The legacy of Herr Herman Martin - was it for the better or worse for the GSD - Page 2

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 vk4gsd on 20 December 2014 - 09:12

so basically herr martin was the right man installed for the job at the right time, harvesting the breed.

 

sounds like martin was as pathetic as that pimp von stepha-theif, both were crap breeders, crap trainers, crap handlers, social climbers and would sell their own grandmothers if the price was right.... and  both great at marketting with no conscience and and to heck with the breed.

 

these pschopaths are created by the people that put them there and keep them there....and they will always be there.

 

same story with the livestock guardian breeds, dogo's, pitts, presa's, dobes.....you name the commodity, if  there is an easy buck to turn, there is a martin, von steph...etc.

 

so as far as the op it is the same answer to everything, better for some, worse for others.


by Mackenzie on 20 December 2014 - 10:12

Sorry Susie but you have got it wrong again. People were sanctioned, suppressed and lost money when their view was different from Herr Martin. The situation then was as it is today at the SV and it’s called sweeping under the carpet. Nothing was brought out into the open then and today.

First you say that the change started with Chris Rummel and now you say that it started after the 2nd world war some 20 ears earlier. I suppose you are right on both counts.

With regard to pet people wanting their dogs to look the part is just a question of “Fashion” and nothing to do with how the breed should look. Pet shepherds have been around since the start of the breed in 1899 and, the pet market, will always be around as long as surplus puppies are available from the breeders.

Whatever you may think of the dogs in the USA they not the best by a long chalk. In East Germany and other countries that were under the yoke of the USSR people were poor with empty shelves in the shops and very few jobs (probably something that you have never experienced). Like many other breeds the German Shepherd was bred form to help put food on the table. I have been in Eastern Europe and seen for myself.

The dog that you present as an example, Rolf v Osnabrucker Land, was a good looking dog in his day but his pedigree was not correct. You mention four dogs from the Martin’s but there were other good dogs around too.

You are right in saying that they did not re-invent wheel, they just took the spokes out.

The subject of this post is was Herr Martin’s legacy for better or worse and if you think that it was really for the better then come out and say so. My position in this debate is the it was for the worse.

Mackenzie


by Mackenzie on 20 December 2014 - 10:12

vk4gsd I cannot agree with your comments regarding v Stephanitz who is credited with founding the breed.  I do not know whether you have read his book but if you took the time and trouble you would perhaps have a different opinion.  It is avaible from the SV in English for about 20 euros.   One thing that you will see is the warnings a regarding the money men coming to the breed and other things that we have been seeing since Herr Martin. 

To say that v Stephanitz was a crap breeder is laughable when you consider that Max along with the other breeders of the day had only the beginnings of what we see today.   The plus side was that they had a vision, direction, and enthusiasm to achieve their aim together.

The rest of what you say is just rubbish.  Why do you not come out and say whether you think the legacy was for the better or worse.

Mackenzie


by vk4gsd on 20 December 2014 - 10:12

"Why do you not come out and say whether you think the legacy was for the better or worse."

what is this, a pork chop???

"so as far as the op it is the same answer to everything, better for some, worse for others."

 

as far as rubbish goes, that is yr opinion that is contrary to the history of about every  working breed, do you live in a bubble???

 

seems from what i can tell, von steph was not successful as a breeder in his day, some acredit his choices to dooming the breed with nerve problems. certainly no evidence he ever trained a dog to do anything, this was partly cultural tho as the upper class left the training to the lower classes, but still.

 

and he didn't create anything excpet a lot of poetic prose, if i see any von stephadog-pimp quotes on a breeder website i wipe that breeder off my list of potential breeders.

 

 

 


by Mackenzie on 20 December 2014 - 11:12

vk4gsd why don't you read my last post before your rant properly.  I have made the declaration that you are now asking from me.  This is no pork chop as you describe it!!!!!!!!!!!  By the way you have not made your declaration for better or worse !!!!!!!!!!

Just where did you get this information on von Stephanitz? Also what would you consider as successful in the very early beginnings as von Stephanitz was.  This breed has taken over 100 years to develop to what we see today and no breeder alive today had to use the sort of material that was available in the very beginning.  Also, nobody can be specific about your comment the v Stephnanitz doomed anything from the beginning.

Mackenzie

 

 


by vk4gsd on 20 December 2014 - 12:12

you are basically asking if chocolate ice-cream is better or worse than vanilla ice cream.

 

better or worse? they are just different flavours, take your pick.

 

 

 

 


by Blitzen on 20 December 2014 - 12:12

What does it matter - really? Breeders today are reponsible for todays's GSD's. Breed history is interesting and most serious breeders want to know about it and some will even learn somemthing from it. However, it really has no influence on the phenotype of the majority of GSL's that are bred today. If GSL breeders can't look at a cowwhocked dog or a dog with a pronounced roach and recognize them as faults and if workingline breeders can't understand that confomation pays a very big role in the way any dog performs, then no one is ever going to teach them anything about breeding sound dogs. 


by vk4gsd on 20 December 2014 - 13:12

"..if workingline breeders can't understand that confomation pays a very big role in the way any dog performs,..."

 

can you please give an example of a high performing working line dog that is inhibited by it's conformation, please break down how that specific dog or dogs would achieve the trainers goal better if the dog was a different shape.

 

bazillions of youtube clips of high performing and high acheiving working dogs doing their thang that you can access, i would look forward to yr analysis of how their shape is holding them back in their work and what changes in conformation would make them better at what they are doing.  


by Blitzen on 20 December 2014 - 13:12

vk, I am not getting into another pissing contest with you. I mainly stay away from the board because you manage to sully every intelligent thread with your stupid statements and questions. Why you are still here totally baffles me; you are responsible for many of the regular posters leaving here because they no longer wanted to deal with you. If you can't understand what I was trying to convey, that's your problem, not mine.


by Mackenzie on 20 December 2014 - 14:12

Blitzen, well said and so eloquently put. Way above vk4gsd’s head.

I really do believe that for the progress and betterment of the breed looking into yesteryear is necessary because there is so much information there. The problems that are here today reflect the manipulation of the breeding requirements of this breed. It takes a lot of research into the past to understand how the breeding families come together especially when we have to adjust our thoughts because of fake pedigrees and the like.

The roach backs and rear over angulation leading to unsoundness has been ignored completely for too long. The Breeders should have taken action before to correct the fundamental principle of soundness in the working dog. I can remember so called top breeders in the UK saying to their followers “soundness doesn’t matter if the hips are OK”. Their followers believed it.

Breeding to a tried and proven standard is not always easy and when breeders are unable to achieve the best possible result they cry for the rules to be changed to suit what they are producing. The UK kennel Club is guilty of permitting changes to breed standards in many breeds to accommodate these people.

A properly constructed animal to the breed standard will improve overall performance and contribute to maintaining the standard. There is never going to be a perfect dog but we can get close if breeders pay more attention to detail and stop following blindly the show dog winners.

When it comes to the Judges the order of the day for many is “just give them what they want.

Let’s please get back to the topic of this post - better or worse.

Mackenzie






 


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