think they sat around on their horses and said, "You know, Buster over here has really nice shoulders, long neck, nice feat and, man!, look at that angulation! I think he's making the cut." Or did it go more along the lines of, "Rebel sure is a nice dog, see the way he's quick off the line and, "bleep", look at all that drive. You know, he runs so big we lost track of him the other day and found him, twenty minutes later, standing a Sharpie with a 12 o'clock tail and high head. I think he's making the cut."

I think the show folks are (with a few exceptions) much more key on a dog's structure and form and field dog folks are much more key on drive and instinct. I think our dogs ride their adrenaline through the lack of form and show dogs too often lack the heart to reach the level the field-bred dogs have. Moxy's conformation and angles are a mess, I mean she's just one UGLY dog. Irish can vouch for that. But, she is a joy to run because she has so much charisma and gusto. She's been beat off the line by every bracemate she's had and just isn't fast. She's snappy, but not fast.

[ezzy333]

I've been looking at a lot of photos of pointers and the thing that stands out the most to me, that goes against the theory of angles, is, most, if not all, have very little angle in the top two shoulder bones (scapula and humerus). But, the vertical line from the back edge of the scapula to the elbow is often correct. These are all FIELD dogs that I'm looking at. So, considering the strength, speed, and endurance of the average pointer, I can only believe that the form and structure is "right" for a high performance field dog. The only difference I can see in the front end would be how far the breast bone comes forward, this seems to be different in each dog.

So, why are these so called perfectly formed dogs not as strong, or fast as a champion pointer?? Not too many breeds are designed to move across the ground like a pointer, setter, gsp, greyhound, borzoi etc (not intentionally leaving any out ). Are they exceptions to the "standard" rule??

Steve

The defining gait of a show dog is a trot and what can trot around a ring for ten minutes may not have what it takes to compete at a lope or a gallop on variable terrain.

Spoken like a true non-participant of fair and balanced breeding. And you may be right but if you want to see if the dog is put together right that trot is what shows it best.

Ezzy

[Stoneface]

Felicia, you're going to have to expand on this one.

[Ron R]

I want to see a dog with a narrow, deep chest and big, honkin' back hams. The narrow chest is key because that allows the dog's front legs to reach pretty much straight out and lay straight back, covering the most ground with the least effort. A front end that is too wide, both limits the amount of leg extension the dog can manage and the legs must go out and around the chest , wasting effort and motion.

Do you have any photos of any dogs that have this kind of chest? Everyone screams about broad-chestedness. It almost sounds like you're talking about the chest common in the show dogs?

Do you have a website?

Stoneface, take a look ay my avatar. I believe he represents a deep chested, straight legged dog. You can click on my pedigree for another picture of him. I'm not trying to be a braggart .

[SCT]

Whether bred for show or field, it seems only a few of the many pups born will meet the "standards" put forth by those judging. I haven't seen "show" pointers in person, but from the photos I've seen, I much prefer the "form" of field dogs. They just look like what they are, animals that move with grace, speed, strength and beauty. To me, the field dogs (not all field dogs) are superior in form, aesthetically, but that's just me.

Ezzy, does fair and balanced breeding produce perfect trotters? My dogs look pretty good trotting, but they really shine moving faster To each his own I guess.

[Stoneface]

Finally, I'll share some pictures of dogs, mostly ones that I have shown.
This first boy is a good example of a nice front, though not flawless, it exhibits most of traits of the good front in the diagram I posted talks about.

Here is a bitch who also exhibits good qualities in front structure, her length of rear is another story.

Next I have a dog with a straight shoulder but good length and angle of upper arm

Next I have a dog who exhibits a front that though it's equal, is considered rather straight.

And my favorite, a 6month old puppy in which you can really see proper front angle.

Kelli, really dig the photos of the Pointers at Westminster. It's funny how once you have a small idea of what you're looking at, you can see such a big difference in the dogs at "The Big Show." For anyone out there who doesn't know, you can go to Westminster's website and watch the judging on any breed from this past year's show.

I'm still having a hard time seeing the angulation in the Pointers, though. It's blaringly obvious in the Setters, but even the Pointer you said that had nice shoulders looks pretty straight to me. I don't know what I'm missing.

[Cajun Casey]

I've been looking at a lot of photos of pointers and the thing that stands out the most to me, that goes against the theory of angles, is, most, if not all, have very little angle in the top two shoulder bones (scapula and humerus). But, the vertical line from the back edge of the scapula to the elbow is often correct. These are all FIELD dogs that I'm looking at. So, considering the strength, speed, and endurance of the average pointer, I can only believe that the form and structure is "right" for a high performance field dog. The only difference I can see in the front end would be how far the breast bone comes forward, this seems to be different in each dog.

So, why are these so called perfectly formed dogs not as strong, or fast as a champion pointer?? Not too many breeds are designed to move across the ground like a pointer, setter, gsp, greyhound, borzoi etc (not intentionally leaving any out ). Are they exceptions to the "standard" rule??

Steve

The defining gait of a show dog is a trot and what can trot around a ring for ten minutes may not have what it takes to compete at a lope or a gallop on variable terrain.

Spoken like a true non-participant of fair and balanced breeding. And you may be right but if you want to see if the dog is put together right that trot is what shows it best.

Ezzy

Only if you are breeding for the show ring.

[ACooper]

Consider the end-all, be-all of endureance - English Pointers. Not even close.

I think her point is that a pointer is not even close to the "end-all, be-all" of canine endurance.

[fuzznut]

Millers Silver Ending- look at this dog. He stands over his front, he has pretty good front end anglulation. His elbow is under where the point of his shoulder appears to be.
He has very good rear angulation which seems to match his front. And he has a butt....
He good pasterns (not sloping or weak). He has a very strong thigh with width to it. He appears to have good feet.
It's harder to assess field pointer conformation because they are rarely shown standing four square, so a lot is quess work.

millersilverending.jpg

Here he is again, and I took the liberty of doing a little editing of his picture. I took away the 12:oo tail ( I know, I know but it's easier to see a comparison to the show type of dog) pulled his rear out a bit (again for comparison) and tried to add some weight to him. But I didn't change anything else.

fixed silver ending.jpg

All and all, a nicely put together field pointer, who I believe has done a fair amount of winning out there? A bit of weight on him... and he could probably do ok at a dog show!

[Cajun Casey]

Consider the end-all, be-all of endureance - English Pointers. Not even close.

I think her point is that a pointer is not even close to the "end-all, be-all" of canine endurance.

Pretty much. Nothing against three hour AA pointers, but look at long distance mushing dogs, nite hunter coonhounds, working stockdogs, hog dogs, military working dogs, and SARs, for example.

[ezzy333]

The defining gait of a show dog is a trot and what can trot around a ring for ten minutes may not have what it takes to compete at a lope or a gallop on variable terrain.

Spoken like a true non-participant of fair and balanced breeding. And you may be right but if you want to see if the dog is put together right that trot is what shows it best.

Ezzy

Only if you are breeding for the show ring.[/quote] Wrong again. Only if you are breeding to improve the whole dog.

[ezzy333]

Whether bred for show or field, it seems only a few of the many pups born will meet the "standards" put forth by those judging. I haven't seen "show" pointers in person, but from the photos I've seen, I much prefer the "form" of field dogs. They just look like what they are, animals that move with grace, speed, strength and beauty. To me, the field dogs (not all field dogs) are superior in form, aesthetically, but that's just me.

Ezzy, does fair and balanced breeding produce perfect trotters? My dogs look pretty good trotting, but they really shine moving faster To each his own I guess.

Absolutely true, if they are looking good trotting they will be able to look great moving faster.

Ezzy

[Cajun Casey]

The defining gait of a show dog is a trot and what can trot around a ring for ten minutes may not have what it takes to compete at a lope or a gallop on variable terrain.

Spoken like a true non-participant of fair and balanced breeding. And you may be right but if you want to see if the dog is put together right that trot is what shows it best.

Ezzy

Only if you are breeding for the show ring.

Wrong again. Only if you are breeding to improve the whole dog.[/quote]

I'll take that under advisement from someone whose chosen breed's standard allows for what is considered an incorrect gait in most breeds.

[SCT]

Thanks fuzznut, but, by changing the rear foot position further back, it would do something undesirable (to me) to his horizontal back line. I like the straight back line with the rear legs under him. In your scenario, when his feet got under him his straight back would roll down (changing ilium to ishium angle). That's exactly what I don't like about the show pointers, their backs roll down in front of the base of the tail (at the end of the lumber vertebrae). I think there's a happy medium between those two positions and I've seen field pointers have the pose close to what you're talking about. But, I believe you'd rarely see the confirmation that you are showing in a high performance champion. I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just saying it's rare in them. Obviously, because we breed our dogs to champions. Now, if, in the beginning (1800s), we would have bred to the show standard type dogs they would be more prevalent in the field today.

My question is, if we had done that, would we have better field pointers?????? No one can say for sure.

[Ron R]

Consider the end-all, be-all of endureance - English Pointers. Not even close.

I think her point is that a pointer is not even close to the "end-all, be-all" of canine endurance.

Pretty much. Nothing against three hour AA pointers, but look at long distance mushing dogs, nite hunter coonhounds, working stockdogs, hog dogs, military working dogs, and SARs, for example.

From my experience birddogs are among the top of your list along with "running" hounds (different than the treeing hounds that were previously mentioned) and bulldogs.

[SCT]

Ezzy, are you saying we should all breed our pointers to show dogs to improve the breed?? And then what field standard would change??? Nada!!! Has anyone here bred a quality field dog to a show dog and then competed in trials?? If so, how did they do??

[fuzznut]

SCT- OK, I'll buy your response... just trying to show Apples to Apples. Not saying which is better, or worse.
Pulling the rear out on any dog will show "things" It will flatten a topline, it will straighten stifle... but tough to do it correctly with only a picture and photo shop.
Point I guess I was trying to make... this is a dog who appears to have all the right parts, in all the right spots.
Fuzz

[Stoneface]

Fuzz, that is an AWESOME photo. He does look like he has some outstanding fore angulation, doesn't he? I'd like to see what Irish and some of the others think. Show dogs are supposed to be square, though, and the tail is supposed to be lower than the reworked image. I think the standard calls for no more than 20' above the topline. I also think they'd get him on rear legs, but I can't find any photos, anywhere on the net, with a birddog with shoulders that look like that. I've noticed a lot of Pointer - virtually all - seem to really have short forearms, from the point of the shoulder to the elbow. I don't believe Silver Ending had that problem! Thanks a bunch for posting that photo.

Felicia, considering this whole conversation's been in the context of birddogs, I didn't think I'd have to elaborate on it. But, Wehle took his dogs up against the muching dogs and did pretty well. He may not have been able to compete in the Iditarod, but they are two different beasts. The teams at the Iditarod don't hold extreme pace for three hours at a time, they go down into first gear and hang there for long periods. They couldn't keep up with Pointers at Ames and a Pointer couldn't keep up with a sled dog in Alaska.

The coonhounds aren't comparable to Pointers either, in my opinion. They go all night and cover big distances, but they're not at the consistent high speed of a Pointer, either. No way could a coonhound hold pace with a Pointer in a heat like you see at Ames. They could go as long, but not at that pace.

Show me one stockdog that sprints for three hours straight and I'll show you a dog that doesn't. They work for long periods of time, but it's not go-go-go. A Border Collie will work himself to death, on his own accord, if you let him, but when they don't maintain the high level of performance in one outing that a Pointer does. They're amazing to watch, but it's a lot of stop-go-stop-go.

When you get into military/working dogs and SAR dogs, that's where my backgroud is, even moreso than birddogs. That's just one argument that won't hold water. Working dogs are insanely driven, especially Malinois. I know, I've owned them, worked with them and own one right now. Like I've said, she has more drive than any two birddogs around, but that doesn't mean she could hold pace with a Pointer. In fact, I know she can't because she, nor any of the other Malinois I've had, could hold pace with any birddog they've ever ran with. They're like a Border Collie and will work themsevles to death, on their own accord, if you let them. But, they're no match for Pointers at the Pointers' game.

When I say "Consider the end-all, be-all of endureance - English Pointers...." I'm comparing Pointers to other birddogs, apples to apples. I'm not comparing them to working dogs, coonhounds, stock dogs, sled dogs. That would be comparing apples to oranges.

[fuzznut]

Stoneface.... it's only a tail! It's not where it's carried, it's how it's attached to the body!
And when you say "show dogs are supposed to be square".... what breed are you speaking of?

Fuzz

[Stoneface]

Did you guys know that Dan Hendrickson - Phantom Kennels - just bred the latest dual champion in the breed (FC and show Ch.) and Wehle had some dogs mix into the show ring.

This is the pedigree for the two dual champions shown below. They're owned by one of the top show kennels in America. This breeder has dogs show at Westminster regularly. http://patriot.net/~kinnike/Hedda_pedigree.html





Wehle's dogs have produced more than just these two, but these are the only two I can find a photo of.

Fuzz, I guess I misunderstood why you moved the tail. Sorry. When I say square, I'm talking about Pointers. At least that's what the pedigree calls for. Calls for those goofy-lookin' heads, tool. Haha. :roll:

[KwikIrish]

Fuzz nut great example of a pointer who was bred for the field and would likely succeed in the ring.

Sct my field mentor has done it and does do it. The results are not in the first generation, but instead it becomes a program which will take many generations to perfect. It takes dedication to work for the dual goal, and many breeders on both sides of the house aren't willing to compromise winning in their venue to work tonwards the bettermen of the breed. In my breed, it's much harder to attain than breeds like the gsp and. Brit who have found much success in the production of dogs which succeed in the dual world.

[KwikIrish]

Stoneface.... it's only a tail! It's not where it's carried, it's how it's attached to the body!
And when you say "show dogs are supposed to be square".... what breed are you speaking of?

Fuzz

Fuzz, I believe be is referring to the way the legs are placed, not the shape of the body.

[KwikIrish]

I'm still having a hard time seeing the angulation in the Pointers, though. It's blaringly obvious in the Setters, but even the Pointer you said that had nice shoulders looks pretty straight to me. I don't know what I'm missing.

that's because compared to some breeds he doesn't have an excessively nice front. It just happens to be a better example of today's pointer.

[SCT]

Fuzz nut great example of a pointer who was bred for the field and would likely succeed in the ring.

Sct my field mentor has done it and does do it. The results are not in the first generation, but instead it becomes a program which will take many generations to perfect. It takes dedication to work for the dual goal, and many breeders on both sides of the house aren't willing to compromise winning in their venue to work tonwards the bettermen of the breed. In my breed, it's much harder to attain than breeds like the gsp and. Brit who have found much success in the production of dogs which succeed in the dual world.

Kwik, I'm all for improving the breed. A bigger problem IMO is that it seems very, very few pointer breeders care about bite, legs, joints, organ health, cancer, etc, and the modern pointer is full of health problems. There are some who really care, but unfortunately it's dang few. My well wishes go towards your friend who's doing it and hope to hear from his efforts in the future. Thanks for your input Fuzznut and Kwikirish.

Steve

[fuzznut]

lets remember, this isn't about show dogs vs field dogs.
it's about structure, what is good,, what isn't. People who have been around for years and years just take things for granted, we know what we like and want (and don't) and why.
The newer folks may not understand why a rolling topline could be bad, why long toes could be bad, why a shallow narrow chest could be bad.

Different breed require different structure... not all breeds should look like an Ames Winner! A Britt that looks like a pointer????? Wrong in so many ways
Fuzz

[Ron R]

A bigger problem IMO is that it seems very, very few pointer breeders care about bite, legs, joints, organ health, cancer, etc, and the modern pointer is full of health problems.

You are one very mis-informed person. Field performace is first and I believe it should be but to say that most breeders don't care about health problems, joints, legs and bites is ridiculous.

[Stoneface]

I've been talking to people who really study up on conformation, structure, form, function, etc. Show breeders, vets, the folks on this board. I've come across two examples that really stick out in my head.

1. The reason a dog needs his shoulders/elbows up under him is for support. Set up two saw horses about seven foot apart (dog's legs) then lay a sheet of plywood across them (dog's back) and, finally, put a block in the middle of the sheet of plywood and watch it sag. Now, move the saw horses about five or six foot apart and the board, or back, will sag less. Pretty comon sense, but makes for a good mental image.

2. Shoulders should be at a 90' angle to minimize shock to the dog's foreassemply. Well-angulated dogs' shoulders act like leaf springs and when the dog comes down on his front legs, the shoulders hinge to absord impact. Straight shoulders absorb impact like a tamping stick, much less hinge-ability.

This makes total sense to me and, unless someone can argue the downside of well-angulated, tucked-under forequarters, I don't see any reason to think otherwise. But, something that I wonder about is if tucked-under forequarters will jack with a dog's balance. I don't mean symmetry in how he's built, but in his ability to navigate and such. It's like when you're a kid, riding your bike, and you're leaning over the handle bars. If you've ever been leaning over the handlebars and tried to make a quick, sharp turn, or stop real quick, you know how hard it is to keep your balance. I figure a dog whose front legs are under him would be like the kid over the handle bars; the dog's front legs being like the bike's front tire.

Anyone have a take on this idea?

[SCT]

You are right Ron, what I meant is that most people (especially back yard breeders) breed to their favorite dog not concerned about skeletal flaws, or other health issues that should be culled. Breeding is more of an emotional decision for many. I agree with you, field performance is first and most important, but not at the expense of the health of a breed. Can you tell me that there is less health issues in pointers than there were 30, 40, 50 years ago??? We may be producing the best trial dogs ever, I don't know, but, we sure want to go back into the past and bring old blood back into the mix.

Maybe I am mis-informed, but I think the number of guys breeding their dogs to top field trial champions isn't even close to the number of folks breeding their favorite dog to a friends favorite dog. So when I say very few, I'm speaking in relative terms.

[fuzznut]

So, why are these so called perfectly formed dogs not as strong, or fast as a champion pointer?? Not too many breeds are designed to move across the ground like a pointer, setter, gsp, greyhound, borzoi etc (not intentionally leaving any out ). Are they exceptions to the "standard" rule??

Heck, if we knew that answer.....
There are always exceptions, in both directions! Dogs who may conform exactly to their standard may not have the "want" bred in. Sad to say, probably many do not. Again we go back to... the whole dog, mind and body! When the two come together.... it's a thing of beauty.
Fuzz

[Cajun Casey]

About fifty genes separate a chihuahua from a wolf. And people think they can figure out that delicate operation from a few pictures on the Net or by reading Snakefoot a couple of times. I prefer to just believe in divine intervention.

[SCT]

So, why are these so called perfectly formed dogs not as strong, or fast as a champion pointer?? Not too many breeds are designed to move across the ground like a pointer, setter, gsp, greyhound, borzoi etc (not intentionally leaving any out ). Are they exceptions to the "standard" rule??

Heck, if we knew that answer.....
There are always exceptions, in both directions! Dogs who may conform exactly to their standard may not have the "want" bred in. Sad to say, probably many do not. Again we go back to... the whole dog, mind and body! When the two come together.... it's a thing of beauty.
Fuzz

I have no doubt, and sorry about going off track Stoneface.

[JKP]

Look at the Millers Silver Ending....then look at the Irish Setter.....put the pictures side by side where the hocks of both dogs are vertical to the ground. There is no way that the overangulated show dog, with that length of leg, keeps up the pace over the distance and length of time. Too many show dogs are OVERANGULATED....moving too much leg....where when the hocks are set up perpendicular to the ground, the feet are WAY too far behind the rear of the dog. This kind of structure doesn't hold up in the field, is more prone to structural problems and injury.

Notice how the Millers Silver ending Dog is high at the whithers yet well laid back....and with a forechest.....reach and drive....great balance....but no beard

[ezzy333]

A bigger problem IMO is that it seems very, very few pointer breeders care about bite, legs, joints, organ health, cancer, etc, and the modern pointer is full of health problems.

You are one very mis-informed person. Field performace is first and I believe it should be but to say that most breeders don't care about health problems, joints, legs and bites is ridiculous.

That is exactly what Calloway preached. Everything was field performance and there was nothing else that mattered. I never really believed him but he sure tried to convince everyone.

Ezzy

[KwikIrish]

Look at the Millers Silver Ending....then look at the Irish Setter.....put the pictures side by side where the hocks of both dogs are vertical to the ground. There is no way that the overangulated show dog, with that length of leg, keeps up the pace over the distance and length of time. Too many show dogs are OVERANGULATED....moving too much leg....where when the hocks are set up perpendicular to the ground, the feet are WAY too far behind the rear of the dog. This kind of structure doesn't hold up in the field, is more prone to structural problems and injury.

Notice how the Millers Silver ending Dog is high at the whithers yet well laid back....and with a forechest.....reach and drive....great balance....but no beard

I didnt post those pictures to exhibit rear angulation, but as live examples to go with the diagram I poster previously. You're correct about a lot of show dogs having too much rear. I own one who is a prime example, but she has every bit as much front.
More prone to structural injury? Not any more prone than the dogs with gappy elbows, straight stifles and double jointed hocks.
There is more than just this one feature to blame for these dogs not being able to keep up in the field. Most don't because they don't have the drive, or they havent been bred and culled for generations apon generations to be a true bird dog. Also, not all of them are supposed to hunt to the standards you're implying. I suppose you might critique a spinone for not "keeping up" either? The goal of this thread is discussion of structure and learning about what we are seeing in the dogs, not about degrading one type for not being able to "keep up". By choosing one trait (angle) as a scape goat for injury is choosing a path of ignorance. Far too many other flaws exist.

[Cajun Casey]

Look at the Millers Silver Ending....then look at the Irish Setter.....put the pictures side by side where the hocks of both dogs are vertical to the ground. There is no way that the overangulated show dog, with that length of leg, keeps up the pace over the distance and length of time. Too many show dogs are OVERANGULATED....moving too much leg....where when the hocks are set up perpendicular to the ground, the feet are WAY too far behind the rear of the dog. This kind of structure doesn't hold up in the field, is more prone to structural problems and injury.

Notice how the Millers Silver ending Dog is high at the whithers yet well laid back....and with a forechest.....reach and drive....great balance....but no beard

I didnt post those pictures to exhibit rear angulation, but as live examples to go with the diagram I poster previously. You're correct about a lot of show dogs having too much rear. I own one who is a prime example, but she has every bit as much front.
More prone to structural injury? Not any more prone than the dogs with gappy elbows, straight stifles and double jointed hocks.
There is more than just this one feature to blame for these dogs not being able to keep up in the field. Most don't because they don't have the drive, or they havent been bred and culled for generations apon generations to be a true bird dog. Also, not all of them are supposed to hunt to the standards you're implying. I suppose you might critique a spinone for not "keeping up" either? The goal of this thread is discussion of structure and learning about what we are seeing in the dogs, not about degrading one type for not being able to "keep up". By choosing one trait (angle) as a scape goat for injury is choosing a path of ignorance. Far too many other flaws exist.

Irish setters started out as a true birddog. I've seen very few show bred Irish that don't have decent prey drive, particularly as puppies. It is generations upon generations of selection for exaggerated features for the Conformation ring that has created a certain type. As far as keeping up the pace, that doesn't mean the dog has to keep up with anything other than itself. It's when structure or coat drags the dog down that phenotype becomes an issue. This isn't exclusive to Irish setters, though, it runs across the board in Sporting breeds.

[JKP]

There is more than just this one feature to blame for these dogs not being able to keep up in the field.

I am not blaming anyone....and I will stand behind my comment. Take a look at the angulation of sled dogs...these are the supreme athletes of the canine world. Whether pulling light or heavy load, these dogs have the most endurance. Show me one with the kind of front and rear that you see on many show dogs, and I might change my opinion.

[ezzy333]

There is more than just this one feature to blame for these dogs not being able to keep up in the field.

I am not blaming anyone....and I will stand behind my comment. Take a look at the angulation of sled dogs...these are the supreme athletes of the canine world. Whether pulling light or heavy load, these dogs have the most endurance. Show me one with the kind of front and rear that you see on many show dogs, and I might change my opinion.

You can't judge right or wrong from looking at one breed and saying that is the way all dogs should be. Not even close. Different breeds are bred for different type of performance and there is usually a conformation standard that supports that function.

Ezzy

[KwikIrish]

http://theboldcorsicanflame.files.wordp ... d-dogs.jpg
One of the first pictures I open shows a dog witha nice lay back and decent return of upper arm. Not all breed should have as much front angle as the other, in the same breath, a straight shoulder and short straight forearm should inhibit the dogs ability to reach. That's talking from a general structure standpoint. IMO form doesn't always hold true, and I think we have all seen cases of that.

Overall, it's not about how much angle I'm seeing but the desire to see a balance of angles, and I explained by in previous replies to this post. I am not accusing you of blaming anyone, rather pinpointing this one fault. If there is one thing I have learned the true importance of when it comes to physics attributes, it's how little my breed pays attention to coat and how much that can impede a dogs ability. Thanks for bringing that up Cajun.

I'm not saying that these dogs should have rear that reaches for miles, nor should an excessive ammount of front be rewarded, but angle is something that should not be ignored (both good kinds and bad).

[JKP]

Overall, it's not about how much angle I'm seeing but the desire to see a balance of angles, and I explained by in previous replies to this post. I am not accusing you of blaming anyone, rather pinpointing this one fault. If there is one thing I have learned the true importance of when it comes to physics attributes, it's how little my breed pays attention to coat and how much that can impede a dogs ability. Thanks for bringing that up Cajun.

I'm not saying that these dogs should have rear that reaches for miles, nor should an excessive ammount of front be rewarded, but angle is something that should not be ignored (both good kinds and bad).

If your discussion included reference to your experience with working dogs over weeks in the Dakotas, you might get my attention. But what I hear is a show person talking... looking for a "picture", an outline that looks good in the show ring and for the 8x10" glossy. Look at sled dogs...look at working hounds...if you want endurance, that is the "picture" you should emulate. Run your dogs for 4-6 hours/day, every day for 2-3 weeks and you quickly learn what dogs hold up and which don't....and the long legged, angulated show dog structure will not cut it. The common Fox Hound or Walker has more staying power than what you are describing. Take a look at the Pointers who run 3 hour stakes...they don't look anything like what you are describing. They look that way because that is what can go the distance.

AKC show dogs and the dog bred for the that perfect "picture" moment is not what actually works. Its all a farce....started in England years ago. When you let performance decide instead of the "man made" beauty parade, the results are quite different.

[ezzy333]

Overall, it's not about how much angle I'm seeing but the desire to see a balance of angles, and I explained by in previous replies to this post. I am not accusing you of blaming anyone, rather pinpointing this one fault. If there is one thing I have learned the true importance of when it comes to physics attributes, it's how little my breed pays attention to coat and how much that can impede a dogs ability. Thanks for bringing that up Cajun.

I'm not saying that these dogs should have rear that reaches for miles, nor should an excessive ammount of front be rewarded, but angle is something that should not be ignored (both good kinds and bad).

If your discussion included reference to your experience with working dogs over weeks in the Dakotas, you might get my attention. But what I hear is a show person talking... looking for a "picture", an outline that looks good in the show ring and for the 8x10" glossy. Look at sled dogs...look at working hounds...if you want endurance, that is the "picture" you should emulate. Run your dogs for 4-6 hours/day, every day for 2-3 weeks and you quickly learn what dogs hold up and which don't....and the long legged, angulated show dog structure will not cut it. The common Fox Hound or Walker has more staying power than what you are describing. Take a look at the Pointers who run 3 hour stakes...they don't look anything like what you are describing. They look that way because that is what can go the distance.

AKC show dogs and the dog bred for the that perfect "picture" moment is not what actually works. Its all a farce....started in England years ago. When you let performance decide instead of the "man made" beauty parade, the results are quite different.

You are stating your opinion and that is good but it is far from the opinions of many others that have as much or more experience than either you and I. And even with just the two of us my opinion that is worth no more than yours on the open market is very different. My point being we should be stating this is our opinions and not trying to say our opinion is the only opinion that is right. Just isn't true. Conformation standards were put in place for every domesticated animal I know of and they were there to in selecting a type that will allow that animal to have a long and productive life while fulfilling the job it was bred to do. I am sure we have seen some erosion in some of those standards but most are still pretty close to where they started if we could just get some of the coats and desire back where they belong.

Ezzy

[Stoneface]

I wouldn't knock Kelli (Irish). She shows dogs, but she also runs trials (I know, she whooped my and Moxy's butt proper with a little V in October), does her share of chasing wild birds and just knows her dogs all around. Been messing with dogs since she was just a squirt and just got back from walk about, running trials on the American and Canadian west coast. She may be versed in the bench world, but I wouldn't call her a bench enthusiast, I'd call her a dual enthusiast. She travels the country, from California to New York, for her dogs and to learn. I'm pretty solid in what I believe and my methods and am not quick to change my mind, but when Kelli says something it's worth listening to.

[JKP]

Conformation standards were put in place for every domesticated animal I know of and they were there to in selecting a type that will allow that animal to have a long and productive life while fulfilling the job it was bred to do.

You need to look at WHO put those conformation standards in place. What is the conformation standard for the FDSB Pointer or the Alaskan Sled Dog? How can the standards for the English Fox Hound and the Irish Setter be so different if they have both been bred for endurance? You won't find any Fox Hound set up with vertical hocks a foot behind the tailbone. Use your head...take a look at the show dogs and you will find that in most cases the conformation is grossly exaggerated and few work beyond going to the nearest tree to relieve themselves. Look at an Arabian and then at a Thoroughbred....which is preferred for 150-500 mile races. Its not the Thoroughbred...its the cobby, shorter strided Arab.

Endurance dogs don't have that long exaggerated gait...its shorter, compact, efficient and the proportions require a minimum of energy so that it can be repeated for hours, day after day. A 30 minute or hour brace is not the measure of conformation and movement and certainly not the show ring. Day after day, hour after hour in the grass and brushlands and swamp, year after year.... is a much better evaluation. With most show dogs you haven't a clue if that is their capability...but they have great angles....pictures are pretty.

[brad27]

A 30 minute or hour brace is not the measure of conformation and movement and certainly not the show ring. Day after day, hour after hour in the grass and brushlands and swamp, year after year.... is a much better evaluation.

viewtopic.php?f=87&t=32505
Some people do both. Some, all three.

[KwikIrish]

Some people will breed a dog soley based off performance. Some will breed a dog solely for what it looks like. In my opinion, both are wrong.

By your standards, if you call it a pointer, it's a pointer. Never mind that it has the head of a shorthair, core of a greyhound, legs of a husky and is brindle in color. It can run all day and boy, and it's pedigree says its (insert popular pointer breeding here).

A thoroughbred wasnt bred to look or run like and arab and vice versa. People chose to have arabs for one reason and thoroughbred owners chose theirs for another. I am not going to buy a gwp and expect it to perform in the same manor as a pointer. Two different types, two different standards.

I want a dog that looks like the breed I love. I don't like going to a trial and having to take a double take to ensure that the gsp I'm looking at is indeed a gsp and not a pointer. They shouldn't look the same. No breed should look like the other. It goes against the definition of the breed. Breeding to maintain true breed type is essential. Granted, angle doesn't make or break the dogs type, ignoring type when breeding will continue to muddy the lines of our beloved breeds, doing our dogs and those who have dedicated themselves to te breed a disservice.

You are just as responsible for those conformation standards as I am. If you don't like it, step up and initiate change. Until you do, stop complaining about those who do their part to meet the standards of form.

On a side note, and perhaps more on topic, no where in any breed standard does it call for the "grossly exaggerated" features. Judges who reward such do so because their interpretation of the standard is different than yours or mine. Generally, we are all on the same side when it comes to our views on the exaggerated form. It's all about interpretation of the standard.

[KwikIrish]

Jkp, You know what's odd? Most every dog I can find on your website exhibits a decent ammout of angle in both front and rear, especially the katja bitch, and she looks all dd to me. You come off as preaching something entirely different than you are practicing, and I kind of like what you are practicing!

[Cajun Casey]

Some people will breed a dog soley based off performance. Some will breed a dog solely for what it looks like. In my opinion, both are wrong.

By your standards, if you call it a pointer, it's a pointer. Never mind that it has the head of a shorthair, core of a greyhound, legs of a husky and is brindle in color. It can run all day and boy, and it's pedigree says its (insert popular pointer breeding here).

A thoroughbred wasnt bred to look or run like and arab and vice versa. People chose to have arabs for one reason and thoroughbred owners chose theirs for another. I am not going to buy a gwp and expect it to perform in the same manor as a pointer. Two different types, two different standards.

I want a dog that looks like the breed I love. I don't like going to a trial and having to take a double take to ensure that the gsp I'm looking at is indeed a gsp and not a pointer. They shouldn't look the same.Maybe you should look at the rear end first. :roll: No breed should look like the other. It goes against the definition of the breed. Breeding to maintain true breed type is essential. Granted, angle doesn't make or break the dogs type, ignoring type when breeding will continue to muddy the lines of our beloved breeds, doing our dogs and those who have dedicated themselves to te breed a disservice.

You are just as responsible for those conformation standards as I am. If you don't like it, step up and initiate change. Until you do, stop complaining about those who do their part to meet the standards of form.

On a side note, and perhaps more on topic, no where in any breed standard does it call for the "grossly exaggerated" features. Judges who reward such do so because their interpretation of the standard is different than yours or mine. Generally, we are all on the same side when it comes to our views on the exaggerated form. It's all about interpretation of the standard.

Are you acquainted with Richard Beauchamp's book on type?

[KwikIrish]

Some people will breed a dog soley based off performance. Some will breed a dog solely for what it looks like. In my opinion, both are wrong.

By your standards, if you call it a pointer, it's a pointer. Never mind that it has the head of a shorthair, core of a greyhound, legs of a husky and is brindle in color. It can run all day and boy, and it's pedigree says its (insert popular pointer breeding here).

A thoroughbred wasnt bred to look or run like and arab and vice versa. People chose to have arabs for one reason and thoroughbred owners chose theirs for another. I am not going to buy a gwp and expect it to perform in the same manor as a pointer. Two different types, two different standards.

I want a dog that looks like the breed I love. I don't like going to a trial and having to take a double take to ensure that the gsp I'm looking at is indeed a gsp and not a pointer. They shouldn't look the same.Maybe you should look at the rear end first. :roll: No breed should look like the other. It goes against the definition of the breed. Breeding to maintain true breed type is essential. Granted, angle doesn't make or break the dogs type, ignoring type when breeding will continue to muddy the lines of our beloved breeds, doing our dogs and those who have dedicated themselves to te breed a disservice.

You are just as responsible for those conformation standards as I am. If you don't like it, step up and initiate change. Until you do, stop complaining about those who do their part to meet the standards of form.

On a side note, and perhaps more on topic, no where in any breed standard does it call for the "grossly exaggerated" features. Judges who reward such do so because their interpretation of the standard is different than yours or mine. Generally, we are all on the same side when it comes to our views on the exaggerated form. It's all about interpretation of the standard.

Are you acquainted with Richard Beauchamp's book on type?

No, I haven't read it. And thanks for the insight, but the point was that the tail shouldn't be the only defining difference. Next time, I'll be sure to spell it out.

[JKP]

On a side note, and perhaps more on topic, no where in any breed standard does it call for the "grossly exaggerated" features. Judges who reward such do so because their interpretation of the standard is different than yours or mine. Generally, we are all on the same side when it comes to our views on the exaggerated form. It's all about interpretation of the standard.

PLEASE....AKC shows are more about politics, the "flying picture" and the professional handler on the end of the lead. Sure...not always...but please don't tell me AKC shows are about the standard.

Jkp, You know what's odd? Most every dog I can find on your website exhibits a decent ammout of angle in both front and rear, especially the katja bitch, and she looks all dd to me. You come off as preaching something entirely different than you are practicing, and I kind of like what you are practicing!

I look for functional conformation...show conformation has become something entirely different. Besides, my dogs don't have enough hair to feather the angles Imagine that..."decent" dogs and all from Euro mutts. I'll stick with working dogs....others can concentrate on the beauty queens.

[Georgia Boy]

Thoughts?