This is a placeholder text
Group text
by Ibrahim on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
Gustav,
There is a point I'm trying to get through which is the following: At the time he started building up and creating the breed there were good working dogs but of various types, shapes, figures and builds that did their jobs excellently which was herding at the time. What he did is create a new type/form of a dog that has the best proportions and angulation for best endurance for herding throughout the day and at the same time has the temperament, work ability and good traits of certain dogs he knew and liked.
It's just like putting a design/drawings of a structure and then do the actual construction on site. He started with several dogs and went on with selective breedings, with each VA he was getting closer to the vision he had in mind. In his time he made quite a number of dogs VAs, some of which at the very start had poor front upper arms, shoulders, croups etc but then as the breed progressed came better dogs in regards to structure which were titled VA. The VA title is relative to dogs available at a specific time in GSD history and not absolute. Dogs who got VA at a certain year wouldn't deserve the title if they were to be in a contest say 10 years later when the breed was developed further and better specimens became available.
So the new thing he actually did is creating a genuine new form of a dog from varying types and builds of pioneer dogs. While doing so he maintained the good traits and temperament of the dogs he himself selected to be the foundation of the new breed.
In the process and when he thought he lost a trait or a trait became weaker he went to what was called the work dogs or the old blood and bred back to them.
The breed in my humble understanding progressed towards the vision of the Captain year after year in form and work ability was maintained and preserved due to the awareness of the head of the breed and his mates.
I say he did not have his full image/vision of the GSD in one dog, the proof is no VAed dog in his time was described by him as the perfect specimen and no further developments in form should be made in future.
That is why we simply can not debate that a VA dog in a certain year in the past is what the GSD should be in form/structure as each VA took the breed a step further towards reaching the goal.
One more point I do not say that a VA from last year is better than a VA in the sixties or seventies etc in regards to all what a GSD supposed to be i.e form + temperament etc but I claim a VA of recent years is closer to perfect structure than a VA from the past.
Now I understand that structural faults are there in the breed that need correction and breed as a working dog is not doing better than it did 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
My understanding of what the Captain really did new in his time makes me realize that both form and work ability go hand in hand and if form is not necessary then all he did is pointless as plenty of working dogs were available then and utilized by dog owners etc at the time.
I am not challenging the value of certain VAS in the history of the breed, some of the VAs you mentioned, my knowledge of them is partly from what you described and wrote about on this very forum, so I wouldn't doubt their value and what they did for the breed.
Ibrahim
There is a point I'm trying to get through which is the following: At the time he started building up and creating the breed there were good working dogs but of various types, shapes, figures and builds that did their jobs excellently which was herding at the time. What he did is create a new type/form of a dog that has the best proportions and angulation for best endurance for herding throughout the day and at the same time has the temperament, work ability and good traits of certain dogs he knew and liked.
It's just like putting a design/drawings of a structure and then do the actual construction on site. He started with several dogs and went on with selective breedings, with each VA he was getting closer to the vision he had in mind. In his time he made quite a number of dogs VAs, some of which at the very start had poor front upper arms, shoulders, croups etc but then as the breed progressed came better dogs in regards to structure which were titled VA. The VA title is relative to dogs available at a specific time in GSD history and not absolute. Dogs who got VA at a certain year wouldn't deserve the title if they were to be in a contest say 10 years later when the breed was developed further and better specimens became available.
So the new thing he actually did is creating a genuine new form of a dog from varying types and builds of pioneer dogs. While doing so he maintained the good traits and temperament of the dogs he himself selected to be the foundation of the new breed.
In the process and when he thought he lost a trait or a trait became weaker he went to what was called the work dogs or the old blood and bred back to them.
The breed in my humble understanding progressed towards the vision of the Captain year after year in form and work ability was maintained and preserved due to the awareness of the head of the breed and his mates.
I say he did not have his full image/vision of the GSD in one dog, the proof is no VAed dog in his time was described by him as the perfect specimen and no further developments in form should be made in future.
That is why we simply can not debate that a VA dog in a certain year in the past is what the GSD should be in form/structure as each VA took the breed a step further towards reaching the goal.
One more point I do not say that a VA from last year is better than a VA in the sixties or seventies etc in regards to all what a GSD supposed to be i.e form + temperament etc but I claim a VA of recent years is closer to perfect structure than a VA from the past.
Now I understand that structural faults are there in the breed that need correction and breed as a working dog is not doing better than it did 20, 30 or 40 years ago.
My understanding of what the Captain really did new in his time makes me realize that both form and work ability go hand in hand and if form is not necessary then all he did is pointless as plenty of working dogs were available then and utilized by dog owners etc at the time.
I am not challenging the value of certain VAS in the history of the breed, some of the VAs you mentioned, my knowledge of them is partly from what you described and wrote about on this very forum, so I wouldn't doubt their value and what they did for the breed.
Ibrahim
by Blitzen on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
Outstanding, Markobytes!!! You have said it so much better than I ever could have.
I love this statement:
It is hard and rare for someone to be an expert at all of these things that is why we need a community dedicated to the breed to help one another.
Perfect!!!
I love this statement:
It is hard and rare for someone to be an expert at all of these things that is why we need a community dedicated to the breed to help one another.
Perfect!!!
by Abby Normal on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
Following on from what Gustav has said, one has to question whether those who came after von Stephanitz had the same altruistic motivations as he did for the breed.
I believe that history shows us that this was not the case.
I believe that history shows us that this was not the case.
by Abby Normal on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
Following on from what Gustav has said, one has to question whether those who came after von Stephanitz had the same altruistic motivations as he did for the breed.
I believe that history shows us that this was not the case.
I believe that history shows us that this was not the case.
by Blitzen on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
LOL, Abby, me thinks you just may be right.
by Blitzen on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
Didn't The Captain also said that breeders should not keep too many GSD's and they should never live as kennel dogs? Is it OK to cherry pick one or two of his directives and ignore the others?
by Skylagsd on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
Lets say we all agree that the vision of the Captain has never been met in the form of structure.... When do we stop changing the dogs structure? How far must the dogs ass go under his testicles to achieve this almighty gait?
I am obviously exaggerating abit.
But seriously when does this stop? Because as i see it now the showlines structure cannot withstand the rigours of the 6foot vertical wall thats why it has been taken away.
I would really like to know when will we be happy that this is what the Captain wanted? How much more must the structure still change for this to happen.
I am obviously exaggerating abit.
But seriously when does this stop? Because as i see it now the showlines structure cannot withstand the rigours of the 6foot vertical wall thats why it has been taken away.
I would really like to know when will we be happy that this is what the Captain wanted? How much more must the structure still change for this to happen.
by Abby Normal on 05 June 2012 - 22:06
I am interested in your debate with Gustav Ibrahim, and forgive me for jumping in, I don't have an ounce of his knowledge but I wonder how you can argue the virtues of a 'VA that is closer in perfect structure' over a 'VA in the sixties or seventies etc in regards to all what a GSD supposed to be i.e form + temperament.
A (show) dog that has perfect structure (according to you, or today's modern standards) yet which cannot perform (work) to the standards of 10 or 20 years ago is surely not the better GSD, and suggests that 'looks' have overtaken utility, thus not fulfilling the generally agreed consensus of what a GSD should be.
I feel that somewhere along the way you have lost sight of the fact that von Stephanitz was not breeding for looks. Consistency of type to distinguish and create a breed, yes, but not for 'beauty' that is a product of the show scene and money.
Out of interest, why do you think that dogs with what you perceive to be a superior structure to 20 or 30 years ago have a reduced working ability?
A (show) dog that has perfect structure (according to you, or today's modern standards) yet which cannot perform (work) to the standards of 10 or 20 years ago is surely not the better GSD, and suggests that 'looks' have overtaken utility, thus not fulfilling the generally agreed consensus of what a GSD should be.
I feel that somewhere along the way you have lost sight of the fact that von Stephanitz was not breeding for looks. Consistency of type to distinguish and create a breed, yes, but not for 'beauty' that is a product of the show scene and money.
Out of interest, why do you think that dogs with what you perceive to be a superior structure to 20 or 30 years ago have a reduced working ability?
by joanro on 05 June 2012 - 23:06
So if I read this right, markobytes is suggesting that work breeders consult with show breeders to pick correct structure for breeding purposes? If that's the case, then the work dogs will look just like show dogs. Unfortunately that is already happening to a degree, but it would soon reduce the working ability of the breed overall.
by Ibrahim on 05 June 2012 - 23:06
Aby,
I apologize if what I said looked like I'm saying a VA from today is better than a VA from the past.
This is not what I said or meant to say. Looking at both the structure + temperament today's VAs are not better at all.
Looking at structure alone yes a VA from today is better than a VA from the past, better proportions, better shoulders and better reach.
Today's VAs are less in work ability because emphasis is put on form and work ability comes in 2nd place and only to pass the courage test and not for doing real work in real life.
Ibrahim
I apologize if what I said looked like I'm saying a VA from today is better than a VA from the past.
This is not what I said or meant to say. Looking at both the structure + temperament today's VAs are not better at all.
Looking at structure alone yes a VA from today is better than a VA from the past, better proportions, better shoulders and better reach.
Today's VAs are less in work ability because emphasis is put on form and work ability comes in 2nd place and only to pass the courage test and not for doing real work in real life.
Ibrahim
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top