All the conversation about German shepherd dog conformation is really nothing without a video of the dogs walking.
Jemima Harrison uploaded this footage of some GSD’s at the Manchester Show in 2008:
GSD gait in slow motion:
Now, here is the footage from Pedigree Dogs Exposed in which a GSD fancier defends the anatomy of the show dogs:
The judge contends that the UK show dogs are correct because the breed standard says so. Of course, that standard was written by UK show GSD fanciers, not by people who were breeding working type dogs.
Breed standards can be a way of evaluating working conformation, but in the case of the GSD, the standard obviously is not a very good way at all.
Chopped & channeled like some 60’s lowrider…We have ruined these dogs for no good reason & should be very ashamed…Breed fanciers would make fun of my straight-backed “street Shepherd” but at least she wasn’t a cripple
Speaking of breed standards and the GSD…if one reads the Kennel Club’s actual written standard, the dog it describes is far different than the ones pictured. In fact, soundness of movement is stressed as of great importance.
http://www.the-kennel-club.org.uk/services/public/breeds/standard.aspx?id=5106
or just go to the KC site, click on “Standards” then the breed.
Soundness of movement may be in the eye of the beholder. They may have looked at only dogs with this type of gait and silhouette and think that’s what a sound moving GSD looks like.
‘Sound’ means ‘matches the fashion of dogs in the ring’. Many breeders do not even know what a biologically sound structure even IS. They only know the show ring and compare the standard to that, rather than the other way around. ‘Flashy’ movement is seen as more sound than a more natural gait, in many breeds, which is why so many are overangulated to various degrees nowadays in order to achieve huge reach and drive.
I mean to say ‘bio-mechanically’.
That supposed “huge reach and drive” is only illusion, in 99% of cases. I have watched at shows where GSDs and retrievers were in identical adjoining rings, and counted the number of steps dogs of each breed took to cover the same distance. Guess what– the shepherds took no fewer steps.
Pai is quite correct: the majority of dog show exhibitors (and quite a few judges as well, it seems) have no idea of what ‘soundness’ and real biomechanical efficiency are. When Rachel Page Elliott was actively lecturing, people were beginning to get a grasp, but in the intervening years the situation seems to have deteriorated considerably. One has only to observe the peculiar photos that are proudly published in dog magazine advertisements, often showing the dog moving VERY incorrectly.
What we need is another Pagey and for people to actually understand the concepts.
Any of Pagey’s work is great. As well as the “Dogsteps” video/DVD, the 3rd edition (2002) of her book “Dogsteps– A New Look” (I think that’s the correct title – don’t have it at hand to check) is a most excellent introduction to the topic of gaits. She is one of the very few who went to real scientific research, with the cooperation of Dr Jenkins at Harvard, where the cineradiography studies were done.
I don’t intend to imply that “fewer steps” is necessarily more efficient (i.e., energy-saving) — beyond a certain degree it can be decidedly less efficient.
Best reference available on dog gaits is Curtis Brown’s “Dog Locomotion and Gait Analysis”. Brown was both a dog man and a mechanical engineer, and his wife a well-known judge; so he had rather a unique perspective on the subject.
It is because of her work that I disagree with the statement often promoted on other functional conformation advocates’ blogs that conformations doesn’t matter.
Of course it matters. It matters for whether dog can do its task or compete in competitions, not just just conformation shows.
However, I am willing to admit that different conformation. Those who run goldens in agility would want a smaller dog that is more lithe and wiry than one typically sees rewarded in conformation shows. It’s just a different functional conformation metric.
Wow, those dogs are shown TOTALLY different than they are on our side of the pond. I could never show shepherds here, they run them around the ring, and run again, and run some more and then run again. I do not know why the weak rears and roachy toplines are preferred. I have seen lots of show shepherds with easty-westy fronts too.
it’s almost hysterically amusing (or horrifying) to have a discussion with a hard-core “conformation” GSD individual and those who do active herding/schutzhund. The dogs are entirely different. A good solid herding dog needs to have maneuverabilty, a reasonable turn of speed and stamina. It’s very clear when a show line dog tries to do herding — a number preserve the proper instincts, but they just don’t have the ability to stand up to the physical requirements long term. Most show gsds (there are exceptions of moderate dogs that do earn CH titles, if not “group wins”) are so out of balance between the front and rear that it is sad to watch them struggle to meet the physical requirements. A show ring that required the dogs to clear a standard “military style” obstacle course would eliminate much of this. A good herding/military/police dog needs to do more than trot at human pace in a show ring.
Peggy Richter
Lots of large breed dogs have not been selected for athleticism. In fact, lots of dogs have not experienced anything like the selection pressures for functional conformation.
The same applies to us since we have become “civilized”:
http://www.physorg.com/news175332184.html
trot? what i can see is amble most of the time …
thanks again for those videos. if they can’t open eyes nothing can do.