A Question Re: The Standard - Page 1

Hello GSD fanciers, one and all. I would like someone to clearify a portion of the FCI Standard as depicted on this database. Paragraph #10 alludes to a forty-five degree layback of the shoulder with the upper arm joingin the shoulder blade in an approximate right angle. Paragraph #11 regarding the hindquarters states that the upper theigh bone meets the slightly longer lower theigh bone at an approximately one hundred-twenty degree angle. The angulation corresponds roughly to the fore quarter angulation without bing overangulation. My question is, how can the rear angulation of 120 degrees correspond to the fore quarter of 45 degree angulation. It must be in the way this is measured. Can someone clearify this for me? Thanks

Pardon the spelling. I have only been speaking English for approximately three generations. ecs

When the standard speaks of 120 degrees in the rear quarter it refers to the angle when the foot is drawn back in the posed position. The problem with this evaluation is they don't state how far back the foot is to be drawn. The only possible way to make an exact measurement is to evaluate the angle when the foot is directly under the hip socket which is when the entire assembly is at the maximum point of contraction. At this position you should have a 90 degree angle in the rear quarter thus paralling the assembly in the forequarter i.e. the scapular parallels the femur, and the humerus parallels the tibia.

Lenny, Thank you for your input. It concurs with my thoughts completely. Why in the world this measurement was decided upon is a mystery and lends to mis-intrepretation, in my not so humbly openion. Thanks for the insight. I had sort of hoped you would have answered. Had a nice talk with you in Nashville at the gate. ecs

Lenny and ecs, Good question you posed ces. Always wondering as to what is correct angulation when I see extreme forms. Lennie, if I had to guess at how far back leg should be drawn, I'd hazard as far back until rear-pastern is vertical. One thing baffles me a bit - if I can sort it out in my mind: angles we're talking about are sported at different heights, animals vary in shape, and for purpose here, especially in length; and, to certain extent fore and aft assemblies are separate entities with somewhat different functions, distanced from each other as they are by mid hand. Now, one has to admire elegance of simple logic that the two angles should be in agreement as explained by Lennie and Standard, but, from an operational point of view ( and aiming for ideal outcomes, that is) is their really such a direct logical connection? In other words, is it something we've dreamed up, or something proven to be anatomically the best? Ecs, one thing keeps on haunting me. Way back, you explained where overall centre of gravity may be found. I can understand the 'where', but not exactly the 'why'. Have you any further information on this? Regards.