The virtues and weakness of present show lines. - Page 5

Okay since there is no objection, here is a recent VA angulations

Thanks Abby, it is good if we can read this study, I think Dingo is well balanced, maybe what also adds to his endurance is his dry strong yet light bones, strong ligaments, medium size, strong hocks, strong pasterns in addition to correct angulation.
I have a doubt that exagerated front development in recent dogs hinders balance and affects endurance but I have no proof.
I notice that many AS do not have same front cgest development of GS but have more front reach, there is a AS shown in the other current thread (correct opening of the shoulder) that has a close front and shoulder to Dingo's and shows unbelievable front reach. AS show higher lifting of the front arm while on leash, maybe if rear angulation is slightly corrected as well as the croup and hocks are strengthened AS dogs can be closer to the standard and have the correct endurance a German Shepherd should have.

Ibrahim

Heads of dogs in the time of Dingo look smaller, a bit narrower, had correct parallel planes and proportions of muzzle to head. Today's VAs have bigger wider heads which look more impressive, but planes are less correct, tend to have front head dome, some have clear short muzzles.
I am not sure about the bite and its strength, I am not sure also about the health of teeth and jaws, best if old timers step in and comment on the difference in heads of old and current GSD, those guys who saw both heads and saw old time dogs in bite work.

Ibrahim

Actually, Dingo did not have perfect angles in the front or rear, and his croup was slightly short and slightly steep.  The steepness of his croup caused a slight rotation of his rear hocks at full extension as a mild compensation. In spite of Dingo's mild variance from the standard, he was a renowned mover from the side, with tremendous and correct rear thrust and full range of motion in the front and the rear.  The question is WHY, how could he move better than his actual structure would suggest ?

The answer lies in his grandsire, Canto Wienerau, one of the best side-gaiting GSDs ever in the history of the breed.  He sidegait was simply phenomenal and he gave it to his progeny and grand-progeny because he was strongly dominant for it.  He was rumored to be a mild "free bleeder", a dilute, and not strong in temperament.  But his ligamentation was superb, strong but flexible and he was domiant for excellent movement even though he didn't have perfect conformation.  Now it is important to note that Walter Martin was a very savvy breeder and a very intelligent businessman/attorney (he was able to create a huge multi-million dollar world wide GSD market with his Black and Red SV showdogs with super male type, which was beyond anyone elses expectation in the SV except his--this alone was a phenomenal achievement).  He knew that he could not get sidegait that was free and easy, fluid and outreaching anywhere else but through Canto.  But he also knew that Canto did not have curbside appeal because he was diluted in pigment, lighter boned, and lacked male type and hard working temperament.  His crafty solution was to create the legendary Canto/Quanto cross which solved these oproblems in a signifuicant number of progeny.  Quanto was a heavy set, big boned well pigmented GSD with masculine type and strong temperament. Herr Martin quickly found that these two bloodlines merged perfectly and provided some superb males, far better than any before in the zuchtschau. When too much Canto caused temperament weakening and health problems, he would breed in the occasional very healthy and robust "gangster dog" to compensate, and it must be pointed out that he did do this correctly as far as the results he got.  Like Herr Martin or not, some experts claim it is not fair to blame him for what others did to screw up what perhaps only he could do properly himself. 

Preston....

I think Preston brings up a good point in that bone construction is not the only factor that affects gait.  Soft tissue, health, fitness, and temperament all play a part.

But the point I'm making is that, if Dingo's construction facilitates the movement that is considered desirable for the breed, then how can it be wrong ( with acknowledgement to the slight rotation in hock and slightly steep croup)?  Surely we should be looking at correct movement first and not trying to create a construction that we believe should 'improve' movement.  What this is doing is expecting function to follow form but as the saying goes, it should be - Form Follows Function.

We have again used Dingo as the epitome of correct movement but my recollection is that dogs of the 80s in the UK generally had similarly sound gait and construction.  We didn't have the pounding fronts, sickle hocks, bobbing croups and general slackness all through that seems to go with the modern show type GSD construction.

Good read Preston.

I think it is a mistake to assume that because a dog has a good gait and a construction that does not conform perfectly to the standard, that the standard must be somehow flawed. Quite a bit of this was developed when the GSD actually did work on his feet all day. When one starts to deviate from the standard for the sake of (perceived) function, at what point do you stop.

There are many things that go into a free gait besides angles. American dogs have phenomenal gaits. the majority of them also have the steep upper arm, short steep croups, longer weak backs and rears so angulated and weak that some of the top males could not mount and breed a female without assistance. But they had gait, at least for a few laps.

Dingo is a dog with near perfect balance front and rear, not over done in any area and with the range of motion in the joints to present this type gait. There are a lot of factors that came together correctly in the make up of this dog.

jmo,

Rik

Rik, agreeing with a lot of what you say.  What I do disagree with though is that the standard is correct in all clauses.  The forehand in particular is flawed in asking for a 90 degree angle.  It is well accepted now that this is an impossibility in a non achondroplasic breed.  And also that the shoulder blade and upper arm should be of equal length.  Normal canine construction gives the UA a ~15% greater length.  The standard is far from perfect but where it is correct is in discouraging over angulation.

"When one starts to deviate from the standard for the sake of (perceived) function, at what point do you stop."


I would be asking - at what point does the showring stop in 'improving' construction and "phenomenal gaits"?