# Structure and Movement



## Antonio Bernardy (Feb 21, 2011)

I would like to find out more about a working dog's structure and movement. I know its different depending on the type of work. But would like to hear opinions, websites and books that would lead me in the right direction. Into gaining more knowledge on this subject.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

WTF is wrong with you ? LOL You need to find a show website for silly shit like that. We like to argue about drives and how hard dogs hit and bite. Movement is for watches and show scum.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Chris Zink has some interesting stuff on that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Christine_Zink

There were also some old books written by Fred Lanting on the topic as well (but do realize he was showline slanted - but had some decent orthopedic observations)


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am not a show person but because I need top speed, I pay a lot of attention to physical structure. What I need and what is needed for a sport dog is apples and oranges. Many of the standards for different breeds are for what looks good walking or trotting on a flat surface but has no place in hunting.
One thing I always look at is the back and the tailset. I like to see a really low tailset and a long back with a touch of a roach in it. The roach and the really low tailset is probably not what you want in a sport dog as it is a running trait only. Because it moves the rear legs farther up under the hindquarters, it is really easy to put my hand on a young dogs chest and push them back into a sit as compared to a dog that has a higher tailset and no roach. The later is built to where the rear legs ar farther to the rear and adds substantial more support. As my dogs mature, they learn to reposition their legs farther back when needed, but, it is another step that the latter example doesn't have to do.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Good structure and movement are fundamental components without those its not a working dog.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

I have a good book about

Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis by Curtis Brown

I assure you it is *not *about show dogs!!!!


----------



## Antonio Bernardy (Feb 21, 2011)

Thanks to those who replied and understood my question! Def going to look for that book, Gillian!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Good structure and movement are fundamental components without those its not a working dog.

I guess you don't know your history then. Movement and structure the way that YOU are looking at it is the same way that show people looked at it in the beginning. They feel exactly the way that you do. Look where that got them. Many still believe that because their dog moves correctly that it will work.

Then you have the basic problem of defining structure and movement. What happens when the dog that doesn't fit your definition can work all day, and does so for the most part of it's life ? How would you define these things in the Malinois ? They come in all shapes and sizes.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

I see this the same as the thread about biting power . I've trained alot of PSDs in my day , mostly GSDs , Mals , Rotts and Duthchies . The fastest dogs and hardest biters I've ever come across didn't fit into the "structurally correct" catagory that has been developed by "experts" . It was more their mindset that made them fast runners and hard biters . 

I won't argue that structure plays a part , just that it's not near as big a part as many believe . When I see talk of structure in working dogs it makes me nervous .


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

OP, depends what type of movement, for me sloping shoulders very important, lot of confirmation breeders tend to prefer blocky straight shoulders, well sprung ribs a must, stand upright on legs, body good bit longer than dog is tall as 10 is 9 or more for some breeds. (compare mal which is a quick dog but quite square shape which prolly gives them better acceleration but not convinced on their top speed n ability to sustain it. straight or slightly roached back like Don said n low tail carriage. also narrower at front than at back - again show usually reverse with selective breeding for broad chests in many breeds, i also like a long nose n drop ears for tracking.

PS stucture is one thing but drives will definately have a bigger role in the success of a working dog eg a driven dog with structural faults (within reason) will always outperform a perfect built dog that lacks drive for the work.

note: show people n supporters are directly responsible for destroying instinct n qua;ity in a number of well documented breeds and increasing genetic faults, they have no credibility on confirmation issues, all the titles are completely worthless. might as well just make your own champion title on a computer n print it off n award it to yourself - it would be just as valid. 
on the bright side they know a lot about grooming n shampoo. Joby here makes trophies he should give discounts to WDF members if they ever want a show title because they think they're dog is cute. 

BTW welcome


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I find that a lot of people don't understand the difference between fast and quick.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Good structure and movement are fundamental components without those its not a working dog.
> 
> I guess you don't know your history then. Movement and structure the way that YOU are looking at it is the same way that show people looked at it in the beginning. They feel exactly the way that you do. Look where that got them. Many still believe that because their dog moves correctly that it will work.
> 
> Then you have the basic problem of defining structure and movement. What happens when the dog that doesn't fit your definition can work all day, and does so for the most part of it's life ? How would you define these things in the Malinois ? They come in all shapes and sizes.


Jeff cudos for interpolating ALL that out of a simple statement. YOU have no idea how I am looking at it. The way Im "defining" structure and movement is simple (the way I define most things). I dont give a shit about a "standard" as defined by some registry ( If I did I damn sure wouldn't own a DS). What Im talking about is simply a dog who is sound. If he isn't sound then he wont be working long. I made 0 relationship between a dogs structure and ability to work.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

For fast and quick just look at the coyote. Guaranteed to be all wrong according to many dog show books but they can run fast and do it all day.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I agree that what counts in many venues is totally reliant on if the dog does the work well. Not all venues are that forgiving in regards to structure and it pays to understand what you ar looking at at a glance. You all know what a DS and a mal looks like so we will won't get into that. Below are pictures of dogs that started off from two show dogs built to the standard which is short coupled, high tailset, flat back with a hight of 23". That is the airedale standard according to Hoyle. The originals were quick but not fast enough to hunt running game with. What is interesting, if a group of shorter, square built mals was run over the same course these dogs were run over for three or four generations, they would be built more like thes dogs if the same selection criteria was used. Form does indeed follow function. You can't hunt "succesfully with a dog that cannot run properly and is not fast enough to pressure the game. These dogs are way off the standard and most are a full 6" over in height. It took 3 to 4 generations to change the standard into these dogs.

This is the first one that I started to see running ability in. You can see the power in the hindquarters. The short legs and broader chest are gone.










The next three pictures are the same dog from different angles to show the roach, low tailset, long legs, narrow front with the powerful rear.





























This is the above dogs sire. He had a long back, but, still is square because he has very long legs.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

most modern organised dog sports would select for quick/fizzy/twitchy dogs would they not?? 
prolly all the things a practical dog handler definately would NOT want. sports is changing the shape/structure n triats in breeds for sure, 

i would urge sports people to stop being so arrogant n consider the if the traits they select for are generally improving the breed or not. if no, they guilty of the same crime as show people just a differnt focus. hell some sports people i talk to think that work is sport is work


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> most modern organised dog sports would select for quick/fizzy/twitchy dogs would they not??
> prolly all the things a practical dog handler definately would NOT want. sports is changing the shape/structure n triats in breeds for sure,
> 
> i would urge sports people to stop being so arrogant n consider the if the traits they select for are generally improving the breed or not. if no, they guilty of the same crime as show people just a differnt focus. hell some sports people i talk to think that work is sport is work


Working dog people want a dog that can physically do the job. Correct structure is a necessity for that. If they can't run, jump and move quickly they wont be successful. For that reason it's bred for but just not with the same view as the show people.
You can get by with a lot less correct temperment if all the dog is going to do is run around a ring.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Well, for what I do [herding], structure and movement are important. Backlines, feet/pasterns, balance front to rear, CORRECT angles,all can make the difference over the course of the dog's life time. A few turns around the pasture and the bad structure will be left behind. Stock get wise and dog is outrun. Its also more susceptible to injury. Nothing worse than a dog having all the instinct in the world and talent and a body that won't let him implement it. Weight and condition is also important. Gillian's book suggestion is a good one. Also, anything by Chris Zink. 

Terrasita


----------



## Juan Galvis (Nov 22, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> WTF is wrong with you ? LOL You need to find a show website for silly shit like that. We like to argue about drives and how hard dogs hit and bite. Movement is for watches and show scum.


WTF is wrong with you?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I hate show people. Good enough for you ?? LOL


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I hate show people. Good enough for you ?? LOL


Well not that I hate folks but I am ANTI show and have been for years. They have all but ruined every breed that falls under their respective banners. I have been around long enough that I have literally seen them go south by degrees. To the extent that it's nearly impossible to find true working dogs in what used to be some very good breeds. 

In fact dont get me on my soap box about it I can go on for days lol.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Pat Hastings has some good books/video on structure. They are geared more towards being able to tell what sort of angles the dog has, understanding how to look at bone length, where things are connected, balance, etc and less on "this is correct structure" since structure that might be correct for one breed/job might be all wrong for another breed/job. 

I have another book at home that I like called K9 Structure and Terminology. Don't remember who the authors are but a simple google will probably find it.


----------



## leslie cassian (Jun 3, 2007)

Don posted this article a few years ago. I liked it when I first read it and I still think its a good one. An interesting take on form and function.

http://saluqi.home.netcom.com/belkin.htm


----------



## Antonio Bernardy (Feb 21, 2011)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I agree that what counts in many venues is totally reliant on if the dog does the work well. Not all venues are that forgiving in regards to structure and it pays to understand what you ar looking at at a glance. You all know what a DS and a mal looks like so we will won't get into that. Below are pictures of dogs that started off from two show dogs built to the standard which is short coupled, high tailset, flat back with a hight of 23". That is the airedale standard according to Hoyle. The originals were quick but not fast enough to hunt running game with. What is interesting, if a group of shorter, square built mals was run over the same course these dogs were run over for three or four generations, they would be built more like thes dogs if the same selection criteria was used. Form does indeed follow function. You can't hunt "succesfully with a dog that cannot run properly and is not fast enough to pressure the game. These dogs are way off the standard and most are a full 6" over in height. It took 3 to 4 generations to change the standard into these dogs.
> 
> This is the first one that I started to see running ability in. You can see the power in the hindquarters. The short legs and broader chest are gone.
> 
> ...




Thanks great post!


----------



## Carlos Machado (Dec 28, 2008)

Structure in Action: The Makings of a Durable Dog 
Is geared toward working dog structure and how it helps or hinders performance including biting.
http://www.dogwise.com/ItemDetails.cfm?ID=DAN125


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I thought it may be helpful to explain how different tailsets and roaching affect movement because looking at pictures doesn't explain the why's and what for's.
The tail is an extension of the spine. When a dog has a very high tailset with the root of the tail coming off high on the back, it says the spine is curved upward. That rotates the angle of the hips rearward so the hind legs are basically projecting to the rear and makes "stacking " a dog really easy in the show world because that is basically the way the dog tends to stand. The problem is the rear legs lose most of their forward reach when running. The dog will have great extention to the rear but has no power past a certain point. A real low tailset has the spine curved downward which rotates the hips, and the legs, forward under the dog so the dog has great forward reach through the power stroke but is more limited in rearward extention of the legs which is also part of the power stroke. Add the roach, it moves the the hips a bit farther under the dog, but, when running, the roached back is not rigid. In the rearward extension of the legs, the roach in the back flattens out which rotates the movement farther to the rear so they have full movement to the rear. Then, there is everything in between the two. In protection dogs, I would say the tailset should be in between or to the higher side. People do not run at 35 mph and up so even the slowest dog is going to catch them. The slightly rearward legs gives the dog more power when they are being pushed backwards. There are other things with front ends, toplines, length of upper leg bones vs lower leg bones, etc, but that is for some other time.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Don what are your thoughts on, thickness of bone, bone density/diameter etc. as rule would you say the thin bone dogs are associated with more frantic drive?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Never really gave it much thought Peter. Smaller dogs always seemed less settled to me. Less relaxed than a big dog. I never looked at dogs in the terms of drive. Still don't. I see heart and desire....or I don't. But,I have now been exposed to the world of drives, ball drive, food drive, fight drive, toy drive...drives for everything. Frantic drive is one I am not sure about but I am sure it would be a deal breaker for me. Don't like my woman or my dogs acting frantic. :grin:


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Antonio Bernardy said:


> I would like to find out more about a working dog's structure and movement. I know its different depending on the type of work. But would like to hear opinions, websites and books that would lead me in the right direction. Into gaining more knowledge on this subject.


http://www.dogwise.com/ItemDetails.cfm?ID=dan103

Gill


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Wow, I never knew there were so many books written on a subject of no importance to the working world. :grin: Maybe they were just written for show people. Someday I may just break down and read some of these books on dogs.....but it is going to have to wait until all I can do is sit and read. The link Leslie posted on form and function is probably the best I have read.


----------



## Antonio Bernardy (Feb 21, 2011)

Carlos Machado said:


> Structure in Action: The Makings of a Durable Dog
> Is geared toward working dog structure and how it helps or hinders performance including biting.
> http://www.dogwise.com/ItemDetails.cfm?ID=DAN125



Thanks Carlos


----------



## Antonio Bernardy (Feb 21, 2011)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Wow, I never knew there were so many books written on a subject of no importance to the working world. :grin: Maybe they were just written for show people. Someday I may just break down and read some of these books on dogs.....but it is going to have to wait until all I can do is sit and read. The link Leslie posted on form and function is probably the best I have read.


Form and function sound kinda like the same thing to me! Nobody is talking about following any standard we are talking about sound structure. I dont know how some u are coming up with show stuff. Let me ask a ? do u own a pure bred? If so why not just buy a mutt a with tons of prey drive! I'm looking at the complete package not perfect but sound! Just because u care about structure doesn't mean you are a show person.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Don "frantic drive" is not a real term, i just made it up for this post, please don't let it become one, i was just reffering mainly to all those crack-head, handler sensitive, thin nerve, insect brain mals evryone is into these days. but have seen same in other breeds.

yeah same - i don't obsess about all this drive stuff, although i have never owned a dog that would be considered high drive for chasing moths etc.

i would put brains over drive anyday. means a less flashy dog that is harder to train but never done sport so don't need a flashy robot.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

What about couch drive, or MacDonalds drive, there are still plenty of other drives to consider you know.8-[


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

"If so why not just buy a mutt a with tons of prey drive! " exactly, they're called mals n DS's, great dogs too. i only ever owned currs that work - never saw any gain by owning papers to say they "is" a breed n never will.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I thought I detected a note of sarchasm in your post Peter. I was just running with it. LOL


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

if i post its nearly all sarcasm


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Don what are your thoughts on, thickness of bone, bone density/diameter etc. as rule would you say the thin bone dogs are associated with more frantic drive?


I have seen that in the smaller terriers. The finer the bone, the more frantic/edgy/nerve issues. It's something I've alwasy felt strongly about but have had disagreements with other terrier owners....mostly the owners of fine boned dogs. :grin:


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

all anecdotal observations but would appear a link that the fine bone dogs seem to be thin nerved?? any vets/pros like to chime in


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> I see this the same as the thread about biting power . I've trained alot of PSDs in my day , mostly GSDs , Mals , Rotts and Duthchies . The fastest dogs and hardest biters I've ever come across didn't fit into the "structurally correct" catagory that has been developed by "experts" . It was more their mindset that made them fast runners and hard biters .


I agree with that. "Commitment" really makes the bite in the way that matters most, and I see a similar connection with movement. Like the running spirit of a horse that likes to win. Comparitavely, humans with same/similar structure potentially "learn" to move in different ways, so mobility is also in some respect a habit formed behavior. Some dogs will move with all the floating grace of a Geisha, while another dog learns to move like a rocking horse, even though they might not be structurally all that different. Then other factors, like fitness and conditioning will also play a role, just the same as in bitework.

I'm personally of the mindset that; _if you find the performance satisfying, then conformation will work itself out._


----------



## Carlos Machado (Dec 28, 2008)

High drive will make a big difference but if you compare a show GSD to a working GSD with the same drive and speed in short bursts the working type with better structure will outlast the show type at the end of the day.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Oh yeh., like the one horse, Seabiscuit, was small amd not built well but had heart and went on to win. That is what fairy tails are made of guys.....one horse in a hundred years does not make the underdog a good bet. Being a romantic when it comes to sportwork might fly because a practice session isn't exactly like running high speed for five miles over rugged terrain. It is more mentally challenging then physically challenging so heart and desire can play a huge role.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Thinking about this, If I had to choose between a dog that had the heart for bitework or had the perfect build for the same but no heart, I would take the one with the heart over the build every time....but if I can get them both in the same package, that is a no brainer.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Thinking about this, If I had to choose between a dog that had the heart for bitework or had the perfect build for the same but no heart, I would take the one with the heart over the build every time....but if I can get them both in the same package, that is a no brainer.


I agree that it would be nice to have it all in one package but that doesn't happen much . Don't know much about hog hunting with Airedales but I do know a thing or two about training and working PSDs . From my experiance training alot of them I can tell you structure takes a backseat to heart everytime . Also PSDs do a lot of different things , not just chasing slow criminals . They are called upon to track , smell , jump , fight , bite , etc. . There are also times where short bursts of intense speed are needed then others where they are called upon to work long tracks in rough terrian . As for PSDs give me a healthy dog with four legs and a big desire to work over structure everytime . 


Off topic a little but wouldn't the physical makeup of Seabiscuit be preferred ? I heard he actually did have heart(an enlarged one) that helped him in races . Or is that a myth ?


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Jim Nash said:


> Off topic a little but wouldn't the physical makeup of Seabiscuit be preferred ? I heard he actually did have heart(an enlarged one) that helped him in races . Or is that a myth ?


You're thinking of Secretariat.

Ang


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Ang Cangiano said:


> You're thinking of Secretariat.
> 
> Ang


Thank you . I don't know much about horses . Explains my luck at the track .


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Structure does have something to do with ability, a Shepherd is not going to run as fast as a Greyhound, nor pull as much as a Pit. That's due to physical differences, no matter how much that Shepherd wants to beat the Greyhound it isn't going to happen. A show line Shepherd, on average, is not capable of the same athleticism, speed and agility as a working line dog. These are extremes, but they do point out the importance of structure.

With that being said, yes ability and function definitely before form, but I don't care how much ability or heart a dog has, if he's broken down by the time he's 4 because of his structure he isn't good for anything.

Ang


----------



## Carlos Machado (Dec 28, 2008)

Very well put I was going to say something similar but you did a much better job explaining it.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Ang Cangiano said:


> Structure does have something to do with ability, a Shepherd is not going to run as fast as a Greyhound, nor pull as much as a Pit. That's due to physical differences, no matter how much that Shepherd wants to beat the Greyhound it isn't going to happen. A show line Shepherd, on average, is not capable of the same athleticism, speed and agility as a working line dog. These are extremes, but they do point out the importance of structure.
> 
> With that being said, yes ability and function definitely before form, but I don't care how much ability or heart a dog has, if he's broken down by 4 because of his structure he isn't good for anything.
> 
> Ang


Not saying it's not important just not AS important as some think . When I was a trainer you could look at a new class of 16 dogs on average for the patrol class mainly GSDs(all working line) with a few Mals or Dutchies mixed in and not be able to pick which one is going to be the fastest runner or hardest biter by their looks . No matter how well built a certain dog may have been for running or well muscled some dogs jaws may have been for biting . 

As a group these dogs come in all shapes and sizes . You won't see a class of clones . Not even close . Some are short and stocky others long and lean with a mixture of many different physical traits(from shape of back , tailset , posture , length of leg , whatever) mixed in amongst the group . They made it into the class based upon their abilities not there looks . Seeing the mixture of different physical characteristics it's obvious to me that whatever the " proper structure " was for that breed didn't give them much of an advantage or enhance their abilities in order to be choosen as a PSD or PSD prospect . If it did we wouldn't have such a wide range of structure in the groups . Obviously health is a concern but a short stocky dog can be just as healthy as a long and lean one . The majority of theses dogs go on to work well beyond 4 years of age .

The desire to work FAR FAR outweighed their structure in it having what it takes to be a PSD .


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Jim Nash said:


> Not saying it's not important just not AS important as some think . When I was a trainer you could look at a new class of 16 dogs on average for the patrol class mainly GSDs(all working line) with a few Mals or Dutchies mixed in and not be able to pick which one is going to be the fastest runner or hardest biter by their looks . No matter how well built a certain dog may have been for running or well muscled some dogs jaws may have been for biting .
> 
> As a group these dogs come in all shapes and sizes . You won't see a class of clones . Not even close . Some are short and stocky others long and lean with a mixture of many different physical traits(from shape of back , tailset , posture , length of leg , whatever) mixed in amongst the group . They made it into the class based upon their abilities not there looks . Seeing the mixture of different physical characteristics it's obvious to me that whatever the " proper structure " was for that breed didn't give them much of an advantage or enhance their abilities in order to be choosen as a PSD or PSD prospect . If it did we wouldn't have such a wide range of structure in the groups . Obviously health is a concern but a short stocky dog can be just as healthy as a long and lean one . The majority of theses dogs go on to work well beyond 4 years of age .
> 
> The desire to work FAR FAR outweighed their structure in it having what it takes to be a PSD .


Of course, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, especially as an end user, and as I said, my examples were extremes. With my 'broken down by 4' comment I was talking about poor structure, not good structure in different form (short vs. tall). But conformation can make or break a dog no matter how much 'heart' or desire he has. Kind of like the old adage, no hoof no horse. 

Ang


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Ang i think there is a difference between lack of "type" n downright mechanical faults that would cause failure.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Ang i think there is a difference between lack of "type" n downright mechanical faults that would cause failure.


That would depend upon what you perceive as 'lack of type' Would an average show line Shepherd that is 'typey' and winning in todays SV show ring succeed or fail at the old style SchH wall - when it was actually a wall and not an a-frame? Could they handle a FR long jump? That is a dogs structure failing him in work - or in this case not even work, but simply sport. 

Ang


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Ang i don't mean failure as failing work/sport, i meant it in a catastrophic engineering terminolgy whereby the mechanical structure of the dog breaks down. there is a huge range of variation of type that doesn't fall into this category. i thought the context was obvious. in fact mechanical failure in a sport dog i would think rare due to the fact training n trialling are rather short events compared to a practical working dog that is running all day everyday for years on end, thats where something a simple as foot structure can be critical - will that ever be an issue in a trial - no - unless it is an extreme mechanical fault.

as an aside consider horse breeding for show-jumpers. in spite of decades of trying noone has ever bred a consistent line of born champ showjumpers. they all come from a wide variety of breeds, and in fact types, shapes n sizes. 

anyone who could breed showjumpers based on confirmation principles alone will be an instant millionairer. has never happened consistently n prolly never will.


----------



## sam wilks (May 3, 2009)

I think conformation does play a huge role in a working dog. The show people have to select for what they want by looks. If you have a line of dogs that works well, part of that is because their structure has not inhibited their ability to work. I see some of the k9's at work and they look like they are eventually going to have problems. We have one dog whose hocks almost touch the ground with every step and he is not that old. You cant tell me that will not lead to problems down the road. It probably effects his work right now as well. If we're comparing dogs to horses maybe you could compare working dogs to wild horses. If they have to many problems with their build, they will not last, its that simple. I do think that people still have a preference with their dogs build. I like a dog thats a little more compact and dense in their body. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have a dog with a leaner build, it's just my preference.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> as an aside consider horse breeding for show-jumpers. in spite of decades of trying noone has ever bred a consistent line of born champ showjumpers. they all come from a wide variety of breeds, and in fact types, shapes n sizes.


How many Arabs are at an international level as jumpers compared to Selle Francais? Arab conformation doesn't allow it, and that's coming from an Arab person.

Ang


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Let me just make one thing clear here, for me form follows function, I will always take the worker over what the human eye perceives as the 'correct' conformation, as long as the dog can do the work. 

That being said I believe that in order to accurately compare different conformation types you must assume all else is equal - desire, drives, 'heart', and in that case the dog with the more solid, more correct, conformation will always outperform the dog with poor structure. And I'm not talking about 'V' ratings in show, but correct working structure here.

I also believe that no matter how much a dog brings to the table as far as drives and 'heart' goes if his structure is such that it doesn't allow his body to keep up with that drive/desire he's useless as a working dog.

Ang


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

ah OK, and there would be even less Clydies (pure) n Shetlands as well, no argument here, sure yr not pushing this to a logical extreme beyond a reasonable scope of the thread intention.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Ang Cangiano said:


> That being said I believe that in order to accurately compare different conformation types you must assume all else is equal - desire, drives, 'heart'


So, I've looked at your site a few times but please tell me, how did he turn out ??


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> So, I've looked at your site a few times but please tell me, how did he turn out ??


I love him, truly, he's my bud, not going anywhere - ever!

Ang


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

so whatever happens to the OP'ers in these threads do they just tune out, thanks for comin or what - still relatively new to the forum thing, i would have thought that such conversations would keep the OP's kind of more engaged, no gratitude these days??


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Thanks Ang, it was all you.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> ah OK, and there would be even less Clydies (pure) n Shetlands as well, no argument here, sure yr not pushing this to a logical extreme beyond a reasonable scope of the thread intention.


Actually the Arab/Selle Francais example was probably the least 'pushing it' example I've used. If you take a 15.2hh SF and a 15.2hh Arab, both are going to have very similar body weight, bone type, etc. but in a competition between the two the Arab will never win a jump off and the SF will never win an endurance race. That's due to structure.

Ang


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Thanks Ang, it was all you.


Did you see this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfdyPxk6nX4

I can say we definitely 'clicked' we've had ups and downs, some tests of will, but in the end he's been an awesome dog to have around. Thank you.

Ang


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Wow, he's all grown up.

Haven't seen that one before, very nice..he looks big now.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Ex and I have to talk about that pallisade work. However, you will never EVER see me teaching any of my idiot dogs to jump on a vehicle. I can only imagine that nightmare, I let them out to run and they are skidding all over the explorer scratching the shit out of the paint.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

How important is paint really ?? It's gonna go bad all on its own anyway


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

I admit, Ex was the first dog I've trained over the pallisade, I'm sure there were better ways of doing it, he's not as graceful going over as I'd like but he's done it more than once at full height - 8' so I'm not complaining. The Jeep needs to be repainted anyway, it's the old workhorse around here. 

Gerry, he's pure muscle, fast and strong. I need to get some new vids of him doing bitework, he's matured a lot from the old one I have of him.

Ang


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Ang don't take this the wrong way but are you happy with Ex's style/trajectory over the hurdle? awesome looking dog BTW, something like what i am aiming at getting this year if i'm real lucky. half czech if ya want to comment on the pedigree, i will PM it to you.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

just my 2 cents worth, specifically re: GSD. form does follow function: i've never seen/heard of a show-line GSD herding 200+ sheep 10 hours/day for 8-10 years. i doubt i ever will as their structure simply won't take the beating. it's too extreme. 

and i seriously doubt they would have the drive to do the work either. my WL GSD's gait is easy, covers ground (!) and he can do it all day long. ASS dogs can maintain thier gait for maybe 15 minutes--and don't care about a boundary or sheep.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Ang don't take this the wrong way but are you happy with Ex's style/trajectory over the hurdle? awesome looking dog BTW, something like what i am aiming at getting this year if i'm real lucky. half czech if ya want to comment on the pedigree, i will PM it to you.


You mean the fact he can clear it from a standstill, at an angle with ease? Yeah, pretty happy with it. Goes back to the form/function thing, he clears 4' fences without touching them, don't really care about his style, he gets it done and has room to spare. I haven't tried any real long jumps with him yet, I honestly don't know if he'll have the distance in him, but we'll find out this summer.

Yeah, shoot me the ped. I'd like to see it.

Ang


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Been some interesting posts on this thread,but, I had to opt out as it ended up not being much usesful about actual different structures seen in dogs. It became those that pay no attention to structure, others that find it important. Nothing about how specific structural differences benefit or hinder a dogs movement. That would have been interesting IMO. The OP would do better reading some of the suggested books obviously.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Been some interesting posts on this thread,but, I had to opt out as it ended up not being much usesful about actual different structures seen in dogs. It became those that pay no attention to structure, others that find it important. Nothing about how specific structural differences benefit or hinder a dogs movement. That would have been interesting IMO. The OP would do better reading some of the suggested books obviously.


You are so full of shit, you probably sit in your truck drinking shine until you hear the dogs barking and the drive to the spot on the farm where you tied up the pig.

Shoot pig, take ropes off, take picture.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

thats not very responsible Gerry - are you alledging Don drives while under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> You are so full of shit, you probably sit in your truck drinking shine until you hear the dogs barking and the drive to the spot on the farm where you tied up the pig.
> 
> Shoot pig, take ropes off, take picture.


I get the feeling you have usually had too much wine when you answer posts Gerry. I am never sure how you arrive at some of the BS you come up with other than it seldom has anything to do with anything. :wink:


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Ang P'ed 'pededigree. czech line you may know about rest may not be less familiar. don't hold back on your opinions via PM.

looks like this thread has run its course, got a great list of books to buy out of it.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

thats "PM'ed" i have a hyper-sensitive touch pad, that is annoying, you only have to think yr touching it n you are. anyone know a driver i can download for a PC to make the touch pad less "touchy"


----------



## Antonio Bernardy (Feb 21, 2011)

Thanks everybody for all your post! I wish could have been more involved but im a novice to all of this hence the my question. Everybody had great opinions on the subject, I would agree that form does come before function. Im not a show person as i said before but I do think they both go hand and hand if ignore one you lose the other. Which, IMO is the case with the show people they are so focus on the phenotype that they sometimes lose genotype ( I hope I said that right). Although structure and movement isnt on top of my list, I think its important enough not ignore it!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Antonio, form follows function and much of structure is also phenotypical....but I know what you mean.... I just put this up so you don't repeat that somewhere else. :wink:


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Been some interesting posts on this thread,but, I had to opt out as it ended up not being much usesful about actual different structures seen in dogs. It became those that pay no attention to structure, others that find it important. Nothing about how specific structural differences benefit or hinder a dogs movement. That would have been interesting IMO. The OP would do better reading some of the suggested books obviously.


Link: A Summary of Anatomical and Biomechanical Consequences of differing jump heights in Dog Agility

Structurally, it's beleived the biggest factor in the biomechanics of jumping ability is the height to weight ratio, which differs most between breeds rather than individual dogs of a single breed. Relative to that, is the bone structure, being either heavy, medium or light, medium bone being a more preferable compromise for it's ability to lift, yet withstand landing impact. Secondarily, is the importance of leg length, the distance from the ground to the elbow, longer being more advantageous, but not so extreme that the body will break down from the overstress of landing impact in the long term. Also, the body length can have a great influence on the amount of duress during landing, a longer body being more strenuous in the landing on the front assembly. Additionally, the dog "learns" to shift it's center of gravity during the jump.

Aside from these obvious structural influences, it's readily acknowledgeable by experts that "_An agility dog’s ability to jump successfully can be improved through schooling and as confidence and experience increases._" So, my personal assessment is, that the will and desire of the dog to perform is truly the greatest influence when comparing specimens of a single breed. Physical fitness and training will provide the biggest performance gains, as long as the dog has the "heart" or tenacity to perform the task.

Here's a more complete chart of breed height-to-weight ratios, as referenced to in the study above, provided by Zink, _Jumping from A to Z_.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

thank God for science?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Link: A Summary of Anatomical and Biomechanical Consequences of differing jump heights in Dog Agility
> 
> Structurally, it's beleived the biggest factor in the biomechanics of jumping ability is the height to weight ratio, which differs most between breeds rather than individual dogs of a single breed. Relative to that, is the bone structure, being either heavy, medium or light, medium bone being a more preferable compromise for it's ability to lift, yet withstand landing impact. Secondarily, is the importance of leg length, the distance from the ground to the elbow, longer being more advantageous, but not so extreme that the body will break down from the overstress of landing impact in the long term. Also, the body length can have a great influence on the amount of duress during landing, a longer body being more strenuous in the landing on the front assembly. Additionally, the dog "learns" to shift it's center of gravity during the jump.
> 
> ...


Interesting read Daryl. I wouild have to question several point mentioned, but, that is what makes an interesting discussion. One point I would question is that, through instruction, a dog can be taught to jump better. It is like teaching a dog to bite correctly. If a dog is raised in a crate, it might be true. If a dog spends a lot of time,say running the mountains, jumping things going up hill, down hill, side hill, and on flat ground, I find it hard to believe a trainer can do much to improve the dogs jumping ability. I would tend to think the person just likes to think he can improve the dogs technique more than he can actually improve it.

I would have to question that the landing is harder on a long backed dog as opposed to a short backed dog also. The mass on a short backed dog is catapalted over the jump all at once and comes down all at once with little to no flex. A long back dog has the front coming down on the far side while the butt is just coming up to the top of the jump so the mass of the weight isn't landing all at once like a rock.


----------



## Antonio Bernardy (Feb 21, 2011)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Antonio, form follows function and much of structure is also phenotypical....but I know what you mean.... I just put this up so you don't repeat that somewhere else. :wink:



Thanks, Don.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Interesting read Daryl. I wouild have to question several point mentioned, but, that is what makes an interesting discussion. One point I would question is that, through instruction, a dog can be taught to jump better. It is like teaching a dog to bite correctly. If a dog is raised in a crate, it might be true. If a dog spends a lot of time,say running the mountains, jumping things going up hill, down hill, side hill, and on flat ground, I find it hard to believe a trainer can do much to improve the dogs jumping ability. I would tend to think the person just likes to think he can improve the dogs technique more than he can actually improve it.
> 
> I would have to question that the landing is harder on a long backed dog as opposed to a short backed dog also. The mass on a short backed dog is catapalted over the jump all at once and comes down all at once with little to no flex. A long back dog has the front coming down on the far side while the butt is just coming up to the top of the jump so the mass of the weight isn't landing all at once like a rock.


I'm certainly no expert, simply regurgitating information. We do in schutzhund ultimately teach "some" dogs "some" technique in their ability. Enough repitition, and they eventually adopt a habit forming behavior that we prefer from them.

A clear example is when going over the A-frame on the downside. Some dogs naturally get it right, from the start, letting themselves down _in the manner we want them to_. Others, we have to guide technique, to prevent them from launching themselves from the top into a hard landing, potentially causing injury from repeated practice in the long term.

I had to "teach" one of my dogs, that if we're standing on the back deck and I throw a toy out into the yard, it means use the steps to go after it, rather than launch himself over the rail, and drop 8 feet to the ground running.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Regarding the long-backs landing evenly on all fours, it breaks the fluid momentum of their travel. _ "If a dog lands on all four feet at once, the force of impact travels up both front and back legs and opposing forces meet in the spinal column as well as making it difficult for the dog to absorb and transfer energy by moving smoothly into a running gait."_


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I was picturing repetitious bar jumps used in agility more so than an A frame used in schutzhund. I have a hard time picturing a dog landing on all fours for either type of jump because I don't think I have actually ever seen one land that way. I would agree, landing on all fours would have to shorten his working life considerably.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Which of these two dog is going to handle jumps better?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'd say the first one, but they could be the same dog for all I know. Difficult to differentiate not being familiar with the breed, and both dogs shown in different stance.

I still think the biggest difference between them (being of the same breed) would be mental (desire & experience), not structural.

So, does your breed tend to land with the front assembly, or all fours? The study mentioned that terrier types in particular were known for landing evenly on all fours.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

LOL, They are the same dog Daryl, you're right. The dog is very square, but, has good length to his back. Square can be good if the dogs legs are long. Square on a short legged breed is a different matter. A long back doesn't have to be long if the dog has short leggs.

Here is a 10 week ol pup with a typical landing.


----------

