# Form and Function Over Beauty



## Mari Steward (Mar 3, 2008)

Here is the age old question which is prefered or more important form and function or beauty? There has always been a debate about breeding dogs that don't fit the breed standards. Do breeders here take the breed standards into account when you decie to mate a bitch and a dog? If so, would you breed a pair if they claim close to the standard but had faults if they had superior working ability? Is working ability more important than breed standards?


----------



## marcy bukkit (Oct 4, 2007)

It depends on what the standard is and what the faults are. There are structural necessities in order for the dog to be able to work. There also are flaws that I think reveal other potential problems ~ like a GSD with droopy ears might have weak cartilage in his joints as well.

I don't much care for the one-size-fits-all standard that the AKC likes, but I wouldn't discard all of it.


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

Even though there's some weird looking things in nature, I think that correct structure(ie: functionality) in working dogs is a beautiful thing. For me personally, the dogs that are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay back in the pedigrees are the best workers and lookers! 

Exhibit A:  

 





Andy.


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

I agree with Andy. I, myself prefer working ability over looks. I've had discussions about this with strictly conformation people who give a rats ass about working ability. They've all told me, "Function follows form ya know"...um yeah I can see. :^o


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

The thing that needs to be taken into account is that for many breeds what is outlined in the breed standard and what is seen in the conformation show ring are NOT the same. The GSD is probably the worst of the working breeds as far as this goes.

The breed standard hasn't really changed since the breed's inception. The dogs certainly have. People's *interpretation* of the standard has, due mainly to personal preference. Look at the American and European show lines. Both are conformation dogs, and thus supposedly bred to most closely fit the standard, and essentially the SAME standard. Yet they look nothing like one another, and very little like the standard. 

The American show breeders have taken the portion of the standard in relation to gait, and gone to the extreme breeding dogs specifically for the "flying trot" and they have gone so far in favor of trotting that the dog's overall physical ability has been compromised. Sure, their dogs can trot fluidly and effortlessly, but they can't run fast, jump well, and many of them can't even walk normally.

The German show line breeders have created banana backs. They have taken the portion of the standard that refers to a back that slopes gently, and created severe roaches that supposedly are "correct" and make for a more efficient trotting dog due to greater rear impulsion. Again, overall athletic ability has been compromised.

Structure is important to working endeavors. A dog with poor structure will not have the athleticism to perform well, and will not be structurally sound enough to hold up physically over a long working life. Therefore it must be of concern to working breeders. But it's balanced, utilitarian, working structure. NOT what is seen in the show ring. The people who wrote the standard knew what they were doing with regards to making the dog's structurally capable of working. By continuing to place priority on working ability, both in terms of temperament and in terms of physical ability, the working breeders are the ones who have maintained the breed in structure as well.

Read the standard, look at the illustrated breed standard, look at the original GSDs from decades past before conformation showing got ridiculous, and you will see that the dogs today that most closely resemble the standard and the dogs of yesteryear are the working lines, not the show lines of either type. 

The people who wrote the standard knew what they were doing in terms of making sure the dogs were physically capable of doing their jobs. By placing priority on working ability, both from a temperament standpoint and from the standpoint of making sure the dogs remained physically capable, the working breeders are the ones who have maintained the best structure in the dogs from a utility standpoint.


----------



## Will Kline (Jan 10, 2008)

I knew Chris would post on this subject. She is very passionate about her WORKING GSDs. From all that I have heard about her and the few times I have met her she lives and breathes her working GSDs. Doesn't breed for color or other frivolities. What she truely cares about are good working dogs! ;-)


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Aw, thanks, Will. And "passionate" is such a nicer word than the one I usually hear... "obsessed". 

Though apparently my proofreading skills could be better, since I posted essentially the same sentance twice.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Chris Wild said:


> The thing that needs to be taken into account is that for many breeds what is outlined in the breed standard and what is seen in the conformation show ring are NOT the same. The GSD is probably the worst of the working breeds as far as this goes.
> 
> The breed standard hasn't really changed since the breed's inception. The dogs certainly have. People's *interpretation* of the standard has, due mainly to personal preference. Look at the American and European show lines. Both are conformation dogs, and thus supposedly bred to most closely fit the standard, and essentially the SAME standard. Yet they look nothing like one another, and very little like the standard.
> 
> ...


I'm not a GSD owner, but I do love the breed and I really could not agree more.

Last week, the Crufts show was on and the GSD people were getting really excited (we're talking crying when they saw him:lol: ) because Zamp vom Thermodos came over from Germany. This dog was by certain accounts "one of the best GSDs ever".

To my completely untrained and uneducated eye, the dog looked crippled both when stationery and when moving. I posted some random pictures of GSDs through the years and asked people why the show dogs had changed so much, when the standard had not.....

These are the pictures I posted:

GSD from the 1920's (looks a lot more like the current Belgian Shepherd and Dutch Herder):
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/920.html

1950's dog (no funny back or overangulation):
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/260.html

Zamp vom Thermodos:
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/341400.html

Now, I'm not beating up on the individual dog, but a whole group of people that seem blind to what is in front of them....


----------



## Will Kline (Jan 10, 2008)

Thanks for the links to pics Ian. What a remarkable difference you can see in the generations of dogs! 

I like GSDs, think they are great dogs, but I am not a fan of the roached look at all! Just my opinion. A gentle slope is one thing; a banana back is quite another.

Still LOVE my Mali though!


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

To me, breeding for working structure with dogs with correct temperaments and working ability is breeding to the standard. I get so tired of hearing the workinglines are ugly... How many times has the excuse been from showline breeders that workingline breeders have bred an inferior animal in structure? That argument really can't be used anymore IMO. I see more and more SG, V rated, KKL-1 dogs in Europe and here in the states that are from workinglines. Breeders taking the time to get those conformation ratings, koers on their dogs. Or, at the very least, looking at good working structure in your breeding pair. There seems to be more SV/USA judges ( we need more though) that don't look at the color, but look at that working structure, working ability, and give the dog a fair assessment. I've known dogs that have gone from KKL-2 to KKL-1 based on their temperament and bitework in the Koer under a good judge. At the end of the day, this breed needs to serve it's purpose-which is a working dog. Having correct structure along with health, & drives allows that dog to best serve that purpose. But, I guess beauty will always be in the eye of the beholder


----------



## Mari Steward (Mar 3, 2008)

Thanks guys for the posts, I am not a GSD owner but I love the breed and love to see a good working dog. However, the principles and points that you make go accross the board to all breeds. The purpose of the breed standard is to provide guidelines for the standards that produce the best dog to meet its intended purpose. However, unscrupolous breeders over the years have modified the standard to title dogs in conformation and sell malformed pups.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Trish Campbell said:


> I see more and more SG, V rated, KKL-1 dogs in Europe and here in the states that are from workinglines. Breeders taking the time to get those conformation ratings, koers on their dogs.


I see this too, but I'm not convinced it's a good thing.

Let's face it, the Euro show line crowd is not going to change their preferences in favor of correct *working* structure. Some minor changes are being made, such as actually enforcing the height standard and not giving breed surveys to dogs that are 68cms tall any longer. But the idea of the overly heavy boned dog, with a head like a buffalo, plush coat and roached back isn't going anywhere. 

With those being the attributes that the majority of the koermeisters are rewarding, a bunch of V rated working dogs isn't necessarily a good thing in terms of maintaining working structure. Yes, there are some koermeisters who still favor true working structure, and others who will judge a working dog and a show dog differently.. comparing one to the standard and the other to the current show ring fads to which it's been bred. But under many koermesiters, I'd question whether a V rating on a working line is a good thing. 

Many of those V rated working line dogs are truly V rated compared to the actual standard. But others of those V rated working line dogs are starting to take on a Euro show line appearance.. roached backs and all. I haven't seen many that are as extreme as the Euro show line dogs... yet. But I fear it may be coming. 

It's sad when in many cases the SG, or even G, dog has better structure from a utility standpoint than the V dog.


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

Ian Forbes said:


> ...Zamp vom Thermodos:
> http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/341400.html


How was this dog able to get a SchHIII? Does anyone know scores? I wonder if he was still able to work easily, or if it was painful/tough to get those titles?


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Alex Corral said:


> How was this dog able to get a SchHIII? Does anyone know scores? I wonder if he was still able to work easily, or if it was painful/tough to get those titles?


No idea, but I do know imported German dogs that turn up at out club with Sch1 and Sch2 that really should not have a BH.

This link includes someone else's evaluation of Zamp's temperament:

http://www.thedogplace.org/Articles/Lanting/06_Impression.2006.Sieger.11.htm


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Alex to your question. Those dogs are bred to sell puppies in Germany. I have as well as most of us, seen dogs that was imported with SchH titles that simply can't do the work. Why you ask, MONEY from the dumb Americans. We get these dogs and if they do have the drive to do Schutzhund we are lucky. They come with titles that the local clubs in Germany give them so that they can be sold. Even if they can't do the work when here then the owners thinks it's ok and will breed and sell puppies. ( I'm not saying all owners here do this.) The owners will try to improve the dog with training and titles here and then they will sell the pups. If they can't get the dog to work then the good breeders here won't breed them. Money will make people breed junk. 

The standard that Max set for these dogs is correct, the way they look and the way they should act.


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

Chris Wild said:


> I see this too, but I'm not convinced it's a good thing.
> 
> Let's face it, the Euro show line crowd is not going to change their preferences in favor of correct *working* structure. Some minor changes are being made, such as actually enforcing the height standard and not giving breed surveys to dogs that are 68cms tall any longer. But the idea of the overly heavy boned dog, with a head like a buffalo, plush coat and roached back isn't going anywhere.
> 
> ...


Of course the euro show crowd is not going to change to "correct" working structure, they breed what wins in the show ring-bottomline. There are some changes being made in those camps, but very minor. I'd also take my G, KKL-2 female over any V rated show dog anyday  
I do agree that showlines aren't going to change that much, nor do I really care, those lines aren't what I favor 

As far as workinglines, I do stick to my comment that there are more workingline dogs who I see with SG and V ratings who I feel are very correct in structure. Those dogs have been around, I think though over the last few years, more breeders are taking the time to also get their conformation ratings and Koers as I said before. I don't see this as a bad thing...I don't forsee there ever being large numbers of workinglines being put up in the SV conformation ring to suddenly change that working structure to a that extreme showline look to win in the ring. I think that more workingline breeders are too interested in producing the total package-not being first in the conformation lineup. Look at Javir Talk Marda for example, went V at the Sieger show, was in the 100's, but probably one of the truer examples of really correct working function. Especially in the bitework phase  Plus can't beat his performance on the trial field. That to me is working function and beauty.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

My point was that if the opinion of what constitutes V structure amongst most GSD people (ie show people... they do make up the majority and the majority of the koermeisters as well) is NOT good working structure. And if they continue to veer further and further away from a practical working structure, the top ratings will be given to even less utilitarian dogs. 

I wouldn't be surprised if it got to the point where we may not want V rated working lines. At least not by their standards. Because what makes a V rated dog according to them, also makes it structurally inept for practical purposes. We'll all find ourselves looking for G rated dogs because those "poorly structured" dogs by koermeister opinion will be the only ones left who can still work.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm fairly well acquainted with an instructor of a local school for judges, and its appearant to me that she's equally disgusted by conformation "trends" in the german shepherd breed. I'm afraid I know little about conformation, just what's instinctively aesthetically appealing to my personal tastes. As always, Chris has been very informative and enlightening to me in her posts. I appreciate the no-nonsense approach backed with knowledgeable experience, and insightful icing on top!


----------



## Daniel Cox (Apr 17, 2006)

Here is my opinion. I believe to breed a correct working German Shepherd you must start in the following order. I know many will disagree but I believe the foundation must start with the first 3 and then everything after that you try and achieve through breeding. You must have the first 3 or you have nothing. For a working German Shepherd you should a have a minimum for the first three and then you can move down the list. I think you try and achieve as much as possible but remember that it is very difficult to breed it back in once you breed it out.

The most important thing when looking for a Working GSD dog to breed

1. temperament and nerves
2. passing hips/elbows, overall health and longevity
3. Working drives/abilities (hunt drive, prey drive, aggression, ball drive, food drive, defense drive, etc) Some of these may be higher than others but without these you have a couch potato and useless working dog.
4. Ears that stand
5. Number of teeth
6. Conformation
how the dog bites(over or under bite), pigment, gate, etc.
7. Long Coat or Short Coat


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

Very true Chris.


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

I can think of a handful of judges off the top of my head, SV and USA who I would show a dog under in the SV breed ring. Most people I know who will put their dogs in the SV ring with workinglines can name the same ones I'm sure. It's not fair, nor will it ever be probably. I'm agreeing that the "standard" followed for those lines is not what I envision the standard to be. Again, people will twist the standard to meet their own vision unfortunately. 

I agree Dan..without temperament, health working ability, doesn't matter how good looking the dogs is. I just like the total package myself


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

Excellent posts Chris! 

Makes me wonder about a whole lot of other things. Of all the working breeds, the GSD has gotten the most damage from the conformation crowd, but now that I think about it.....

When I was helping my brother in law look for a Rott, we looked for a pedigree with health & strong working blood lines. Titled at the highest level many times over, we also looked for V ratings in that pedigree. Maybe that was a mistake? It's too late now, all we can do is hope this pup can do what we hope he can. 

I'm glad you brought this up though. There was recently an article on a working Boxer organization I'm in. They were discussing the increasingly short muzzles breing bred into the Boxer. May be nice to look at (to some people), but doesn't make bitework any easier for the already short muzzle of the Boxer. That article and this thread has given me more things of what to be aware of when looking for my next Boxer pup.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Daniel Cox said:


> 1. temperament and nerves
> 2. passing hips/elbows, overall health and longevity
> 3. Working drives/abilities (hunt drive, prey drive, aggression, ball drive, food drive, defense drive, etc) Some of these may be higher than others but without these you have a couch potato and useless working dog.
> 4. Ears that stand
> ...


 
My list would be slightly different.

I agree on the first 3, pretty much in that order.

But conformation would come well above ears and teeth (as well as color and coat). Conformation again from a utilitarian standpoint, not a show winning one. But structure is very important for the dog to be able to do his job, and remain sound over the long haul. Much more important than erect ears or a missing premolar.

Standing ears, very minor dental faults, coat type and color are last on the list. Though that doesn't mean they should be ignored. A GSD should LOOK like a GSD. But floppy ears or diluted pigment never stopped a dog from working. The things higher on the list can and have.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote : Sure, their dogs can trot fluidly and effortlessly, 

For a couple hundred yards.=;


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Run an ASS (American Show Shepherd) dog through an obsticle course and you will answer your own question about form over function. 
We wont even get into bite work.


----------



## Daniel Cox (Apr 17, 2006)

Chris Wild said:


> My list would be slightly different.
> 
> I agree on the first 3, pretty much in that order.
> 
> ...


You have a very good point. I think I put everything past number 3 in a group and try and get as much as possible.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

ok guys, here's the boy, let's have a critique even though none of the pics are ideal, you'll get a picture of him:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2098362327_e91e378e35.jpg

so that's his basic struture. 
now, i'll try to find a decent headshot:

well, this is as good as it gets at the moment:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2098362327_e91e378e35.jpg

and, just for fun a completely "natural" stack:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/2098380125_bbbfc4a61e.jpg

i would LOVE an unbiased opinion on his structure, and i hope it'll help not only me, but other members on basic faults--if he has 'em, call 'em!! i know the pics aren't ideal, and this spring (the snow is going away-YAY!!!) i'll get some better ones. but with what you have to work with, you GSD breeders, let's hear it. you will NOT hurt my feelings, and i hope to learn something subtle about structure from your comments!

i'll try to get the pics up again:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2419/2098362327_e91e378e35.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3216/2319925504_51416a4203.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2174/2098380125_bbbfc4a61e.jpg

NOW we'll see..


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

well, i'm evidently doing something wrong here... i'll try again tomorrow cause i really don't mind putting the B-dog out there in front of god and everybody--just a matter of getting the pics to open....


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

I like the coat and color, but there seems to be some angulation present in his back. Subtle, but still there. Just the photos? 




Andy.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Alex Corral said:


> Excellent posts Chris!
> 
> Makes me wonder about a whole lot of other things. Of all the working breeds, the GSD has gotten the most damage from the conformation crowd, but now that I think about it.....
> 
> ...


The divergence between working and show lines is very obvious in GSD.

In the Rottweiler it is less so, but the general trend in breeding is definitely towards the show side rather than working. At least with the Rottweiler it is still possible for a top show dog (Klubsieger Ben von Langen Grund) to compete at the ADRK VPG DM and even at the all breeds VPG championships.


----------



## Ian Forbes (Oct 13, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Run an ASS (American Show Shepherd) dog through an obsticle course and you will answer your own question about form over function.
> We wont even get into bite work.


Check out the movement of these dogs...#-o 

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eBiNdqMpwDc&feature=related


----------



## Daniel Cox (Apr 17, 2006)

Ian Forbes said:


> Check out the movement of these dogs...#-o
> 
> http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=eBiNdqMpwDc&feature=related


Can you here are the squeakers and whistles? It makes me sick.


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

That's what happens when you breed for extremes-that "flying trot" outweighed everything...


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Except it looks more like the constipated trot than a flying trot.
Someone needs to give most of those dogs some Metamucil....


----------



## Mari Steward (Mar 3, 2008)

GSDs are not the only dogs where breeder's often miss the mark and fail to understand the purpose of the breed standard. Here an edited version of a post I made on another forum but I think that it is equally appicable to all working breeds:

*FORM **AND** FUNCTION*

Conformation tests the form and protection sports test the function of a breed. Protection sports like conformation were created as means to show a breed’s ability to conform to the function part of the standard. Both form and function are inportant factors in creating a complete dog.

AKC Breeds by Group (*Even thought be know that AKC has often missed the make with their judges for many breeds unfortunately)*
Working Group

Dogs of the Working Group were bred to perform such jobs as guarding property, pulling sleds and performing water rescues. They have been invaluable assets to man throughout the ages. The Doberman Pinscher, Siberian Husky and Great Dane are included in this Group, to name just a few. Quick to learn, these intelligent, capable animals make solid companions. Their considerable dimensions and strength alone, however, make many working dogs unsuitable as pets for average families. And again, by virtue of their size alone, these dogs must be properly trained.

*A few sports that can be used to test function*
The original dog sport was Schutzhund and tts purpose was to determine which dogs should be used for breeding that had working ability. The growing demand for better working dogs made more sophisticated tests and training necessary. These dogs were needed for police training, border patrol, customs, military, and herding activities. Schutzhund tests the dog's mental stability, endurance, structural efficiencies, ability to scent, willingness to work, courage, & trainability. 

The first Schutzhund trial was held in Germany in 1901. These steps were taken to point out the correct working temperament and ability in the German Shepherd breed. SV (Germany), the parent club of the breed, developed the Schutzhund trial as a way of improving and maintaining a reliable dog with the intention that would be suitable for breeding. 

Purpose of PSA-The Mission of the Protection Sports Association (PSA) is to provide an outlet for civilian competition in canine obedience and controlled protection, and to recognize achievement with titles and prizes, and promote competition with club trials and championship tournaments. PSA will endeavor to set a new standard for training excellence in the protection sports, and PSA shall encourage cross-over from other protection sports, to provide a competitive venue that will test the best against the best, and encourage excellence, sportsmanship, and integrity throughout the dog training community. 

Purpose of French ring - French Ring Sport is a personal protection sport. It was developed in France as a way to accurately temperament test potential breeding stock for working ability. 

Protection sports not only test the dogs aptitude to be a protector but the control that the handler has over the dog...obedience, food refusal (a true guardian that is poisoned is no good)


*Importance of both Form and Function*
My point overall is that as a breeder, you should shoot to develop a dog that encompasses all aspects of the standard. Not only do you compare what you have produced to the written standard, your determination should be tested by competent judges well versed in the standard of the that breed with conformation titles and you should also test the breed's ability to be a guardian and protector with protection sport titles. I hope that the goal is to produce the best dog not average…otherwise what is the purpose of breeding a bit$h and a dog, unless crippled, malformed, genetically deficient dogs are your goal.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

Andy Andrews said:


> I like the coat and color, but there seems to be some angulation present in his back. Subtle, but still there. Just the photos?
> Andy.


i don't really follow you andy "angulation... in his back"?? but, i think i see in the 3rd pic what you must mean. if you look at the first pic it's not there, i think he has a really nice topline, but what do i know?? no roach, no dip behind the withers, just a nice flow from withers to tailhead. but i asked to learn...


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

ann freier said:


> ok guys, here's the boy, let's have a critique even though none of the pics are ideal, you'll get a picture of him:
> 
> Ann it's hard to tell from those photos with the snow and he's standing pretty deep in it  Stacked shots are hard to get, I think you need 3 people, 1 to stack, one to get the dogs attention and one to take the pic. I find putting them on level ground, no distracting scenery in the back helps-get close up and aim at the middle of the dogs body. Do you have any other photos of him? I can tell he has nice rich pigment..how old is he?


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

ann freier said:


> *i don't really follow you andy "angulation... in his back"?? but, i think i see in the 3rd pic what you must mean. if you look at the first pic it's not there, i think he has a really nice topline, but what do i know?? no roach, no dip behind the withers, just a nice flow from withers to tailhead. but i asked to learn...*


Just doesn't look square to me. 



Andy.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

The GSD isn't supposed to be square. It is supposed to have a mild degree of angulation, and a straight back that slopes gently downwards. Straight doesn't mean parallel to the ground, it means a straight line from withers to croup, with no dips or humps.

From the breed standard:
"The top line extends from the point where the neck meets the skull past the well developed withers and the gently downward sloping back to the slightly sloping croup without a visible break. The back is firm, strong, and well muscled."


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

Chris Wild said:


> *The GSD isn't supposed to be square. It is supposed to have a mild degree of angulation, and a straight back that slopes gently downwards. Straight doesn't mean parallel to the ground, it means a straight line from withers to croup, with no dips or humps.*
> 
> *From the breed standard:*
> *"The top line extends from the point where the neck meets the skull past the well developed withers and the gently downward sloping back to the slightly sloping croup without a visible break. The back is firm, strong, and well muscled."*


The bitch in the photo I shared is square, which goes back to what I said initially. 




Andy.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

Andy Andrews said:


> The bitch in the photo I shared is square, which goes back to what I said initially. Andy.


i am going to post 2 pics here: one of my B-dog, today (and you would not believe the bitching/crying i heard from the kids for having to take the pics!!), the other of my Tessa. i'll be interested to hear opinions on both.

here's Brix:




and here's Tessa:


and another of the best-bitch:



so, andy, is she square enough?? or is Brix too "angulated" ? i just don't get your square/angulated thing i guess...#-o


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

They look great to me.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

They look good to me too.


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

ann freier said:


> *so, andy, is she square enough?? or is Brix too "angulated" ? i just don't get your square/angulated thing i guess...#-o*


Well, since you're starting to get upset I won't comment anymore. Instead, I'll just share a few more photos and leave you to draw your own conclusions. 


















































Andy.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

oh andy, i'm not "getting upset", i just don't "get" what your problem is with the B-dog's stucture, i just do not understand where he is "angulated", i mean, the reason i posted the pics initially was to get some expert opinions on where he's strong/lacks per the standard. and i do not want ASS comparisons--he's a working dog, bred to be one and i just want opinions as to his structure as a working dog.

so, where do you find Brix or Tessa lacking in structure vs the dogs whose pics you posted that are at least, what, 70 years old? i would think that you'd love Tessa's "square" build...

do you have have a GSD that you could post a pic of to illustrate and point out the differences between Brix or Tess that's newer than the previous ones you posted so i can learn what it is you have a problem with?

seriously, i don't care if you tear down my dogs--i just want a REAL critique, not a pic from years ago with nothing to back up your opinion other than that. 

and to be honest, i'll take Al's and Jerry's opinion to heart before i take your's--they ARE GSD folks and know what a good one's supposed to look like.

so Jerry and Al: thoughts on the B-dog's structure? better pic than the snow-storm, but i swear, i do NOT know how to take a pic that really shows his fore-arm/shoulder or his hind-end...tips??


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Ann, I for one think Brix is butt ugly and you should give him to me so you don't have to look at him anymore. :grin: :^o 
Course I'd probably have to arm wrestle Jerry for the right to save you from having to look at such a disaster. :grin: ;-)


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

OMG, Bob, LOL, LOL!!! 
thanks for the laugh--really, i'm still chuckling: can i be the judge for you and jerry's arm-wrestling contest??!!??

next thing is: he's so frickin' ugly, whoever wins the arm-wrestling contest has to buy his nuts (but you don't have to fry 'em up and make a sandwich). 

NOW how do you feel about it???


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I've done the mountain oyster thing. Not bad.......but a dog!  eeeeeeeeeuuwwww! :lol: :lol: :lol: 
That just sounds WRONG!! :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

ann freier said:


> *oh andy, i'm not "getting upset", i just don't "get" what your problem is with the B-dog's stucture, i just do not understand where he is "angulated", i mean, the reason i posted the pics initially was to get some expert opinions on where he's strong/lacks per the standard. and i do not want ASS comparisons--he's a working dog, bred to be one and i just want opinions as to his structure as a working dog.*


Sure you are...you're getting defensive. But it's okay.

As to where he is angulated, do you not see the difference in structure between your photos and the ones I shared? Your dog's back slides downard, the others do not. Pretty simple.



ann freier said:


> *so, where do you find Brix or Tessa lacking in structure vs the dogs whose pics you posted that are at least, what, 70 years old? i would think that you'd love Tessa's "square" build...*


Brix is not square. Not a real close photo of Tessa, so I'm not sure, but she looks pretty square to me. 



ann freier said:


> *do you have have a GSD that you could post a pic of to illustrate and point out the differences between Brix or Tess that's newer than the previous ones you posted so i can learn what it is you have a problem with?*


Why do I need a 'newer' photo? The ones I've shared up to this point are pretty illustrative of the structural differences. However, since you asked:










Notice how this dog is square, and Brix is not? 



ann freier said:


> *seriously, i don't care if you tear down my dogs--i just want a REAL critique, not a pic from years ago with nothing to back up your opinion other than that.*
> 
> *and to be honest, i'll take Al's and Jerry's opinion to heart before i take your's--they ARE GSD folks and know what a good one's supposed to look like.*


I'm giving my honest opinion, not tearing down your dog(s). Relax. However, I would like to know what you mean by the statement regarding the photos I shared? Is the GSD *not* supposed to look like them?? *curious*




Andy.


----------



## Jerry Lyda (Apr 4, 2006)

I will not arm wrestle David for this dog I'll just plead to you for him.

Andy, in your pictures I do like the third fourth and Roland the fifth dog. The first two, sorry but they do look like Mals. I don't really like the sway backs not that Mals have sway backs but those two do. Hey that's just me. I do like some angulation but not near what the Americans have done to the GSD. Some angulation will produce more power. 

These are my dogs and I have them because I like the way they look and love the way they work.
This was my dog but not now. Demi









This is Bentley,









This is Lexus,


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

Chris Wild said:


> The GSD isn't supposed to be square. It is supposed to have a mild degree of angulation, and a straight back that slopes gently downwards. Straight doesn't mean parallel to the ground, it means a straight line from withers to croup, with no dips or humps.
> 
> From the breed standard:
> "The top line extends from the point where the neck meets the skull past the well developed withers and the gently downward sloping back to the slightly sloping croup without a visible break. The back is firm, strong, and well muscled."


no, i'm not getting "defensive", andy. i'm just a dumbass, i don't get where you think ANY GSD is "square" enough, other than those in the pics you posted. 

so is Tessa "square" enough to fit your idea of an ideal GSD? 

Brix's 'nads are already "reserved" for a sandwich i guess, so no chance of him continuing whatever (still haven't heard details) genetic faults he may have.

but i'm trying to find out, from GSD ppl, what they see as his faults/attributes given the pics i have of him. you haven't given me any specific feedback except he's not "square" enough--can you be more specific??

your opinion doesn't really matter to me at this point because you are not (from what i understand from previous posts) a person that knows about GSD's-you're into bully breeds right?? so, you know, whatever...

do an overlay of a "perfect" GSD over Brix. by gosh, how did i get so smart??!!??? 

ok guys, forget it, i'll do the above. thanks for watching!!O O


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Just to claify. I DO like what I see in Brix. Very nice conformation for what I think a GSD should look like. 
Not show conformation, but, to quote Martha Stewart, "That's a good thing".:grin: ;-) 
For Andy,
As a bulldog admire I think you will see just as much, or more variety in a bulldog show. Beauty is more in the eyes of the beholder then it is in the eyes of a judge looking for cookie cutter conformation. 
A good looking dog of ANY (good) breed is recognized by any dog man. Doesn't have to look just like the next one to be correct.


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

Jerry Lyda said:


> *Andy, in your pictures I do like the third fourth and Roland the fifth dog. The first two, sorry but they do look like Mals. I don't really like the sway backs not that Mals have sway backs but those two do. Hey that's just me. I do like some angulation but not near what the Americans have done to the GSD. Some angulation will produce more power.*


One could argue the swayed back thing. No doubt. However, for the two that you think look like Mals, is that necessarly a bad thing? I ask because in my opinion, the early GSD looked/acted more like the Mal and Dutchie, and then changes the breed has seen over the years have not been a good thing. 

btw, I've never heard the 'produces more power' comment about angulation. How's that work? 




Andy.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Andy Andrews said:


> One could argue the swayed back thing. No doubt. However, for the two that you think look like Mals, is that necessarly a bad thing? I ask because in my opinion, the early GSD looked/acted more like the Mal and Dutchie, and then changes the breed has seen over the years have not been a good thing.
> 
> btw, I've never heard the 'produces more power' comment about angulation. How's that work?
> 
> ...


Not to answer for Jerry but think "fulcrum" Length adds to leverage but, as in American show lines, excess length creates weakness.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

and Bob gets the sandwich, but only if he comes west to collect!! if we come east for a trial, Bob gets a bite (ask Jerry where it might be--i'm not telling ) .

but will SOMEONE critique (as in a korung) what you see from my horrible pics of my ugly workingline dog ?? i promise, i won't sue you if he goes VA1 at any of the big shows...well, if he does THAT, i'll just shoot him and then myself. 

so no worries  

bob--you're not that far away, so don't think you're gettin' away with anything. my kids know your email (hahaha)!!!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

WEST?! Your damn near straight up from me. :razz: 
Korung! We don't need no stinking Korung to recognize a good dog.
Many moons ago when I was showing terriers in the AKC breed ring I was asked to judge a fun match. I based my judgement on what I felt was the dog that could better perform it's job as a working earth dog. 
I was never asked to judge again! Not to mention the folks that never talked to me again.  :grin: :grin: :grin: :grin: ;-)


----------



## Alex Corral (Jul 10, 2007)

I think Brix looks very nice and Jerry, of the pics you posted, Lexus was my favorite. I duno, I myself think the less angulation, the better (and no I'm not a GSD person either). I don't see how more square is necessarily a bad thing? 

I like the 4th & 5th pics Andy posted as well. 

And Ann, I don't think Andy is being harsh at all. He's posted quite a few pics of what _he_ thought to be square dogs. I don't think it's cool to tell him, "his opinion doesn't really matter to you at this point". After all, you did ask for critiques and didn't mention it could only be GSD people. I don't know how this thread swayed to the GSD, or much less to a critique of a member's dogs? I thought it was about "function over beauty" regardless of breed?


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> *For Andy,*
> *As a bulldog admire I think you will see just as much, or more variety in a bulldog show. Beauty is more in the eyes of the beholder then it is in the eyes of a judge looking for cookie cutter conformation. *
> *A good looking dog of ANY (good) breed is recognized by any dog man. Doesn't have to look just like the next one to be correct.*


To be sure, Bob, in the bulldog world there is certainly a fair degree of variety when it comes to physical traits among the many bloodlines. That said, as it relates to structure, there's not as much difference as one might think, because bulldog people found that a dog had to conform to a basic outline of physical traits or else it wouldn't be able to perform as needed. And because of that, if you were to look at a cross section of famous dogs down through the ages, you'll see a common structural theme regardless of size/weight. Wedge shaped heads, big teeth, small ears, balanced bodies(height to length ratio), etc... 

And I do see your point about cookie-cutter conformation, but I disagree if that implies angulaition is acceptable. I would(and do) say the same thing about bulldogs.


----------



## Andy Andrews (May 9, 2006)

ann freier said:


> *no, i'm not getting "defensive", andy. i'm just a dumbass*


Playing the victim now, huh? :razz:



ann freier said:


> * i don't get where you think ANY GSD is "square" enough, other than those in the pics you posted.*


I call 'em as I see 'em... 



ann freier said:


> *so is Tessa "square" enough to fit your idea of an ideal GSD?*


Baited question. I'll pass.



ann freier said:


> *your opinion doesn't really matter to me at this point because you are not (from what i understand from previous posts) a person that knows about GSD's-you're into bully breeds right?? so, you know, whatever...*


Is that how this works? Ask a question and dismiss the answers you don't like? There should have been a disclaimer.  




Andy.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

The GSD is not supposed to be "square". It should have a straight topline with no roach or dip, but not "square". Moderate angulation in the rear end provides for more power from the back.

One must also remember that the photos of the dogs of 80 years ago were still a work in progress. The breed was still not consistent in type, and was still in development. Also, stacking plays a huge role in how a dog appears in pictures. The same dog who appears square when standing so, with his legs straight under him is going to look much different when placed in a stack.

For anyone interested in why the GSD standard is as it is from a function standpoint, and how structure relates to physical ability, this is a good read, particularly the mechanics of movement section:
http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/Index_Page/Index_Page.htm


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Chris Wild said:


> I see this too, but I'm not convinced it's a good thing.
> 
> Let's face it, the Euro show line crowd is not going to change their preferences in favor of correct *working* structure. Some minor changes are being made, such as actually enforcing the height standard and not giving breed surveys to dogs that are 68cms tall any longer. But the idea of the overly heavy boned dog, with a head like a buffalo, plush coat and roached back isn't going anywhere.
> 
> ...


This is a very bad thing. I too was encouraged by the number of really good working dogs starting to be shown and getting SGs and Vs in conformation. I am not so happy if the majority of workingline dogs Ving in conformation are just watered down showline types - now I am concerned if those workingline dogs Ving in conformation shows are also not so good workers? Of course I have seen some great workers get V show ratings, but this may be the exception, with the majority going to crappy workers that look like hyenas.

I think we should have a new rule - no more asking for critiques of our own dogs unless we are willing to accept what others have to say without arguing about it.


----------

