Proportions of GSD - Page 1

In the GSD standard here on PDB I noticed that the length is upto 125% (10 to 8) the height, I'm not sure if this is a modification to the previous upto 117% (10 to 8.5) or it's a typo mistake. I've been doing some checks on various dogs and I find that the most stretched GSDs are less than 125%. So is the standard accepting stretched dogs as normal now or what? what do you think?
Just for i.e, a dog who is 64 cms high, can be 80 cms long and be within standard? 80 cms is too long, no?
Just trying to imagine how many GSDs who have poor fore chest development and short croups would look like with this 125% max; their backs would be too/too/too long and weak !!!

PDB??!!! regardless it is incorrect.

Only comment is that as the years have gone by [ post Dr Rummel ] the proportions in Germany have shifted from what was the norm of around 110/112 to 115/117. Herman was of the view that more stretch gave better groundcover.

Louis
 

Thanks Mr. Donald, here is where it's written upto 125% on this site the PDB (Pedigree database)

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/structure_information/3.html

Examine pictures of the most recent top groups. The height has been enforced while the rest of the standard remained unchanged. Result from what I'm seeing is a more 50/50 look in the chest. This can create the stretched look. Overangulation appears to be gone, dead, buried.

The Standard published by the AKC indicates a dog of slightly "shorter" length than some of these other numbers.  It's difficult for me to talk in CM's  --but the only proportions I ever knew was 8/10 - and to me that's 20% longer than tall.  I do no that when a dog is TOO long - it's painfully obvious -- and extremely short-coupled males are not attractive to me. 

 

The German Shepherd Dog is longer than tall, with the most desirable proportion as 10 to 8½. The length is measured from the point of the prosternum or breastbone to the rear edge of the pelvis, the ischial tuberosity. The desirable long proportion is not derived from a long back, but from overall length with relation to height, which is achieved by length of forequarter and length of withers and hindquarter, viewed from the side.

Dog1 - sorry but you are totally off base on both counts and this comment is based on being there not looking at photos - 50/50 chest [ whatever that means ] creates a stretched look ???!!!!. Overangulation gone, buried???!! By the way I have no idea how you determined the height of the dogs from group photos?
I am sure you mean well but your comments are both incorrect and grossly misleading especially to the novice who wants to learn.

Ibrahim the ratio in the diagram you refered me to is incorrect in relation to the written standard. The following is fact - the current FCI/SV standard dated 23/12/2010 No. 166 - states 'trunk length exceeds height by about 10% - 17%' - this equates to the old 8.5 or 9:10 even though I find for some very peculiar reason it somehow seems to 'give the impression' of an increase in length. 

Louis

WUSV Standard 1976  =  "110% to 117% the height at the withers."  Which equates to "proprtions desired are 9 in height to 10 in length".    Ditto  FCI/SV 2010.
UK  Standard = 8.5 or 9  to 10
USA Standard = 8.5 to 10

So unless somehow I've missed some OTHER  FCI Standard being accepted by everywhere that talks in centimetres,

there are no centimetre measurements.    [Nor is there an "8  to 10" ratio, which supports Louis.]

This might make interesting reading:-

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/58577123/GSD%202nd%20Flip%20Book.exe

Louis,

Forgive me. I'm a little new at this. After reading the other threads about gait. I just shook my head and decided not to get involved.It looked like old news, fleas arguing about who owned the dog. I could see why no one with any real experience really bothers to post anything of value on PDB.

Rather than discuss the written proportions, the difference between the written proportions on various websites,,,all of which are subject to interpretation as we have seen over the years...the standard remains the same but the dogs look different. I'll just offer up some examples and let those reading decide for themselves.

The change in angulation? Grab some Urma books and read the comments in the progeny groups. I think it was 09, not sure going from memory. How many times is overangulation mentioned and criticized? If you don't think the SV was aware of the problem, identified it and have implemented changes to improve it, We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Gait: Here's what I consider the current trend. SG2 male making progress in the working class this year. I'll use him as the example of what the current SV direction is for the time being.

Short Version for those with dial up:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8Efrahqrc 

Long version for the rest of the world:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K8Efrahqrc

Compare to the dog I'll use as an example of what is typically ranted about as the direction of the breed on the chat boards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIaM3hYFszc

I see a difference between the two. These are two different dogs and the current dogs bear no resemblance....at all.

I'll get a little technical here to explain what 50/50 is. I hate getting technical but here goes. The FCI breed standard has the body proportions as; "Chest is deep (approximately 45 to 48% at the withers)" So when I use the term 50/50, it's a term used by SV judges in their critiques to describe a deep chested dog. Sorry you were not familiar with the term. I hope my explanation clarifies my communication. Compared to the last generation, when the height was enforced and the rest of the standard as judged at that time remained the same, the appearance changed. The dog has more of a 50/50 appearance.

To illustrate. Here's an up and coming male that placed top 3 in the world.




Compare to A top placing dog from a few years ago:



See a difference? Just go back to '04 and '05 and compare the top dogs. The trend is evident.

Don't want to mislead any newcomers. Dog1 advice would be to be very careful with overangulated dogs. I don't see them as the current trend. It's free advice. Take it for what it's worth.

Hi Dog1 - I appreciate your response and I am often loathe to comment for the same reason you have expressed. As a fully listed SV judge I am familiar with the ratio of chest depth to wither height [ my error, I did not understand what you were refering to in the chest region ] but have to say that this ratio should not visually or otherwise effect your assesment of length to height ratio. It has absolutely no bearing on it. A dog could be in ratio terms [ height to length ] as long as a Dachsund and at the same time have a chest that is 50/50 or 30/70 or 70/30 and in each case it would be described as 'very long'. The two areas/ratios should be seen and critiqued seperately but amalgamated when you make comment about the overall proportions/balance/harmony.
It would be fair to say the percentage of top males in Germany today have moved to a degree from what once was a prevelance of 55% to more animals at 50%/52% leg to height ratio.
Having said this the inexperienced need to be very aware of the dogs underchest guard hair and focus on the elbow and underchest when making an evaluation especially in photos. Angle of photo has an illusionary effect also. I wrote an article on my impressions of last years Sieger Show for 'Our Dogs' in the UK and I made this remark in regard to the Sieger Remo. This article can be downloaded. As I stated earlier, as a percentage the length to height ratio has shifted and overangulation of the hindquarter and associated loose hocks are now a major problem and of course the SV judges are acutely aware of this but like oversize, it is one thing to be aware and another to act. We may well be on the same page.
I wish you well.

Louis