The legacy of Herr Herman Martin - was it for the better or worse for the GSD - Page 5

impossible to prove but my guess is the best dogs (whatever that means)  today are better than the best dogs of any previous time, or at least as good as.

 

there are a lot of way nice dogs around today, you can't compare the worst dogs of today to the best of yore. in fact it's kind of difficult to compare live dogs to long dead dogs especially when the only evidence we have of the old dogs is stories.

 

i don't buy into all this doom & gloom.

 

 

Was martin the beginning of the end? Rummel? Stephanz himself? There are many good GSDs out there. There are many destructive forces on this chat room. Some are just negative on purpose, others are fault finders and give no hint of a solution. I hope that beginners and true lovers of the breed get involved to make certain a correct representitive of the standard survives into the future. Did anyone else look at one of the videos of the GSD [ and a couple of other breeds] being trained to bite from the 1930s?  Someone said it was funny. I think it is important to see the dogs were only as good as their training back then. watch that video.  Shallow bites on the wrist by most of the dogs with constant swinging around by the agitator. Is that where our dogs come from? Is hind site 20/20? Time to get off of the chat room and go train.

of course you are assuming the dogs in that vid were represnatative of the good dogs and training of the time, i doubt it, but if they were then give me a modern gsd thanks.

 

a lot of dogs today are explosive in the power and have great nerves, of course i don't have a reference point to compare it to so i am talking in absolute terms.

 

how much more power, aggression, drive, athletic ability can a canine have than some of the current super stars, the top dogs rock.

 

i am not talking about show dogs, that's a different thing, if not a different breed.

 

ETA, the only way an objective comparison could be made is to compare the purest old czech and DDR lines to the modern superstars, and frankly those old lines don't cut it in LEO or top sport work, or at least they don't dominate those venues, and that is verifiable fact.

today we can scientifically test a dog's health for a whole range of things, there is zero data on the old dogs, so most of what people say has no objective basis when comparing now to then.

Think we might have got slightly off topic, a simple answer is all the OP is looking for........Better or Worse? Now if members want to discuss training old and new, better showline or workline, I suggest you start your own thread. Now please for the last time stick to the topic of the thread, without any back and forth nasty remarks, thank you.

Seems I got to the party late but I will still put my opinion in. I think the splitting of the breed was one of the worst things that could have happened. Therefore my opinion of Rummel and the Martin brothers is the same--bad.

Mac you are right that until a newbie understands the history they will only look at the dogs today and think they are the perfect examples of the breed which we know is not true. JMO but I think the best dogs were from the late 40's-beginning fo the 60's. Both in conformation and working. I didn['t see any vids that you guys are talking about the training etc., but I get a feel from just what was being said. There were good trainers and there were good dogs. I always refer back to Dorthy Eustess and the Fortunate Fields dogs. Not only regarding guide dogs but the "ordinary" pics of her dogs in training were pretty darn nice. Her dogs were doing things that only those with the correct comformation and sound mind AND IMO the right size could do. I think today's dogs are too big, as a rule. Doesn't the standard call for a medium sized dog? And when one does have a dog that size it is made fun of and called too small or a midget. Now I am going off topic so I will stop with that. Thanks for letting me share and Merry Christmas.

If OP decides to continue this thread. Question is to all who answered For The Worse.

 

What is it exactly that Martin did wrong to the breed in your opinion?

 

Ibrahim

An old thread

 

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/forum.read?mnr=703656-walter-martin-talks

Another question:

Please explain how you think anything he did wrong can be 'put right'

by breeders today  (and I don't just mean something vague like "Judges

should penalise more").

What did he do wrong?.....my last post....lol, by literally eliminating the type, temperament, strengths, of dogs that were Black, bicolor, and Sable,( btw, which is the dominant color of the breed,smh) from the pool and podium of the most important single breed show in the World and thus the standard bearer for most unknowing people in rest of World, this period of time effectively bottle necked the breed to a point that the breed became more cosmetic than working. I would be forgiving of backyard breeders allowing this to occur, but the guardians of the breed?( at least by title and influence) ....to me is unconscionable. 

Anyway, it is what it is, but I do feel that factual reporting of history always can be instructive for those seeking to go forward in their endeavors.

Thank you Gustav, the voice of honesty is much appreciated. Unfortunately, attempting to change history is happening on many fronts, not only here.