# Evaluating Conformation...learning the ropes.



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

There have been several fun threads on structure, where I've given my evaluation of pictures people have kindly (and bravely!) posted. In an effort to continue along those lines and educate as well, this thread will be geared toward helping those who want to learn about structure and form to function....and the participants will be doing the critiquing, and I'll be the guide and help along the way.

This initial post is going to be pretty long (hang in there....it's likely to be spread over a couple of posts) and will serve as a sort of handbook for the thread. I'm going by the breed standard for Labs because that's the majority so far, but other breeds are of course welcome and we'll use their specific breed standard as needed (all available on the AKC website).

First, a word about breed standards. They exist to define a breed, and differentiate it from other breeds. Within those standards are structural basics that cross to all retriever breeds and that's our major focus here. Those particular specifics exist because they allow the dog to work more efficiently...they aren't just affectations that someone decided look nice. There are reasons for most of the qualities described in breed standards. 

There will be those who read some of this and say "but my dog does XYZ just fine, and it doesn't match what the standard says." That is very true....but remember this: If your dog does it well without conforming, how much better would it be if it did conform? Let's say your dog has five areas that don't match the standard by just a little bit. And while it may not be a big difference, let's say your dog could be just 5% more efficient in that area if that part met the standard better. 5%? Big deal, right? Well, in five different areas, an improvement of a measly 5% x 5 is 25% overall. And 25% could be a very big deal in performance and soundness. A good example of this is head structure (and we'll get into detail about that later). Why is the muzzle (top of the nose) supposed to be on the same plane as the top of the skull? Simple. If the line of the nose is in line with the skull, when the dog picks up a bird, it's easier to hold it up while running, as opposed to the common flaw of a nose that slopes down away from the line of the skull, which means the dog has to either carry its whole head higher which is more tiring) and/or hang on tighter than we'd like to the bird. Some dogs will just let the head hang normally with a sloped nose, and they'll slow their return instead of adjusting their head or grip. I've also heard that a better match in plane of muzzle to skull has an effect on scenting ability. Remember, with all of thisw stuff, it's not whether a dog can do the work....it's could they do it even better?

On to learning about structure.  In order to evaluate a dog, we need to learn some of the basic parts of the dog. Some are easy to see, and others need to be felt while you're learning. Once you know how to find them with your hands, you can usually pick them out easily with just your eyes. And the weight a dog is carrying makes a big difference, too. First, let's look at the outline of the dog with the skeleton visible and the parts we'll be looking at labeled.











 There'll be a quiz later (just kidding!) 

I labeled the parts, but the drawing is directly from the Labrador breed standard on the LRC website. This shape is what LRC says is the standard...the ideal conformation for the breed.

The parts I've labeled are the ones we'll be using to evaluate basic structure. Your job for now is to figure out where they are on your live dog. Some are easy to see, and others can be deceptive and you'll need to feel for them at first until you learn to see them. The shoulder is a tricky one, because there is so much muscle there. It's a common error to assume the slope of the shoulder is exactly the same as the big ridge of muscle that is at the top where it meets the neck. If you use that, you'll have the wrong angle. If you look at the drawing, there is a ridge that runs along the center of the shoulder bone (scapula, if one wants to be technically correct ;-)) and that's the approximate line we use to define the slope of the shoulder. Since that ridge is covered and hard to find, we can use our fingers to locate the bony ends we can feel. The first is at the top of the withers, and the second, while not part of the shoulder, is the point of the shoulder, where the humerus connects. Feeling the end of the humerus should be easy, as is the top of the shoulder. If you draw a straight line from the tip of the withers to the point of the shoulder, there's your shoulder slope. And from there, go from the point of the shoulder to the elbow and draw a straight line, and that's the humerus. The length of the humerus and the length of the scapula should be close to even. The angle where the shoulder and humerus meet is what tells us the angle....and it should come pretty close to matching the angle of the pelvis and femur in the rear...but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Now for the rear: Again, use your hands and find the bony spot on the side of your dog where the pelvis is...this is called the point of the hip (much like our hip bones). And it's not up on top of the dog...it's slightly down the side. From there, follw the pelvis to the rear and you'll see...and feel...the end of the pelvis below the tail on the back end of your dog. Find the end of that bony spot, called the point of the buttock. If you draw a line from the point of the hip to the point of the buttock, that's your dog's pelvic slope. Now feel your way down the leg to the end of the femur (or thighbone) and find the place where two bumps of bone come together. That's the stifle (comparable to a human knee). 

This part get a little tricky. We need to find the angle from the pelvis to the stifle, and the femur is not always easy to see but can usually be felt readily near the lower portion of the leg. And the top of the femur is buried and not visible. However, there's a simple way to see whether or not you've got acceptable angles, without needing to actually find the top end of the femur. Draw a line from the point of hip to point of buttock, and then another line from point of buttock to the stifle joint. If that angle is good, the real angle from femur to stifle is likely to be good too even though it won't be the same angle. If you go back up and look at the drawing, it's easy to see. 










There's your first homework assignment, for those who want to learn this stuff. I need to quit for awhile and go work some dogs, but I'll be back later with more.


----------



## Jill Simmons (Oct 2, 2008)

This is a valuable opportunity. I'm going to print out the diagram, and go over my three goldens. It's nice to have interesting homework


----------



## BrianW (May 10, 2005)

The 1st thread started me on a new path of learning, hoping this one will further illuminate the way!!

If somewhere down the road we could discuss puppy structure & growth/maturity changes, that could really help right now.

BTW, I found that a folding ruler can really help well visualize the angulation 

Thanks Sharon!!


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

This is awesome! 

Are those angles 90 degrees?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

RemsBPJasper said:


> This is awesome!
> 
> Are those angles 90 degrees?


Pretty close to 90 degrees, yes. That would be the ideal. 

What's really fun to do is to get a cattle marker or chalk, and draw the angles on a real dog. When you see them on a live dog and see the movement...even though the skin and muscle covers up the full range of motion the joints are doing, you still get to see it live. A cattle marker works great....but removing it is not so great. Chalk doesn't show up as well, but brushes or washes off easily.


----------



## FetchExpress (May 31, 2006)

Sharon,

This thread just may be the all around best thread I have seen on RTF! Thank you for taking the time to explain all this!

KC


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

My dogs don't like me right now. Too much touching and not enough playing. This is extremely educational.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

Fowl Play WA said:


> My dogs don't like me right now. Too much touching and not enough playing. This is extremely educational.


Gettin that glare are ya? I know that look from 4-h conformation!


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

1st retriever said:


> Gettin that glare are ya? I know that look from 4-h conformation!


This is really good for Gunner. He's the wiggle but when you touch him. He'll knock the judge over in 4-H. He loves touching, but he's so dang big. He's easier to feel the bones on because he's skinnier. Stryke's got twice the coat and is "thicker". Gunner's bones practically stick out;-).


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2009)

Sharon Potter said:


> What's really fun to do is to get a cattle marker or chalk, and draw the angles on a real dog.


Toothpaste works well for this. The older "chalkier" kind works much better than the new fangled gel toothpaste.


----------



## DRAKEHAVEN (Jan 14, 2005)

Oh boy mint flavored toothpaste rubbed all over the body.....get Becker and the Lime jello and that would be a party !!!!!!


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2009)

OK smarty pants. I was only suggesting using the toothpaste to outline the dog's angulation. Then you can step back and take a picture and see how the angles look to you. I saw it in a video one time and it made sense to me.

And NO, it was NOT one of _those_ kind of videos.


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Melanie Foster said:


> And NO, it was NOT one of _those_ kind of videos.


Yea, right.


----------



## Guest (Feb 15, 2009)

Bait,

Back away from the BBQ sauce...


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Melanie Foster said:


> OK smarty pants. I was only suggesting using the toothpaste to outline the dog's angulation. Then you can step back and take a picture and see how the angles look to you. I saw it in a video one time and it made sense to me.
> 
> And NO, it was NOT one of _those_ kind of videos.


You can also use the sticky round tags (garage sale type price tags?) to label the main angles.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Sharon and others, 

What correlation do you think is between good structure and great movement. Some show dogs gaits are not ......pretty.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Good structure and great movement go hand in hand. A poorly structured dog cannot be a great mover, nor can an overweight dog. The important thing is to: 1. Have a well put together dog; 2. Have it conditioned, muscled and fit via plenty of good exercise; and 3. Keep it in trim working weight.
There are conditioning exercises that can improve a dog's movement somewhat, but it can never be great if the structure is not there. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.


----------



## DrCharlesBortellPhD (Sep 27, 2008)

Sharon, Thanks for posting.
This info is what I wanted in response to a thread on teamchesapeake.

I ask how individuals "evaluate" their dogs when the majority do not know the written standards or how they really apply. Breeders can immediately look at a dog and say exactly why or why not the dog "fits" into the standards. (of course, show people would also). But the majority of owners (esp involved in hunting, FT/HT) are somewhat 'clueless' on this aspect. Their evaluation on any dog relys on experience, perceptions, observing other dogs, not necessarily the 'written standards' for the breed.

Great way for ALL to learn correctly. Thanks again.

Charlie


----------



## Ken Archer (Aug 11, 2003)

Aussie said:


> Sharon and others, What correlation do you think is between good structure and great movement. Some show dogs gaits are not ......pretty.


Way back when I was showing dogs, I had a good friend who was an all-breed judge. I asked him how he kept all the different breed standards straight in his mind. His answer was very simple. "If they move right, they are put together right." Now all you have to know is when you have good movement. ;-)

Curtis Brown taught engineering at San Diego State and Purdue University. After using his engineering know how in the study of dogs as it related to his duties as an all-breed judge, he wrote the book Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis. I believe it is available from Amazon. If you want to know what makes a dog go and thus what he should look like read Brown's book.
It is pretty techical. I suppose most people will be satisfied with the information in this thread which I think is fantastic BTW.


----------



## Bait (Jan 21, 2004)

Melanie Foster said:


> Bait,
> 
> Back away from the BBQ sauce...


Yea, right.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

A local woman here who judges hounds and terriers and horses and is a foxhunter from way back said of my Chesapeake Puffin: "I don't know your breed standard, but I could not fault this dog with a microscope. She's perfect; she's got a leg on each corner and moves effortlessly." I've trained obedience with her and she's not a fan of Chesapeakes in general because of what she's seen in the ring (overcoated fat pigs that waddle around and tend to pace) but she loves my Puff. Puffin is a bench champion that finished in 7 shows with me handling even though I'd never even seen an AKC show before. Thank goodness for judges that will put up a nice dog even if it has a chimp handling it!
Note, she's almost 8 in these photos taken last summer and had arleady whelped 2 litters.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Ken Archer said:


> Way back when I was showing dogs, I had a good friend who was an all-breed judge. I asked him how he kept all the different breed standards straight in his mind. His answer was very simple. "If they move right, they are put together right." Now all you have to know is when you have good movement. ;-)
> 
> Curtis Brown taught engineering at San Diego State and Purdue University. After using his engineering know how in the study of dogs as it related to his duties as an all-breed judge, he wrote the book Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis. I believe it is available from Amazon. If you want to know what makes a dog go and thus what he should look like read Brown's book.
> It is pretty techical. I suppose most people will be satisfied with the information in this thread which I think is fantastic BTW.


Ken, that is a good book, and you're right, it does get pretty technical and as such is rather dry reading...but it is a very good reference and very educational. I'd highly recommend it.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Julie, it's a great thing that Chessies still can achieve a dual championship. There are only a handful of breeds that can make that claim, and while there is a bit of a split in Chessies, the chasm isn't so wide it can't be crossed. I think what helps the Chessies continue with their dual capabilities (besides breeders that care) is their lack of "glamour" and popularity with the general public. Hope it stays that way!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Julie, she's beautiful, especially that second picture. She has a nice countenance also. The one thing I see with so many Chessies are bad tails-when did that happen? She has a nice tail also.


----------



## afdahl (Jul 5, 2004)

Julie, and all,

Here's mine. Didn't finish quite as fast as Puffin, but did get two majors in one weekend. Do you recognize the picture we're trying to emulate?
http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/attach/jpg.gif

His face doesn't look great in this picture, but it shows the utility of having a substantial muzzle: he can hold a duck firmly and get some cooling at the same time.

Amy Dahl


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

I have two 'beefs' with a lot of show judging I've seen. One is rewarding the retriever with the too-short, "cute" muzzle. Not only is it too short to handle a big bird like a goose or even a fat mallard, it's just not proper. People who must have that look have plenty of other breeds to choose from where it is correct!

The other comes from my horse background and is related to movement. The retrievers aren't supposed to be flashy movers with a lot of up and down action. You see this rewarded more in the golden ring, but I've seen it in Labs and CBRs, too. A dog that's too short in the forearm and usually, but not always, with an upright shoulder, will throw its front feet out when it moves and spend more energy covering the same ground. It **looks** flashy, but it's not correct. I think this is why Labs and CBRs don't do well in the AKC sporting group. They just aren't flashy eye catching movers if they're put together right.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Since we've sort of morphed into movement, let's talk about it and how it relates to good structure. 

Good movement is whatever is efficient for a breed for its function. Good movement exists because of good structure/conformation. And there you have it...form to function. A dog's structure should be such that it helps the dog do its job in the most efficient manner possible. 

All those angles we talked about above make or break a dog's movement. The way the joint angles match and work together makes a dog's job easier because they can move easier. If one joint is way off...let's say, for example, the stifle is too straight...the rest have to compensate and over work, which puts extra strain on the body. A car engine can still run if one cylinder has less compression than it should, but the engine functions most efficiently if all cylinders are working and the engine is tuned right. Think of the engine being tuned as the training we put in, and the engine parts (the dog's structure) needing to be put together correctly and functioning in order to tune it for maximum performance.

So what exactly is good movement? It's a balance among speed, power and endurance. A retriever needs all three in pretty much equal measure because of the job it does. Other breeds may have different requirements. A good mover has a long, low, reaching stride that covers ground efficiently and with minimum effort. The hind legs reach up under and push while the front legs reach out and "grab the ground" in front. A high stepping dog with fancy, prancing movement won't hold up long in the field, because that prancing, high stepping gait is tiring. A long, low to the ground stride where all the joints work in unison means maximum effort with less exertion. A good mover moves like a well oiled machine...floats over the ground and looks like it could keep going for a long time. The steps will be even...if you could hear the beats of the footfalls, they would set a steady beat like a metronome. The other trait you'll see in a good mover is the way the hind feet at a trot or jog will land in front of the place where the front feet just left. A dog that can't "track up" like this will not be as efficient a mover as one that does. 

A good mover will move free, easy and effortlessly, and make it look easy. 

Imagine this from a human perspective. Which is more efficient...running with your feet close to the ground, or goose-stepping like a drum major in a marching band? And when you run, watch what your feet do. The faster you go, the more they will converge toward a center line under your body. And if you try to get a burst of extra speed, you're going to lengthen your step, right? Not go up and out, but push your feet further forward to grab ground more to the front.

A dog's weight affects this as well. In order for the legs to move, they need to slide along the side of the body. That means as the front leg comes back while the other front leg comes forward, the elbow of the leg coming back has to clear the side of the dog...and fat gets in the way. And too broad in front makes a dog waddle, or go from side to side, which is a waste of enery that should be used to move forward. Same for a hind limb swinging forward. If there's a bunch of "body" in the way, the stifle will either fall short or try to move to the outside of the body, which is in direct contradiction to the fact that as a dog increases speed, the feet will fall closer to the center line of the body. A short strided dog will have to take more steps to reach its objective than a dsog with alonger, easier stride. Overweight dogs tend to be shorter strided than they'd be if they were fit. 

A dog with front legs that toe in (pigeon toed) will tend to flip the feet to the outside as it moves. A dog that toes out loses reach because it is extending the legs to the outside rather than out to the front. Both are a waster of energy and less efficient.

Viewed from the rear, the ideal is for the hind limbs to be parellel and to fall in a stright vertical line from the point of the buttock to the ground, and then have the feet converge toward a center line when the dog is moving and as speed increases. A common fault is being what we call "cow hocked", meaning the dog's hocks are closer together than the rest of the leg, and the feet will point to the outside. As faults go, being slightly cowhocked isn't all that bad...but just like the front, the feet have to move to the outside rather than straight ahead, which means more energy spent and less efficiency. More than slightly cowhocked is bad....I've seen some where the hocks almost touch. Some young dogs may appear cowhocked if they are unfit and lean, but often this will correct itself to some degree with conditioning and building muscle in the hindquarters.

Discuss....I need to go work a couple of dogs and I'll check back later.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

What about pacing? I have heard comments that it is an indicator of future problems. If that is true, I would assume the pacing is caused by an identifiable structural flaw. So maybe the "pacing" gait is just an early symptom of a soundness problem?


----------



## BirdNMouth (Sep 16, 2008)

2tall said:


> What about pacing? I have heard comments that it is an indicator of future problems. If that is true, I would assume the pacing is caused by an identifiable structural flaw. So maybe the "pacing" gait is just an early symptom of a soundness problem?


Pacing is caused when either the front or rear don't match. Usually the front is more angulated and the rear quite straight. It's a way a dog with that type of structure fault conserves energy and makes up for the imperfection in balance between front and rear.
Also, sometimes dogs with very short bodies and too long in leg will pace so as to keep the front and rear from interfering. (Note how Brittanys are built, and many are pacers)


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Well, thanks to muddy paws on my off white floor, I can tell that Gunner's gait is decent. His back foot prints land almost on top of the front foot print. Not ahead as it should be, but almost right on top. Now I can replace the floor.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Pacing is a lateral gait, where instead of the diagonal pair of legs moving together, like at a trot, the legs on the same side move together. It is faster than a trot. Most dogs that appear to pace are actually doing more of an amble, where the legs on the same side work together but don't land at the exact same time. 

Common structural issues that encourage a dog to pace include:

Hindquarters higher than the front

Dog too short in body length and long in legs, which means the front legs can't get out of the way fast enough, so the dog learns to pace (not common structure in Labs)

Angles that don't match front and rear, usually with too much slope in front

Nervousness and tension can also trigger pacing.

It's not the gait we prefer, and if a dog that normally trots suddenly begins pacing, I'd try to find the reason for it. A dog that naturally has always paced, while it's not desirable, is not usually in danger of unsoundness from pacing.


----------



## jollycurl (Mar 4, 2008)

Okay, how many of you out there *really* watched Westminster? At the end, there were 7 completely different dogs who needed to portray the best of their breed. In your opinion, who best represented their breed and why.

I will start this off by saying that I was completely blown away by the Standard Poodle. Her reach and drive and extension were beyond almost anything I've seen in a long time. She was balanced front to rear and came you you cleanly and went away just a cleanly. She represented a classic sporting dog able to cover ground efficiently and effortlessly. What a package!


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

jollycurl said:


> Okay, how many of you out there *really* watched Westminster? At the end, there were 7 completely different dogs who needed to portray the best of their breed. In your opinion, who best represented their breed and why.
> 
> I will start this off by saying that I was completely blown away by the Standard Poodle. Her reach and drive and extension were beyond almost anything I've seen in a long time. She was balanced front to rear and came you you cleanly and went away just a cleanly. She represented a classic sporting dog able to cover ground efficiently and effortlessly. What a package!


I have no knowledge of any of the dogs that aren't sporting dogs, therefore I always root for the sporting dogs. There is NO WAY I would ever be able to look at any of the dogs are truly figure out which was closest to their breed's standards, but since I have Sporting dogs, and always have, that's what I root for. 

I appreciate your evaluation of the Standard Poodle. Your knowledge of that breed is a good addition to the conversation.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

The Scottish Deerhound and the Giant Schnauzer. Deerhounds are just like the Wolfhounds calm, cool, and collected. Perfect example. The Schnauzer was nicely put together and you could tell that it could easily work if needed.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I really liked the Deerhound. I thought the movement was loose and free and relaxed, and the dog could go all day. The Standard Poodle also moved very well.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> I really liked the Deerhound. I thought the movement was loose and free and relaxed, and the dog could go all day. The Standard Poodle also moved very well.



Currently watching the labradors at the recent Westminster. Reminds me somewhat of show ponies/horses who could never win a horse race. Or Olympic athletes (and some have strange gaits - to say nothing of various shapes and sizes) who would never win beauty contest. The human sports experts certainly mention muscle and bone mass - (maybe we can learn from them also?)

Structure and movement are fluid. Like training too, balance etc. 

Like this topic! Back to Westminster link I go.


----------



## Aussie (Jan 4, 2003)

Sharon, Just noticed a Sussex Spaniel won. Breed: 42% dysplastic. Don't know about some breds. Some breeds look like dwarfs. 

Changing topic again, sorry.


----------



## jollycurl (Mar 4, 2008)

Steph, I also love the Giant. Think she moves beautifully and is put together well. She is the consummate show dog. However, my Giant Schnauzer insiders tell me that her coat is soft which is a huge fault in the breed. This is case where judges deviate from the standard for flash instead of substance. Sigh ...


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Back to the original topic of this thread....

So, now that we've talked about how to see structure, and even gotten a little way into movement, start posting your pics. For structure, a standing side shot, and for movement, anything from the side with a dog trotting....likey a hunting or training pic.

Let's see 'em!


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Here's a stacked pic of Stryke. I have Sharron's comments on my dogs printed out so I can really read them closely so I already know where he's lacking, but for practice, anyone? He looks like he's about to jump so his hind legs are under him a bit more.










Gunner as a puppy. Good gait picture though. (He was 4 months old here)










Mediocre gait picture of Stryke.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

This is one of my puppies that I feel show angles real well.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

The only thing I can add from Sharon's earlier eval, is I think his rib cage could be longer to provide better protection. It's hard to tell, but would be interesting if you could label the bottom of his floater rib so we could see how much exposed loin is really there. 

It's something that came up a few years ago when I finally got up my nerve to take Gala (10 yo at the time) to a CC. The one judge was thrilled to see a fully "armored" lab as her breed, Goldens, are getting quite short on rib. Gala IS long backed, but at least her internal organs are protected and w/ dogs w/ those nice water entries, one never really knows what lurks beneath the surface. She never lost her topline (almost 14 now), and has always moved like a cat-- floats. To this day, I won't pass up a longer backed pup if it has all the other qualities I'm looking for because Gala has held up remarkably well. My one bitch who is nice and square and short in the loin, moves choppy (crabs) due to having a scosh more rear angulation than front, and has longer legs than depth of body. It's a classic case of getting overly excited about one feature in a pup and sacrificing a bunch more. I'll see if I can find a pic.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> The only thing I can add from Sharon's earlier eval, is I think his rib cage could be longer to provide better protection. It's hard to tell, but would be interesting if you could label the bottom of his floater rib so we could see how much exposed loin is really there.
> 
> It's something that came up a few years ago when I finally got up my nerve to take Gala (10 yo at the time) to a CC. The one judge was thrilled to see a fully "armored" lab as her breed, Goldens, are getting quite short on rib. Gala IS long backed, but at least her internal organs are protected and w/ dogs w/ those nice water entries, one never really knows what lurks beneath the surface. She never lost her topline (almost 14 now), and has always moved like a cat-- floats. To this day, I won't pass up a longer backed pup if it has all the other qualities I'm looking for because Gala has held up remarkably well. My one bitch who is nice and square and short in the loin, moves choppy (crabs) due to having a scosh more rear angulation than front, and has longer legs than depth of body. It's a classic case of getting overly excited about one feature in a pup and sacrificing a bunch more. I'll see if I can find a pic.


Are you talking Stryke? Cranky but doesn't like to be handled well. I'll see what I can do though. Well, I can't tell. Stryke's coat is so much thicker than Gunners. I can't tell what I'm feeling.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Okay, here are 2 photos (one IN coat, one out of coat) of Jazz. Btw, she's out of Stryke's sire, is 3/4 show breeding. Very short in loin and as I mentioned above, I was so excited about that when she was 8 wks old. It ends up that we had an even split in preferences/evals between her and Fuji (the first 2 in my avatar) but I can tell you, Fuji moves like a dream. Jazz crabs unless you have the perfect gating speed. Part can be behavioral too, as she's quite soft tempered. Maybe Sharon can draw the lines as I think her upper arm may be a bit shorter or at least is straighter than desired as well.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Fowl Play WA said:


> Are you talking Stryke? Cranky but doesn't like to be handled well. I'll see what I can do though. Well, I can't tell. Stryke's coat is so much thicker than Gunners. I can't tell what I'm feeling.



The floater rib is usually the one that sticks out a bit at the side-- last rib, shorter than the others.... these may help.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> Okay, here are 2 photos (one IN coat, one out of coat) of Jazz. Btw, she's out of Stryke's sire, is 3/4 show breeding. Very short in loin and as I mentioned above, I was so excited about that when she was 8 wks old. It ends up that we had an even split in preferences/evals between her and Fuji (the first 2 in my avatar) but I can tell you, Fuji moves like a dream. Jazz crabs unless you have the perfect gating speed. * Part can be behavioral too, as she's quite soft tempered. Her upper arm is a bit straight also... maybe Sharon can draw the lines*?


I can tell what traits he got from his dad then. Stryke moves funny too, unless he's got the ability to really move. I like the moderate head on her too, like Styke's. I've shown Brad your website a few times and it's crazy how much Jazz looks like him, but black version. The facial expressions especially.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

brandywinelabs said:


> This is one of my puppies that I feel show angles real well.


Here's that picture. Wouldn't work for Brandywine from work.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Fowl Play WA said:


> I can tell what traits he got from his dad then. Stryke moves funny too, unless he's got the ability to really move. I like the moderate head on her too, like Styke's. I've shown Brad your website a few times and it's crazy how much Jazz looks like him, but black version. The facial expressions especially.



Just so you know-- Alibi has/had nice movement. I'm NOT blaming Jazz's crabbing on him! She just has a couple pieces that are out of place. I wonder if I can find a puppy stack of her... she was a quite nice baby, but it's a case of not everything being perfectly predictable at 8 wks.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Great pics....now I'm waiting for y'all to comment....if you post a pic of your dog, give it a try on your own dog for starters! I'll jump in and help if you get stuck.

Remember, this is about learning, and it's OK to try, and we learn from our mistakes, so don;t be afraid to give it a shot.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> Great pics....now I'm waiting for y'all to comment....if you post a pic of your dog, give it a try on your own dog for starters! I'll jump in and help if you get stuck.
> 
> Remember, this is about learning, and it's OK to try, and we learn from our mistakes, so don;t be afraid to give it a shot.


Hey, I think I have already made my comments on Jazz-- at least the negatives! I guess I could state some positives.  She has a nice topline, beautiful neck, tailset, coat/tail (when she's in coat), very correct head w/ the desirable planes and muzzle length, really pretty dark eyes that give a beautiful kind expression, correct bite/full dentition, nice rear, nice depth of chest, perhaps a bit long on leg (though I have to admit, I'd rather have long than short-- my 2 yo is very close, but gives the perception of being short on leg and I don't like it!). She's nice and square, short in the loin, but again, I think if they are as short in loin as she is, there seems to be far more room for movement issues than if she had a bit more loin there.

Oh, and I have to say, I'm a *stickler* for tight/strong cat feet. I really dislike the splayed pancake feet I'm seeing in the ring right now... and equally don't care for the long hare foot I see in many of the field dogs.

Since I don't have photoshop, I cant draw in those lines Sharon-- feel free to if you'd like. Anne


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

OK, my puppy pic. Could use a little more lenght of neck. 
Front and rear angles are very nice. Top line and tail set are very nice.
Length of front leg is not equal to body depth - a little short of leg.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

If you guys want I will post up a pic of Corona my 10 month golden and you can try with all the extra hair!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I can not get a picture of my dog standing to save my life. But, back to the movement issue and the pacing question I posted earlier.....
From what I have learned here, my dog has a very nice front, but straightish back legs. He is extremely well muscled so it is hard to feel exactly where the bones are, even in the hind legs. Not so much now, but up to 2 years he tended to pace as often as trot. (I do know the gaits as a horseperson). Now at almost 4, I hardly ever see it. Has the muscle building over come the reasons for the pacing? A year ago or so I posted the same question about the gait, only now getting some answers. I think it was Bird in Mouth that tied in the comformation issues with the pacing. Definitely some of these apply. The rear is a little higher than the front, but measured at the withers, the elbow to ground is right at half total height. So what the heck am I asking about after all this??

Is the pacing gone for good?
Is this an indicator of soundness problems even though the dog runs like a freight train and has never had a problem?

Thanks for the greatest thread in years!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

brandywinelabs said:


> OK, my puppy pic. Could use a little more lenght of neck.
> Front and rear angles are very nice. Top line and tail set are very nice.
> Length of front leg is not equal to body depth - a little short of leg.


What age is your pup in the photo? Neck and leg seem to come on my lines a little later (7-8 wks). This would look closer to one of mine at 6 wks only the angles are much nicer than I'd normally see at 6 wks. 

Are you concerned about body length at all? Again, I think it depends on the lines, but mine tend to get longer in body at maturity than my 7-8 wk stacked photos show.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

brandywinelabs said:


> OK, my puppy pic. Could use a little more lenght of neck.
> Front and rear angles are very nice. Top line and tail set are very nice.
> Length of front leg is not equal to body depth - a little short of leg.


Judging puppies that young is harder, because they haven't "unfolded" and have so much growing and changing to do. Example: notice how close to the body the stifles are....they aren't going to stay there.

At this age, you can see angles fairly well, although they may well change a bit as the pup matures. I'd bet you're probably right about the length of leg, but I wouldn't say for certain until the pup is 4-5 months old.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

2tall said:


> I can not get a picture of my dog standing to save my life.


I find carrying my camera when we're out on a walk is the best way to catch a free stack photo of my dogs. Catch them when they are focusing on a bird or noise off in the distance. Some dogs just don't pose well at all...

I need a photo but if you are saying he's shy on rear angles, that would explain his gait. Maybe now he's compensated in muscling, who knows? My dogs tend to get too much muscling up front if they are running agility hard (jumping) or sprinting too much.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

This is Corona at 4 1/2 months old. My friend had to stack her cuz she wanted to play with me! Will get a updated one later today when I have help!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

2tall, pacing is not uncommon in pups and growthy young dogs (you know, the kind that look like a collection of spare parts until everything catches up  ). If he was one of those lanky, spare parts kind of pups before he filled in, pacing is a possibility. And since he seems to have outgrown it and isn't doing it anymore, I wouldn't worry about it.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Man that was a long time ago. But the title on the file says 5 weeks.
They say that is the best time to take the pics. Gives the best indication of
what they will be when grown.
This puppy has my CH/MH as a grandfather and a CH/MH as a sire.
And his mother had MH passes when I had to leave the game for 5 years.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

OK here goes!! This is my lil Silverfreak, Panda, the product of an oops breeding/accidental litter, but we're crazy about her, wild eyes and all. 
Here she is 'posed' and one of her moving, at her first show. She was 7 months old in these:

















Panda has a very appealing head and large expressive eyes. They are correct for the CBR breed standard as they are yellow but they do take some people by surprise as they are freaky looking! She has a nice head, good muzzle length, correct stop, and correct scissor bite. Her ear leather is a tad thin and her ears, although well set, are just a little too large.
In the top photo angle, her shoulder looks upright but she actually has a fairly nice front, good angulation, but toes toe out slightly. Her ribcage is still a little slabby looking as is typical of many young dogs; it should expand with age. She's slightly higher behind which is again acceptable in this breed. She has a well muscled 2nd thigh and a decent hip/stifle/hock angle, although as in front she toes out slightly and is a little cow hocked. She has nice big, tight feet with good webbing.

Her coat is good, she has a dense undercoat and tight, coarse outer coat to shed water. She's an unusual ash color that is not often seen but perfectly acceptable and in fact, written in the breed standard. Ash is a dilute color, but her pigment is excellent (note her dark nails).

The below pictures I took yesterday, just for this thread! A lot can change between 7 & 12 mos., (below photos) some of her flaws are improving as she fills out. She still toes out slightly, but not nearly as much as last summer and viewed from behind, she no longer appears cow hocked. Her ribs have a little more spring in them, but she's still slabby looking although her chest has filled out nicely.

There, how'd I do? She just left today for boot camp  I will probably show her when she's more filled out, maybe next year. But I'll use a handler since she's not the standard Chesapeake color. I definitely think she'll be able to finish, but it's going to be sort of like showing a paint in hunter classes--judges will look very hard at her because of her unusual color and some may dump her because of it. I'm hoping a pro handler will also know the right judges to show under!


















Edited to add: Panda has a great tail set, right where it should be, but her tail is just a bit too long. I'm hoping she'll grow into it as it's not quite as noticeable now as it was at 7 mos. back then she did 'paddle' slightly as you can see in the top photo where the front leg is turned slightly out. Her elbows also looked too turned in at 7 mos. and that, too has straightened out as has her paddling, now barely noticeable. She's a very cute, effortless mover, she treads very lightly and covers a lot of ground with each stride. And she is very athletic in real life, too.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

brandywinelabs said:


> Man that was a long time ago. But the title on the file says 5 weeks.
> They say that is the best time to take the pics. Gives the best indication of
> what they will be when grown.
> This puppy has my CH/MH as a grandfather and a CH/MH as a sire.
> And his mother had MH passes when I had to leave the game for 5 years.


That's interesting as Pat and the late Bob Hastings (Puppy Puzzle video, litter evaluator, AKC judges etc) say the ideal time is 8 wks +/- 3 days. I think 7.5 wks has been the best for my litters though! 

Do you have an adult pic of this pup since it sounds like it was awhile ago? Anne


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

Nobody wants to try on the golden? I will admit she is kinda goofy looking since she had just had a bath but she can't be that bad!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

1st retriever said:


> Nobody wants to try on the golden? I will admit she is kinda goofy looking since she had just had a bath but she can't be that bad!


I thought YOU were supposed to eval your own, but I think she's at a tough age, personally. She IS cute, but then I like fluffies too! ;-) Can't tell if it's the stack but her upper arm seems too straight. Has more rear angulation than front. 

Topline? Is that coat or is she roaching? Hey, ya get what ya pay for!  Anne


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Sharon did ask us to critique our own dogs, I know I'm not very comfortable picking apart other people's dogs if I don't know them!

Although anyone can feel free to add comments to what I put about my
Chesapeake pup Panda. There are two pictures of her at 7 mos. (at her one and only dog show!) and two pictures from yesterday at 12 mos. She's sort of in the 'put together by committee' stage right now ;-) so have at her!


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

I know I do not have a picture of the adult. However, I probably do have one at 7+ weeks. I pretty much put this pic up because I felt you could see the angles real well. Regarding the age when a pup most likely will show what it will be confo wise, I guess it depends on who you talk to. The labrador breeder/judges I was associated with felt 5 weeks. Oh well.
If I can find an older age one of the same pup, I will put it up tonight from home.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

windycanyon asked....
Are you concerned about body length at all? Again, I think it depends on the lines, but mine tend to get longer in body at maturity than my 7-8 wk stacked photos show.[/QUOTE]

You asked about length. If you take the length from the shoulder to the last rib, that length should be equal to the length from the last rib to the tail. It looks pretty equal to me.


----------



## DSemple (Feb 16, 2008)

1st retriever said:


> This is Corona at 4 1/2 months old. My friend had to stack her cuz she wanted to play with me! Will get a updated one later today when I have help!


She is a little wide at the hip and short in leg for my taste.

And, her lipstick doesn't match her nails very well either.

...Don


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

DSemple said:


> She is a little wide at the hip and short in leg for my taste.
> 
> And, her lipstick doesn't match her nails very well either.
> 
> ...Don



Where's that dude w/ the chicken legs????????????????


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

DSemple said:


> And, her lipstick doesn't match her nails very well either.
> 
> ...Don


That is her tongue! And aren't you a smart a$$!


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> I thought YOU were supposed to eval your own, but I think she's at a tough age, personally. She IS cute, but then I like fluffies too! ;-) Can't tell if it's the stack but her upper arm seems too straight. Has more rear angulation than front.
> 
> Topline? Is that coat or is she roaching? Hey, ya get what ya pay for!  Anne


I actually don't know much about goldens (conformation wise). I am trying to learn from my friend what she looks for in a breeding animal. That's why I thought I would see what you all thought! I will post a better picture of her tomorrow after I clean her up a bit! Snow is melting! PS- She had just gotten groomed and was blow dried, that is just her coat.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Just had the 5.5 wk picture.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

I watched Gunner today when Harleigh was working him. He paces at just above a walk, but when she sped up just a little, he evened out and his back feet hit right about where the front feet were. Not surprised that he paces with his build.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

brandywinelabs said:


> You asked about length. If you take the length from the shoulder to the last rib, that length should be equal to the length from the last rib to the tail. It looks pretty equal to me.


No, I was thinking more in terms of length relative to height-- sorry I wasn't clear!


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Picture 1 is Boscoe at 3-4 months I believe, just hanging out, totally field bred. I know you can't evaluate much at that age but figured it could serve as a comparison to the following photos of him older.












Pictures 2 and 3 are Boscoe around 11 months probably. He passed at 13mo. I was also attempting to pose him in this picture so it's completely unnatural. I don't remember how he really stood naturally though, but I know he was uncomfortable in these photos.

So for a fun critique...his croup is slopey? Am I getting the terminology? lol. Topline not horrible but not good. Back legs are too straight. He still has a tuck up but his tail coming off his body doesn't seem that bad. The planes of his muzzle don't match up with his head. And I still don't get the shoulders and neck lol. 




















And for mor fun, a shot of a total mutt. Rottie and some definite hound. They claimed her to be part shepherd and she would stack naturally with one leg behind the other, as seen in the second photo of her. I have no critique but just thought I would throw it up there since I had pictures of her standing. I don't think she is even 6months in those photos.




















If I can find it I am going to post a picture of our YLM from the pet store. Man is he a structural train wreck. We can have fun pointing out the major and obvious faults lol. If I can get a movement shot it can serve as a visual for the movement discussion because he has a horrible gait, in my guess caused by his rear end being way too high. I'll go look.


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Ok I found the photo of our YLM. It's actually a nice natural candid photo of him standing. You can see how straight his legs are, topline is really bad, croup slopes, tailset is not good. You can't see the sideview of his head but I actually like the look of his head, it's pretty decent. I think his ears are too long though.


----------



## Leddyman (Nov 27, 2007)

windycanyon said:


> Where's that dude w/ the chicken legs????????????????



I'm getting ready to jump in. I'm trying to get my thoughts together to critique my dog.

BTW Those are my winter legs....I am a stud. 

Chicks dig me because I rarely wear underwear regards,


----------



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

Sharon,
Are you going to address Rachel Page Elliot and H. DeGroot's findings that 45 degree shoulder angles simply do not exist in dogs?

As I'm sure you know, Ms. Elliot actually used cinemaradiography of dogs on a treadmill and H. DeGroot was a German German Shepherd breeder. 

I can understand you are stating a 45-degree angle is asking for the ideal. Both Elliot and DeGroot, either through radiography and/or measurement, found 30 degrees as being the most frequently encountered shoulder angle in dogs they studied. 

And how do you see the lie of the shoulder, rather than the angle of the shoulder, affecting movement?

Great thread!!


----------



## Susie Royer (Feb 4, 2005)

Miss Grace was 16 months in this picture...she has matured nicely through out the years. I would like to see more neck...she is reaching for the stuffed animal the photographer is throwing LOL I would also like to see a little more leg...she is on the low end of the height standard and with her heavy coat she looks like a munchkin LOL She is a nice little package though and I anticipate we will be able to upland her longer then are larger/heavier CBRs.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

kindakinky said:


> Sharon,
> Are you going to address Rachel Page Elliot and H. DeGroot's findings that 45 degree shoulder angles simply do not exist in dogs?
> 
> As I'm sure you know, Ms. Elliot actually used cinemaradiography of dogs on a treadmill and H. DeGroot was a German German Shepherd breeder.
> ...



 I was wondering when someone would bring that up. ;-)

The 45 degrees is what we can see on the outside of the skin, not necessarily the exact angle we'd find if we could radiograph the dog and measure. And I think a lot of the time, people see it as the angle of the shoulder musculature as opposed to the actual scapula itself. It's just a guideline meant to help with a quick external evaluation. And looking at the dog "fully clothed", so to speak, that's all we've got. I'm not at home, where all my stuff is, and just have my laptop, not the big PC, so am having to talk without benefit of reference materials. I'll do the best I can off the top of my head. ;-)

The lie of the shoulder(scapula), or layback, is important but not critical. What's more important is the length and set of the humerus and its ratio to the scapula. The two need to be in balance. The humerus should be long, and set at an angle corresponding to the shoulder. An extremely upright shoulder, coupled with a short, upright humerus (and the lack of pastern angle that usually accompanies a straight front), will put a lot of strain on a dog's front end and it takes a pounding...no shock absorbers, so to speak. To go to the other extreme, a long humerus that is angled back under the body too far puts the dog's chest out in front, shortens reach and unbalances the movement.

Shoulder angles are also dependent on the dog's job/function. What works for a Lab or a Golden may not work as well for a Dachshund or a Cavalier. There will be differences according to breed and function.

Good movement can't happen without good structure. And I'm going to go way out on a limb here....and say that *great *movement requires *good* structure...and a lot of attitude and presence from the dog.;-)


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

this is Dayzee....she is small - 58 lb - I think she has pretty good angulation both front and rear. But she is short in back and therefore a pacer.....light boned - would like to see more bone and head - but these characteristics are not totally unbecoming because of her size.



this is Hitch - He is a smooooooth mover - one of the reasons I am pretty sure he got his CH in 5 shows, including a group 4th....whould like to see a little longer neck and also shorter tibia and a little more angulation front and rear - but overall he is definitely not poor in this dept. He is also out at the elbow and a little toed in on the front - only evident when he is moving.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

I will Jump









Albert at 18 months one of my field show crosses

and with his ducks in Kansas









In my opinion he is a bit short in the upper arm and a bit straight in the shoulder ,from this picture, could use a wee bit more bend in stifle, but if he were standing under himself would prob look about right. Has a nice solid topline but slopes a bit too much, nice length of neck.He is a bit snipey , but overall not a bad looking hunting dog
Your thoughts Sharon, please
Bridget


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Bridget, I agree, he could be a bit longer in the humerus. There is too much slope to the topline, and I'm guessing there would still be a slope (but not as much) if he weren't stretched out so far behind and slightly quartering in the photo.
I don't think his head looks snipey at all, at least from the side and in the boat pic. It looks like a very nice Lab head...one built to pick up and carry a bird, and most definitely within the standard. Overall, a good looking represenative of the breed that falls squarely in the middle ground.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

sky view, I love the strength of Hitch's loin/coupling...just look at the smoothness and muscle there. No wonder he can move, the way he's put together.
I agree on the out at the elbows...but to me, his tibia looks good...I wouldn't want to change the angle of that stifle very much. And his neck is great, to me. Too long means less powerful and makes carrying a bird more of a chore than it should be. I think it's nicely balanced just the way it is.
It may just be the photo, but he looks a little "down" on his front feet....may just be the pic. Overall, a very nice dog and a good example of his breed...and not overdone at all...nice weight and looks fit.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Thanks Sharon
This is Chief at 12 mos. He has a better front then his half brother Albert as well as a better topline.









and this is their father OP
who is more straight in the rear , drops at the croup? not a very good coat and just does not have the balance that the boys have










Bridget


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Hi Sharon -ignore the handler and background...LOL
you are correct - he is a little flat footed....though this pic shows his front feet and lower leg a little better....and now that I look better at his elbow it is easier to see that he is out there....

Juli


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Juli-

Again, what I like...no, let me rephrase that...love about Hitch is that strong loin area. The coupling is smooth, the power is all right there, and it adds to his overall balance. 
While a Chessie topline is different from a Lab topline, both should be strong through the loin and smooth coupled..and this dog is a great example of that good coupling.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Bridget, thanks for posting more pics. I'm going to use the last one to point out a fault we haven't talked about yet....notice how the dog's chest is out in front of his legs. I don't know what the correct show term is, but I've always called it pigeon breasted. It really throws a dog off balance and makes it front end heavy, in both looks and movement.


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

Sharon, awesome thread and thanks for reconsidering! Just wondering, have you ever judged? You should if you haven't cuz ya know your stuff! I am learning alot!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Steph, I used to be a UKC licensed coonhound judge, which was way fun, and I've done a lot of horse judging. I enjoy judging based on structure, movement and overall merit, and could care less who's who or about politics. However, it's highly doubtfull I'll ever be an AKC judge, because you have to have a record of breeding and showing dogs in AKC conformation...which isn't part of my plan (although if I ever have the right dog, I'd take a crack at it). Plus, I'd be one to follow the rules and judge to the standard, which wouldn't go over real well with some exhibitors.  But thanks for the compliment!


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

Cool! I love Coonhounds! A neighbor that used to live by my dad had a bluetick named Scooch! You could say his name just like he barked! Scoooooch! He was named that because he was the runt and had parvo and wouldn't nurse and his owner was like 6'4 and he was always in the way! Unfortunately after everything he had been through he got out and got hit on the interstate. He was less than a year old. I took that one hard, he was so cool! Sorry, rambling! lol You are welcome for the compliment!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> Bridget, thanks for posting more pics. I'm going to use the last one to point out a fault we haven't talked about yet....notice how the dog's chest is out in front of his legs. I don't know what the correct show term is, but I've always called it pigeon breasted. It really throws a dog off balance and makes it front end heavy, in both looks and movement.


I thought looked off balance due to the pose. His head looks to be stretched too far forward. 

Isn't pigeon breasted really something you also need a front view to assess? 

Our lab fronts ARE supposed to be out there (not open angled/straight), though balanced. It's just that in that pic, the front legs do seem set a bit too far under him, and the rear doesn't appear to be balanced w/ the front.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

I have seen a few pix of 'pigeon breasted' dogs...always thought they looked like they were about to tip over....

Is it possible that by having this type of conformation a dog can 'look' more correct in the shoulder?

Juli


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Again, keep in mind we're looking at a picture...but to me, the chest extends far enough out to the front that it looks disproportionate and out of balance. It's well ahead of the scapula and humerus. From the standard: "When viewed from the side, the Labrador Retriever shows a well-developed, but not exaggerated forechest." I'd call the chest in that _picture_ exaggerated. When I refer to a dog's front, I mean the shoulder assembly, not the breastbone.

As for it making a dog look more correct in the shoulder, I don't believe so. The forelegs are back under the dog enough that the humerus and scapula really don't go that far forward. It can be deceptive if you use the breastbone as a point of reference.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Not a very good picture of Flash being stacked, he did not want to work with me tonight. The second picture is with the diagram provided by Sharon earlier in the thread.

I think over all Flash is pretty decent. He is also within the height and weight standard. His tail is overly feathered but not a grey hound tail.

He is also his winter weight, carrying an extra 5-8lbs.

Thoughts, comments....

FOM


----------



## 1st retriever (Sep 2, 2008)

He is pretty close to the diagram! Good looking dog FOM!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Lainee, great pic, especially with the overlay. (more on that below)

Overall, I like his balance. Body looks good. I'd like to see a little more bone to match it. Head looks nice also. Can't see his tail, so we'll have to take your word for it.  Two things are apparent that we haven't really seen yet....he is weak in the front pasterns (it's actually the carpal joint, sort of like our wrist) and they bend backward which can cause stress on the joint; and his neck ties into his shoulder low on the underside. 
The stifle joint is actually lower than where the diagram places it, too. 

And...just to pick on you a little...  it's a good thing you didn't connect the spine from front to back!!


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Sharon 
I agree with you about OP's chest, when looking at him from the front (head on ) he is a bit bull dogish , wide in the breast. His elbows are not out but he is overly wide in the chest, I will see if I can get a picture today. He is a bit more balanced now as a 6 year old, I do not know if I can get him to stack but I will try, to show what maturity will do.
Some show breeders REALLY go for the over exagerated forechest, or keel as some call it. I go for moderate.
I will post later Albert's mom , OP again and Albert again to show what I got from breeding faults to something more correct. 
This is an awesome thread and should be very educational for those that know not about structure.
Bridget


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Lainiee, Flash is a very handsome fellow! And a question for Sharon--I used to show hounds at the big hound shows in Leesburg and Bryn Mawr and I remember the judges would give some leeway to older hounds on things like less than perfect pasterns/feet not as tight as these were hunting hounds and certain parts were expected to show wear and tear with age. I'm asking because I know Lainee's boy is at least 9 and overall, I think he looks pretty sporty for his age! ;-)

And if you wouldn't mind, I'd love it if you'd go back a couple pages and see if I missed any glaring faults on my young CBR bitch, the SilverPeake, I put up 2 stacked photos, one at 7 mos. and one at 12 mos.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Julie, your pup looks nice....and really great feet. I agree there is a little bit of toeing out in front, but would know more if I watched the movement. The one thing I'd like to see is more angle in the hocks...seems a little straight, especially considering that the hind legs are positioned so that a good angle should be obvious. Overall, a very nicely balanced dog! 

Time does add wear and tear, and at 9, dogs aren't going to look like they did at two. (and I don't look as good at 49 as I did at 20, either!  ) Feet are often the first thing to flatten out and spread, especially if they weren't particularly tight and thick to begin with...but the pasterns to me still seem weaker than they should, even in an older dog who has worked hard. That said, Flash most certainly is a handsome fella!

As an aside, when I was judging hounds for UKC, honorable scars were not to be counted against (and they actually mean scars). The vast majority of hounds at the shows were also hunting/competing that night and the show was something to do while they waited. I put up a very nice hound at one show...great movement and structure, excellent body, head, and very thick, tight feet....all three of them. The dog had lost a leg in a trap while hunting...but was still a great example of the breed, and the missing leg was most definitely considered an honorable scar. The dog would have won with four legs or three.


----------



## Susie Royer (Feb 4, 2005)

Sharon Potter said:


> Julie, your pup looks nice....and really great feet.


I've noticed you have mentioned "feet" in a lot of your posts Sharon  Do you have a foot fetish? Sorry, the devil made me say this and I am just kidding LOL However, could you please explain why the feet are important? All my mentor's have stressed other traits but, never feet!


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Okay, in the last thread I was following some of what was going on, but wanted to see examples of dogs to compare and contrast. I was excited for this thread because we were going to do that. I'm still lost.

Looking at all the dogs and comparing/contrasting them to each other and the standard is like looking at Playboy for the first time and comparing/contrasting a large C-cup centerfold to a D-cup one. A different curve here, more heft there...hell I don't know, they all look good to me!

I think the problem is (one anyway) is that I'm having difficulty "seeing" the angles on fleshed-out dogs. I see different parts, but from Point A to Point B I'm getting lost. Actually, the EXACT points aren't clearly visible to me either. So I'm lost.

All I can really tell about my boy is he's a little light in bone, narrow chested and his tail isn't otter; it has a curve.

front end is better in this one; back legs kinda goofy as he's looking to make a move for the bumper the bulldog is guarding...


think the back legs are a little better here? dunno what the exact stance is supposed to be



at an angle but can see the feet a little bit better in this one?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Thanks for the feedback.....not bad for a 10 year old, who still trains when his younger brother is home, although he has lost a step or two....he is also a BYB dog, so considering all things I got a decent boy  He hunts hard and loves to cuddle...of course I'm biased and think he is handsome.....it is not the best picture as he absolutely hates "stand" and I never really taught him to stack properly.

I had to go back and look at the other picture to understand what you meant by your observations....I think I get it....thanks.

I tried to find one of Bullet, now he will be an interesting one to take a look at as I know he is not in the standard and is a typical FT greyhound of a dog, but no luck. When I get him home in a few months I'll post him up.

I should also note - Flash has been training in some form or fashion since he was a puppy, hunted hard for many years yet he has never had <knock on wood> any issue with joints other than what he is showing with age....a little stiff and not as hard charging as he use to be.

Thanks guys.....keep the examples coming....

FOM


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Susie Royer said:


> I've noticed you have mentioned "feet" in a lot of your posts Sharon  Do you have a foot fetish? Sorry, the devil made me say this and I am just kidding LOL However, could you please explain why the feet are important? All my mentor's have stressed other traits but, never feet!


 
I have a tail thing....Flash has a decent tail, but too feathered. It is wide like it should be but is not tappered (cut short when a puppy).....has a slight curve but not exagrated though.

Bullet on the other hand, the tail is too curved, not otter-ish enough. Too long I think. 

I also have a thing for heads.....I like flash's, I like bullet's - don't care for the over blocky heads, hates the ones that are pointy too.....i think our Ranger has a pointy head.....

I also have a thing for "coats" - Flash has the correct coat, Bullet not even close, too weak of an undercoat....Ranger has an okay coat, but a little too soft on top, but he at least has an undercoat.

FOM


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

here are a few pix of my old chessie/lab (and?) now passed away....I always thought she had a pretty good conformation for a mixed breed


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

Susie,

I have a foot fettish as well.... 
I have always felt that feet are extremely important - they are the first thing to take stress/pressure on a moving dog/animal, and like people, a badly formed food can cause orhopedic and other movement prolems down the road.... so I believe they should be well formed and durable.
Juli


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Susie Royer said:


> I've noticed you have mentioned "feet" in a lot of your posts Sharon  Do you have a foot fetish? Sorry, the devil made me say this and I am just kidding LOL However, could you please explain why the feet are important? All my mentor's have stressed other traits but, never feet!


LOL...Susie, I do like strong feet, but a foot fetish may be more than I'll admit to. Seriously, If you go back and look at the initial drawings on page 1, look at the arch to the toes and the shape of the outline, that's what we're after. Good, tight well arched toes with thick pads are stronger and a better shock absorber than a flat, splayed foot...where the toes are spread out and flat. The foot is described in the standard.
And it's been my experience that a tight foot attracts fewer burrs and stickers.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Sloppymouth, too bad you aren't still in Tulsa. You could come on over and critique dogs at the kennel! It takes putting your hands on a lot of dogs to get the feel for bone structure, and the leaner dogs make it easier. After you do it enough, you'll be able to see general angles on dogs (or develop x-ray vision!  )

I've seen this dog working in the flesh, which is why I laugh my head off whenever someone talks about the overdone fat British style Lab. There is no way Kona fits the stereotype that attaches to British dogs. The one tip-off I do see is in his head, with the lovely ears and especially the very nice width between his eyes, which is something lost in a lot of field bred dogs here.

He's got nice angles...if his hind legs were set so the front of the toes were just at the edge of a vertical line dropped from the point of the buttock, the stance would be easier to critique compared to the drawings.


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

Oh Sharon, I wish we were still in Tulsa for more reasons than one! Haning out at the kennel listening to dog stories and discussing theories was icing on the cake. Or perhaps more accurately, livin' on Tulsa Time was icing on the cake of being able to hang out at the kennel!

As for the stance, I think I got it...capturing it on "film" might be another issue!


----------



## Donna Kerr (May 19, 2003)

I think this tread is great! Thanks Sharon!

Here are two shots of my boy. I tried to get decent side shots but it is hard when you are by yourself and he wanted to come towards me. I baited him with mini-marshmallows in the stove rail and chair seat. He kept sitting down as he knows he doesn’t get a treat until he sits so the in the one pic his back legs look too far under him.

Anyway, I think he has pretty good angles. His rear could be better. He is a bit long in body but his stride is good, back foot goes over front foot with a slight overlap. His tail looks a bit low to me now too.


----------



## Fowl Play WA (Sep 16, 2008)

Donna Kerr said:


> I think this tread is great! Thanks Sharon!
> 
> He kept sitting down as he knows he doesn’t get a treat until he sits so the in the one pic his back legs look too far under him.


Mine are exactly the same way. They've always had to sit to get dinner, or treats, or love most of the time. Now they always sit.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Donna,

The angles, when taken have to be in proper stack position.
They can aslo be the correct degree of angle but in the wrong position. Take the front on your picture. The front leg should be right below the point on the shoulder blade. In this case the angle looks right but, the leg in this case is forward. And the rear is too hard to tell as stacked. See the yellow lab puppy. It is stacked pretty well. She looks like a very happy dog.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Speaking of foot fetish....Here's my bigfoot Panda as a puppy, LOL. One thing I noticed early about her, and her sire, who has the same kind of feet, is the nails wear very evenly and rarely ever need to be cut. Panda's mom doesn't have great feet, they're a little too splayed out and she's constantly breaking off or cracking nails. Plus, her nails grow really long if not trimmed regularly which she hates.

A houndsman educated me about good feet; as Sharon mentioned they have to absorb the shock of the whole body over all kinds of terrain. Good leg structure that will hold up well under the rigors of hunting, training or playing the games we do over the life of the dog starts with the feet.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Donna, love the marshmallows! 

He does look somewhat straight behind, at least from what I can see, but I think his tail is set just fine.

I took the liberty of drawing the angles over the ones you'd drawn...some were dead on, but you were off by just a little on a couple.


----------



## Donna Kerr (May 19, 2003)

Thanks Brandywine. I will try to get some help with the stacking and get a decent photo. Trying by myself just didn't work out well.


----------



## Donna Kerr (May 19, 2003)

Thanks Sharon, your lines helped a lot. I'll see what I can do to get him in the right stance. 

He will do just about anything for a mini-marsh!


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Finally, I got a picture of my dog standing.








It is by no means a correct stance, but I think it will do for evaluation. I might should have left off the red lines, as I am really not sure I am getting that right. I was just tracing along muscle line. My biggest concern is the rear structure. Even though he is fully muscled up, he still looks light in the back end to me. Also, I would say his top line is incorrect and tends to roach a bit. His feet Sharon,() are really tight and round, he has pebbles wedged between his back toes because he is fixing to launch forward at any moment. I threw in the head shot








because he was looking down in the other.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

His rear legs are actually fairly good - not great, but not poor, IMO - though he does look a little cowhocked or turned out at the feet, but that could be the picture....anyway..certainly could be a lot worse!

roach backed no - if he was roach backed he would be 'hunched' - or have an upward curvature of his spine....

Juli


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Thanks Juli. Yes he is a bit cow hocked, but interestingly he does track nearly perfectly now that he does not pace anymore. I thought the rise over his loin was considered a roach, maybe not? But I feel a lot better having someone tell me his hind legs are not too straight. As hard as he goes, I just hope he has what it takes to hold him altogether! Through my eyes, he is beautiful and perfect just the way he is.

Now I gotta get Ralph to post up one of Scout.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

2Tall, The rear might be a bit straight. To draw lines, you really have to feel where the joints are. Some are obvious. On the rear here, it looks to me that the femur connects to the pelvis just below midpoint of the line you drew. The tail set looks good and the front looks pretty good perhaps a bit short coupled. She might be a bit soft on the top line and straight in the rear. It is always hard to tell with pics though. Pretty head and expression.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

brandywinelabs said:


> 2Tall, The rear might be a bit straight. To draw lines, you really have to feel where the joints are. Some are obvious. On the rear here, *it looks to me that the femur connects to the pelvis just below midpoint of the line you drew.* The tail set looks good and the front looks pretty good perhaps a bit short coupled. She might be a bit soft on the top line and straight in the rear. It is always hard to tell with pics though. Pretty head and expression.


Now that you say it, I see it! LOL, I am easily swayed. But i really was just guesstimating on the lines. I can not feel the joints through the muscles. Thats why I said I probably would have been better off without attempting to draw what I think I see. I hate that he is looking down, he has a nice neck and head carriage.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/art/dict/roachbac.htm - a roach backed dog drawing

There is no doubt that Indy is somewhat straight in the rear - or lacking enough angulation...but it is not so bad that it should be a cause of concern. I have seen a LOT worse.....

Butch Goodwin once told me that some breeders of working GSP's and other bird dogs like to see dogs that are slightly cow hocked...supposedly to help keep their rear feet out of the way of their front feet when running...not sure as to the truth of that. I would prefer a square dog...

Juli


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

sky_view said:


> http://www.merriam-webster.com/art/dict/roachbac.htm - a roach backed dog drawing
> 
> There is no doubt that Indy is somewhat straight in the rear - or lacking enough angulation...but it is not so bad that it should be a cause of concern. I have seen a LOT worse.....
> 
> ...


If the dog is square(height and length) and has the proper angles, the front and rear feet should not have a problem. Only incorrect movement will cause the rear feet to have to get out of the way of the front or vice versa.


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

I would like to try and attempt an eval of Kona but first I need some clarification on something in the lab standard.

What is the true definition of short-coupled? I seem to get comflicting answers depending on who I am talking to


----------



## gsc (Oct 4, 2007)

I've never seen a dog run in the show ring. When a field dog is hauling butt, their hind legs will pass the front legs, often to the outside of them.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

A short coupled dog doesn't have a lot of extra space between the last rib and the pelvis. Of course, there has to be some  but it isn't to the extreme that other types of dog take it. A short coupled dog doesn't have the room for a true "tuck-up". For example, an English Pointer is longer through the coupling than a Lab...and clearly has more of a distinct tuck-up as well. The extra length gives more flexibility, but less power than a short coupling. So it's a trade-off, depending on the job the dog has to do.
Another way to look at it is to see the distance from the bottom of the withers to the edge of the loin where it meets the pelvis, and then compare that length to the underline of the dog from elbow to flank. A short coupled dog will usually have a shorter topline and a longer underline. 

A short coupled dog is a single cab, short bed truck, while a long coupled dog is a club cab long bed.  The front and back are the same...it's the stuff in the middle that is different.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

To add to the post about short coupled: A longer coupled dog cannot be made short coupled by adding weight and putting a pot belly where the tuck-up is.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

I'm a little confused on this short/long couple thing. Brandywine suggested that my dog might be a bit short coupled, but I see that he has a "tuck up" that probably would be unacceptable for the standard. How can he be both?

Is short coupled a fault for a lab? Is Indy short coupled?


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

Ok so when I look at Kona, I see a great topline, good tail and fairly good angles. BUT he does not look short coupled to me I guess. Maybe it's his height. The dogs I generally see in ring ( which to be honest i don't care for ) are very square. Short and stubby I call it but I have heard breeders say that is short coupled. Is that a correct assumption? I don't think I could ever be a judge. Too confusing for me


----------



## RemsBPJasper (Apr 25, 2005)

Kona looks like more long to me vs short coupled...

I actually can't wait to see Kona when he's matured.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

2tall, here's the picture rotated and with my lines drawn in addition to yours. I see a dog that is very square. That said, I wouldn't want to see it any taller as opposed to length. I think the stance, with all four legs stood under the body and not "stacked" makes a difference as well. The tuck-up is so slight that it's not a factor...the hollowness in the flanks makes it look more obvious than it is. 

Stance is important, especially in the ring...because a skillful handler knows their dog's strengths and weaknesses and will stack the dog to enhance one and make the other less obvious.










The trick about seeing bone structure, or at least making an educated guess at it since we aren't seeing X-ray views  is to be able to see it whether the animal is "posed" or not. That just takes practice, plus really knowing how the bones and muscles fit together so you're not using muscle lines instead of skeletal structure.

Compared to horses, dogs are harder in one way: puppies are furry little fatballs. Foals, on the other hand, are all bones and sinew (right, JulieR?  ), and you can see everything. The structure is not dissimilar, and I learned on horses before dogs. That made it easier to know how the bones arrange underneath everything.


----------



## mikeller3 (Jan 30, 2009)

Sharon,
This type of info is exactly why I joined this forum. I love the diagrams! I love the fact that you are taking time out of your busy schedule to help teach us. I am not involved with confirmation events, however I have run 2 good dogs to the senior level of hunt tests. I only wish that some of the "experenced" retriever trainers and the "pro's" that run all the alphabet title giving events would help some of us "greenhorn" "newbie's" with such great info when we ask a question instead of rambling about how great they are or give a big long political answer that doesn't say anything. *THIS DOES NOT APPLY TO EVERYONE.* so please everyone, don't send any hate-mail my way.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Kona's mom, you will rarely if ever see a square dog (Lab) in the ring. They tend toward long and low, and generally are quite a bit longer than tall and don't measure anywhere close to square. There are exceptions, I'm glad to see...but they're the true moderate dogs. Be careful to not confuse stocky with square. Stocky usually has more to do with short legs and a long body filled in with extra weight. If you measure from the top of the withers straight to the ground, and compare that measurement with the point of the shoulder to the point of the buttock, they should be close to even, or the horizontal measurement slightly longer...never the other way around.

And then measure from the elbow to the ground, and then from the elbow to the top of the withers. The two should match. Have fun with that one! 

Kona looks young?....and is pretty leggy looking. I don't see a problem with the coupling as much as just too much length of leg at this point and needing more muscle/condition.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

mikeller3, I'm glad you're enjoying it.  Just remember...it's my opinions, based on a lifetime study of working structure and compared to the breed standards...and has little to do with any kind of dog shows.

And comparatively this structure stuff can be taught easily by visuals, while you can't train a dog over the internet. It's very hard...no, make that next to impossible... to give sound training advice without seeing the dog and the handler and the situation (because you rarely ever get the full story)...and I can sympathize with the pros who've gotten frustrated with it. I deal with training questions on a pointing dog forum I help moderate, and let me tell you, it can get very frustrating at times. Sometimes it's easier to throw up your hands and walk away from the keyboard on the training stuff.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Sharon, 
Great explanations.
Time to go and Force Fetch.

Greg


----------



## Sally Berry (Nov 11, 2007)

I think I've finally figured out how to post pictures. I've been following this thread and been SO frustrated that I couldn't contribute. The pups in the pictures are 7.5 weeks (now 19 weeks) and are littermates.

Dash









Chili









Jazz









I would like to hear what others have to say before posting my own comments.


----------



## Juli H (Aug 27, 2007)

they all look very nice - have to say the third one is my favorite.....but they do look very uniform


----------



## Jo Ann Reynolds (Jul 2, 2007)

Here are pictures of my two hooligans, Diana, 5 yrs, and Pete 14 months. Sorry the quality is so poor, it's just a $20 cheapo digital camera from WalMart. 

Diana is below standard (20") but well balanced. Front feet toe out and are a bit long, tuck up a bit too pronounced perhaps, top line pretty good, tail a bit hard to see but nice and thick but not straight always carries with a bit of curl. Well muscled, ribs well sprung but chest not too deep, head planes good. Ears well set. A bit straight in the shoulder. Very pretty face. Nice coat, coarse with good undercoat. Front and rear angles look pretty good to me.

Some things you can't see in pictures or the show ring, very stubborn, hard to train, her way or the highway, very birdy, excellent upland hunter, passable duck dog but way to high on birds to be very steady. Very good in the obedience ring, however. Great marker, too headstrong on blinds.










To me, Pete looks like he was put together by committee. None of his parts seem to fit together well. Maybe it's just his age, didn't someone say recently that they hide their boys away until they are two or three? Nice rear and nice head but not so nice front end arrangement, seems too small for the rest of him. Feet are nice and tight although front looks a big long because it's turned toward camera slightly. A bit long in the body. Topline slopes the wrong way. Looks worse in this picture than in reality, just could not get him to stand properly facing forward. Front and rear angles out of sync because front legs too short. Doesn't seem to have grown in to his head, yet. Finally growing in to his tail which is pretty thick and straight. Chest not too deep. Bit too much of a tuck up. He is well muscled but I keep him thin. Nice planes in the head but muzzle a bit large. He can really move and just floats over the ground and can jump straight up from a standstill. I swear he is part flea. Coat too smooth and fine with practically no undercoat, more pointer like than lab like. He is much more handsome in person than in his picture. 

And some things you can't see in the picture or in the show ring great personality, very biddable, learns quickly and wants to please. Very birdy, Points and hold it fairly well. Great marker, looking like he'll run as hard on blinds as his marks. Excellent in the obedience ring, might be OTCH material.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Here's a few of my "bottle babies" out of a "tweener" sire and a show type dam. Sorry for the picture and stacking quality, new camera, new puppies, and never tried doing this with youngsters before.The pups are 8 wks old today, and all are fat and sassy!


----------



## SloppyMouth (Mar 25, 2005)

all these puppy pics make me want to get another one!!!


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Sally, I like the top pup. Shorter backed, lengths on the front shoulder are more even and correct. Of the front shoulders, # 2 is straighter and # 3 is short on the bottom angle. You could send me Dash. Pretty pup!


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Kona's mom, you will rarely if ever see a square dog (Lab) in the ring. They tend toward long and low, and generally are quite a bit longer than tall and don't measure anywhere close to square. There are exceptions, I'm glad to see...but they're the true moderate dogs. Be careful to not confuse stocky with square. Stocky usually has more to do with short legs and a long body filled in with extra weight. If you measure from the top of the withers straight to the ground, and compare that measurement with the point of the shoulder to the point of the buttock, they should be close to even, or the horizontal measurement slightly longer...never the other way around.
> 
> And then measure from the elbow to the ground, and then from the elbow to the top of the withers. The two should match. Have fun with that one!
> 
> Kona looks young?....and is pretty leggy looking. I don't see a problem with the coupling as much as just too much length of leg at this point and needing more muscle/condition.


Kona turns 10 months today.I did the measuring and it's pretty even. I am hoping that once he fills out the legginess will disappear. Hopefully now that we have started field training he will bulk up muscle wise


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Jo Anne,
I like the classic head of the younger dog. Real Nice. Pretty much agree with everything else.


----------



## brandywinelabs (May 21, 2008)

Firehouse,
The top choc definately got the show lines in the conformation. The top 2 look soft in the topline. That could be because they are not quite stretched enough. Aren't puppies fun? The bottom choc has the best topline. But the front legs are set too far forward.
The yellow and top choc have the more correct fronts.


----------



## Jo Ann Reynolds (Jul 2, 2007)

brandywinelabs said:


> Jo Anne,
> I like the classic head of the younger dog. Real Nice. Pretty much agree with everything else.


Thanks, brandywinelabs, it's his best feature, at least right now, otherwise he's just a homely, awkard teenager. I'm going to try for better shots this weekend when I can get some help with posing.


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

The dark Firehouse pups are BLACK not chocolate. Told ya it's a new camera! One of these days I'll figure out how the use the darn thing! The first pup is built like a square brick on legs. He is just wide as he is deep, and almost as he is long! The other black is a longer backed female, she is built just like her daddy was when he was a pup and he is a very heavy boned, extra large 115lb male. The yellow is my favorite, my son picked her out on his birthday to "replace" the mother that died, so she is HIS dog. The last black "Duece" is my pick for running in hunt tests. If she pans out and passes all her clearances, she MAY be kept back for breeding.


----------



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Pretty close to 90 degrees, yes. That would be the ideal.
> 
> What's really fun to do is to get a cattle marker or chalk, and draw the angles on a real dog. When you see them on a live dog and see the movement...even though the skin and muscle covers up the full range of motion the joints are doing, you still get to see it live. A cattle marker works great....but removing it is not so great. Chalk doesn't show up as well, but brushes or washes off easily.


Okay, I'm confused. The drawing shows a line through the middle of the scapula but the line doesn't go through the middle of the upper arm bone nor follow the upper arm bone angulation. 

Can you explain how the tendons and muscles attach to each bone and why your lines of angulation don't follow the middle of the upper arm bone?

Thanks, Sharon! Appreciate your hard work.


----------



## Tollwest (Oct 22, 2008)

There is a really nice litle PDF article on evaluating structure that some of you may want to read!

http://www.dragonflyllama.com/%20DOGS/Writing/structure.pdf


----------



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

Tollwest said:


> There is a really nice litle PDF article on evaluating structure that some of you may want to read!
> 
> http://www.dragonflyllama.com/%20DOGS/Writing/structure.pdf


Terriers are different from retrievers. A terrier should have a straighter front because a terrier's mission in life is to dig for vermin. As such, he should have front legs that actually have less stride and more lift. A terrier's mission isn't to run/lope all day. His mission is to dig. That is why terriers can have have lesser angle degree between shoulder blade and upper arm bone and have a shorter upper arm bone. A terriers mission, unless it is an Airedale Terrier, is to dig or support other hunting dogs, not run 8 hours a day as the primary find, flush, retrieve bird dog.

A terrier should have a way different shoulder set from a bird dog.

Janean Marti


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

kindakinky said:


> Okay, I'm confused. The drawing shows a line through the middle of the scapula but the line doesn't go through the middle of the upper arm bone nor follow the upper arm bone angulation.
> 
> Can you explain how the tendons and muscles attach to each bone and why your lines of angulation don't follow the middle of the upper arm bone?
> 
> Thanks, Sharon! Appreciate your hard work.



When I draw the lines when teaching, I like to use points of reference that can be felt and easily found. The elbow is easy to palpate and find, as is the proximal end of the humerus (point of the shoulder), while the distal end of the humerus is tougher to accurately pinpoint visually. So...by drawing lines from points we can easily identify, we can get a pretty good feel for the angles. If the line from the withers to point of shoulder, and from there to elbow make an approximate 90 degree angle, the upper arm is in the right spot. Just easier to measure.

Oh my....detailing the attachment of all the ligaments and tendons is almost a textbook in itself. It would take me a week to write it all down. Suffice it to say that in the front, especially the shoulders, they're very important because of how and what they have to hold together, unlike any of the other muscles groups on the body.
Extra credit points to anyone who comes up with the right answer  (no fair for DVMs to play)


----------



## Tollwest (Oct 22, 2008)

Nowhere does the article say retrievers should look like terriers! The breed in the diagrams is irrelevant to the article - it is showing you how to look at a dog and see the structure, and how that structure affects movement. It is not telling you all dogs should have angles like schnauzers. But it may help a few beginners learn to recognize some common faults etc


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Tollwest said:


> There is a really nice litle PDF article on evaluating structure that some of you may want to read!
> 
> http://www.dragonflyllama.com/%20DOGS/Writing/structure.pdf


I had high hopes when I opened it...but quit reading when they stated that, viewed from the front, the shoulder blades go out around the heart and connect to the elbows. That would be one funky moving dog, missing two kinda important bones. ;-)

Edited to add: OK, it's like a car wreck...I just had to go back and look again. This is not a resource I would recommend...way too much misinformation and error after error. There are a lot of good books and info on this subject...but that particular PDF isn't one of them.


----------



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

I've shaded in the upper arm bone in Sharon's provided diagram while saving Sharon's diagonal lines for angulation. The Lab standard states the shoulder blade and upper arm bone should form a 90 degree angle. 

I fail to understand how the shaded upper arm bone in this example meets the stated 90-degree angle between shoulder blade and upper arm bone and, 2. places the upper arm bone beneath the withers.

Whether it is based on the feel of the bones or whatever, I believe this historical myth of 90 degree angulation in dogs is just that: a myth.

Some of the problem is understanding lie-in of the shoulder blade which means where the shoulder blade is placed on the body. If shoulder blade is placed too far back, the dog will likely be pigeon-breasted. If too far forward, the dog will likely have shoulders blades right under his ears. But if the upper arm bone must form a 90-degree angle with the shoulder blade and also be of about equal length, you will also get pigeon-breasted dogs because the upper arm bone will be angled way, way back. 

Sorry, but I'm with Rachel Page Eliot and DeGroot on this one. Asking for a 90-degree angulation between shoulder blade and upper arm bone would require dogs who were very long in body compared to height.

You mileage may vary

By asking for 90-degree shoulder/upper arm bone angles, you also must ask for a dog with length of body to accommodate those angles. That means a longer body. 













Sharon Potter said:


> When I draw the lines when teaching, I like to use points of reference that can be felt and easily found. The elbow is easy to palpate and find, as is the proximal end of the humerus (point of the shoulder), while the distal end of the humerus is tougher to accurately pinpoint visually. So...by drawing lines from points we can easily identify, we can get a pretty good feel for the angles. If the line from the withers to point of shoulder, and from there to elbow make an approximate 90 degree angle, the upper arm is in the right spot. Just easier to measure.
> 
> Oh my....detailing the attachment of all the ligaments and tendons is almost a textbook in itself. It would take me a week to write it all down. Suffice it to say that in the front, especially the shoulders, they're very important because of how and what they have to hold together, unlike any of the other muscles groups on the body.
> Extra credit points to anyone who comes up with the right answer  (no fair for DVMs to play)


----------



## kindakinky (Dec 11, 2008)

Tollwest said:


> Nowhere does the article say retrievers should look like terriers! The breed in the diagrams is irrelevant to the article - it is showing you how to look at a dog and see the structure, and how that structure affects movement. It is not telling you all dogs should have angles like schnauzers. But it may help a few beginners learn to recognize some common faults etc


A racing greyhound will have a huge deep chest to breath in great gulps of air as it rounds the track. A Dachshund will have a low, long body to squirrel into a hole in the earth. While they both have deep chests, the body supporting the huge, deep chests are different. The rib cages are different.

I'm glad you found diagrams that speak to your version of a dog. Other people will have different versions. If all dog structure was the same, and all dog breeds were required to have the same movement and angles, it would be easy. 

I'm glad you found your starting point. For some of us, greyhounds are way different from Dachshunds, even if both breeds require deep chests. For some of us, the structure widely varies. I'm happy you have found your internet mentor. Good for you!


----------



## Els (Feb 21, 2009)

What a great topic, I just joined to that I could participate and post some pictures. Thanks Sharon for this subject.

I had some good pictures readily available of this chocolate girl. The part of her that I don't like is her upper arm. It does not have the proper angle. She moves however pretty decent.

Els


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

This is a great thread from 2009 .....


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Think anyone is interested in continuing it?


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Here is my girl Teagan at 1 yr.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

AllAroundLab said:


> Think anyone is interested in continuing it?


I think it's a great idea, it is educational, but the problem is sometimes these things get ugly whether publicly or via PMs. I would say anyone is free to continue the subject, but my guess is Sharon is a little busy right now (think she is on her winter trip if memory serves me correctly), so someone else with conformation knowledge will have to do the evaluations.


----------



## Codatango (Aug 2, 2009)

What a great topic, I just joined to that I could participate and post some pictures. Thanks Sharon for this subject.

I had some good pictures readily available of this chocolate girl. The part of her that I don't like is her upper arm. It does not have the proper angle. She moves however pretty decent.

Els
Attached Thumbnails

The leash in the stacked picture should be up around the neck - unless the handler really want the judge to ignore the shoulders, of course. At least it makes me have to look harder at how the dog is put together in that area!

Debbie Tandoc


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Codatango said:


> The leash in the stacked picture should be up around the neck - unless the handler really want the judge to ignore the shoulders, of course. At least it makes me have to look harder at how the dog is put together in that area!
> 
> Debbie Tandoc


Is your breed Goldens? I've never seen a Golden handled with the lead that way, but I have seen many labs free stacked with the lead down around the shoulders. It seems to be something that appeals more to lab breeder judges than all-breed judges. Have heard that it is tricky to do it right, so that it doesn't detract from the look of the shoulder.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Wow...thanks for thinking of me and resurrecting this old thread! I am indeed on my "winter sabbatical"...which is where I was when this thread got started a few years ago. When I'm not out training down here, I have not much else to do but play on the 'puter. 

The original goal of this thread wasn't to have me continue to critique...it was to look at the first pics and info, and then try to use that and critique your own. I can let you know my thoughts on said critiques and help along the way.

And please, as mentioned several times here....I'm evaluating working dog structure for the field, not the show ring. 

Have fun. I'll check back and see how you're doing.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

From a Pat Hasting seminar - evaluate at 8 weeks, then shut your eyes for a couple of years. Before and after 8 weeks things are growing at different paces and get out of balance, but 8 weeks is the closest to how all the parts will come together at maturity.


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

Ok I am playing. First pic is Kona when he got back from being on pro truck and weighed 65 pounds. 2nd is at the LRC National a few months later and he weighed around 70. I know he does not have enough "substance" for most show judges but I am more concerned about an eval when it comes to working!


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

RaeganW said:


> From a Pat Hasting seminar - evaluate at 8 weeks, then shut your eyes for a couple of years. Before and after 8 weeks things are growing at different paces and get out of balance, but 8 weeks is the closest to how all the parts will come together at maturity.


Kim, I bought the Pat Hastings video "Puppy Puzzle" last year...I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in improving working structure for soundness in a breeding program and help with selecting puppies. Money well spent. There was a seminar locally that I wanted to attend, but had a conflict. I hope to go to a seminar in the future. I selected two of my Boykins pups with added knowledge learned from the video. I have not been disappointed so far with how the pups have matured structure-wise. The most amazing trick was putting the pups on a table and looking at the puppies reflection in a mirror. So simple...I would never have guessed.


----------



## pixiebee (Mar 29, 2009)

Can you evaluate GSPs?
I would give it a try but I'm hopeless.





















Thanks
Francine


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> From a Pat Hasting seminar - evaluate at 8 weeks, then shut your eyes for a couple of years. Before and after 8 weeks things are growing at different paces and get out of balance, but 8 weeks is the closest to how all the parts will come together at maturity.


I find at 8 wks, my fronts start to change/grow and shoulders can go a little upright for a day or 2, so I've decided 7.5 wks has been most ideal. 7 wks isn't usually too bad either and it gives them the experience of being handled in a different way (my vet appreciates that too!).

I do like 8 wks to check for hock stability though.

Now to decide on my current litter which was born 3-4 days early. I'll have a GR breeder friend come over on Sunday (they'll be a couple days over 7.5 wks then) to help w/ evals and photos. I've already done one casual eval in front of the mirror at 6.5 wks and this litter is more "together" looking at that age than I ever remember any others, so it's kind of odd! I usually don't have decent leg length or rear angles at that age, but these pups looked nice (and dare I say, the boys already seemed to have their parts down too!).


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Rainmaker said:


> Top pup will be 8 weeks tomorrow, bottom pup 7 weeks. I can tell they have straight tails, nice coats, and otherwise, look like puppies.


I'm going to go by the first photo and I'm no expert by a long shot...

This puppy is taller then he is long, though he has a good length of loin. You want to have as close to a square puppy as possible. The second thigh is weak along with the front. Fronts are the toughest to improve on and or to get. His rear weak. His angles are rather straight in the front though not bad in the back. His neck is a tad bit too long and set high on the shoulder.


Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Pat Hastings is the bomb. I know when I was the president of the Dallas lab club the board talked about getting her in for a seminar.

Angie


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Rainmaker said:


> Top pup will be 8 weeks tomorrow, bottom pup 7 weeks. I can tell they have straight tails, nice coats, and otherwise, look like puppies.


Agree that the top one is a bit square, but... mine TEND to elongate as they mature so take it FWIW. The "stacks" aren't great but I'd have to ask--- how do they move? To me, if a square puppy can move fluidly, you've got something..... usually it's the longer than tall ones that really cover the ground the best, esp if your fronts aren't QUITE in sync w/ rears.


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Well, if we are supposed to critique our own dog. I think she has good rear angles, but question whether her front assembly is set on too far forward. She doesn't have much forechest to stabilize her front. The shading on her coat is a little misleading, her shoulder is up under the ruff of hair that looks like neck. Wondering if this is making it difficult for her to raise her head high for extended periods of time (to be at attention while heeling for OB trialing). I don't want to demand something she cannot do. Anyway, amount of substance looks right for a working retriever, and slightly longer than tall. Perhaps her muzzle could be a longer, I can't decide whether, under the standard, it should be a little longer? Seems like longer muzzled dogs can breath more easily when working.

Interesting, she has a coat whorl on her neck just like Kona.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Rainmaker said:


> After I looked at it, I thought it looked wierd, he's a longer bodied puppy, must be the angle of the photo. It was pretty much a useless exercise trying to have Mike "stack" him, he kept turning him towards me or luring him away, very helpful. Being a man & all, doesn't take direction too well. I tried holding him while Mike took photos, he'd whistle so pup would look at him & move, "because it's cuter that way". When I downloaded, they were all headshots. I have to stick to field, took 13 years to get him shaped up as a bird boy, I don't have the patience to teach him new skills.


Kim the first puppy isn't _that_ bad. You do have something to build on. Now you just need to edumacate yourself on the show side of things so you can build "the" perfect dog...

It's a lot of fun,,, and time. pedigree's will make your head swim,,, but what else do you have to do in the "great nort, aey??" This time of year...

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Ann,,, Square is in... 

Now having said that,,, movement and having a "showy" dog will win hands down more times then not. Though the handler at the end of the leash helps every once in a while..

Angie


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

This topic needs more GDG.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

kjrice said:


> This topic needs more GDG.


Bring on the neophites.. 

Angie


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

windycanyon said:


> Agree that the top one is a bit square, but... mine TEND to elongate as they mature so take it FWIW. The "stacks" aren't great but I'd have to ask--- how do they move? To me, if a square puppy can move fluidly, you've got something..... usually it's the longer than tall ones that really cover the ground the best, esp if your fronts aren't QUITE in sync w/ rears.


Most breeds want a dog slightly longer than tall, 10:9 is a common ratio. Some standards ask for a square dog, but that isn't really what they want; often it comes out of the whackadoodle Victorian fanciers. The Tibetan Terrier standard asks for a square dog - measured from sternum to base of tail! 

A truly square dog, a dog that is as long as tall, will have their rear paw touch or pass their front paw when under the body at a trot. A longer than tall dog will not. In this way, a slightly longer than tall dog is more sound, they can be less than perfectly coordinated and not trip. Two breeds that come the closest to square are Brittanys and Dobermans.

Look for dogs that trot easily and in straight lines, and stop square "with a paw at each corner." My Schnauzer is a terribly put together dog. When he trots, he crabs. His body is pointed about 15* off the direction of travel. When he stops, he almost always has one rear leg pulled forward for balance.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

pixiebee said:


> Can you evaluate GSPs?
> I would give it a try but I'm hopeless.
> 
> 
> ...


No.... Sorry.

Angie


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Bring on the neophites..
> 
> Angie


Plenty of that going on these days.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

kona's mom said:


> Ok I am playing. First pic is Kona when he got back from being on pro truck and weighed 65 pounds. 2nd is at the LRC National a few months later and he weighed around 70. I know he does not have enough "substance" for most show judges but I am more concerned about an eval when it comes to working!


He was on a pro truck?? Who's??

Ok,, Get a glass of wine cause it doesn't look good..

He's longer then he's tall, totally lacking in bone and coat. His rear and front are both very weak. His angles are marginal at best. I can barely see a second thigh. His shoulder "lay on" is not that great and his ears are rather small.

But he's adorable... I always thought he was cute. I bet he moves like a dream.

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

kjrice said:


> Plenty of that going on these days.


So I see.. Many more then I was doing the house cleaning around here. Bone weary of the bunch I am.

Angie


----------



## kjrice (May 19, 2003)

Angie B said:


> So I see.. Many more then I was doing the house cleaning around here. Bone weary of the bunch I am.
> 
> Angie


Are you speaking in tongues?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

RaeganW said:


> Most breeds want a dog slightly longer than tall, 10:9 is a common ratio. Some standards ask for a square dog, but that isn't really what they want; often it comes out of the whackadoodle Victorian fanciers. The Tibetan Terrier standard asks for a square dog - measured from sternum to base of tail!
> 
> A truly square dog, a dog that is as long as tall, will have their rear paw touch or pass their front paw when under the body at a trot. A longer than tall dog will not. In this way, a slightly longer than tall dog is more sound, they can be less than perfectly coordinated and not trip. Two breeds that come the closest to square are Brittanys and Dobermans.
> 
> Look for dogs that trot easily and in straight lines, and stop square "with a paw at each corner." My Schnauzer is a terribly put together dog. When he trots, he crabs. His body is pointed about 15* off the direction of travel. When he stops, he almost always has one rear leg pulled forward for balance.


Sister you don't know labradors.... Not in the breed ring anyway... And I'm not talking specials...

Angie


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Angie B said:


> He was on a pro truck?? Who's??
> 
> Ok,, Get a glass of wine cause it doesn't look good..
> 
> ...


Do you have a picture of a dog that has a good second thigh?


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

kjrice said:


> Are you speaking in tongues?


To the few, not at all... To the many YES!!

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

RaeganW said:


> Do you have a picture of a dog that has a good second thigh?


Yes,,, I can get that. Do you?? I mean, you show me yours, I'll show you mine...

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

RaeganW said:


> Do you have a picture of a dog that has a good second thigh?


Also Kona's rear is weak which goes along with his week second thigh, which match's his weak front,,, blah, blah, blah...

Angie


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Angie B said:


> Sister you don't know labradors.... Not in the breed ring anyway... And I'm not talking specials...
> 
> Angie


Aw, come on Angie! ;-)

We're not REALLY talking the BREED ring here. I was talking what was *correct* under breed standard, and I think was what Sharon intended too, when posting this. Not the normal breed OR specialty winners of today. I've not seen many that really moved like a Lab should move, anyhow. Sorry to the breed fanciers, but that's JMO. 

I'd like to roll the calendars back 20 yrs personally.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Angie B said:


> Yes,,, I can get that. Do you?? I mean, you show me yours, I'll show you mine...
> 
> Also Kona's rear is weak which goes along with his week second thigh, which match's his weak front,,, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> Angie


I don't understand what you're asking? I've heard of dogs that have "needle thighs," but that has always referred to the upper thigh only. I don't know what you mean by "he has a poor second thigh." I would like to see what you consider a good second thigh to compare.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

frontier said:


> Kim, I bought the Pat Hastings video "Puppy Puzzle" last year...I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in improving working structure for soundness in a breeding program and help with selecting puppies. Money well spent. There was a seminar locally that I wanted to attend, but had a conflict. I hope to go to a seminar in the future. I selected two of my Boykins pups with added knowledge learned from the video. I have not been disappointed so far with how the pups have matured structure-wise. The most amazing trick was putting the pups on a table and looking at the puppies reflection in a mirror. So simple...I would never have guessed.


Thanks, Terrie.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

windycanyon said:


> Aw, come on Angie! ;-)
> 
> We're not REALLY talking the BREED ring here. I was talking what was *correct* under breed standard, and I think was what Sharon intended too, when posting this. Not the normal breed OR specialty winners of today. I've not seen many that really moved like a Lab should move, anyhow. Sorry to the breed fanciers, but that's JMO.
> 
> I'd like to roll the calendars back 20 yrs personally.


That's what I thought too, we're doing structure on this thread, not what wins in the ring? Sorta why I asked, because I know they can be two very different things, in Labs especially. ;-)


----------



## PocketLab (Apr 23, 2010)

Rainmaker said:


> Top pup will be 8 weeks tomorrow, bottom pup 7 weeks. I can tell they have straight tails, nice coats, and otherwise, look like puppies.


Kim, in my expert opinion, neither of those pups will be suitable for your purposes. But you are in luck, I'm a giver. Send them to me. I'm sure I can find something to do with them.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Rainmaker said:


> After I looked at it, I thought it looked wierd, he's a longer bodied puppy, must be the angle of the photo. It was pretty much a useless exercise trying to have Mike "stack" him, he kept turning him towards me or luring him away, very helpful. Being a man & all, doesn't take direction too well. I tried holding him while Mike took photos, he'd whistle so pup would look at him & move, "because it's cuter that way". When I downloaded, they were all headshots. I have to stick to field, took 13 years to get him shaped up as a bird boy, I don't have the patience to teach him new skills.


Haha, I have experienced this with my hubby- I have finally taught him to just use the action setting on the camera and hold the button down for continuous pics while I attempt to pose the puppy.... no room for creative interpretation that way


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Also, how are you measuring square? Because if you're measuring withers to floor, sternum to ipschium, there is no way Labradors are square.

These are four of the top five Labradors (according to http://www.dmcg.com/CurrentBreed.asp) The each dog's two red lines are the exact same length. The measuring is rough, but clearly, none of these dogs are even close to being square.


----------



## PocketLab (Apr 23, 2010)

Rainmaker said:


> LOL, I think the little biscuit eater in the top pic can hang out for a while longer, he's been on the wish list for a bit. The other one's litter goes home this weekend.


I like him too. Very nice, no matter what the protractor says...


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

RaeganW said:


> Because if you're measuring withers to floor, sternum to ipschium...


You're not. From the standard... "length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground."


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

RaeganW said:


> Also, how are you measuring square? Because if you're measuring withers to floor, sternum to ipschium, there is no way Labradors are square.
> 
> These are four of the top five Labradors (according to http://www.dmcg.com/CurrentBreed.asp) The each dog's two red lines are the exact same length. The measuring is rough, but clearly, none of these dogs are even close to being square.



Wow, just Wow. If those are the top Labradors, I don't even want to admit I own one. This is just painful to look at.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Nicole said:


> You're not. From the standard... "length from the point of the shoulder to the point of the rump is equal to or slightly longer than the distance from the withers to the ground."


The ipschium is the point of rump. It's the point of the pelvis past the tail.

EDIT: Unless you're calling the point of the hip bones in front of the tail the point of rump. In which case the dogs pictured are "square." But that's a dumb way to measure, and I suspect it's because whoever was writing the standard in the first place wanted the Labrador to be a square dog, because squares are more perfect than rectangles. That sort of thing was very common when the standards were being written. That's forcing your data to fit your conclusion.


----------



## Nicole (Jul 8, 2007)

The ischium, not ipschium, isn't where youre wrong, it's in the front. You measure from point of shoulder, not prosternum.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Thanks for the spelling correction, I _always_ get that wrong. 


EDIT: OHHH, sorry, I misread your post. I contend that Prosternum vs Point of shoulder won't make a huge difference, but it does bring the dogs closer to square. I think if you watch the dogs trot, you'll see they cannot possibly be square in proportion. 

I will admit it is hard to judge anything about those corpulent dogs. Take heart in knowing these are heavily campaigned dogs that win as much on backing as looks. Most dogs you see at your local conformation show are not this bad.


----------



## AGirlAndHerDog (Nov 13, 2011)

2tall said:


> Wow, just Wow. If those are the top Labradors, I don't even want to admit I own one. This is just painful to look at.


I don't normally look down on the show dogs, but with those pictures I'm going to have to agree with you. The top left black looks just.. wow. I can't even call that stocky. The top right is pretty bad, too. The bottom ones could use some work and aren't _that_ bad in my eyes, but definitely not great. 

That top left though.. Holy Moly. If my girl is overweight, what the heck is that one?

Also, this thread is awesome. It's definitely given me something to do with Nilla when I get home. I've always thought she looks nicely put together, but now I'm going to put her to the test.


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

Here's a video of a good friend's dalmation (note he had mild case of limber tail too) - I saw this puppy at 9 weeks old and he had gorgeous structure. He is approximately 2 years old now and finished his championship quickly and is a beautiful adult with same structure and movement. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn1A9FFvmSY


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Rainmaker said:


> Can we please NOT turn this thread into a bench bashing? That wasn't the point at all and there's plenty of past threads on that should anyone want to go there. It is only evaluating structure of our own dogs. Good, bad or ugly, it is simply structure, so people can learn or see what others are seeing about angles & such. It wasn't supposed to be anything about what is winning in the ring, period.


Thankyou!!! and PLEASE!!! let's not ruin this thread too!!


----------



## pixiebee (Mar 29, 2009)

http://www.nimloth.com/labtype.pdf


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

windycanyon said:


> Aw, come on Angie! ;-)
> 
> We're not REALLY talking the BREED ring here. I was talking what was *correct* under breed standard, and I think was what Sharon intended too, when posting this. Not the normal breed OR specialty winners of today. I've not seen many that really moved like a Lab should move, anyhow. Sorry to the breed fanciers, but that's JMO.
> 
> I'd like to roll the calendars back 20 yrs personally.


There just isn't the perfect dog is there... 

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

the second thigh=lower thigh

It's a term that's always been used with the group that mentored me. 

Angie


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Great thread!!! I'm dabbling in the conformation world(AKA--Foo Foo) with the shorties--it's been interesting to say the least. Love the pictures and examples.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

That Nimloth article eludes to differences in hunting that influence the conformation in the breed. Since the majority of us produce dogs for upland involving sprinting and also waterfowling, our dogs are supposedly the norm or as she terms it the "drag of the breed"; so in fact, we do not want the squareness but rather the body that has adapted to that function of sprinting. "The "generic" dog is somewhat longer than tall, with more length and flexibility in the loin for running instead of swimming." The Labrador field puppies at 8 weeks look different than they do when they are muscled out when older. They look immature and I know they change with muscle. All I know is I want to produce a dog that will hold up in the field-that is my intention, healthy dogs that can continue to hunt after their 1st decade.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Regarding squareness: Measure from the point of the shoulder to the point of the hip (back edge of pelvis, the point of the rear end that is furthest back), and then from the top of the withers (right where the neck ends) to the ground. Back when I was judging hounds, we judges had to carry a tape measure and actually measure the dogs on the bench. Looks can be deceiving, but the tape doesn't lie...and you can't stack a dog to cover it up either.

It is better to have a dog *slightly* longer than tall. That allows for better movement. The problem comes in when I see dogs that are several inches out of square. In many cases, the dogs that are quite a bit longer than they are tall also have short legs. Measure from the elbow to the top of the withers/shoulders, and from the elbow to the ground. It should be very close to the same measurement.

If you go back to the pics Raegan posted (post #198), while the placement of the horizontal line isn't correct...it's at the breastbone rather than point of shoulder...those dogs are still far too much longer than they are tall. Also, bitches tend to be slightly longer than dogs....gives room to carry pups.

And another thing that jumped out at me in those pics....if you look at the yellow dog, check out the hocks. This is a great example of over-angulation (NOT good), and the resulting flat feet. It's something I have yet to see in a field-bred dog, but is becoming more common in show dogs, since it leads to that prancy but non-functional movement some judges seem to favor.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

2tall said:


> Wow, just Wow. If those are the top Labradors, I don't even want to admit I own one. This is just painful to look at.


Let's keep this thread productive...we all have our opinions about this, but let's keep this educational!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

kona's mom said:


> Ok I am playing. First pic is Kona when he got back from being on pro truck and weighed 65 pounds. 2nd is at the LRC National a few months later and he weighed around 70. I know he does not have enough "substance" for most show judges but I am more concerned about an eval when it comes to working!


Here are my thoughts: First, while the back end does seem weak and short...no length to the croup, stifle set too far back because of the lack of length in the hindquarter assembly...from the hocks down I like what I see. Nice tight feet and the dog is up on them rather than dropped down...good!! As Angie said, there could be more coat....but I'd rather not see it go to the extreme end either. Too much is even worse than not quite enough. Head is fine by me, but the neck ties in a bit low and has a heavier underline than topline to it, and the front legs are set on too far forward. There should be some chest out in front.

Another good point: Note how the underline nicely reaches the elbows, as opposed to hanging well below.

The dog has good balance between its body type and the amount of bone it carries...meaning its legs match its body, in substance.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

FOM said:


> Let's keep this thread productive...we all have our opinions about this, but let's keep this educational!


What Lainee said. If this thread starts to take a nosedive, I'll delete it myself.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Kim, one thing I see common to both of your pups is the possibility of a weaker underline. Go back to my post #45 and look at those skeletal diagrams. The fuller/longer skeleton is what you want esp if you have the dog w/ a great water entry (and you don't always know what's down there). The herring gut dog (shorter rib cage than desired) isn't going to give you the protection for the internal organs you want in the water.

I can tell a lot about this just by picking up my puppies from underneath (cupping their chests in my hand). I like a fuller feeling. The herring gutted ones aren't going to fill the palm like the others will. The herring gutted pup is likely to be at higher risk of bloat/torsion also.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

pixiebee said:


> Can you evaluate GSPs?
> I would give it a try but I'm hopeless.
> 
> 
> ...


Francine, the first photo is at an odd angle, so hard to see much. The second photo is easier to see, and of course with the dog stacked. Nice working dog topline. Seems a bit too straight in the front end, and also would like to see just a little bit of chest in front of the legs...not like a Lab, but still some. Can't see the feet...and they are an even bigger deal in bird dogs as opposed to retrievers. So many pointing dogs have splayed toes and flat feet. Head and ears look nice. Tail looks a little n the thin side, especially at the base.


----------



## pixiebee (Mar 29, 2009)

Sharon,
thank you.

Francine


----------



## Susie Royer (Feb 4, 2005)

I wish we had more coat in the coat department ;-) Abby is at the top of the breed standard 24"/75#. This picture was taken at 24 months...the head shot on my avatar at four years. She had her first litter just last year so her chest has really matured but we lost some of the tuckup...I did too after having my kids LOL


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Sharon Potter said:


> Francine, the first photo is at an odd angle, so hard to see much. The second photo is easier to see, and of course with the dog stacked. Nice working dog topline. Seems a bit too straight in the front end, and also would like to see just a little bit of chest in front of the legs...not like a Lab, but still some. Can't see the feet...and they are an even bigger deal in bird dogs as opposed to retrievers. So many pointing dogs have splayed toes and flat feet. Head and ears look nice. Tail looks a little n the thin side, especially at the base.


Sharon, would you consider the second dog to be out/loose at the elbows? Do loose elbows impact a pointing dog's soundness?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Raegan, it's hard to tell, without also seeing the dog from the front. From the side, it does look somewhat out at the elbows, but the markings are also deceiving and may be making it look more pronounced. I'd need to see the whole dog. 
Out at the elbows is not efficient for pretty much any breed of dog. The effect on soundness is a consideration, but there are worse flaws for a dog to have. Often, a dog that is out at the elbows is also slightly pigeon-toed or even a bit bowlegged, which affects the entire front limb assembly, and most definitely can have a negative impact on soundness.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Susie Royer said:


> I wish we had more coat in the coat department ;-) Abby is at the top of the breed standard 24"/75#. This picture was taken at 24 months...the head shot on my avatar at four years. She had her first litter just last year so her chest has really matured but we lost some of the tuckup...I did too after having my kids LOL


Susie, she is lovely. And check out those feet, too!


----------



## pixiebee (Mar 29, 2009)

How's this one?
Please forgive the bad hair day - it was a looong day.
He was evaluated by the top conformation judges in Germany for the deustch kurzhaar - and they gave me the exact evauation Sharon did. HE was rated as very good (SG),highest being excellent(V)
Sharon - you are GOOD!!

I misspoke - Tail looks a little n the thin side, especially at the base.

was not mentioned in the evaluations I have recieved in the past.


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

My dog's pictures sort of got separated from my critique, and were small attachments anyway. So now that I know how to do the image hosting, here they are again. She is one year old, so she probably won't even look like the same dog at three or four. Does my assessment seem accurate or am I too picky? 



















AllAroundLab said:


> I think she has good rear angles, but question whether her front assembly is set on too far forward/high shoulder. She doesn't have much forechest to stabilize her front (what looks like forechest is mostly coat). The shading on her coat is a little misleading, her shoulder is up under the ruff of hair that looks like neck. Wondering if this is making it difficult for her to raise her head high for extended periods of time (heads up attention while heeling for OB trialing). I don't want to demand something she cannot do. Anyway, amount of substance looks right for a working retriever, and slightly longer than tall. Also her feet are tight. I can't decide whether, under the standard, her muzzle is a little short? Seems like longer muzzled dogs can breath more easily when working.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

AllAroundLab said:


> My dog's pictures sort of got separated from my critique, and were small attachments anyway. So now that I know how to do the image hosting, here they are again. She is one year old, so she probably won't even look like the same dog at three or four. Does my assessment seem accurate or am I too picky?


She's cute, but her angles are rather straight, so I gotta disagree with you there. She is balanced though. She is more squarish. You are right about her shoulder, front assembly and head carriage. Don't expect her to look up at you when doing obedience.

How does she move??

Angie


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Looking at her, I see a pretty steep shoulder , but thought the rear looked well developed. Not real straight (like some of our field kids.)
Muzzle did not look that short-but my monitor is sort of long, so makes the pics look a little longer,too! 
I have an interesting book- called The Ultimate Labrador Retriever by Heather Wiles Fone.Has a british touch to it- Heather W.F. is(was?) a labrador breeder and judge in England. Anyways,the book has some pictures to critique, on structure. You critique the structure, and then read the various comments by judges on that dogs structure. It really taught me alot on flaws/etc. Might be a good ebay pickup if someone is truly interested in structure.
This is interesting stuff, I hope this thread continues-


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Susie Royer said:


> I wish we had more coat in the coat department ;-) Abby is at the top of the breed standard 24"/75#. This picture was taken at 24 months...the head shot on my avatar at four years. She had her first litter just last year so her chest has really matured but we lost some of the tuckup...I did too after having my kids LOL


A very pretty bitch. A more moderate bitch then some I've seen but I personally like that. She has good balance.

Angie


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Angie B said:


> She's cute, but her angles are rather straight, so I gotta disagree with you there. She is balanced though. She is more squarish. You are right about her shoulder, front assembly and head carriage. Don't expect her to look up at you when doing obedience.
> 
> How does she move??
> 
> Angie


In person her rear looks a little different, somehow the angle the photo was taken from does take away a little angulation. She seems to have good drive from the rear, and on the front has more reach then I would think, does not look stilted or anything, but there is something going on because sometimes she seems to be crabbing, while at other times she moves straight. Not pacing, she always trots. Maybe just because she is a puppy.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Here are my thoughts: First, while the back end does seem weak and short...no length to the croup, stifle set too far back because of the lack of length in the hindquarter assembly...from the hocks down I like what I see. Nice tight feet and the dog is up on them rather than dropped down...good!! As Angie said, there could be more coat....but I'd rather not see it go to the extreme end either. Too much is even worse than not quite enough. Head is fine by me, but the neck ties in a bit low and has a heavier underline than topline to it, and the front legs are set on too far forward. There should be some chest out in front.
> 
> Another good point: Note how the underline nicely reaches the elbows, as opposed to hanging well below.
> 
> The dog has good balance between its body type and the amount of bone it carries...meaning its legs match its body, in substance.


I think his best feature is his mid section. From the elbows to the stifle he has very good length. I wish he had more substance in the bone department and better angles. Also,,, and yes this is picky ooney, but his ear set is rather high and his ears are small. But like I said where's the perfect dog??

All of the dogs presented could get a conformation certificate. Meaning they had to meet the minimum of the breed standard. Our club held one when I was president. A lot of very average dogs got certificates but they were within the breed standard. So the breed standard is like a WC to me. It has a wide range and a lot of stuff that is very marginal still is acceptable.

IMHO

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

AllAroundLab said:


> In person her rear looks a little different, somehow the angle the photo was taken from does take away a little angulation. She seems to have good drive from the rear, and on the front has more reach then I would think, does not look stilted or anything, but there is something going on because sometimes she seems to be crabbing, while at other times she moves straight. Not pacing, she always trots. Maybe just because she is a puppy.


 
You can teach her to gait in a way that enhances her movement. Never let a dog gait willy nilly. I bet you could put her at a pace that would make her move pretty darn well.

Handling dogs in the breed ring is like handling a dog on the line. You know the dogs weakness's, so you cover for them and show case the dogs strengths.

Angie


----------



## AllAroundLab (Dec 21, 2010)

Angie B said:


> You can teach her to gait in a way that enhances her movement. Never let a dog gait willy nilly. I bet you could put her at a pace that would make her move pretty darn well.
> 
> Handling dogs in the breed ring is like handling a dog on the line. You know the dogs weakness's, so you cover for them and show case the dogs strengths.
> 
> Angie


My observations of her movement are mostly watching her trotting on off lead walks, so at least I know it is not me throwing her off, lol. Mainly I am just interested in evaluating structure as pertains to the standard and for work. I expect I can eventually find a way for her to trot straighter in the show ring, right after I get her to stop galloping around and/or leaping up and down like a pogo stick, which was the result of our foray into the puppy classes, she had a little too much fun. 

Thank you for your comments.


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Rainmaker said:


> OK, are my lines even in the correct places to discuss the angles?
> 
> 18 month old bitch. From the diagrams provided, she looks to be slightly longer than tall. Has a decent topline? Good depth of body ratio? Has a fairly long/thick coat normally. I like her tail and her head.
> 
> Doesn't have enough chest out front?


I would say lack of bone and gets too much height from legs not depth of chest. Use to show dogs so just thought I would give my opinion
. Good looking dogs though


----------



## AGirlAndHerDog (Nov 13, 2011)

Best picture I could get of her.

21-month-old bitch, overweight at 62 lbs. I think her feet are flat. The right back leg (opposite side of her shown) points out more than the other (hip dysplasia). I do like her head (though it's hard to see clearly in this picture) but I think her tail is a bit short? 

I don't know anything about the rest other than I wish she were a solid chocolate, rather than with "back up lights" and a white belly.


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

Angie B said:


> Also,,, and yes this is picky ooney, but his ear set is rather high and his ears are small.
> 
> Ok I had to do it lol Pulled his ears forward and they do touch the inside corners of his eyes


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Rainmaker said:


> OK, are my lines even in the correct places to discuss the angles?


Close, but no cigar. You're marking the right bones, but the lines are off. Do you have the original picture? Let me finish dinner and I'll put together a little something to show how to draw the lines.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Let's start with the rear, because that's way easier to see.

Here's a skeleton with an outline of a dog (yes I know it's not a Lab, get over it, they're all the same on the inside  ):









As far as I can tell, I think you got the angle of the pelvis pretty right. I might make it a tiny bit flatter, but you got it close enough. 

But look at how the femur fits into the pelvis on the skeleton. It's more in the middle. You drew it coming out of the tail end (har har). You did get the knee in the right place! That was tough for me for a long time, there's muscle that attaches lower that can look like a knee, but if you get your hands on the dog you can feel the knee joint is higher up.

So in this picture, the femur is close to vertical. Once you have the stifle pinned down, the lower leg bones are easy. Draw a line straight through the middle of the lower leg. Think about drawing bones, not lines from point to point.









So her rear angulation is about 135*ish which isn't bad at all. I like a little more angle in the rear. A guideline is the rear toes should just touch a line drawn straight down from the point of rump.

Fronts are really really hard for me to see, so that's only my best guess. The dog is also turned slightly away from the camera, which makes it harder since there is no prosternum to key off of (point of shoulder is always on the same line as the tip of the chest).

You made the same mistake at the elbow as you did on the hock: the point isn't to connecting the dots so much as drawing lines along the lie of the bone. 

Shoulders are really hard for me to find, especially on labs who don't tend to have clearly defined withers. If you have your hands on the dog, you want to feel for that ridge that runs up the center of the bone.










Here's a picture of my Schnauzer, Gatsby. I stuck tape on him where the joints were so I could get an accurate picture. It took a lot of peanut butter. They are not perfect because his skin and fur moved around a lot, but it's kind of a fun exercise. Rachel Page Elliot's Dogsteps video has footage of dogs with lines drawn on them in toothpaste!

Learning how to draw the bones is a valuable exercise, but ultimately you want to be able to evaluate a dog without going through all of that. 

For the front, you want the front legs strong and straight and well under the dog - they do the heavy lifting so they should be under the largest mass of the dog. Look for a good shoulder layback with a smooth transition from the neck to the back. Fronts can be very very hard to develop an eye for, you really need to get your hands on a bunch of different dogs. The bottom of the chest should touch the elbows, below that and the dog will have to swing his elbows out of the way to walk. Too shallow and you have less room for the heart and lungs.

In the rear, look for a nice turn of stifle. Susie's Abby is lovely in this department, IMO, the yellow lab in the collage I put up last night is way over done. The dog should stand with his rear legs slightly further back than underneath, see above about the line dropped down from the ischium. If they are underangulated, standing like that will be uncomfortable. Gatsby, my Schnauzer, never stops 4 square. The stack he has in the picture was very difficult to get, he kept moving a foot forward. A dog can also be straight in the hocks, this is very common in early Tollers. It's less common than straight through the stifle and different from slipping hocks.


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

Oh shoot! I forgot about that, if I recall correctly there was an explanation of why that was done earlier in the thread. Let me go back and read and see what it says. I will amend my post with the disclaimer, this is how I was taught.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Yep....I'm drawing what I can see from the outside. It's easier to develop an eye by looking at points outside the body rather than trying to place the actual bones, especially in the hind end. 

So...I "draw" them in my head like the picture above. I really don't think it's as important to give actual numbers to the angles (like x degrees) as it is to see good length and depth. 
Once you develop an eye for structure, drawing lines won't be required. 

Something else that is a big help is to think of dividing a dog into three close to equal parts...hindquarters, middle, front. A dog with weak structure will also be short/shallow in one or two areas.


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Sharon, I am thinking of drawing and quartering Chief! (just kidding) If I send you pics of the individual pieces, can you evaluate him? I do love this thread and am still learning tons from it. I do not appreciate the insertion of the show dogs and calling them the "top 4 labs". And then I got bitched at for complaining. You know what respect I have for you and your gracious self. Don't let me get in trouble here for griping about one post. Love ya!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Carol, I prefer to see dogs whole, rather than quartered.  

And the reason you got yelled at  was because this isn't a show dog thread...and no need to turn it into another "bash the show dogs" thing. So...on this thread...if you see a pic you don't like, just let it go and ignore it.  It's up to you to keep yourownself out of trouble.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Okay, how about this. Here are 5 females from a litter this summer. Photos at 8 weeks <Correction- checked the dates, these are 7 week pics>. The 'stacks' are not equal but this is what you've got to work with -any favorites based on structure (from a functional gundog/performance dog perspective) and why? 

NEKO: 









CEDAR: 








MAGGIE:









JACKIE: 









WRIGLEY:


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

I like Jackie.... Some of the other photo's are a little hard to evaluate because of the placement of the assistance hands.

She's balanced and show's good bone in relation to her body type. Her neck is set a little high on her chest, but not bad. Her top line could be a bit better.

She'll be a nice working dog. Tight coupled for quick turns and sits. Good depth of chest for lung capacity. Good angles in the back so hopefully you'll avoid ACL issues, her angles aren't as good in the front as the back, but very adequate.

I have a female that as a puppy looked very similar. She probably was a little longer. She is a wonderful obedience dog. She can't carry her head high to look up all the time but she makes up for it. She also has finished all her agility classes and will start competing in that venue after maternity leave. Amy is ready to get her Master Hunter. I'll start on that this summer with her. I bred her to a field bred dog to give her a little more bottom. The dog I bred her to looks like a field bred dog, except he is balanced, has good bone for his size and has a wonderful coat. He's thrown intelligence and marking ability on the few bitches I've bred him to. I'm pretty excited. I plan on keeping a puppy and breeding that back to show lines. None of my show stuff is line bred. My field dogs are but not my show lines. I hope to change that in the future.

It's all a process....

Angie


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

To clear up confusion, and hopefully give a better idea of what I'm looking at, regarding drawing points on the dog: 

As I said above, if you divide the dog into thirds, which should be pretty even, with the mid section being slightly longer than the front and rear (which, by the way, is where the "longer than tall" part should be  ), think of it this way. 

The front third is a line dropped straight down, behind the very back edge of the shoulders.

The rear line runs straight down from the front of the flank, where in meets the belly.

That makes it a little easier to find the points I'm looking at. Again, not always actual bones...but if you can learn to see these points, and look for *long* lines/bones with obvious angles, the structure will be functional and balanced.

Once you have the thirds, in the front, your first line will go from the *center* of the withers (not from the red line, but along the center of the shoulder) to the point of the shoulder, which is the front edge of that big muscle group, not the breastbone. Next, go from there to the elbow.

In back, the point of the hip is just below the top of the back, starting right at the red line. Go from there to the point of the hip, which is the farthest point of the rump, below the tail....and then from that point to the stifle, or knee.

Kim, I hope you don't mind...I'm using your picture for this, to show the thirds.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Angie B said:


> I like Jackie.... Some of the other photo's are a little hard to evaluate because of the placement of the assistance hands.
> 
> She's balanced and show's good bone in relation to her body type. Her neck is set a little high on her chest, but not bad. Her top line could be a bit better.
> 
> ...


Thanks Angie- Jackie is the pup I kept so it's great to read that you saw the same things as I- a confidence builder for me  Improvement is definitely a process.... this thread is such a great learning tool.


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I thought Jackie was the one too out of that batch. Best angles and most balanced...


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Billie said:


> I thought Jackie was the one too out of that batch. Best angles and most balanced...


Thanks for the input!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Can a fluffy play along? Our correct structure isn't too different from the labradors. Some of ours is a bit harder to see, like length of the front leg, because of the fur.
Here's a candid photo of him, he's not groomed or brushed, and his ears are back but he's standing sturdy and true. Please feel free to make comments:








To show what a difference the angle of a photo can make, here's the same dog in another photo, different angle of the shot, he looks totally different:








and finally, same dog groomed and stacked correctly. If someone wants to draw lines on this picture to talk about angles, proportions, anything else, please feel free to do so. It's okay, I know he's not perfect, he's done the GRCA's CCA and I know exactly what his faults are  .


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

These pics aren't stacked but I'd like to know what you think. There is a pic of him playing with another dog (stacked fairly nicely but its not a close-up) and then with him wondering why he was tied to a fence post  He is 8 months old in these photos.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Also if you'd look at this little guy. He is 11 weeks so I know its not the best age to look at them.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

WRL, traditionally 8 weeks old is when conformation assessements are done because at 8 weeks old they are almost exactly the same as they will be as an adult. Then they go through lots of changes, and it's not really fair to comment on an 11 week old puppy because their structure will change so much. After about 6 months old you can begin to comment on the adult structure.
Is that a little demodex around his eyes?


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

I went to the vet and I took my camera and the vet tech helped me but neither of us have done this before. These pups are 7 1/2 weeks field puppies








Black Male








Chocolate male








Chocolate female


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

hotel4dogs said:


> WRL, traditionally 8 weeks old is when conformation assessements are done because at 8 weeks old they are almost exactly the same as they will be as an adult. Then they go through lots of changes, and it's not really fair to comment on an 11 week old puppy because their structure will change so much. After about 6 months old you can begin to comment on the adult structure.
> Is that a little demodex around his eyes?


Uh yeah that's why I said that "He's 11 weeks old and I know that's not the best time to look at them"......

No he doesn't have any demodex.

WRL


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> I went to the vet and I took my camera and the vet tech helped me but neither of us have done this before. These pups are 7 1/2 weeks field puppies
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the chocolate guy. He might not have enough front (hard to tell from a pic and the stance) but I think he looks quite nice.

WRL


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

I'll try on this- Hotel4dogs: Your boy has nice angulation but I dont see he is really balanced. Looks like the front is overdone, vs the rear? I dont know proper terminology to describe that though. I think a steep shoulder causes that, if I remember my conformation friend told me many moons ago! 
WRL: Your chocolate adult boy looks pretty good-I see that he has balance front and rear, not overdone,but looks like fairly decent angles. 
Erinsedge: I pick the chocolate male puppy for best overall conformation. black boy has sort of a "dippy" topline-behindhis shoulder blades. Nice rear angles. 
Chocolate boy: looks really nice! Good balance, verynice angles, and I like his lenght of back. Very nice puppy, IMO.
Chocolate girl, cant put my finger on it- her chest and body is deeper than the boy ,but doesnt have the complete look that he does. If I were picking soley, on conformation, he would have my pick -but theres more to a puppy thanjust conformation, just like theres more than birdieness too.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

The black male was the first one and I don't think he set up as well as the chocolate male. I think he is leaning forward. Here is another pick. We thought the chocolate male was better but the vet that shows glanced in and liked the bm better.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

These are great! Why? Because they'll teach you to look at structure, not the stance. One...the chocolate male...is standing balanced and over his legs. The other two are leaning back, giving an illusion of being If you take all three of those puppies and start looking at the parts instead of the stance, you'll find they're much more similar than first impression says. Also...the chocolate female is longer than the males...because she should be. Gotta have room for pups someday! 

On all three: Rear angles are very similar, and look fine. The black pup seems to have a bit more fore chest than the others. The chocolate female appears to have the best shoulder of the group. Otherwise, a lot of consistency between the three. They look like nicely balanced working dogs.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

Hi

Who writes the standard? How come the Standard has changed over the years. I love the look and desire of Field Bred Labs. Breeding Labs to a conformation standard may be ok for some. I prefer my Pedigrees from proven HRCH,GRHRCH,,FC, AFC,NAFC, NFC Labrador Retrievers. Health Clearances are as important.

To each his own, show bred labs that I have seen are very nice pets. For me, a Field Bred Lab, with its looks, drive, intelligence is far and above the better choice.

Regards
JT


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Hi
> 
> Who writes the standard? How come the Standard has changed over the years. I love the look and desire of Field Bred Labs. Breeding Labs to a conformation standard may be ok for some. I prefer my Pedigrees from proven HRCH,GRHRCH,,FC, AFC,NAFC, NFC Labrador Retrievers. Health Clearances are as important.
> 
> ...


The standard was changed- in 94.. by the field people If i remember right. The standard is the standard-unfortunately, it is for interpretation... I have not a doubt that many of our field dogs fit the standard- so do the show dogs- but its very broad, as is the understanding. But, we're not debating the standard here- but instead evaluating and learning structure- field or show. Its something for all of us to learn and cant hurt the future.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

WRL said:


> These pics aren't stacked but I'd like to know what you think. There is a pic of him playing with another dog (stacked fairly nicely but its not a close-up) and then with him wondering why he was tied to a fence post  He is 8 months old in these photos.



He looks straight behind and a bit down on his hind feet as a result. Nice head, decent overall balance, good tail. I'm thinking the front is pretty good, too.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Hi
> 
> Who writes the standard? How come the Standard has changed over the years. I love the look and desire of Field Bred Labs. Breeding Labs to a conformation standard may be ok for some. I prefer my Pedigrees from proven HRCH,GRHRCH,,FC, AFC,NAFC, NFC Labrador Retrievers. Health Clearances are as important.
> 
> ...


Jeffrey, we aren't looking for show dogs here. The vast majority...almost all...of the dogs on this thread are field bred, with plenty of field titles behind them.

We're discussing performance structure, most specifically angulation as it applies to working ability. The Lab standard as written is good, and fits a high percentage of the working dogs...but often is ignored by those who prefer a different type of dog that *isn't* used in the field.


----------



## Jeffrey Towler (Feb 17, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> Jeffrey, we aren't looking for show dogs here. The vast majority...almost all...of the dogs on this thread are field bred, with plenty of field titles behind them.
> 
> We're discussing performance structure, most specifically angulation as it applies to working ability. The Lab standard as written is good, and fits a high percentage of the working dogs...but often is ignored by those who prefer a different type of dog that *isn't* used in the field.


Ok Sharon, thank you for clearing that up with me. I was at a dog show a couple of weeks ago. I heard from a few people that I know have years of experience showing dogs (40+ years) that the labs have changed considerably(for the worst) in that time period. I just can't seem to grasp, the show lines, which I was told is the standard to strive for, are what true working labs should look like. For example that thick coat, once it is wet, how do the dogs get dry in a cold duck boat? Our Field Labs shake that water right off.And those short muzzle Rott. like heads, how can the be expected, to swim with a goose in there mouth and a coat loaded down with water? 

Regards
JT


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Great,,, I get done training my client dogs and then go to obedience class just to find there's a bunch new pics and discussion. 

I'm beat!! I'm going to bed but it is suppose to rain tomorrow so I hope to catch up with yall tomorrow.

Keep it up!! It's all good!!

Angie


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

Nancy,,, chocolate male. Wish he was a bitch, but maybe you could co-own him with someone and use him later??

Now I'm going to bed... 

Angie


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Jeffrey Towler said:


> Ok Sharon, thank you for clearing that up with me. I was at a dog show a couple of weeks ago. I heard from a few people that I know have years of experience showing dogs (40+ years) that the labs have changed considerably(for the worst) in that time period. I just can't seem to grasp, the show lines, which I was told is the standard to strive for, are what true working labs should look like. For example that thick coat, once it is wet, how do the dogs get dry in a cold duck boat? Our Field Labs shake that water right off.And those short muzzle Rott. like heads, how can the be expected, to swim with a goose in there mouth and a coat loaded down with water?
> 
> Regards
> JT


JT, Balance in all things is good. It's when extremes are rewarded that problems creep in. Of course a short muzzle will have a hard time picking up and holding a goose. So will a narrow, snipey one. Medium is what works best, and is what the standard calls for. 

Coats: There should be a good undercoat for insulation. Many show dogs have far too much coat, and will overheat quickly. And there are also field bred dogs that have no undercoat, instead having a hard, slick coat. Looks shiny...but doesn't keep the dog warm, and they need a vest to make up for it. Again, the ideal is somewhere in the middle. If you look at some of the dogs competing successfully in both venues...Angie Becker has some...they are right in the middle of the road, and fit the standard.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

Angie B said:


> Nancy,,, chocolate male. Wish he was a bitch, but maybe you could co-own him with someone and use him later??
> 
> Now I'm going to bed...
> 
> Angie


I kept a female before. She's 15 months old here. The pictures I have are the best I can do by myself.


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Okay....you get a 17 week old pup to stand still....I know he is still growing...and not a good headshot either.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

WRL said:


> Also if you'd look at this little guy. He is 11 weeks so I know its not the best age to look at them.


Lee, he *is* at a really awkward stage.  I can see that he's down on his back feet instead of up on his toes, which goes with the hind limb assembly being somewhat straight. Front end has enough chest, but also looks straight. Looks to me like he's gonna be a fairly leanly built dog as an adult.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Lainee, he's a handsome boy. Good bone, coat looks good. Angles behind are pretty good, although he could be up on his toes more...looks a little flat in back. A bit straight in the shoulder and long in the body. Does he have a head or a tail?


----------



## 2tall (Oct 11, 2006)

Quick question, I have noticed that a couple of the pups appear to have "over sloped pasterns" (if you can use horse terms here). Both of my labs looked that way as 4 - 6 month olds, but matured to have a perfectly nice look, "on the toes". Is that common along with the gangliness of youth?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

I agree based on the other photos about the flat feet, but could be the function of trying to get him to stand still but him wanting a treat! What do you mean by straight in the shoulder? He does look long, but he is still growing and at least he isn't all legs right now!  he does have a double coat and I like it, but dread the shedding that is bound to come!

His head looks small on his body! His tail is long to me, but no curl or feathering so far....not a great otter tail, but a decent tail. I'll have to get him standing still. And have David take the picture....maybe in another 3 months, we can see the changes. 

BTW he s a fat turd, too! 

Thanks!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

2tall said:


> Quick question, I have noticed that a couple of the pups appear to have "over sloped pasterns" (if you can use horse terms here). Both of my labs looked that way as 4 - 6 month olds, but matured to have a perfectly nice look, "on the toes". Is that common along with the gangliness of youth?



Which pictures show what you're describing?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

FOM said:


> I agree based on the other photos about the flat feet, but could be the function of trying to get him to stand still but him wanting a treat! What do you mean by straight in the shoulder?


The angle, or slope, of the shoulder blade is more upright than is ideal. Very, very common. It should slope further toward the back. He does have enough chest in front, which is good.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

Sharon Potter said:


> Lee, he *is* at a really awkward stage.  I can see that he's down on his back feet instead of up on his toes, which goes with the hind limb assembly being somewhat straight. Front end has enough chest, but also looks straight. Looks to me like he's gonna be a fairly leanly built dog as an adult.



The pictures aren't that great but he's quite chunky. He is starting to go through a vertical growth stage though. I know that during a huge growth spurt is not the best time to evaluate him.

So we'll see. He'll be leaner than most of the heavier boned conformation dogs but should be "showable" to some extent. Time will tell.

I will start handling classes with him in a few weeks so maybe will be able to get better photos. Hard to work with a puppy and take the pics 

WRL


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

WRL said:


> The pictures aren't that great but he's quite chunky. He is starting to go through a vertical growth stage though. I know that during a huge growth spurt is not the best time to evaluate him.
> 
> So we'll see. He'll be leaner than most of the heavier boned conformation dogs but should be "showable" to some extent. Time will tell.
> 
> ...


It is impossible to get those pics by yourself!! Then my stupid phone has a delay and I end up taking pictures of Archies left nut and foot. I love handling class. I love handling class. I love ..................


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I'd like to get a pic of my four month old pup to post too...but doing it by myself is not gonna get anything worth looking at. Or my Lab male, or my year old Chessie, or my older male Chessie...one of these days.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sharon, 

Do you feel confident in telling much about the 2nd thigh in 7-8 wk old puppy pics? That's one thing that I get stuck on w/ field bred pups, esp. Many rears have that weedy look and you wonder if they'll ever bulk up.

Have a GR show breeder coming over on Sunday to get photos of my current litter. I couldn't do it w/o her! Of course I'll have to repay the favor in a couple months and help her photograph lil fluffies! :razz:


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

Just for fun...here are my four GSP champions. all retired, never bred, spayed and neutered. Two were owned handled and two with handlers (all four placements at National Specialties). Guess which one finished quickest? 


1. Jack - (disregard poor stacking job by mom handler)




2. Sugar- 





3. Sophia- 1st as a baby then approximately 1 year old 




4. Belle- 7 weeks old then 5 months old 



~I will post written comments by judges for teaching purposes if anyone wants- also, I submit my two cents for what I look for in performance dog. I am NOT an expert but found particular traits that I think excel at different venues. These are my companions so be nice please.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Thanks for giving him a try!
From written comments from judges, he is an extremely balanced dog. Nice angles. Shoulders well laid back. Outstanding rear assembly but could use a little more forechest. Tends to toe out a little in the rear when free stacked. 
All of which goes to show you that it's really hard to assess a dog from a photo without putting your hands on the dog! But thanks for trying.
ETA--I think (?) you may have said he looks overdone in the front because his front end is bigger than his rear, but "balance" refers to the angles, not the size of the front and rear.



Billie said:


> I'll try on this- Hotel4dogs: Your boy has nice angulation but I dont see he is really balanced. Looks like the front is overdone, vs the rear? I dont know proper terminology to describe that though. I think a steep shoulder causes that, if I remember my conformation friend told me many moons ago!


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

he's at the "paper bag stage". He could grow up to be a fantastic bench CH, I wouldn't want to make any comments about him at all at this age because they'd be a crap shoot.



WRL said:


> Uh yeah that's why I said that "He's 11 weeks old and I know that's not the best time to look at them"......
> 
> No he doesn't have any demodex.
> 
> WRL


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I would love to hear some judges comments on the dogs. I'm not very familiar with your breed standard and it would help me learn.



canebrake said:


> ~I will post written comments by judges for teaching purposes if anyone wants- also, I submit my two cents for what I look for in performance dog. I am NOT an expert but found particular traits that I think excel at different venues. These are my companions so be nice please.


----------



## WRL (Jan 4, 2003)

hotel4dogs said:


> he's at the "paper bag stage". He could grow up to be a fantastic bench CH, I wouldn't want to make any comments about him at all at this age because they'd be a crap shoot.


Yeah I know he's in a goofy stage. But figured while we were looking at dogs. That's why I went ahead and posted it up.

It doesn't matter anyway 'cuz I know its a "we'll see"......

WRL


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

windycanyon said:


> Sharon,
> 
> Do you feel confident in telling much about the 2nd thigh in 7-8 wk old puppy pics? That's one thing that I get stuck on w/ field bred pups, esp. Many rears have that weedy look and you wonder if they'll ever bulk up.


It is hard to tell in puppies. But the thing to look for is stifle placement. If it is set well forward, the second thigh (gosh, I wish they'd use better terminology) should be good. 

Puppies can be tough to judge...like Lee's pup, who will probably look like a different dog altogether in a few months. I've had a few that went through such a gawdawful ugly stage that they were hard to look at, but it all came right when they matured. My almost five month old Chessie, on the other hand, has been lovely the whole time, although she may hit a case of the fuglies in a couple more months.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

In canebrake's pics, compare Sophia and Belle. Look at the feet, especially on the hind legs. Sophia has absolutely lovely feet, nice and tight and not how she is up on them in the rear. Belle is down on hers, which leads to flat. 

Extra credit if anyone can tell me why being up on well arched toes is better than down.


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

FOM said:


> Okay....you get a 17 week old pup to stand still....I know he is still growing...and not a good headshot either.


How much does he weigh? For as big as he looks and fast he is growing he looks good. We have a Grady son from his first litter in the pro group that looks like him and mature he is very nice.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

"...toes well arched and held compactly together for endurance and strength. The slightly sloped pastern allows for spring and shock-absorbence, as the front feet take the greater part of the impact and weight-carrying..."
(Marcia Schlehr, A Study of the Golden Retriever)



Sharon Potter said:


> In canebrake's pics, compare Sophia and Belle. Look at the feet, especially on the hind legs. Sophia has absolutely lovely feet, nice and tight and not how she is up on them in the rear. Belle is down on hers, which leads to flat.
> 
> Extra credit if anyone can tell me why being up on well arched toes is better than down.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

hotel4dogs said:


> Thanks for giving him a try!
> From written comments from judges, he is an extremely balanced dog. Nice angles. Shoulders well laid back. Outstanding rear assembly but could use a little more forechest. Tends to toe out a little in the rear when free stacked.
> All of which goes to show you that it's really hard to assess a dog from a photo without putting your hands on the dog! But thanks for trying.
> ETA--I think (?) you may have said he looks overdone in the front because his front end is bigger than his rear, but "balance" refers to the angles, not the size of the front and rear.


He's a nice boy!  Many around here have much more rear angulation than the standard calls for. He's very balanced.


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

> ETA--I think (?) you may have said he looks overdone in the front because his front end is bigger than his rear, but "balance" refers to the angles, not the size of the front and rear.


Really??? balance is balance from front to rear. That's angles and everything else. A dog that shows good balance is symetrical. The peices are proportionate.

Angie


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

ErinsEdge said:


> How much does he weigh? For as big as he looks and fast he is growing he looks good. We have a Grady son from his first litter in the pro group that looks like him and mature he is very nice.


Right now he is at about 52+ lbs. He is really thick or wide if you will. So far I like his looks, minus his head, it seems small for his body and I can darn near tie a bow on top of his head with his ears!! His head needs to grow! hahahaha

I will try to get a better head photo and maybe a front chest shot.

For me, I like the fact he has a double coat and a nice tail...he is also "easy on the eyes" - he looks like a lab to me. But we have a way to go to see how he ends up looking, let alone how he performs!


----------



## ErinsEdge (Feb 14, 2003)

FOM said:


> Right now he is at about 52+ lbs. He is really thick or wide if you will. So far I like his looks, minus his head, it seems small for his body and I can darn near tie a bow on top of his head with his ears!! His head needs to grow! hahahaha
> 
> I will try to get a better head photo and maybe a front chest shot.
> 
> For me, I like the fact he has a double coat and a nice tail...he is also "easy on the eyes" - he looks like a lab to me. But we have a way to go to see how he ends up looking, let alone how he performs!


Don't worry about the head, it will grow and while it may not be huge like a bench dog, it will be pleasing. I have even had them not have their mature head until after 3 years old. I do think field dogs change somewhat from this 8 week thing because of muscling and their legs grow.


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

I've typically seen it used in the show ring to refer to balance of front and rear angulation. Not saying you're wrong, just saying that's how I've always heard it used.

On another note, a dog can be very balanced and still have a very poor structure or be quite incorrect in terms of the standard. Dogs with upright rear ends and upright shoulder sets are still considered to be balanced, and will generally move better than an unbalanced dog.



Angie B said:


> Really??? balance is balance from front to rear. That's angles and everything else. A dog that shows good balance is symetrical. The peices are proportionate.
> 
> Angie


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

10 week old Crosby NAFC Grady X QAA LOLA 

A little straight in the shoulder and a little weak in the second thigh. But nice bend in stifle , which a lot of field bred dogs lack, nice reach of neck , OK top line. coat is good, head profile not so much , but head on, nice expression


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

Bridget - how much does he weigh?


----------



## FOM (Jan 17, 2003)

And what is meant by top line? Sorry I'm trying to figure this stuff out.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Top line refers to the top of the dog from withers to tail, pretty much the back and the way it ties in to the shoulders/withers and the hindquarters.


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Lainee I would guess he weighs 25-30 at 10 weeks He is solid!!! and big for his age , I guess it runs in the family
Topline means his back line , you want a level topline , not one thats looks like a ole grey mare,( with a dip ) (LIke a chessie) nor have the rear higher than the front. Where the tail is attached also affects the look of the top line, if it is set to low it is called a drop in croup....and gives a rounded appearance to the base of the top line....I don't know if I am describing that right


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

If it's not okay to add this mention of gait into this thread, someone let me know and I will delete this. 
I really like this website for illustrating various gaits in dogs. If you click on each gait down the left hand side, there's some great information.

http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu/gaits/index.html


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Sharon what do you think of him?


----------



## Tori (Mar 6, 2010)

I'll play. BLM, will be 2 years on March 29th. He is 24" tall and 80-85lbs working weight. In the 16mo photo he is 88lbs so a little thicker than normal. Interesting to see the different stages and how things change. 

I was trying to figure out angles and proportions on him but still learning about structure and how it's related to working ability/soundness in dogs so not to sure what I'm looking for just yet. I've got horses and beef cattle down pretty well regarding conformation and form to function. I feel there are similarities in dogs but I am interested in leg/shoulder construction and what angles/flaws inhibit them or specific qualities that facilitate working abilities and longevity soundness wise. 


7 weeks









4 Months (for ease of comparison this picture is reversed so actually his right side you're looking at)









16 Months


----------



## RaeganW (Jan 1, 2011)

hotel4dogs said:


> If it's not okay to add this mention of gait into this thread, someone let me know and I will delete this.
> I really like this website for illustrating various gaits in dogs. If you click on each gait down the left hand side, there's some great information.
> 
> http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu/gaits/index.html


This is AWESOME Barb!

Related, some of you might have seen this already, but it's always worth a look.

Canine Lameness Learning Module: http://accad.osu.edu/~hcaprett/COTA_741_sp04/CanineLO_090504.html


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

That lameness module is excellent, too, thanks. I hadn't seen it before.



RaeganW said:


> This is AWESOME Barb!
> 
> Related, some of you might have seen this already, but it's always worth a look.
> 
> Canine Lameness Learning Module: http://accad.osu.edu/~hcaprett/COTA_741_sp04/CanineLO_090504.html


----------



## Tori (Mar 6, 2010)

Maybe this should be a new thread, but does anyone have specific examples of an excellent vs. ok vs. bad/horrible main points such as shoulder or front end assembly, hind leg etc? I think seeing the good and bad "parts" side by side helps me understand conformation better than seeing a whole dog and picking them apart. I know it is hard to find "perfect" or even define it, especially when you start bringing in the differences breed to breed or bench vs field... I'm not quite sure how to word what I'm thinking but something along the lines of "this shoulder angle will allow the dog better x, y or z" or "this angle from hip to stifle to hock will minimize this and maximize that" I guess?

I am loving the addition of the links on movement. To me, structure at a standstill is one thing but comparing that to the animals movement and way of going are just as important in the process of evaluation and can reveal things that may have been overlooked or seemed alright. I know horses much better and one may look alright standing there but once you see it move everything is just all wrong. But what you want to look for in a dressage horse will be different than say a cutting horse though there are similarities to give you a starting point so the function of the animal is definitely key when differentiating the good from the bad. 

So I guess I would love to see examples of shoulders and legs etc that would enhance the average retrievers ability to do their job out in the field and do it year after year as well as things that would possibly cause problems or to avoid. I have a general idea but seeing really good next to really bad would be excellent.


----------



## Susie Royer (Feb 4, 2005)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Topline means his back line , you want a level topline , not one that's looks like a ole grey mare,( with a dip ) (LIke a chessie) nor have the rear higher than the front.


 














Sorry, no dips allowed ;-) 

*"NECK, TOPLINE, BODY-* Neck should be of medium length with a strong muscular appearance, tapering to the shoulders. *Topline should show the hindquarters to be as* *high as or a trifle higher than the shoulders*. Back should be short, well coupled and powerful. Chest should be strong, deep and wide. Rib cage barrel round and deep. Body is of medium length, neither cobby nor roached, but rather approaching hollowness from underneath as the flanks should be well tucked up. Tail of medium length; medium heavy at base. The tail should be straight or slightly curved and should not curl over back or side kink."


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Susie Royer said:


> Sorry, no dips allowed ;-)
> 
> *"NECK, TOPLINE, BODY-* Neck should be of medium length with a strong muscular appearance, tapering to the shoulders. *Topline should show the hindquarters to be as* *high as or a trifle higher than the shoulders*. Back should be short, well coupled and powerful. Chest should be strong, deep and wide. Rib cage barrel round and deep. Body is of medium length, neither cobby nor roached, but rather approaching hollowness from underneath as the flanks should be well tucked up. Tail of medium length; medium heavy at base. The tail should be straight or slightly curved and should not curl over back or side kink."


WHOOPSY TRULY SORRY !!! I knew they were not level though!! Love the ole grey mare thanks!!


----------



## Trevor Toberny (Sep 11, 2004)

Also see people not setting feet proper or there dogs are way down in the pasterns


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> If it's not okay to add this mention of gait into this thread, someone let me know and I will delete this.
> I really like this website for illustrating various gaits in dogs. If you click on each gait down the left hand side, there's some great information.
> 
> http://vanat.cvm.umn.edu/gaits/index.html



Here is another video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nESyr_-M6po

-martha


----------



## Angie B (Sep 30, 2003)

canebrake said:


> Here is another video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nESyr_-M6po
> 
> -martha


 
Very good... It should clear up a lot of confusion on balance.

Angie


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Thanks Martha, that is a phenomenal video, very educational. Really appreciate you posting that.



canebrake said:


> Here is another video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nESyr_-M6po
> 
> -martha


----------



## canebrake (Oct 23, 2006)

hotel4dogs said:


> I would love to hear some judges comments on the dogs. I'm not very familiar with your breed standard and it would help me learn.


I have asked a good friend who has been a judge/owner/breeder of GSPs for many years to give a written critique for teaching purpose. I can send to you privately when I get it. 

Here is written evaluations from International Judges

Jack- "Nicely balanced, good bone and good feet". 
Front angulation- "very moderate shoulder lay back.
Rear Angulation- "moderate bend of stifle, strong hocks,
Top Line- "Firm and level"

-my evaluation of Jack - very balanced, straight in front and rear, limited reach and drive, short back. This dog is a power house jumper, incredibly athletic and powerful rear end, can turn on a dime. Jack finished the fastest of the bunch @ GSP specialty show.

Sugar-"responsive, good feet" 
Front Angulation- "very moderate lay back, neck fits well into shoulders"
Back angulation- "moderate bend of stifle"
Top Line- Firm, level

Sophia and Belle are the same age and were in the same class- two very different types. Sophia has nice balanced tight movement and Belle huge reach and drive, beautiful movement. Judges usually liked one or the other but they placed 2nd and 3rd at Nationals in their open class. Belle has beautiful front angulation. 

hope this helps to see evaluations of other breeds.

-Martha


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Bridget Bodine said:


> Sharon what do you think of him?


I like him. Nice overall balance, and good angles behind. I'd love to see him all grown up, as well as in motion.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Excellent videos!!! These are great, at both movement and actual bone structure.


----------



## MooseGooser (May 11, 2003)

Brandywine needs to post a pic of his dog Duggan!


I always liked that dogs looks

Gooser


----------



## hotel4dogs (Aug 2, 2010)

Thanks Martha, I can see it in the photos when I read the comments. I would be interested in the judge's comments when you get them!



canebrake said:


> I have asked a good friend who has been a judge/owner/breeder of GSPs for many years to give a written critique for teaching purpose. I can send to you privately when I get it.
> 
> Here is written evaluations from International Judges
> 
> ...


----------



## Gerry Clinchy (Aug 7, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> The angle, or slope, of the shoulder blade is more upright than is ideal. Very, very common. It should slope further toward the back. He does have enough chest in front, which is good.


Does the Lab Standard call for less stifle angulation than the Golden? In a Golden, I would like to see more angle back there.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Does the Lab Standard call for less stifle angulation than the Golden? In a Golden, I would like to see more angle back there.



LOL...I had to go back a few pages to find out which dog you meant. 

I'm not familiar with the Golden standard, but it only makes sense that the basic angulation should be the same as any other retriever breed. While it would be great to see more angle in his stifles...which would add depth and width to the hind end....his is adequate/acceptable. I wouldn't want to see it any straighter.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Gerry Clinchy said:


> Does the Lab Standard call for less stifle angulation than the Golden? In a Golden, I would like to see more angle back there.


The Lab standard calls for "moderate" angulation.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

windycanyon said:


> The Lab standard calls for "moderate" angulation.


So in these diagrams, of the two "wrong" scenarios - rear angles too straight and rear angles too open - which is more at risk for ACL problems? Or are both equally bad news?


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Kinderdoggin said:


> So in these diagrams, of the two "wrong" scenarios - rear angles too straight and rear angles too open - which is more at risk for ACL problems? Or are both equally bad news?


I've seen/heard of cruciate tears w/ both scenarios. Seems like there is more HD associated w/ too straight (post legged) of angles though. Regardless, the dog is having to compensate for the poor structure, and that can lead to more wear and tear on the joints above.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

windycanyon said:


> The Lab standard calls for "moderate" angulation.


The drawings from 1986 are not good at all...sorry. In fact, they're so bad its almost scary. 

I have to disagree with their perfect shoulder angles (A)....they drew the line well behind the withers, and didn't define the withers in the same spot as the other two examples. And (C) was also drawn wrong from elbow to shoulder (humerus). (B) is completely ridiculous....almost everything is drawn wrong.

And in the rear example, their ideal dog has the stifles placed up by the body, like a horse. Dogs aren't built that way....their stifles are set substantially lower. The second dog is also wrong in stifle set. And the third dog is positioned with its hind limb stretched out behind too far. If that dog were standing balanced, it would be the closest to correct of the three.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Okay, here's my boy Chester. I've tried to draw lines on where appropriate but I'll post a blank below if anyone wants to make corrections. 










Chester seems very long to me- longer than tall and long in the loin. He also seems to have the more open rear angulation, which kind of adds to the appearance of being too long. Seems like his front is fairly good, although it's not set under him perfectly in this pic-he has the best front angle of any of my dogs and seems to have good shoulder layback too, am I right on this? Front and rear angles do not match. 
Any other points to ponder?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I lightened up the picture to make seeing body definition a bit easier. The red lines are my addition...yours were pretty close, but you missed the point of the shoulder (had the breastbone instead) and also the pelvic slope...you were just a tad too high.

The green lines are the same length, so he is somewhat longer than tall. While he could be shorter in the loin, he shows strength over the top.

I don't think his angles in back are all that open...they're actually quite good, with one exception. His hock angle is a little overdone, making him stand out behind himself more than I like personally. 

Just edited to add: I missed the point of the shoulder a little too....the angle should be more open than I drew it, but since I already flattened the image in Photoshop, I redrew it on another blank. Sorry for the screw-up...it's time for my contact lenses to come out for the night!


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Sharon Potter said:


> The drawings from 1986 are not good at all...sorry. In fact, they're so bad its almost scary. .


Had to take them from The Versatile Labrador Retriever, and I agree, I never really liked their lines but felt the overall "drift" was there. The LRC Illustrated Standard has some drawings too. Let me see if I can find a scan.


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Sharon Potter said:


> ....
> The green lines are the same length, so he is somewhat longer than tall. While he could be shorter in the loin, he shows strength over the top.
> 
> I don't think his angles in back are all that open...they're actually quite good, with one exception. His hock angle is a little overdone, making him stand out behind himself more than I like personally.


Thanks Sharon. I could see 'too much' of something back there... with your lines the front and rear look more balanced than how I had them. I think in the next few days I'll try adding visible dots to the joints where I can feel them and try to learn to see those points/lines better from a photo.


----------



## kona's mom (Dec 30, 2008)

Not a good stack but how are my lines?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Nicole, looks good! The correct line in the rear for the pelvic angle is the blue one.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

windycanyon said:


> Had to take them from The Versatile Labrador Retriever, and I agree, I never really liked their lines but felt the overall "drift" was there. The LRC Illustrated Standard has some drawings too. Let me see if I can find a scan.



Much better!!!! Thank you!


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

One thing I'd like to note here, since we have more than just retrievers in the mix.

Good angles are a balance between speed, power, and endurance. All working dogs need all three of these, but ranked differently in order of importance, and that will dictate the needed structure. What that means is that different breeds have different purposes, and will have different structure based on their intended use. Since we've got some GSPs in this thread, it's easy to see that what's correct for a Lab or Chessie or Golden is not the same as correct structure for a GSP. 

Example: A Lab needs them in this order: Power, speed, endurance.
A GSP needs them in this order: Endurance, speed, power. 

Extra credit: what differences do you see between the structure and angulation of a GSP vs. a Lab? And how do those differences lend themselves to the intended use?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

Kinderdoggin said:


> Thanks Sharon. I could see 'too much' of something back there... with your lines the front and rear look more balanced than how I had them. I think in the next few days I'll try adding visible dots to the joints where I can feel them and try to learn to see those points/lines better from a photo.


Great idea! 

Remember, the goal of all this is to develop your eye to be able to "see" balance and structure in a dog. The more dogs you look at, the better you'll get. There are no perfect dogs....but learning to see overall balance and finding the flaws helps us make better breeding decisions. Think of using it like we'd use a genetic test. We can use it for information and look for crosses that are known to improve whatever flaw we're trying to improve.


----------



## windycanyon (Dec 21, 2007)

Kinderdoggin said:


> Thanks Sharon. I could see 'too much' of something back there... with your lines the front and rear look more balanced than how I had them. I think in the next few days I'll try adding visible dots to the joints where I can feel them and try to learn to see those points/lines better from a photo.


In this case, if you look at the Hastings video, she'll tell you to drop that plumb line from the point of buttocks to the ground. I like to have it land in front of the toes and not have a lot of "air" there. His toes are probably an inch or so behind that line.


----------



## pixiebee (Mar 29, 2009)

Sorry for the poor shot but it's all I had:

My guys can get low when they pick up speed and they do a good job at turning at fast speeds -


----------



## Erin Lynes (Apr 6, 2008)

Yup, I can see that even with out the line- probably more like 2 inches even. So what makes him stand out like that - tibia too long? or is it a combination of things?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

It's a combination of things.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I just got a tip (thanks, Kathy!) about this e-book:

http://www.recipetowin.com

It has a ton of really good information in it...I've already purchased, downloaded and read it. It focuses on performance dogs and how their structure affects them...it's well worth reading.


----------



## Pals (Jul 29, 2008)

Ok--Since I'm really trying here with this conFORMation thing and I will be the one on the end of the leash this weekend. I have a picture at 8 weeks and one at 6 months. The little dogs grow quick, as in Archie is pretty much done and will be filling out now, and hopefully dropping that chest fixing the easty/westy thing we've got happening right now. 

I think he's cute. Perfect? Not hardly. 

8 weeks









6 months









Please spare me my handling skills, yes they stink.


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

I think he looks pretty darned good, Nancy! Yes, he is a little "east-west, but as his chest fills out that may change things. 

And he's stacked quite nicely in the bottom pic. Two suggestions: First, when you set him down, let his front legs hang loose, then gently set him down on the tips of his toes (and make sure the nails are short). That helps keep a tighter look to the feet (although a good judge will see right through it!) Second....his head looks too high, making his neck look "off". Try to keep the neck up, and head closer to level. It helps their expression too. 

Really, I think you should just give up on him altogether and send him up here.


----------



## Rainmaker (Feb 27, 2005)

windycanyon said:


> Agree that the top one is a bit square, but... mine TEND to elongate as they mature so take it FWIW. The "stacks" aren't great but I'd have to ask--- how do they move? To me, if a square puppy can move fluidly, you've got something..... usually it's the longer than tall ones that really cover the ground the best, esp if your fronts aren't QUITE in sync w/ rears.


Moves like a Lab to me. ;-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IN_oMkSxtSk


----------



## dogshom (Mar 16, 2010)

It seems to me that the best way to view a dog's structure is a side shot of the dog standing. I hardly ever see field dogs pictured that way-even when someone is advertising a litter. I see great shots of beautiful dogs, but they're sitting. Any reason for that?

P.S. That e-book mentioned above is great especially for someone breeding performance dogs.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

dogshom said:


> I hardly ever see field dogs pictured that way-even when someone is advertising a litter. I see great shots of beautiful dogs, but they're sitting. Any reason for that?


Two reasons: One, those dogs aren't advertising for looks, most field dogs are advertising on achievement (or potential). Second reason: It's much harder to get a nice standing pose if you're photographing by yourself and it's downright simple to get a nice sitting picture with ears up. Not to mention few field people, unless they've also competed in the breed ring, have any idea of how to properly stack a dog.

I personally want to see a dog's wheels even if it will never set foot in the breed ring. A dog seated with its ears up, and/or with a duck in its mouth, can look spectacular but it might look like a train wreck if you saw it standing.


----------



## pixiebee (Mar 29, 2009)

I have used this as a guide over the years:

http://www.gsdfederation.co.za/articles/rugamer.htm


----------



## Howard N (Jan 3, 2003)

> few field people, unless they've also competed in the breed ring, have any idea of how to properly stack a dog


I think this is the biggest reason. Stack, in dog terms ;-), isn't in most field trialer's vocabularies.


----------



## Julie R. (Jan 13, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I think this is the biggest reason. Stack, in dog terms ;-), isn't in most field trialer's vocabularies.


You don't even need to know the word stack to figure out it's pretty hard to get a nice standing photograph of a dog...try it! ;-) Whereas, all field dogs know (or should know!) the sit command, so everyone tends to use the ubiquitous sitting with ears perked photos. Even a sorry photographer with a cheap camera can get a good one of those.

I actually learned how to stand/stack horses in my younger days, and not for the show ring. I worked at some of the big race horse sales (Fasig Tipton, Saratoga, etc.) and you had to learn how to stand a horse, usually a tub thumping stud colt that would be horsing at every other animal within a 30 yard radius as you parade it around tents, tent ropes and gawking buyers. When people are prepared to drop 6 or 7 figures for a young horse based on pedigree, you better believe they take a hard look at how it's put together. A lot of thoroughbred breeders sell their stuff as weanlings and yearlings, even 2 yr. olds in training. There's an entire pinhooking industry that buys weanlings to fatten up and sell as yearlings, or buys yearlings and breaks/trains to sell as 2 yr. olds ready to race. For all but horses with actual track records, many/most buyers take conformation into consideration.

There are lots of little tricks to both standing and photographing both horses and dogs to maximize good points and minimize bad stuff, like crooked legs, toeing in/out, sickle hocks, over or back at the knees, etc. Then you have ugly necks, poor tie-in of neck to shoulder, long or sway backed, goose rumped, etc. Pretty much the same faults that in both species can also affect soundness. Learning how to stack a dog and what makes for good or bad conformation is a useful skill regardless of your discipline.


----------



## frontier (Nov 3, 2003)

Howard N said:


> I think this is the biggest reason. Stack, in dog terms ;-), isn't in most field trialer's vocabularies.


I try to use the word "structure" versus "conformation" and shy away from some of the usual terminology where I can because it causes such a negative reaction in some people. Try to substitute with another word...perhaps "position" the dog in lieu of "stack" the dog.

enjoying this thread and thank you sharon and others for your input.


----------



## dogshom (Mar 16, 2010)

Thanks Julie-That makes sense about the accomplishments being the selling point. 

I never even thought about structure implying to some to breed ring conformation. I am primarily an agility competitor (and stack isn't in my vocabulary either!) and based my selection of my lab based totally on his mother's size and movement, the litter's movement and drive. But initially my mentor steered me towards the litter based on the stud's accomplishments and the pedigree of both dogs.


----------



## Jon Couch (Jan 2, 2008)

Ill play


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

I tried to pose these 6 1/2 wk old pups (my keepers) with the help of the kids (taking photos). They aren't the best due to the pups trying to sit and also "bowing in" towards me in the middle, making them look a little roached backed which they are not. 
First one is of Abbey -female
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...91440_100003160273736_267629_1257886417_n.jpg

http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos...291210_100003160273736_267637_650479424_n.jpg

Second is of Finn- male

http://a1.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hpho...957786_100003160273736_267648_925910317_n.jpg


----------



## Bridget Bodine (Mar 4, 2008)

Raina I LIKE the boy!! He has a lovely outline, maybe a scoche more bend in stifle but very nice. What is the breeding?


----------



## Sharon Potter (Feb 29, 2004)

They both look like nice pups...I agree with Bridget, I like the male a little better. He looks smoother and more balanced. 

 Now, remember the purpose of this thread...I'm just here to kind of supervise and guide...y'all are supposed to do the evaluating. So....have at it!


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

The pups are UK FT lines- Going to try running in HT and maybe Quals + if they have the desire, as well as maybe do some prancing in the show ring. Mother is big dog in Avatar. 
http://www.gooddoginfo.com/gdc/asp/viewpedigree.asp?DogNo=103990


----------



## firehouselabs (Jan 23, 2008)

Here's a face shot of the male pup:


----------



## Billie (Sep 19, 2004)

Very cute face.


----------

