Breed Standard re. gait - Page 5

Post them to the board, girl; someone will evaluate them for you

Martin, I se no reason to try and banter with you.  I have my opinion and you don't understand or agree or something else (unclear). You are entitled to your own opinion and it would perhaps be best if you identified yourself and used this forum as a plug for your book which does not appear to been selling very well.  Then folks can decide for themselves if you are credible or not. If they think your book is good then perhaps word will get out and sales might increase.  On the otherhand, they might decrease top.  But what the heck, give it a try. That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

Preston, your explanations have me confused too.  This straight line from shoulder, surely not!  This would put enormous strain on the front on impact, with no shock absorbtion.

Sorona has it pretty much summed up IMO.  The upper arm is ~perpendicular to the ground at full extension, with the lower leg forming a parallel line, with and below the shoulder blade.  Excessive lift of the foreleg is a compensatory gait to gain suspension to accomodate the longer rear stride in a dog with greater angulation in the rear.  Another commonly seem compensatory gait in the GSD for excessive rear angulation, is 'running downhill'.   The dog so increases stride length by increasing fore angulation by dropping forehand.... a sort of concertina effect.

pod, we must just disagree and let it go at that.   I personally believe that a properly constructed and conditioned pastern serves as a suitable shock absorber, but its a fact that you are not alone in your particular beliefs on movement and a fair number of GSD experts agree with you. Some don't.   There is acceptable, good ground covering sidegait and then there is the near perfect or perfect, the true exceptional like Canto, VA1 Dingo or X-Sensation Norton, or Ch. Muscava's Rocky. 

I don't want to speak for Preston, but I sure did understand what he ment.  Possibly a better word would have been "parallel" rather than "straight".  As for "---enormas strain on impact." -Not so!  The leg remains straight until impact and then the shock absorbers reduce the impack.  The shock absorbers are better known as "pasterns. 

Someone said the upper arm is perpendicular to the ground as front foot touches the ground.  Not necesssarily so.  That upper arm will rotate slightly forward matching the rotation or the shoulder blade in a well moving dog thus keeping the forearm parallel to the shoulder blade.

Someone else said, POD, I think, (forgive my laziness for not going back and checking) that the rear drive "---is delivered formost in the hip joint to pelvis to lombar spine."  One would normally think so.  But not true.  It begins in the feet.  Possibly even the toes.  From football, baseball, sprinter, to racquet ball and golf, I can tell you enequivically it all begins in the feet. 

One last thing.  Who is Martin?  Give me the name of the book and I will go to Barnes and Noble, get a cup of coffee and think of Louise and the cup I owe her, and read it.                            ecs

Disappointing that you didn’t see fit to clarify Preston’s various assertions, Blitzen.

As you repeatedly expressed fulsome admiration, I naturally assumed you understood them to perfection. I only asked you to do so because they come across as pure balderdash, mere gobbledygook; gotten from some book obviously never properly understood in the first place; poppycock ambiguously tossed about in order to impress the less-informed. And, as for earlier similar threads, he or she seems unable to answer even the simplest of questions, which, taken together with outlandish nature of some of the claims uttered, leaves one wondering whether he/she even grasped the basics!

This forum clearly constitutes a large part of the lives of more entrenched posters. Accordingly, for some, maintaining a kind of ‘you-scratch-my back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours’ status quo clearly assumes some importance. But how much more useful were it possible to pursue a topic, even if only just now and then, in a constructively objective manner without chronic cronyism and associated sycophantic absurdities rearing its ugly head!

Preston: "Martin, I se no reason to try and banter with you. I have my opinion and you don't understand or agree or something else (unclear). You are entitled to your own opinion and it would perhaps be best if you identified yourself and used this forum as a plug for your book which does not appear to been selling very well. Then folks can decide for themselves if you are credible or not. If they think your book is good then perhaps word will get out and sales might increase. On the otherhand, they might decrease top. But what the heck, give it a try. That's my story and I'm stickin to it."

Martin! Plug for your book! You are addressing me, Speaknow?? Or simply gone delusional altogether! Martin who??

I must admit you are useful in one respect: your views comprise a wonderful check on my own thinking. Whenever my views equate to yours, I automatically know they must be grossly incorrect and thus seriously in need of a re-think!

Given the experts don't all agree on how and why a dog moves the way it does, it stands to reason that we are going to see it differently as well.  I think that's a good thing.; it gives us something to think about.  When I try to evaluate a movement photo, I find it helpful if I first try to mentally undress the dog removing the fur and skin leaving the bones, ligaments and muscles. To make it more complicated we are talking about the movement of the GSD, a style of locomotion that is unique to the breed. This breed has no peer, no equal when it comes to their gait. There is no other breed that moves like this and IMO it is breathtaking to observe a mover like Dingo even if it is only on a video and not in the flesh. I think we are fortunate that there is a video available of this dog given he was born in the 70's I think. Is that right?  Whoever took and preserved that film did the breed a very big favor.

Maybe some would like to establish a committee to measure GSD angles at a big event like the SS or NASS. Other breeds have done this and generally the best movers have essentially the same angles. IMO a roachy topline has a most negative effect on the way a GSD moves. It effects every aspect of the dog's movement and it is just plain ugly to watch a roachy dog move from any angle. And still breeders use those photos to advertise puppies and stud services?

http://www.paws-print.com/

ECS, this is the only book I know of written about the GSD by anyone named Martin.

Speak, you have no credibility since you refuse to identify what dogs you have bred, acquired, or shown.  You appear to be afraid to share this info and therefore have no basis for any credibility.  Have you ever owned a breed surveyed GSD?  If so come out iof the darkness and let us take a look at the dog's photo and pedigree on this website.

Blitzen,  regarding your wish that someone would embark on a project of actually measuring the angles of bone of the best moving GSDs, I'm all in favor of it. The trouble, of course, is which animals would be considered "best." A purely scientific study  (that is, disinterested, conducted by somebody with no axe to grind) would be best and would involve a large number of animals being radiographed or Xrayed as well as videod in high resolution so slow motion videos can be studied.  No don't look at me doing it. I'm retired on disability and can't travel.  But anyone who did it would be doing the GSD breed a huge service.

In the meantime, going to conformation shows and watching dog movement is the best I can do. I've been watching Malinois, Great Danes and other short coated breeds in addition to GSDs. Yes, I know the other breeds don't have the extension or gait of GSDs, but a good moving dog is a good moving dog no matter the breed. You can more easily see the bone under the muscle of the short coated breeds. I suspect it's not only the angles of bones but also the musculature and ligaments that make a dog's movement efficient and pleasing to watch, or not.