Who says competitive WL GSDs can't have excellent conformation - Page 14

Very nicely said Molly. Gustav, I am not saying that ALL breeding stock has to be V...but it sure is nice to see a V dog work his ass off. But like Molly said, rendering any type of conformation rating useless, and breeding dogs with floppy ears or missing teeth is just wrong, and does the breed no good.

With so many awesome working GSD out there that are V...why not utilize them huh?

Amanda

Molly,
What you described is very sensible breeding in that you needed to improve structure because you had the other pieces in place. Suppose mental strength is what is needed and you have choices between V good temperament and G exceptional temperament. What do you think most breeders today would do??? Now this question is very generic because I realize a lot more goes into breeding decisions than above. But on principle given the above I daresay the average breeder of today goes to the V dog to decrease temperament but look real "pretty". JMO based on peoples actions.

I don't cut corners in my program.  I look at the DOG first.  his/her temperament (first), nerve strength, drive - then if I like what I see in the working dog I look at the pedigree and health history.  If I like the pedigree well enough then I look at the structure - and a V rated dog with the work (drive, temperament, nerves) that I want and the pedigree that is acceptable, is a bonus for sure.  I certainly woudln't turn away from a SG dog, and I woudln't turn away from an excellent G KKl-2 dog either.  I just probably wouldn't breed a G dog to a G dog.  The match should be to improve - the total package including structure.

It does not matter at all a dogs rating when being assessed for a job in the real world.The dog must be judged on his own merits for suitability for the job.

Some here take the stance that an unrated or G is automatically better for a real job (because it looks more like a dog from 40 yrs. ago) than a V. That is absurd.

When the American s/l I posted was evaluated, the LE trainer and the handler never once asked about his pedigree, his "rating" or if he was s/l or w/l. Never once commented on his structure. They did their tests, were very pleased with the results.

Really don't understand why some get so overwrought when their preference is not someone else's preference.

Rik.

"Some here take the stance that an unrated or G is automatically better for a real job (because it looks more like a dog from 40 yrs. ago) than a V. That is absurd."

Yep, agree totally with the principle here.  And to look at it from the other angle; some people seem to take the stance that a V rated dog is automatically better constructed than a G or unrated dog.  That is equally absurd.

 @Rik-you said, "It does not matter at all a dogs rating when being assessed for a job in the real world."
But isn't the whole reason for the korung to assess the dog as breedworthy, ie. suitable for work?
If there are componants of the assessment which are superfluous and irrelevant to working ability (eye color???), why do they exist and why use them as a barometer of breed worthiness?

@pod-That pursuit of Vrated conformation in a breeding program does indeed negatively impact working ability-both in some of the actual physical traits that are being bred for (example: toplines-doesn't the standard say "level"???? Wonder why spine problems are now rampant in the breed) and in the consessive attitude of trying to obtain both working ability and "excellent"(NOT) 
conformation in a dog/breeding program. Pretty(show) + good(work)=shit.

Rik, I hear no one saying that a G dog is automatically better for working, that's an extrapolation you are making. What is the truth is that the MAORITY of V dogs(because the majority of  V"s are showlines) are not suitable for real work. You may not like this fact, but it is true and any trainer of real work dogs will tell you this. You can't change the facts or shoot the messenger. Also, as more workinglines are moving toward the V showline look, we are seeing less workinglines that are capable of real work other than sport. Could be a coincidence, but I don't believe in extensive coincidences. There are excellent V, SG, and G working dogs, but certain trends maintain and people have to accept that.

Gustav, this thread is about w/l with good structure. No one has tried to turn it into a s/l vs w/l. Seems there are those who also have a w/l vs w/l bias.

I posted the American s/l, with a job, just to say most times is what is inside the dog that determines suitability for a real job.

In your years evaluating dogs for real work, did you ever turn down a promising prospect because you didn't like that the croup was too long or that the shoulder was a little too well placed.

Anyway, I think we are close to the same page (maybe I am state myself not clearly) and I do respect and defer to your experience.

Best,

Rik

Stephanie, yes I agree that the conformation type favoured for V rating is detrimental and probably does hinder the dog in work, but that does not automatically make an unrated or G dog, with more correct conformation, superior in work.

A V rated dog may be hampered by his extreme conformation type, but the ability to work relies on so much more than mere physical conformation as assessed in the showring.  I have no doubt that there are top show dogs that are capable of achieving high standards in the working field, despite their conformation.

 But why is some mentioning good structure just because the dog looks more in tune with todays more extreme structural ideal, that´s what´s wrong I think. If the breedstandard hasn´t changed then a good structure in former years should be it also today. It´s actually the other way around, the dogshows have made many GSDs looking as something that seems to get farther away from the standard, and not preserving a certain structure and looks according to the standard. 

If the structural ideals have changed and you need a pretty high showrating to be able to breed the dogs will change in structure I suppose. Here in sweden you don´t need a showrating to breed and I haven´t seen any GSDs that looks far away from the standard or breeders that are using dogs with hanging ears or similar on a large scale. It seems shows have only make the workingbreeds more unfit for the work and not added much good, look at the working bordercollie where shows are not done, still the dogs look pretty similiar.

And Rik, to proof that a more showy structure is more hurtfull may be hard to do, but what we do know is that it adds nothing good either for the GSD as a workingdog, and also is not according to the standard. With so many other problems in the breed a selection for a certain structural type should be a t the very bottom of the list.