What is working conformation? From the side.
I've seen a lot of mention of leg length as being the difference between the "show" corgi and the "working" or "old style" corgi. There's a strong implication that a longer leg makes a more "herdy" or "historic" corgi and is somehow healthier than the show-type corgi.
Leg length is NOT what you should be worrying about.
Leg length allows the dog to take longer strides IF all else is equal (if joint angles are equal and so on). So, yes, a Border Collie will take longer strides than a corgi. If what you care about is taking longer strides, I'd strongly suggest that you go get a different breed, but I honestly don't get heated about the absolute length of a corgi's legs.
What I see as very troubling is the trend toward breeding CARELESSLY and then saying that what a person is producing is a "working-type" corgi. Dogs always, always move toward the generic. Any time you stop breeding to the standard, the back shortens, the neck get shorter, the legs lengthen, the head becomes larger and plainer. That's not a legitimate choice where a breeder has decided that a particular feature is desirable; that's a breeder producing a poorly bred puppy and then saying that it's going to be healthier because it doesn't look like a show dog anymore.
So let's TOTALLY ignore leg length and look at what you must insist on to know that you have a good, sound dog regardless of breed, and why I said earlier that when early breeders found the Pems they started with they knew they had lots of work to do.
Here's a show-type Pem.
The first thing you should do - and this is not a corgi-specific evaluation; it's something we're taught to do in any breed - is to draw a line from the elbow through the shoulder, and another line across the topline.
In a good, sound dog, the entire head and most if not all of the neck should be both above and in front of the lines you draw.
The next thing you do is draw a line up through the middle of the front paw and toward the sky. This is the line of weight bearing on the heaviest part of the body. That line should look like it is through the front part of the body, NOT through the neck.
The next step is to make sure the dog can take good deep breaths and get lots of oxygen. The rib on a corgi should end more than half-way down the body.
Finally, you want a dog who is "balanced" - the angle formed by the shoulder joining the upper arm should be roughly like the angle formed by the femur joining the knee (in dogs we call it the stifle). On this lovely bitch you can see that the angles are very similar (it's normal for the rear angle to be turned a little bit; they're not supposed to be identical in inclination, but in the openness of the triangle).
Let's look at one of the early corgis, Ch. Rozavel Red Dragon.
Divide him in fourths first.
Do you see how much shorter his neck is, how much more upright the whole shoulder and front assembly is? His head is barely out of that quadrant and most of his neck is under it.
The weight-bearing line:
His front leg supports his neck, not the big mass of weight that is formed by the front half of his body. You should be able to see now why it is that his topline sags in the middle - if his shoulder and arm were set further back, the topline would be straight.
Ribbing:
His rib is just slightly past the middle of his body; not as good as the modern corgi.
And balance of angles:
He's not badly balanced, but there are two things that worry me - the angle in the rear is appreciably more open than 90 degrees, which means that the "hinge" of his leg was already open. He's not going to be able to get much more drive from the powerhouse of the rear than he's got at a standstill; he'll have to move from the hip instead of from the knee. Second, see how very much shorter the upper arm is than the shoulder? The upper arm should be as close to the same length as the shoulder as it possibly can be.
If someone is trying to sell you a "working" corgi, ignore the leg length. Ask for an eye-level stacked photo - you CAN get any dog to stack; put them on a stone wall or a countertop and they'll stand still - and draw these same lines on them. If the dog is sound, the lines won't lie. You should see a good straight topline that's created by a well-angled front that supports the body, not the neck. You should see lots of "hinge" created by a front and rear that are at 90-degree angles or very close to them. You should see a long arm, not a short one. You should see a good long rib. You should see a head and neck that are well up off the body. A dog built like that will be able to move easily and efficiently, and won't break down with activity. Leg length, in the end, means very little.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Shepdog on
-
Thank you. That is exactly what I meant. It is not a sham and I don't think the instructors are a sham either -- I do do it because I like having the title, it's a fun thing to participate in and part of learning more about my dog and it allows me to go to a lot of hotels and into places that allow a dog in with a GCG. :)
The dog that I personally took in there that I am talking about was a rescue dog that spent his entire first year and a half of life in a bathroom where people threw him food and left him un-neutered because they thought they were going to make a fortune breeding Toy Aussies. He could be aggressive as heck towards people when he didn't think things were going his way. First things first were to snip him, and second was to at least make him a productive member of society so he could go on and live a happier life with someone who cared about him.
We worked and worked and worked with him, and I took him to every class under the sun that I could. He passed the CGC with a lot of work - but one of the things you have to remember is that it is a class and a set series of exercises -- not the real world. He didn't have anyone at that test run up to him acting drunk, or kicking at him if he barked at their dog, etc... not that I want that to happen, but where my other dogs would have acted appropriately, he would have likely flown off the handle. That's all I meant by not stable.
It is a tricky thing to truly test. And every instructor is different as to how they interpret the handbook. But it is not a true temperament test -- it's basically a good citizen test. I wouldn't expect you to pull a true working dog prospect from it (and in fact, some working dogs might fail outright for the stranger test and I wouldn't hold it against them...) but I do think it's a grand thing to go and do with all your dogs. -
-
Permalink Reply by Joanna Kimball on
-
Agreed. The CGC was never meant to be a temperament test or a soundness test; it's not a "title." It's a recognition that you put in enough effort with your dog that he's polite and under your control.
"Temperament" is a funny thing anyway - what the old dog breeders mean is "if you menace me, I'll attack you." What the vast majority of pet people mean is "if you menace me, I'll wag and lick your face." I read something by a Malamute breeder yesterday, talking about how she had worked for ten years to reliably produce Mals who would never, ever go after another dog and who were easygoing and calm in the house. She, obviously, felt that that was a successful and "correct" temperament. I was completely appalled. -
-
Permalink Reply by MagnoliaFly on
-
Shame on me? LOL
The AKC sets the standard at what they consider a "passing" dog. Dogs are given the opportunity to try again if they fail a certain part of the exam. It isn't considered a formal obedience test and I certainly wouldn't consider it a test of temperament at all. It just looks at simple skills to see if the dog can perform some commands somewhat reliably, seem to be under control and not aggressive.
Aggressive dogs always fail the test. But I've seen some dogs pass the test that I would question if they were truly under control or not. (Not by my evaluation but by other CGC evaluators that I've sat in on.)
Had the dogs been tested under stricter evaluations like the Delta society's test for therapy dogs they would have failed because there is no second chance in that test. It is very strict with its testing skills. I would consider this a more applicable "temperament" test if what you wanted to see was a dog that was calm and under control at all times.
It also depends on what the dog is being used for. A high-drive agility dog may not be appropriate for pet therapy and rightly so. Doesn't mean they're aggressive.
I never said the test was a sham. I said it was too easy to get. I can't "raise the bar" since I'm not head of AKC and I don't set the testing guidelines. -
-
Permalink Reply by Beth on
-
We should not "force" anything. Anyone can breed anything they want to.
In horse sports, if you said you were breeding, say, "champion" Thoroughbreds and you only showed them in halter classes, people would wonder what the heck you were up to. There are halter classes for certain breeds at breed-specific shows, but for example conformation hunters are judged 70% on their performance and 30% on conformation. If you had a great-looking broodmare with good breeding and solid conformation who had a paddock accident and bowed a tendon and was breeding sound but could not pin in competition any more, by all means she would be bred. Even in sports where competition is key (like horse-racing), animals that have never competed or never won are sometimes bred if the bloodline and other factors warrant it (this is especially true of mares, for various reasons including the fact they only have one offspring a year and so they like to retire them early, but some very successful studs never raced or only raced a couple times).
But you are the one who repeatedly states that form equals function and then criticize those who are actually breeding their dogs more based on function than form. So if for example Kerry has working herding dogs who go out on the farm every day and work stock, and do a darn good job of it and are happy and healthy and sound, and then you will state that people should not be breeding if they don't meet certain conformation requirements stipulated primarily by breeders who are NOT working stock, on the theory that those show breeders are better equipped to state what defines good working conformation, then I will take issue with that.
You are willing to say that working dog breeders should meet the conformation requirements of the breed ring, but reject the idea that breed ring people should try to meet some sort of working requirements. To me they are two sides of the same coin. Yes there are working dog groups that have splintered in a million pieces, but there are others that are doing well and several of the gun dog groups manage to be very successful at keeping their dogs dual purpose. My parents have a Chessie from a breeder whose dogs show and field trial and go into hunting homes as a matter of course. I don't mean she has a handful of dogs who went hunting once or twice (the equivalent of "herding instinct tests".) I mean their primary job in the world is to hunt and they happen to win bench shows too.
From the American Brittany Club:
"To promote cooperation and friendship among the breeders and owners of Brittanys and to encourage higher standards in breeding, training and showing of Brittanys in the field and in the show ring; to discourage the breed from becoming split into groups of "field dogs" and "show dogs" and to strive to keep it forever a "dual dog" Their breed has almost 600 dual champion dogs!
You talk a lot about the fact that without a careful breeding program, dogs return to a more neutral form and lose their breed distinctness. I am sure you understand that the same goes for working ability. If you don't specifically breed for working ability, you lose it. Look at Irish Setters. There is a small group trying to carefully bring them back to a decent hunting dog, but after generations of being bred primarily by show and pet people, they have lost a lot of their hunting instinct. They still have some, of course, but by most accounts they are not very good, except for the occasional random dog who happens to be decent by sheer chance. You are 100% correct that if you don't breed for type you lose it. But if you don't breed for talent you lose that too, and you know as well as I do that a herding instinct test is not the same as having the drive to go out there day in and day out and work the stock. Folks who breed for working ability have dogs they place in pet homes just like conformation breeders do: because they don't meet the working standard and aren't drivey enough or focused enough, or what have you.
Regardless, I love my show dogs and know several very fine show breeders. I don't have a problem with it, but I guess where I take issue is your open criticism of other breeders who breed for different reasons than you do. -
-
-
Wow... I guess I'm not reading that into what Joanna's saying at all. :/ I don't think she's ever stepped in and told other people how to work their sheep or their stock, or bird hunt. This is merely information -- if you choose to get hostile about it, fair enough.
However, this is like the fifth time I've watched this happen. So I'm actually going to say something.
What I'm seeing is an equally open and scoffing criticism of people who do conformation showing, and I've seen it on several threads. Joanna wasn't being rude, in fact, I thought it was an interesting point on length of leg not being as important as angles -- I was interested in looking at the differences. Not once was she directly assaulting any one here -- she merely showed the information and if you choose to take it or ignore it, or debate it, fair enough. I love a good debate.
Practically speaking, let me step in and say that *I* do know a working dog. I appreciate a good working dog. (And a working horse for that matter.) :) Been working my dogs for a long time, doing SAR with German Shepherds. We're heading to that point with one of my Cardis as well. He'll pick up his tracking title soon, and yup, he works on a daily basis in my shop and in the barn.
One thing I notice is that a certain side of these discussions (and of course, this is my opinion only and worth exactly what anyone pays for it on the internet) seems instantly go into a rather aggressive mode when you feel something someone says doesn't match your opinion. It makes it difficult for me to read through your responses... there may be some good points, and I can appreciate them... but I don't enjoy reading through the anger. :/
Now, I would love to see a conformation, working, and temperament title required on dogs. I know personally that my "show" dogs could pass those. Now my one puppy mill rescue who is bred so badly I wince could pass likely two of them and the dog I have that was from a "working" breeder... uh, well, sadly, as much as I like her, she'd pass the temperament part of it. There's a reason she's not working on the ranch, and not in their program. She has the drive of a roller skate. :) A very friendly, happy roller skate, but the only cow she's ever going to work has special sauce and is wedged between a bun.
I love a dog with drive, and you're right, at times drive does make a dog work through issues with conformation. However, as a working dog person... if they don't have the conformation, you're going to have problems with the dog breaking down in later years to a point where they can't do their job without being sore and miserable. A horse or a dog without good conformation will have issues with overstressing joints and having physical problems related to conformation. I know, I have had a few. As youngsters, they would work themselves to the bone, given the chance.
They were excellent at their job, but as they grew older, the wear and tear that they did by having a heavy forehand and bad movement really started to cause issues in middle age. I feel that way in horses too -- conformation is important to me. There are things I can live with (sure, a plain head, bad ears... pretty faults, so to speak.) However, I will not buy an working animal without good angles in the hip and shoulder -- they have to be able to move and work correctly without stressing too much of one part of their body or another.
What's funny is that I notice a lot of people here saying looks aren't important, health and temperament is. A good breeder strives for those first, and the pretty is wonderful, but it's icing on the cake. They do all their health clearances first before they think of breeding the dog. A dog with an iffy temperament is not even considered for breeding by a good breeder -- but I do know a lot of working dog breeders (when I was in Shepherds) who did breed without clearances or health checks, and that there were some temperament issues I personally would not have chosen to continue. I love a dog with drive. I do not love a dog who I cannot shut down when they are not working, so to speak... and some people really do breed for that, thinking it's better. Not everyone. But there's been an equal share of those I've met as to breeders who only bred for pretty. Extremes on both opposites of the spectrum, so to speak. -
-
-
I don't have any problem with someone who breeds sound dogs and who chooses to prove them in a different venue than the conformation ring.
What I have a HUGE problem with is what seems to happen a lot, which is the following.
I decide that I want to breed corgis. So I go to a couple of the more notorious backyard breeders in the area, the ones who sell puppies for $300 to anyone who shows up with a check, and I buy several dogs from them. These are registered dogs that have that "champion lines" brag but are themselves several generations away from anything decent and have been bred carelessly. So they're long-legged, short-backed, forward-shouldered, dippy-toplined, and straight in the rear.
These dogs have never been trialed and kind of run around the yard and stuff, but they're certainly not "performance-bred." Their only claim to fame is that "champion line" garbage.
I take these puppies home and, because instinct tends to persist longer than conformational quality, they do push my animals around. They do a pretty decent job at it, in fact. Most corgis will.
I do not get a ticket to therefore breed them, and I DEFINITELY don't get a ticket to call their POOR conformation "working" conformation.
If I replicate the conditions that corgis were developed in, and I assess them under legitimate, difficult, challenging herding situations, and then I carefully select those that do the best job - rejecting the vast majority of everything I breed and buy, keeping and breeding only the very best at that job - and I get my dogs peer reviewed by other experts on working, and my dogs show themselves to be better than the average working dog (not better than the average "throw a corgi in a pen with sheep" dog) after maybe four or five generations I can say something about having working conformation. And when I sell my puppies, if the person who buys them ALSO works just as hard as me to prove the dogs in a huge variety of challenging, peer-reviewed activities, then we BOTH have dogs with "working conformation."
That original backyard breeder was doing no such thing, so he or she was not selling dogs with working conformation and if I bought from him I don't own dogs with working conformation, not until I prove it to be so by demonstrating that my dogs, because of the way their bodies are shaped, can do a very specific job better, easier, and more consistently than dogs shaped a different way. Until I have PROVED it, and until I can produce it CONSISTENTLY, I may be making claims but I have nothing to back it up. Just like I can't say that my dogs are bred to the standard if I don't show them and show them successfully.
If I go to a Cesky Fousek breeder and ask for a working dog, I should be looking at a pedigree packed with genuine working dogs, those who have NAVDHA titles or years of successful seasons (peer-reviewed) behind them. That's a working prospect. I should NOT be looking at a pedigree where three generations back there are some German Wirehaired Pointers who finished their championships but since then nobody's either shown or hunted the dogs, but they did see them point a chicken once. -
-
-
And in the horse sports, it is a rare stock pony who would pin in the Quarter Horse breed ring (in fact it's safe to say that no stock pony would pin in a halter class). Yet if the quarter horse halter people said the stock people shouldn't be breeding, I'd have the same reaction.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sky and Lyla on
-
I think making blanket statements on either side inevitably ends up incorrect. In my opinion the importance of "drive" or ability to do a historical job in breeding depends largely on the breed. I can only speak to Aussies because they are what I know, and I will preface this statement with the fact that I am fairly new to dogs, and these are just observations of mine, but....
There has been an interesting discussion going on in the Aussie ListServ all week about what different breeders look at to determine whether or not to include a dog in their breeding program. I must say, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of breeders who said the would unequivocally pull a dog from a breeding program if it showed no herding ability. Granted there is a good chance the dog doesn't herd all day, but how many of us have that opportunity? We have to be reasonable, and at least herding trials are a way to try to preserve and test some of the original intent of a herding breed.
When I decided I wanted to get into showing Aussies I talked to a lot of people about who I should be trying to get a dog from. At the time I didn't know any "Aussie people" so I was simply asking "dog show people." One particular kennel name came up a lot because they always did quite well in the conformation ring. I ended up not going with that kennel despite their winning records, but have since found out that many of the "Aussie people" do not care for that kennel because they have none of the true Aussie personality or drive. I've heard it said time and time again that "X dogs are pretty, but they are as dumb as a box of rocks." Now, they do well in the conformation ring, not because of politics, but because they are very nice, correct dogs, but you don't see very many of them in the performance venues, and certainly not in herding. Most of the Aussie kennels aren't like that, a lot don't breed into that kennel's lines.
Aussie are lucky in that they, for the most part, are double registered. A "working dog" could easily earn a CH in ASCA even if it didn't have a blocky head or thick, poofy coat, assuming it had correct, sound conformation and movement. The same dog could also probably win under any AKC judge who knows anything about the Aussie standard. And in ASCA, working ability is very, very valued (not saying that it's not in AKC, but it is more so in ASCA, IMO).
I have a friend who breeds and shows Labs. In her last litter she used a dog that had some field dogs in it's history. Those dogs are having more trouble in the show ring (not that they're not winning, she just has to find the right judges). But that certainly doesn't translate to all breeds, and the dogs are still being put up under judges who appreciate their soundness even if they aren't as "typey."
So, my point simply is, that to say all show breeders don't care about the ability or drive of their dogs is not correct. To say that the show ring is 100% political is wrong (although I'm sure it would also be wrong to say it is never ever political, what ever is?). I think the desire to have a good working dog IN ADDITION to (not in place of) good, sound conformation that matches the breed standard, varies significantly from breed to breed. I know that in my breed there are many, many more breeders who desire to have conformation AND performance/working titles on a dog than not. -
-
-
Here's an interesting article from a Quarter Horse person point of view, talking about many of the same debates that we see here:
http://www.horseshowcentral.com/flex/halter_horses/448/1 -
-
Permalink Reply by Jennifer Markley on
-
Great post!!! I love how simple you made this for anyone to look at and understand...thank you!!
-
-
Permalink Reply by RILEY, MAGGIE and Christine Kemp on
-
Thank you Joanna...I found this very interesting as well as useful information.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Sam Tsang on
-
Okay folks, great topic but its gone far away from its original intent, it looks like a few of you need to settle things between yourself privately, some of you have reputations to keep, be respectful.
If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.
-
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
Rescue Store
Stay Connected
FDA Recall
Canadian Food Inspection Agency Recall
Groups
We support...
Badge
© 2024 Created by Sam Tsang.
Powered by
