Max von Stephanitz and SV??? - Page 8

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by SitasMom on 11 February 2009 - 13:02

"That being said, it should be the goal of our present day breeders - Ability to work, working traits AND a standardized show quality appearance. Not just one part or another but all of it in the single package of a German Shepherd Dog."

The AND in the above statement "includes" and doesn't minimize.....simmilar to MR. AND MRS. Smith........or bread AND butter..........Why do you believe that one is more important then the other?

Our goal should be ALL, EQUALLY.

A crazed working dog that looks like a street dog IS NOT an ideal, nor is a beautiful dog without drive. Each of these are equal faults! An over angulated wedge of a dog with a weak hind end and not drive is completely faulty, and unacceptable!

IMO It seems that at first MAX bred to create drive (skinny street dog looking things), then he decided that they were ugly and decided to make them beautiful. Before his death, he gave us the dog of his dreams or something very close to it,




by Gustav on 11 February 2009 - 13:02

Equally....NOT!!! Its just like ingredients of dog food....the ones listed first are the ones that are the most prevalent. "The beauty of the dog lies in its utility"......if service and function were the most important elements to the Captain then equally cannot be correct. He often said, "IF" beauty is present then fine, but utility must be above all. You can't distort that with beauty being equal in value...( This type of thinking will lead to the dog being less utility inclined and more pleasing beautywise...OOPs we are right there with SL).  The man made it clear what type of dog represents the GS in HIS mind, if  the end product of your equation doesn't CONSISTENTLY produce the utility, then you have your ingredients mixed up, out of porportions, and the product will not taste well, (But it will be pretty as hell!).

by zdog on 11 February 2009 - 15:02

I still say I have never seen a pure bred GSD that didn't look like a GSD, but I sure have seen a lot of them that don't act like one.  That tells me all I need to know about what areas are lacking in breeding.

Baldursmom

by Baldursmom on 11 February 2009 - 16:02

Define "act like one"; and so you mean act ike one prior to training or after?

by Wurttemberger on 02 April 2009 - 16:04

I find it interesting that Max moved to Bavaria, bought a farm (Grafarth) and continued his breeding.  He utilized his proximity to the Wurttember line time and time again in his breeding; i.e. bigger dogs with more size, height, bone and bushy tail.  After years of crossing with these larger dogs, the results were ....... taller dogs.  Imagine that.

By 1922, 28% of the registered males were "over sized" - over Max's standard.  So he decided that any males over the standard could no longer be registered in the stud book.  By 1932, no males registered were over his standard - therefore shorter dogs.

As far as Max's standard for today - who knows?  What if he defined a working dog as one that can be used for services such as wheelchair dogs, brace and balance dogs, blood sugar detection dogs - what would his standard be for those?  What if he defined working dogs as personal protection dogs?  or as hearding dogs?  or as drug detection dogs?  What would they look like?  We'll never know.  One thing is for sure - he wanted the dog to be a "working" dog period.

Somewhere along the way, things have gone askew.  I perfer the German shepherd dogs before 1932 - it's just my preference for what type of work I want my dogs to perform.  It's that relationship between form and function or is it function and form?



Two Moons

by Two Moons on 02 April 2009 - 16:04

No matter what the function I believe Max would still value compatability with humans, intelligence and loyalty, courage and physical endurance.  And I believe he would still want a dog thats pleasing to the eye, not meaning color but form.
And to him form meant function.  Form to fit the purpose.  I think he was looking for efficiency if you had to use just one word.

by SitasMom on 03 April 2009 - 17:04

As far as Max's standard for today - who knows?  What if he defined a working dog as one that can be used for services such as wheelchair dogs, brace and balance dogs, blood sugar detection dogs - what would his standard be for those?  What if he defined working dogs as personal protection dogs?  or as hearding dogs?  or as drug detection dogs?  What would they look like?  We'll never know.  One thing is for sure - he wanted the dog to be a "working" dog period.

Interesting thought.

At the end of Max's life a war had been brewing for quite some time. One has to wonder how it influenced the developement of the breed. Had the world been in peace, would "working" be different?

by Adi Ibrahimbegovic on 03 April 2009 - 17:04

Work is and has been in his time defined as doing something useful for the humans. That is what Max strived for. Medical alert dog doing his job and saving his owner's life is work therefore very useful and dog has earned his kibble, then and now.

Only because we didn't know then that it is possible for dogs to perform such tasks does not make it less useful.

What Max struggled and succeeded, but we kind of lost it during the years (but we will regain!) is to make the most versatile dog in the world, to do anything you want to train him for. If you train him to sit on the couch and eat Cheetos all day - he'll be the best damn Cheetos eater and couch lounger there is. If you train him to sniff out narcotics - he'll get you so much pot busted anyone can get high from sea to shining sea. Etc... etc... That's what he wanted and got out of the dog - ABILITY to do it.

If you read the book he wrote in 1924-1925 "The German Shepherd Dog in Word and Picture", available as a reprint for 75 bucks and has over 700 pages, you'll find all you ever wanted to know about the man and his vision.

No need to quote his deathbed wish as I am sure most are familiar with, it speaks for itself, no commentary needed.

Ryanhaus

by Ryanhaus on 03 April 2009 - 23:04

I don't like how deep the  American GSD's chest has to be, doesn't that invite bloat??

Here are 2 boys I like, Theo & his half brother Thor,Same mom different dad


luvdemdogs

by luvdemdogs on 04 April 2009 - 06:04

"A white herding dog named Greif was the grandfather of Horand von Grafrath, the dog acknowledged as the foundation of all contemporary German Shepherd Dog bloodlines.

"White coats were made a disqualification in the German Shepherd Dog Club of Germany breed standard in 1933 after the breed club came under the control of the German Nazi party that took over all aspects of German society in February 1933 when Hitler declared a

state of emergency. The German breed standard remained unchanged as German breeders repopulated the breed in the years after the conclusion of WWII.

In 1959 the German Shepherd Dog Club of America (GSDCA) adopted the exclusively colored breed standard of the parent German breed club. White-coated German Shepherd Dogs were officially barred from competition in the American Kennel Club conformation ring in the United States starting in 1968"

"Canada had protected white German Shepherds from the many attempts by the German Shepherd Dog Club of Canada to have white dogs disqualified from the CKC conformation ring, as had long been the case in the USA. Some brave members of WSCC had shown in the CKC breed rings and had even accumulated points toward their dogs' CKC Championships. Unfortunately, that would all change in 1998, when the color white was officially disqualified from the CKC German Shepherd breed standard.






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top