The Evolution Of The Topline In The GSD - Page 2

Agreed Bob, Raiser might be 90% correct in his perspective, but his mouth seems to get him into trouble. I believe that the "interbreeding with Malinois" comments seriously undermined his credibility. It would be very difficult to stand behind a national breed warden who advocated breeding muts. Hence the swift and decisive action. Best wishes, Jonah

Bob-O, here's my take on the history of topline in the GSD: 1-excessive length and weak back became an occasional and growing problem for Capt. Von Stephanitz and those with iron backs had to be periodically selected for breeding to compensate for this. 2-a weak backed dog with excessive length of back appeared (Rolf Osnabruckerland). He had to be used extensively because he was so exceptional as a producer for temperament, working ability, masculinity, etc. But, the breeders had to be careful to breed to his blood carefully to overcome his tendency to produce a seriously sagging back. 3-Breeders ended up with fantastic males that just happened to have a long, saggy back (the only serious fault). This tragic occurrence resulted in a gross over-reaction to breed those bloodlines to dogs with arch backs which would never sag under any circumstances. 4-This tendency to overcompensate to the prepotenty of Rolf blood to break through and continue producing such saggy backs, led to a continued emphasis on breeding to and producing arch backs.

my take on the history of topline in the GSD (part II): 5-When Dr. Rummel took over as SV President (one of the greatest ever if not the greatest SV Presidents), he became depply concerned about the arch backls being untrue to the standard and being asociated with other serious faults such as excessive length, functionally steep croups, improper movement with rump-rollup, etc. Therefore, even knowing the risk of a severe political reaction against him, he went ahead anyway and instituted a complete ban on roach backs by refusing to place any in the VA and high V positions and instructing other SV judges to adhere to the same policy at landsgruppen shows. Dr. Rummel emphasized short and straight backs, proper proportions, heavy masculinity in males and correct GSD working temperament like Capt. Von Stephanitz demanded. Dr. Rummel proceeded to crown Natan Peltierfarm Sieger two years in a row, 1981 & 1982 and this dog was absolute perfection in every way. I saw him in person and close up and saw his bite work and he was the living standard itself. I heard that Natan didn't produce as well as hoped long term, but he himself was the epitomy of absolute perfection. His color was black and red (I still have a good photo I took of him). 6-Once Dr. Rummel's reign ended, breeders eventually went back to roach backs because it allowed them to have a long dog whose back wouldn't sag. And this makes breeding and showing easier since excessive length can cover up imbalance between the front and rear during movement because it creates a lever/stabilizing effects bi-directional front to rear and vice-versa. Plus, it's always hard to breed any dog with a hard back, even if it is short backed.

Thanks Preston. I had heard some time ago that Rolf was responsible for the "correction" that was later applied. I don't remember much about Nathan other than the fact he was twice Sieger. It was during the mid 1980's that I saw what I thought was a roached back on a West German dog, but attributed it to poor positioning for the photograph. Later on I realized that something had changed. It was not a gradual change as I recall, but seemed very sudden. Or maybe that was the way that saw it. I thought these dogs had no place in the conformation shows but was obviously very, very wrong about that thought. During the later 1990's the roached back seemed to become the norm rather than the exception. I thought that A.K.C. shows gathered several strange-looking and strange-moving dogs many years ago, but have come to realize that the dogs appearing at S.V. shows are just as far away from the standard as possible, at least in a couple of areas. And yet it continues, as the leadership of the S.V. surely cares somewhat but sure seems to look the other way when judging dogs by the conformation standards. Perhaps in the end, if Dr. Raiser's antics and chest thumping do nothing else they will remind us that a standard still exists and that our dogs must comply to this standard first, before being judged by the "modern" S.V. practice or the A.K.C. practice. Bob-O

Thanks Prston and Bob..nice posts...

It's amazing to look through the "Historical VA list" here on the data base. It brings the evolution of the top line to life in pictures. As DR said, nice posts Preston and Bob.

Nice post Preston..

Can anyone share his ideas on what  bloodlines were used to correct  "Rolf blood"  in our GSDs..???  ALF NORDFELSEN was one... Who else...???  And... is the "IRON back" the term to describe the slightly arched back...???  If that is so... then Quanto Wienerau had a Roach back ... I haven't seen any picture of a roach older than this one... Roulette Wienerau  and she has missing ancestors through Delfy von Schaffhausen...    I was able to see a picture of Quanto's father Condor Zollgens...  that has a slight impression of a roach...

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/1238.html

 

Great posts Preston and Bob-O - thanks to both – real meat! – but what’s left to add? As I read it, ALPHA, the GSD was begun basically from scratch, with early animals largish, square-like, tall and long-legged, and not all so pretty. A constant striving, flux and trade-off toward establishing type and temperament, with Standard an ideal or template yet to be realized - despite present love affair with now well-entrenched Wienerau style. It’s also far easier to breed for something like rear angulation than good fronts, say. The same for drive, vitality and instinct, and where inbreeding persistently on the same basic stock creates its own defects anew. Topping all else of course, the dog must be a superb mover. And yet still far to go; far too many overly long dogs, badly balanced with backs excessively sloped, over-sized and steep fronts, general fitness and health, etc, etc, and temperaments that seem to be going backwards – either cuddly soft and friendly or plain hyper. Bob-O understated Raiser’s hybridization idea most diplomatically (as for comments on American GSD), particularly since clubs worldwide are founded and base their very reason for existing on the notion of ‘pure-bred’! Completely agree with comment relating to judging and judges’ subjectively opportune dog description (rather than objectivity it’s too often about wheels spinning within more wheels!) I’m struggling with, and hope he’ll expand, where Preston says, “And this makes breeding and showing easier since excessive length can cover up imbalance between the front and rear during movement because it creates a lever/stabilizing effects bi-directional front to rear and vice-versa.”

Speaknow, if you have a GSD with a front that has a steep upper arm and thus can't reach very far coupled with a sickle hocked rear (long lower thight bone) and steep croup, there is a given imbalance between the front and rear.  The front has short reach and the rear has long reach as well as a powerful lifting/propelling force (for short periods of time--ie diminished endurance).  There are several ways for the dog to compensate.  One is to lift and hold the front legs up (like a saddle bred horse) or a second is to bend the frront legs upward at the elbow (false reach--appealing to the uninformed). The key is to keep the front legs up and off the ground until the rear end's rear extension is completed. The best structural representation of this incorrect rear action vs correct action is Wynthia Strickland's classic book on the GSD. Her book is bar far the best I have ever read and well worth acquiring and owning.

The long back (versus the short back) constitutes a longer lever.  It's like a seesaw.  If one side is very long, even a light person can raise a heavy person on the other side if it is shorter.  Therefore if the dog's back is long the weight of the front assembly serves to stabilize the excessive drive and lift of the sickle hocked rear, which itself has a strabnge wind up, spring discharge action (this action appears very impressive to many, especially American Shepherd show enthusiasts and AKC GSD specialty judges--however, it is very incorrect and there is diminished working ability, endurance and soundness. 

The overall cost of this long back is not just reduced endurance, but a structurally weaker back, less efficient transmission of power through the back, and diminished attractiveness of the GSD (exaggerated, distorted, stretched profile).  A GSD with a short iron back flexes less, looks much more attractive, transmits power and drive much more effectively and efficiently, has less back problems orhopedically, less myopathies and better general health holding all other things constant.