Who says competitive WL GSDs can't have excellent conformation - Page 13

Amanda, a very sensible view. Congratulations on your dog.. Shows very good solid top line. Need to see on loose leash to evaluate movement. Looks like V or at least SG to me. But I will leave that to the SV judge and the "experts" here (who present dogs they do not own and have never seen) to determine.

These people who wish to present their "opinion"  as the only correct version of the GSD and not their dogs are clueless.

I applaud you that you present your opinion at the end of a leash and not someone else's dog.

I have been at this long enough that I no longer seek to learn what others know. Show me what you got, I can tell you PDQ what you know. (when I say "you" I am not speaking to "you" in first person).

Sorry, but every statement made here must be qualified to the ninth degree..

Rick Atchley

 What I´m saying is that structure isn´t totally unimportant but exaggerations that some find correct/pretty nowadays adds nothing for the dog as a workingdog, if it did why are all wild doglike animals having a structure more similar to the GSDs of over 100 years ago, which had straight backs and not so much angulation but obviously was the way herding/workingdogs was constructed. 

I´m also pretty sure what´s inside the dogs head is even more important, a dog runs/works with his head and not his angulations a famous breeder of GSD once said, also a horse that won a big competition did so according to his owner due to his normal structure without exxagerations but even more so with his fightingspirit. The founder of the breed also said that the breed should only be judged as a workingdog and hence ability to work should be rated over beauty.

If a dog can work very well for long time and also is agile and quick in various terrain that´s proof he is sound in mind and body don´t you think? I don´t think someone can judge how healthy and how long his body will hold just by trotting around in a ring for some time. People will breed what they want but yet no one have any proof that there something wrong with the structure of old for a workingdog, it´s just a change in fashion and hence totally irrelevant for many if a GSD is pretty or not according to others. If a wining showdog also was the type better suited for workingdogs then I wouldn´t argue, but this talk about excellent structure and ugly dogs is a bit strange when a winning showdog of today 40 years ago would have been rated as not typical for the breed. If the standard hasn´t been changed that is.

Rik, yes I´m aware that the police have a few showlines and also some mediocre dogs so I don´t see what that proofs. You like everyone else is entitled to your opinions but if you are saying that it´s something serious faults in the structure of some of the dogs I showed and it´s important that they have more angulations and long roached backs it would be intressting to know why, or is it just a personal opinion about what is beautiful that we are discussing here?

"is it just a personal opinion about what is beautiful that we are discussing here?"
Yes, that is exactly what we are discussing here Johan, for those who are actually discussing and not posting pictures to peddle puppies. 

Rik, thank you for putting it so incontrovetibly: "Structure adds no points for sport, is not a determining factor in suitably for work." I would be interested as to the exact quote that makes you think the founder thought we should have beauty contests for our working breed. 

Here is a picture of what I consider beautiful in a GSD:
http://www.working-dog.eu/dogs-details/506175/Basco%20des%20Trévires/
Note he is not standing, stacked or otherwise. Note also that he has been bred for the past few generations completely outside the corrupt system that perpetuates the V conformation superiority lie.
I'm thinking that my vision of beauty is a lot closer to the founder's than any other photo that has been posted in this thread.

That is Jeff's dog? .... does he have any puppies right now?

the "founder" and throughout GSD history has included structure and conformation as a requirement for breeding - along with the work. To this day, a requirement for breeding/registration includes STRUCTURE and yes participation in a conformation SHOW to achieve a passing rating of G or better. To get pink papers, BOTH parents must go one step further and be breed surveyed, not once but twice for their lifetime rating - which involves more showing and evaluating their movement, bone, structure, yes pigment and eye color too - molly

Let me preface this by saying that currently all my dogs have at least one parent with a rating of V conformation. Having said that, in close to 40 years in working with military, police, sport, and competition dogs, I have never seen a dog that was of less quality because of the conformation. I have seen many dogs in these aspects that were not as good because of temperament, biddability, softness/hardness,etc. But I have seen some fantastic working dogs (and plenty of them) that's conformation was "G". This conformation is needed to work all day is the biggest bunch of baloney that is usually espouced by people who have limited contact with working dogs. Go ask a police/narcotic training director of twenty years who has probably seen hundreds of dogs work over years if they have seen working dogs hurt by conformation. BS...This is our ego and desire to have something pretty....has nothing to do with working ability. For dogs its about what's between the ears 80% and only the people who don't have extensive experience with real working dogs believe anything different.

Gustav, you speak of working dogs as if you are talking about something general. Many different kinds of breeds can be a working dog...But we are specifically talking about German Shepherds here. And in order to keep the breed the way in which we all have learned to love it, We need to have work, but we also need it to LOOK like a German Shepherd...otherwise, get yourself a malinois!!

Amanda

Amanda, please tell me why we have so much variation in how a V dog looks  within' each type if all you conformation folks know what a GSD is supposed to look like?  Shouldn't they all look the same?  Isn't excellent conformation excellent?  Why the variation?

Don't bother, I already know the answer.  I wish half the folk that play God with the GSD would indeed get themselves a Malinois.

Afwark15,
The breed was CREATED to work....period!  The German Shepherd should have good working conformation. The type of dogs many of you deem ugly is G conformation. That is acceptable for work and acceptable for breeding. Fortunately, the founders put the emphasis on work so that G rated dogs wouldn't be eliminated from the genetic pool just because of their looks. Because many of you on here would eliminate a G dog from your breeding program even though the dog is a superior worker....and that is the road to S---L-----.

My foundation female was G KKl-2, as was her daughter, both were the dams of more awesome working dogs.  Both of these G KKl-2 females were Schh3 multiple times, had superb temperaments and drives - everything I wanted in a working AND breeding dog and would kill to have again in my program.  But I bred them to improve structure without losing working ability - and that is something I believe I accomplished.  But the foundation was G Kkl-2 and nothing wrong with that as long as you are not purposefully breeding faulty structure just for the work.  Has to be both, or not at all.

molly