|
Post by JanisN on Mar 2, 2004 17:57:58 GMT -5
Blame the judges, Norm, not the breeders. The breeders are going to breed what wins. When the judges quit putting dogs up that are outside the standard in ALL ways, the breeders will clean up their act.
It would be FAR easier to get the judges to comply than all the breeders and you have buckley's hope of getting the judges.
I'm lucky, the German judges DO conform to the standard, no matter what you think. The good dogs are in front, the softer, weaker dogs are in the back.
No matter where my dogs end up, I breed to the standard so I really have no dog in this fight, but the judges have to fall in line FIRST, in my not so humble opinion.
JanisN
|
|
Norm
Full Member
Grand Vizier
Posts: 179
|
Post by Norm on Mar 2, 2004 21:55:53 GMT -5
Janis, This is almost a chicken or the egg deal. If the breeders ignore the standard and breed for what is winning today they give the judge no option but to continue putting up those dogs. But if the good & knowledgable breeders continue breeding to the standard and only support judges that put up correct dogs then they will be able to exercise an influence over the type of dogs that win. I do disagree with you about German judges. Based on pictures of titled dogs that I have seen the German judges are as guilty as American judges of ignoring the standard when making their selections. What I do find mystifying (and maybe you can help me with this one) is how after decades of breeding poor backs, croups and angulation they have found animals to correct these problems. To me this means that all along there were good breeders that continued breeding to the standard despite how far offbase the SV strayed. How do you fell about this? Blame the judges, Norm, not the breeders. The breeders are going to breed what wins. When the judges quit putting dogs up that are outside the standard in ALL ways, the breeders will clean up their act. It would be FAR easier to get the judges to comply than all the breeders and you have buckley's hope of getting the judges. I'm lucky, the German judges DO conform to the standard, no matter what you think. The good dogs are in front, the softer, weaker dogs are in the back. JanisN
|
|
|
Post by ovejero on Mar 2, 2004 22:39:43 GMT -5
I am absolutely baffled by Norm's critique. First he complains about the deviation from the standard regarding backs. He states: "doesn't ANYBODY read the standard anymore?" as if the vast majority of breeders are guilty of what he is criticizing.
The remarks are obviously directed to the German style breeder since we all know that the "roach" of the german dog has been a point of argument for decades among the American GSD enthusiasts. Yet, when it is time to show the correct dog, Norm shows us a German dog as a the perfect example or what is correct (and I could bring up many otherexamples of good dogs with good backs in our modern WUSV lines.)
At the same time he is trying to make a point about the poor structure of German line dogs he compares it with an American dog posed in the typical extreme stance by Jimmy Moses showing a totally incorrect front structure-- the kind of open front angulation and straight upper arms typical of dogs that use this trait to exaggerate a very high whither, plus the classic "goose neck" or high head carriage that rather than being correct is simply typical of what the american breeder has done to accentuate a type of "flashy" appearance remminicent of show horses.
Now, I don't know what dogs he is referring to. I dislike a roach as the next guy, but I dislike another feature even more and that is the sagging, weak backs during motion that many of the so called "straight-back" dogs exhibit in the American show ring.
In some of the seminars I taught I remember playing a game with the audience. That was to predict the movement problems based on what the dog was showing during the stance. One of the most predictable problems was that of dogs showing long and perfectly straight backs during the stance: the almost unavoidable product was that of a saggy, weak and hinging back during motion.
This concept was first discussed openly by the well known AKC judge and professor Quentin Laham who in his traveling seminars used to point out the flaws of many standard interpretations. One of his favorite ones was the "perfectly straight back dog" who invariably would move with a swayed back.
Extremes are not good. Arching backs are as bad as weak sagging backs. A dog with a strong back must be judged in motion. Pictures are not representatives of what a dog truly is. I have seen dogs with perfectly good backs stacked to show a roach that truly does not exist.
Ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the evaluation of the live animal and his or her performance in all phases of motion. Perhaps the American dog presented by Moses is a much better specimen than what that picture portraits, but I think we all agree on some things:
a) A good, serious breeder would not condone breeding roached back dogs.
b) A good serious breeder would not condone breeding weak, sagging backs (no matter how perfectly straight they look in a picture done by photoshop)
Good breeders are interested in sound structures and in a sensible representation of the standard. I believe that there are many people with excellent dogs which display excellent backs and move correctly, so Norm's accusation that "no one compares their dogs to the standard anymore", in my opinion, holds no water whatsoever.
Tanks for reading
Ricardo Carbajal
|
|
Norm
Full Member
Grand Vizier
Posts: 179
|
Post by Norm on Mar 2, 2004 23:10:12 GMT -5
Ricardo, For those who don't know you should establish your preference for the SV type dog just so they know where you stand. If the vast majority of breeders did adhere to the standard where did all of those roached backs, steep croups and bad angled dogs come from? I didn't used Dallas as a dog to compare to German dogs. I used Don and Dallas as examples to show that people were breeding correct dogs (despite what you think of Dallas). By the way Don is an Italian bred dog that lives in Sweden. He is not a German dog. I never met or heard Mr. Laham myself but I have heard from many west coast GSD fanciers that he was in the habit of constantly knocking the GSD so I am not impressed with his being quoted. He is not an unbaised source from what I can discern. I have also been told that he was not a particularly good judge of our breed but that is heresay as I never saw him judge. I do agree with you that you can't judge how a dog moves from the way he looks set up. The only way to judge a GSD is in motion. Unfortunately here on the internet we only see pictures of standing dogs but part of the fun game for those of us that love the breed is to play judge based on those pictures. When I see the picture of a badly structured dog I doubt that the dog is going to turn out to be a good mover. I still maintain that if a new person comes into the breed and they see a dog with a roached back or over long stifle winning they think this is what it takes to be a winner and they want a dog just like that. If they see oversized dogs winning they want a 90 pound 27" dog. There are too many breeders waiting for a newbie like this to sell him what he is looking for. I would love to see pictures of the dogs you consider correct, could you please post some of them? I am absolutely baffled by Norm's critique. First he complains about the deviation from the standard regarding backs. He states: "doesn't ANYBODY read the standard anymore?" as if the vast majority of breeders are guilty of what he is criticizing. The remarks are obviously directed to the German style breeder since we all know that the "roach" of the german dog has been a point of argument for decades among the American GSD enthusiasts. Yet, when it is time to show the correct dog, Norm shows us a German dog as a the perfect example or what is correct (and I could bring up many otherexamples of good dogs with good backs in our modern WUSV lines.) At the same time he is trying to make a point about the poor structure of German line dogs he compares it with an American dog posed in the typical extreme stance by Jimmy Moses showing a totally incorrect front structure-- the kind of open front angulation and straight upper arms typical of dogs that use this trait to exaggerate a very high whither, plus the classic "goose neck" or high head carriage that rather than being correct is simply typical of what the american breeder has done to accentuate a type of "flashy" appearance remminicent of show horses. Now, I don't know what dogs he is referring to. I dislike a roach as the next guy, but I dislike another feature even more and that is the sagging, weak backs during motion that many of the so called "straight-back" dogs exhibit in the American show ring. In some of the seminars I taught I remember playing a game with the audience. That was to predict the movement problems based on what the dog was showing during the stance. One of the most predictable problems was that of dogs showing long and perfectly straight backs during the stance: the almost unavoidable product was that of a saggy, weak and hinging back during motion. This concept was first discussed openly by the well known AKC judge and professor Quentin Laham who in his traveling seminars used to point out the flaws of many standard interpretations. One of his favorite ones was the "perfectly straight back dog" who invariably would move with a swayed back. Extremes are not good. Arching backs are as bad as weak sagging backs. A dog with a strong back must be judged in motion. Pictures are not representatives of what a dog truly is. I have seen dogs with perfectly good backs stacked to show a roach that truly does not exist. Ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the evaluation of the live animal and his or her performance in all phases of motion. Perhaps the American dog presented by Moses is a much better specimen than what that picture portraits, but I think we all agree on some things: a) A good, serious breeder would not condone breeding roached back dogs. b) A good serious breeder would not condone breeding weak, sagging backs (no matter how perfectly straight they look in a picture done by photoshop) Good breeders are interested in sound structures and in a sensible representation of the standard. I believe that there are many people with excellent dogs which display excellent backs and move correctly, so Norm's accusation that "no one compares their dogs to the standard anymore", in my opinion, holds no water whatsoever. Tanks for reading Ricardo Carbajal
|
|
|
Post by ovejero on Mar 3, 2004 0:37:51 GMT -5
Perhaps is my igonarnce in computers, but for the life of me I cannot figure out how to post pictures on this board. Regardless, I don't have much time to read or write on it but I will try to briefly reply to your comments.
Again, as much fun as it may be to play judge based on pictures I don't know how much we gain from criticizing dogs based on a still. If I could post pictures I would show you how the same dog can appear roached or not in two separate pictures.
Dogs which I have seen in person and I know have very good backs: Enzo Buchhorn, Uran, Eiko Kirschental, Kimon, Zamb Wienerau, Matty Wienerau, Tell Grossen Sand, Fanto Hirschel, Illo and Iso Bergmanshoff, and the list goes on and on. Again, I don't need to see pictures of these dogs trying to prove different.
Regarding LaHam. Yes, American breeders did not like it when he stated the obvious about extreme rears and long, straight backs, hocks that dragged the ground as they walked etc. He was quite funny in his seminars. But I did not need him for long to see for myself what he was refering to regarding the back problems I mentioned earlier.
Frankly, in the show ring of today, I do not see the top quality dogs display hocks longer than their stifles, backs like bedlingtons, or "pushed up fronts like terriers" (although that is a term I don't recognize or can picture.)
Certainly when I judge a show you will not see me placing in front a roached back dog if there is another in the ring that displays the proper back, unless that back is the only thing right with the second place dog and the rest is a disaster.
I am not sure what pictures we are looking at and perhaps the burden of proof would be on Norm to show us the top quality german dogs that have all the poor characteristics he is describing. The only places I see an epidemic of structural faults are in two realms: The working line dogs, and the american show ring.
Of course when you go to a german style show you will see just about everything, since people will bring what they have and often do not know themselves what the problems are, but to say that capable judges are purposely placing and promoting those qualities is ludicours in my opinion.
Even at times, when apprenticing under good judges like Henning Setzer we would look at a class and determine not only who belongs in first place but also made it a point to tell people how the dogs in the class rank in a more international arena so people would not go home with the image of the first place dog as being "ideal" but rather the best option for that particular day and class.
Many, judges, including myself make it a point to tell people when a dog is in a "class by himself" or "way ahead of the pack" so people can have a reference point on how to judge the rest of the day.
It is very often that a show will have one or two truly outstanding dogs. These dogs may even be in the youth class or lower and yet be of a quality far surpassing even the V1 dog for that day. That must be pointed out for educational purposes, and believe me, a dog of that quality WILL NOT EVER have a roached back or hocks longer than their stifles.
With respect
RC
|
|
|
Post by gsdpal2 on Mar 3, 2004 17:49:53 GMT -5
I 100% agree with Ovejero. In the German as well as the American style shows, someone has to win. It is the nature of the beast. Forgive the pun. Especially in the German style shows, the judge places the dogs in order of most correct to the standard both in motion and still. Once he/she has done this, the judge ALSO educates the audience, breeders, and handlers who are present about the individual flaws and strong points of that particular dog. If after hearing that the dog was merely better than the other entries but has a slightly roached back or a less masculine head or any number of structural faults, breeders still want to breed to that type of dog, then they will but will have been told of the flaws as well as the good points. Just because a dog has a few flaws that do not by the way effect his health does not mean that he will produce dogs with those same flaws. Yes, some pups may have those flaws, but let’s face it. There will never be a perfect dog in either German lines or American lines. We can play God and know what will come from the breedings exactly everytime. We can only do our best to produce the traits that we desire. If after breeding a litter or two to different bitches we notice that this particular dog still produces these flaws in the pups, we will know that he has dominant genes for these flaws and not to breed to him. I have seen many dogs of which I do not particularly like the build ( Norm, I do not have all of their names or pedigrees as I really do not breed yet and am not interested in remembering their names)who have a lovely progeny group that I would strongly recommend or even buy from myself. In the end, one must also consider the show that the dog is at. That is why when you see a V-rated dog usually the owner is going to list the show and judge at which and under the dog the placed. It is important to know how many dogs the dog beat out. You are only as good as your competition. The Seiger show in Germany probably (and again Norm, I do not show either so I do not have you all too famous statistics on hand) draws the largest number of entries thus having the greater number of strong competition to beat. It is more prestigious to win there than to win at let’s say for an example the Mexican seiger show. The top dogs in Germany will not show there because they can do better for progeny and breeding purposes to show in Germany not to mention that the cost to fly there and beat dogs of lesser quality and compete against American show lines is too costly. Therefore, you will get a smaller group of lesser quality dogs. Just like the Shreveport Kennel Club shows will not draw dogs such as Dallas to their show because he can go win Westminster or the Eukanuba Tournament and have a much better resume. Norm, still, I am a firm believer that people need to look at more than just a rating when deciding what is right. Other things come into play. However, I have never seen a judge at an AKC show educate the audience or breeders of a show as to the flaws the winning dog has. Sure people want what will win, but there are many good breeders out there who do not show their dogs even though they are probably more to the standard of which you refer simply because that is not what they enjoy. They do not want to play the politic game or they do not want to travel to the major shows or they do not like shows and prefer some other form of activity with their dogs. We all know that Don is an Italian bred dog. What I am sure ovejero meant was that he is bred for the German/European style show. He would not stand a chance here in an AKC show even though I agree he has one of the best structures and is one of the best examples of the standard from that still shot. I also notice that you finally found another dog that would fit into the box for your pic! Way to go. Show your true colors and let people know that you yourself truly prefer the American bred dog! Please inform us all. Who is this lovely creature?
|
|
Norm
Full Member
Grand Vizier
Posts: 179
|
Post by Norm on Mar 3, 2004 18:42:37 GMT -5
Kristin, Just because the puppies of a dog or bitch don't possess their faults doesn't mean that these pups aren't carrying the faults in their genetic structure and can't pass them on. Also please remember that when you see the nice offspring of those dogs that you don't like the look of the pups do have a dam's side. A bitch can be more dominant then a stud. I don't know why you would say that Don wouldn't have a chance in an American show. What is your basis for this? I contend that a good, correct dog would do well in the AKC ring. You are correct that AKC judges to not explain their placings at the end of a show. That is because the AKC limits the time the judge spends in the ring based on the size of the entry. Specialty judges have always spoken at the after show dinnners and usually their remarks include comments about the dogs shown. As for showing my true colors. I have never made my preferences a secret. Many of the folks on this board are well aware that I was a breeder and exhibitor of American dogs. They also know that I like a correct dog no matter where it comes from. The dog I am now using for my avatar is Dallas. Just because a dog has a few flaws that do not by the way effect his health does not mean that he will produce dogs with those same flaws. Yes, some pups may have those flaws.... I have seen many dogs of which I do not particularly like the build ( Norm, I do not have all of their names or pedigrees as I really do not breed yet and am not interested in remembering their names)who have a lovely progeny group that I would strongly recommend or even buy from myself. However, I have never seen a judge at an AKC show educate the audience or breeders of a show as to the flaws the winning dog has. We all know that Don is an Italian bred dog. What I am sure ovejero meant was that he is bred for the German/European style show. He would not stand a chance here in an AKC show even though I agree he has one of the best structures and is one of the best examples of the standard from that still shot. I also notice that you finally found another dog that would fit into the box for your pic! Way to go. Show your true colors and let people know that you yourself truly prefer the American bred dog! Please inform us all. Who is this lovely creature?
|
|
|
Post by gsdpal2 on Mar 3, 2004 19:16:55 GMT -5
Norm, You could say the same thing about Don or Dallas. Just because they move correctly or look great in a show or even place well at the show does not mean that they will not pass on faults that they do not outwardly show. You’re right. It is all in the genes. None of us, as far as I know, are genetic experts or any kind. We can only go on what we see produced. That is what a progeny group is for. You see what a dog produces when paired with several different bitches. The ideal dog will produce correct structure and temperament consistently. This is part of being a Seiger. Not all dogs will be Seigers or even come close because not all people know how to pair dogs to produce the quality that it takes to be a Seiger. Does Dallas have to have a progeny group to prove his worthiness? We all know the answer. The AKC is only interested in what is in front of them now. He would still rank high in the shows without such a group because it is not required. I have seen some puppies from Dallas and fairly well put together bitches that do not compare to the breed standard. His owners should be choosier in my opinion. After all, it is Dallas’ and their reputation at stake, but the money keeps coming in. People, by nature, are greedy creatures. We could also say that if people just mind their own business, breed to the standard, and discontinue buying these other puppies, people would stop breeding them. It would probably happen. People are greedy. If they can not make money, they will not produce. Under this logic, companies go out of business everyday. This is not how the dog world works though. People are uneducated. We speak from an American perspective, Norm. In America, we have to remember that the vast majority of people who think that they want a German shepherd have no idea that there is a great divide between the German show lines and the what they see in Petsmart, Petco, or even on Animal Planet and USA networks. They have no idea the pros and cons of EACH group. Therefore they can not make an educated, logical decision. They go by what they see. I agree with Janis. Until judges here in America (since I am only qualified to speak from this perspective as I have never been to Germany and am not German) quit putting up dogs that do not conform to the standard, the consumer will continue to demand puppies that look like those dogs. If the demand is there, supply will surely follow suit. It is the basis of our economy. Yes, there are flawed dogs out there, but there are more flawed individuals who for whatever the reason do not want to spend the time and money doing things right. It is easier and puts more money in their pockets to sell and breed these dogs who have Championships from small town shows where competition is not very competitive to say the least. I know that Don would not stand a chance in am AKC show because I have seen it before. Maybe if his owners could get Jimmy Moses to handle him….but even then, he is so far removed from the interpretation the American judges want that they would put up an over-angulated, short-crouped, washed-out, flat-hocked dog before they would choose Don. It is sad, but seen it happen here in Louisiana. I am not for either American or German bred dogs exclusively. I like Dallas. Wish there were more winning here like him as I think that it would help bridge the gap between the two lines. There are some German dogs that I think are hideous representatives of the breed but are V-rated. Again, you must look at the competition. Someone has to win. And you have the advantage of knowing why the judge picked that dog. He will tell you the faults. Very rarely do you find even a Seiger without any faults, and I don’t think that you can find such a dog. You just can do the best you can at matching the dogs that will produce as many of the good traits with as few of the bad traits as possible. I agree that some people do not do this. Do not buy from them. It is that simple. From being a teacher I have found that you can not change the world all at once, but you can change the world one person at a time. You can not make people learn or listen to logic. Those people will never change. They have to want to do it. Start there. Become a mentor for young hobbyists or write a book. Having this debate will not change the world. You are preaching to the choir so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by ovejero on Mar 3, 2004 19:34:23 GMT -5
Don't know if this will work. Trying to upload an image. I have done it once with success and four times I failed.
|
|
|
Post by ovejero on Mar 3, 2004 19:36:52 GMT -5
OK, that worked. The message before is an example of a good back. Now I will post another picture here. It is the same dog. The second picture shows a dog with a pronounced roach. It is all in how it is stacked.
|
|
|
Post by gsdpal2 on Mar 3, 2004 19:39:09 GMT -5
Well-proven point, ovejero! who is this dog? Would love to know more about him!
|
|
|
Post by ovejero on Mar 3, 2004 20:22:54 GMT -5
It is actually a female. I just said "dog" generically. She is one of mine. I am just making a point regarding how different poses will render different structural qualities. The question then could become: "Why does a handler stack in a way that it creates a roach when it is not there?" That is a legitimate question and one that requires a bit of historical background and can clarify in a way the concerns of Norm and other people.
Throughout the evolution of the SV, different eras were marked by emphasis placed on various aspects of the dog. There was a time back in the late seventies when the most sought after quality was length and position of upper arm. A dog could make or break a career on that issue alone, just like today the craze is in color and type. The kind of stacking that accentuates a well placed upper arm require handlers to push dogs in certain strategic points which creates a much more pronounced front angulation. Usually in doing so we disturb the topline as you see in the photo.
In those times, arching toplines were not being faulted as much as incorrect front. Today the opposite is true. However, the concept of the "German roach" remains a stigma that is hard to shed, in spite of the countless examples of the good dogs we have today.
Regards
RC
|
|
Norm
Full Member
Grand Vizier
Posts: 179
|
Post by Norm on Mar 3, 2004 20:23:06 GMT -5
Kirstin,
I'm not sure why you are addressing these long posts to me. I know all about the show game. I still say a correct dog from any country would do well in the show ring here. By the way Jimmy handled for me and I was no big shot with political connections.
You also talking about breeding and why people show where they do and why. Since you have not bred and I think you do not show where does your information came from? I suggest you get first hand experience and not rely solely on what you are told from other people. I agree with you about the importance of a good mentor. I had the good fortune to be mentored by extremely knowledgable people and I have always tried to pass on what little I could to novices.
You said "The ideal dog will produce correct structure and temperament consistently. " Who is the ideal dog? You keep talking about the dog. What about the bitch. They are even more important then the dog when it comes to a litter. In one of Ricardo's articles he said a top German breeder told him that if you get one top puppy in a litter you have done well. Ricardo gave that a percentage of 8%. I don't call producing a top puppy in 8% of a dog's progeny consistency. It just shows how tough it is to produce a top puppy. I do agree with the German breeder. Breeding is a crap shoot even after you do your homework. Many of the top producing bitches in the history of the breed in this country were not great specimens themselves. I have had gorgeous bitches whose daughters, although not as good as the dam, produced nicer progeny then their dam. I have seen average looking bitches far out produce bitches that were much better specimens with impressive show records.
Dallas does not have to apologize for his record as a producer. He was awarded an ROM at a fairly young age and has produced mucho champions with many more to come.
Have you ever gone to a large specialty show or a National? I wouldn't judge the typical American show dog based on a small all breed show in LA. I suggest you go to as many shows as you can, both AKC and FCI, and see as many dogs as you can as this is the best way to learn about the breed.
|
|
Norm
Full Member
Grand Vizier
Posts: 179
|
Post by Norm on Mar 3, 2004 20:28:40 GMT -5
Ricardo, You and I both know that you can make any set up dog roach. By the way I don't think the back is realy good in the first photo. I do think the dog's rear looks better in the second picture because of the different way it was set up. My comments about roached back dogs were primarily based upon dogs that were standing in a natural pose in the Urma book. OK, that worked. The message before is an example of a good back. Now I will post another picture here. It is the same dog. The second picture shows a dog with a pronounced roach. It is all in how it is stacked.
|
|
|
Post by Wolf on Mar 3, 2004 20:45:28 GMT -5
Have you ever gone to a large specialty show or a National? I wouldn't judge the typical American show dog based on a small all breed show in LA. I suggest you go to as many shows as you can, both AKC and FCI, and see as many dogs as you can as this is the best way to learn about the breed. Norm, This is not meant as a snide or sarcastic remark - when were you last at a large specialty or national show? Have you seen the dogs that are winning in the AKC/CKC rings recently? Likewise, an SV-style show?
|
|