Toplines - Page 4

Preston, you have pinpointed another problem with the roach back. What you say is very true.

Silbersee, I've heard this before, from different sources, and my answer to it is this: Go to this site here, http://www.asuperiorgsd.com/p2p.html and compare the dogs as shown through the decades, then come back, and tell me again, with a straight face that the dogs haven't changed!  If what you say is true,  then I'd better get myself off to the optometrist tomorrow, because I seriously need glasses! 

I really do not see how the first dog posted could ever have a topline like the Exi female, no matter the stack.

Silbersee said: The middle back got shorter, because shorter backs can not sag. This brought on the appearance of a more rounded back. Combined with a sloping croup and rear angulation it gave the illusion of the roach or the boomerang (another definition).

Linda Shaw says: T he roach is most common in German stock. The idea seems to be that it results in a stronger back. Yes and no. An arched back, like a Roman stone archway, is better able to withstand the stress of downward pressure, whether of internal organs or a litter of young suspended from below, or the weight of tunneled earth from above (which is why rodents and shrews are roach backed). It is not efficient for movement at the trot. The spinal column is like a string of flattened pearls on a wire. If it is bent, pushing it at one end will increase its bend and it will not efficiently transmit power along its length. If it is straight, that power is very efficiently transmitted. Also, the bent spine does not effectively straighten when needed, but the straight spine can bend if and when necessary in galloping or jumping. In canines, the straight spine is ideal.

The roach was deliberate, not the result of breeding for a shorter back. I have seen it stated numerous times that it was felt the curve made the back stronger. It IS possible to breed a GSD with a short back, and no roach. Look at the pictures on the Shaw site, or the ones at the top of the page on the 'past to present' site and you will see a good example.

Sunsilver, I have little respect for the writings of linda shaw.  Her stuff is a poor substitute for the info and pictures contained in Wythia Strickland's excellent book on the GSD.  IMO linda shaw does not understand proper GSD construction, proportions or gaiting.  The best work explaining correct GSD confirmation and movement are the videos by Carbajal (not sure about the spelling). 

Oh the link didn't work let me try agein.

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd121/wolf11112/304490-R1-12-11A_013.jpg

Shepherd1112,  of course, you dog is not roach backed.

Sunsilver, I agree with Preston on that one. I am really amazed that people consider her work and word the bible of the GSD. Who is she? Somebody who has a great talent to sketch and at the same time, is a GSD fancier.  But what is her credential in the German Shepherd Dog? She has an opinion, but I do not value that more than any of the old time conformation judges.

Back to toplines: When I look through my photo album of the VA -dogs of the past, I do see a trend of what I described above. For me, the way VA-dogs change is the typical trend our breed goes through. After all, VA-rated dogs are supposed to be the epitome of the breed.

So, you would say as well that the showline male I used as an example is roached backed? If so, why? Because I do not see a roached backed dog. All I see is a male who has been stacked a bit extreme. His hips have been pushed down, so he appears overangulated. At the same time, his rear leg is stacked to the point there he shows a "right angle" of the thigh and the hock. When you "push" the front legs more under at the same time, voila: You have created a dog with a rounded topline. Now, when you take a photo of that dog, it also makes a major difference which angle you use. Just being slightly off center makes a dog appear more stretcherd, or more compact, or the upper arm steeper and and and. If you don't believe me, try it with your own dog in a photo session (with the help of two other people of course).

Chris

Silbersee, you have made your point well.  Photos are merely a momentary snapshot of the GSD.  One must see the dog in person while the GSD is tanding, walking(or pacing as the short bodied GSDs will often do) and gaiting, or on video to really asess the overall back and croup confirmation.  How one appears for a show photo depends a lot on chance and how the GSD's appendages are arranged one to another.

Chris, thank you for the post. I see all of the dogs represented here, and do not believe that I see a roached back in the group. That said, I much prefer to see the dogs in a natural pose or movement.

I think that a dog that truely has a roached back is very difficult to hide, either in a carefully-prepared pose or a natural pose.

Regards,

Bob-O

Bob-O, I agree with you.  A roach is only a problem if it is so pronounced that it affects movement or makes the GSD appear distorted or unattractive.

I think that if you look at how the top line in today’s GSD has evolved a couple of anatomical variances seem to influence how today’s dogs look and move. One area that has influence is the height of wither. As the breed has evolved the height of wither has increased. What used to be considered a good wither 15 years ago is now critiqued as a normal wither. The increase in height of wither has given the appearance of more rear angulation. Compare how Fedor's rear angulation improves over Dingo's with the added height of wither, longer croup and added turn of stifle. (It does not necessarily make his movement better). A big problem today is short length of upper arm. In the past even though there were many dogs with short upper arms they didn't throw off the look or balance of the dog when seen and paired with a wither that wasn't as high. Another area that I feel influences the look and movement  today is the turn of stifle. If you look at some of the influential dogs in the past the turn of stifle was not as extreme as compared to a dog from the Cary/Ando lines for example. This also lowers the dog in the rear and coupled with the higher wither shows a dog  to be more "extreme" in the rear and in the process the back will look more like a "banana", or in some instances "hinged". Compare how Chris' example with more turn of stifle and a longer croup than Jeck present a dog that looks "overdone" and "extreme" in the rear. When you put all this together and add in a decrease in the length of hock what can be pleasing to the eye in stance when stacked correctly can look a bit deformed with a slight variance in the placement of the rear legs. In many instances this does not affect the movement of the dog if it's all "balanced", but throw in the short upper arms and croups that are so prevalent today and you see a dog that is not only out of balance but also incorrect in movement.

My personal taste is a dog that has some "subtle" changes from the past, but is not "overdone", or "extreme" in any one area. I like the topline of a dog like Karat's Fedor.

In answer to the original question "do you guy's think he is roach backed?" No, my definition of a roach back is when the highest point of the back is higher than the wither in stance and movement. I think Chris' example shows a dog that is "overdone" and "extreme" in certain areas.

* Great topic! I'm interested in hearing other opinions.