Saying Hail Mary's before typing this..... - Page 2

Dawgs, I feel ya. Hope some actual info come out of this thread and not just more BS.

This all sounds like double talk to me, none of it makes sense.  Yes there is perspective in everything but when you're talking specifics you are removing some part of perspective.  Someone in Africa may like someone with black eyes but if you take them to Europe their eyes are still black, no interpretation there.  or...

"Probably it's very hard to breed dogs that match the exact measurements as well as many other parts of the standard" are you serious? This is not an ancient breed but also by no means a new breed.  If it's so difficult to breed to the standard then we don't really have any GSDs!?!

Okay, not to be obnoxious by hammering on this but I still am not getting it.  When I look at the illustration that Oli has on the articles page this is what I see esp. in the hindquarters:  a line starting from the ground up with extensions and angles that are dependent upon the one before and have very specific lengths of straight and angled components?

If it were a beginning point other than the ground itself I would say that there is a lot of leeway on the placement of the measurements as a whole. That would obviously lend itself to different end designs.

Like I said before, sometimes it takes a while for me to get a concept. And maybe I'm too literal with things, too. Like SchBabe said, it is probably more art than I'm recognizing.

I appreciate the feedback from all.

Dawgs, this isn't a specific reply to your last post, but this is the absolute best break down of the standard I have found on the internet:

http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/Index_Page/Index_Page.htm

Sparrow  I was talking about the originals posters querry as to why the dogs don't all conform to the specific measurements in the standard, but if you think that's a simple thing then all the more power to you.

It's not a damn dress cut out from a pattern!!!!

This might help answer your question, dawgs. From an article by Fred Lanting:

Shoulder assembly — The least understood and most controversial portions of the Standard as well as of the dog relate to the angles proscribed for the forequarters and hindquarters. I disagree with the angles commonly reported to be ideal in the shoulder area, though much of the discrepancy may be a matter of how that angle is usually measured. To specify angles is useless unless exact points of reference are not only agreed upon but also easily determined. Since the bones forming these angles are curved, such "landmarks" as the highest point of the scapula, the foremost point of the upper arm where it meets the shoulder, and the topmost point of the elbow should be used as well as a detailed illustration decided upon. None of the German Shepherd Dog Standard editions or versions has been so explicit, nor have any in other breeds. Some years ago I radiographed standing dogs and found that what I had been reading in books and seeing in artists' drawings was not so. The call for a 45-degree shoulder layback plus another supposed 45-degree angle to the "line" of the upper arm, equaling a 90-degree shoulder angle, is inaccurate and misleading. If lines are drawn along the scapular spine and down the center of the humerus, as they usually are, a 90-degree angle in the real, live dog standing there before you will never be realized. Since the time I started challenging this notion, there have been noted authorities who have corroborated my claims with independent research, but it will be a long time before the old books are all revised and longer still before writers do their own investigative work instead of copying sketches from each other. Probably the best drawing of the ideal German Shepherd Dog ever published in this country is Lloyd Fanning's which appeared in the Review and in a small booklet on the breed published by the German Shepherd Dog Club of America. Strange that so many have used incorrect representations instead of this accurate sketch.

Link: http://www.dogstuff.info/angles_front_and_rear.html

In the ring, the judge is required to have in mind the "perfect" dog.  We all know that there is no such animal and that this concept is highly subjective, and based on the judges preconceptions about a given breed.   The winner will always be the dog that matches most closely to this concept.  That also explains why you can do back to back shows with the same dog and the first judge raves about how great your dog is.  Then next show a different judge tells you that the dog is the worse thing ever to put four legs on the ground.  That is just the way things are in the show dog world.

Making a new post to get rid of the blue font colour...

So, in other words, when we talk about angles of front and rear, not everyone measures them the same way. I'll bet if you asked two judges which dog had 'the most correct' shoulder or hip angulation, you'd get two different answers. Everyone has their own idea of what looks best, and DOES ANYONE EVER ACTUALLY MEASURE THE ANGLES WHEN JUDGING??

No, it's all done by 'eye', so there's a lot of room for personal interpretation and bias. Those pretty diagrams mean very little.

That's my opinion, of course.

I do not think it's a dress cut from a pattern and there's no need for you to get nasty.  Isn't everybody always insisting that the standard must be adhered to as strictly as possible?  But now it's all interpretation of that standard?  There are specifics that can be easily discerned and not based on perspective.  There should be no breeding of a dog with major faults (not talking about obvious ones like whites or long coats)...well if there is not breeding stock that conforms to the standard and the standard itself is so ambiguous and prone to different interpretations, what good is the standard to begin with?  I have never bred, don't plan to but from what I've gathered from all of the people that do breed, it just seems to me that there is a standard that they're going by and if all of the working line breeders can look at the standard and all of the showlind people are looking at that same standard and you have two different types because of it, it seems to me there should be more variations if the standard is so unclear.