|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 11, 2010 8:37:22 GMT
Is it possible to judge a dog or breed dogs without sound understanding of construction or movement. Ive heard some say that they have never been educated or educated themselves on conformational issues, but know a good dog when they see one. Can this be the case  I personally dont beleive so and think a good knowledge of anatomy and the diffrent conformational types required for diffrent work is a must if the best are to be breed and placed as winners at our shows. Love to hear your opinions, cheers, Neil  |
|
|
|
Post by ragingstormkennels on Feb 11, 2010 11:46:27 GMT
I personally think, no you cant, how could you possibly judge a good dog without knowing or understanding whether the dog has the correct conformational structure. I would question what exactly are you judging then? I think what some people, who claim to judge, forget is that there is a reason a dog's anatomical structure is the way it is, not only is it a very important factor when it comes to the work they were bred for to ensure its movement and strength is channeled and used to the very best of its ability, which theoretically gives it the advantage of its success, but for the dogs well being it requires to be conformationally correct with the very minimal damage being caused to its joints, bones and ligaments. With its potential success (in the work that it was bred for) and well being, being two of THE most important factors, id question what was being judged if an intricate understanding of its conformation wasn't known. IMO  |
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 12, 2010 15:35:39 GMT
well that one fell on its arse ey!
|
|
|
|
Post by ragingstormkennels on Feb 12, 2010 16:05:41 GMT
well that one fell on its arse ey! LOL yes I was expecting a little more input!  I think most people agree with what youve said Neil, you would hope someone judging your dog has a good idea of what he/she is looking for other than a good coat and ears hehe ;D If its any consolation I thought it was a great topic! |
|
|
|
Post by kirsty on Feb 12, 2010 16:38:47 GMT
i thought it was a good topic and would love to learn this side of all dogs
|
|
|
|
Post by cadgi on Feb 12, 2010 17:30:48 GMT
Only one sure way to judge a dog or any animal come to that.....in the field doing the job he was bred for, if your going to judge them in a ring who's standard are you going by? we all have standard's and they'll all be different. also knowing the terminology doesn't meen you understand it. if i say a dog is long in the back then how long does that meen? compare'd to what? my dog with a long back is your short back'd dog. All you have to do is look at some of the shit the K.C. pass off as champion's to see basically it's tosh.for all their so called knowledge and understanding of standard's look what they produce........
|
|
paddy
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by paddy on Feb 12, 2010 17:56:32 GMT
Only one sure way to judge a dog or any animal come to that.....in the field doing the job he was bred for, if your going to judge them in a ring who's standard are you going by? we all have standard's and they'll all be different. also knowing the terminology doesn't meen you understand it. if i say a dog is long in the back then how long does that meen? compare'd to what? my dog with a long back is your short back'd dog. All you have to do is look at some of the shit the K.C. pass off as champion's to see basically it's tosh.for all their so called knowledge and understanding of standard's look what they produce........ Spot on post!...i doubt dogmen of old and pioneers of some of the breeds we love such as Joe Mallen, Earl Tudor and the likes would have known the correct structual terminology...but would have known a good dog when they saw one! |
|
|
|
Post by ragingstormkennels on Feb 12, 2010 19:30:49 GMT
Thats all well and good that dogmen of the past, most likely did not pay much, if any, attention to a dogs conformation and as long as it was successful at the work it had been bred for - thats all that mattered, but the question I think is, in order to judge a "Show dog" for correct conformational values, should it not be necessary to know why a dogs structure is the way it is.
Good conformation is an illustration of a dog that would theoretically be more likely to succeed in its specific task.
For example, say you have a dog with great heart and fire, but lacks conformationally, then you have your 2nd dog that has equal amount of heart and fire but has perfect conformation, I personally think the dog with the correct conformation will be more likely to succeed, it will have the advantage of having the correct structure for it to enhance its movement and strength. IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullmatt on Feb 12, 2010 19:52:56 GMT
Only one sure way to judge a dog or any animal come to that.....in the field doing the job he was bred for, if your going to judge them in a ring who's standard are you going by? we all have standard's and they'll all be different. also knowing the terminology doesn't meen you understand it. if i say a dog is long in the back then how long does that meen? compare'd to what? my dog with a long back is your short back'd dog. All you have to do is look at some of the shit the K.C. pass off as champion's to see basically it's tosh.for all their so called knowledge and understanding of standard's look what they produce........ well put bud  |
|
|
|
Post by dog on Feb 12, 2010 20:06:07 GMT
Conformation is not the be all end end all of what makes a good dog but neither is drive/heart/gameness or whatever (lets call it mental attitude). The ideal dog is a mix of all the best qualities and striving to find the perfect combination of all those things is what breeding should be about.
I don't see how people can breed without doing research on how conformation effects the dog. You're ignoring a basic aspect of a dog's ability. Alot of the things that make a good dog can't be seen (cardiovascular system, muscle type, general health, mental ability etc) without testing but that doesn't mean you should ignore the things that are right in front of you.
You don't have to do lots of reading either, I can't stand reading books because I've got the attention span of a six year old on Red Bull so I prefer to talk to people that I respect and get their opinion. Amongst others I've found the people at Ockendon Greyhound track very helpful...they know their stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 12, 2010 20:33:51 GMT
Only one sure way to judge a dog or any animal come to that.....in the field doing the job he was bred for, if your going to judge them in a ring who's standard are you going by? we all have standard's and they'll all be different. also knowing the terminology doesn't meen you understand it. if i say a dog is long in the back then how long does that meen? compare'd to what? my dog with a long back is your short back'd dog. All you have to do is look at some of the shit the K.C. pass off as champion's to see basically it's tosh.for all their so called knowledge and understanding of standard's look what they produce........ well put bud I think you missed the point Lyndon and matt. you have shown your dogs. Why if the field is the only place to judge a dog. Conformation is as important as the rest of it, its why we use diffrent vehicles to do diffrent jobs for example you wouldnt not put a a ferrari engine in a car with a bent axel, no matter if it did go fast (for a while anyway. The show ring does have a place as do standards,and books about conformation etc, they just need evaluating and then best conformational specimens can be placed champs. If they have the heart and drive then you can call her/him a real champ |
|
|
|
Post by bullmatt on Feb 12, 2010 20:50:01 GMT
will reply tomorrow neil i am going lamping, |
|
paddy
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by paddy on Feb 12, 2010 20:53:57 GMT
Thats all well and good that dogmen of the past, most likely did not pay much, if any, attention to a dogs conformation and as long as it was successful at the work it had been bred for - thats all that mattered, but the question I think is, in order to judge a "Show dog" for correct conformational values, should it not be necessary to know why a dogs structure is the way it is. Good conformation is an illustration of a dog that would theoretically be more likely to succeed in its specific task. For example, say you have a dog with great heart and fire, but lacks conformationally, then you have your 2nd dog that has equal amount of heart and fire but has perfect conformation, I personally think the dog with the correct conformation will be more likely to succeed, it will have the advantage of having the correct structure for it to enhance its movement and strength. IMO. The original question asks..."or educated themselves on conformational issues, but know a good dog when they see one. can this be the case"....Joe Mallen could hold a Stafford out at arms lenght and guess its weight correctly he didnt learn that from a book it came from years of experiance of being around the dogs the same can be said when judging a dog an exsperianced eye can tell a lot from watching it move around...i would bet that most of the best producing sporting dogmen in history had little education on the finer points of anatomy...'Dog' mentions the people down at the Ockendon greyhound track...i have had a good chat over a cuppa with the old boy down there who runs the lure...bet he's never read a book on anatomy in his life...but bet he knows a good dog when he see's it!... imo atb ect |
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 12, 2010 20:57:44 GMT
I Disagree paddy i bet he's read lots. I can tell how much something weighs, hardly a great mistical talent
|
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 12, 2010 20:58:42 GMT
you wouldnt ask someone who hasnt studied mechanics to mend your car, well i wouldnt anyway
|
|
paddy
New Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by paddy on Feb 12, 2010 21:11:56 GMT
I Disagree paddy i bet he's read lots. I can tell how much something weighs, hardly a great mistical talent He didnt look like he could read at all to me ;D but who knows ...apparantly Mallen was pretty spot on with the weights...try it at one of the shows...see how close you can get...no i wouldnt have anyone either than a trained mechanic work on my motor...but have driven enough motors so i can listen to an engine to hear its running right or test drive it to see how it runs |
|
|
|
Post by cadgi on Feb 13, 2010 15:36:57 GMT
yep conformation will improve a dog with fire and heart, but a dog with fire and heart and conformation that doesn't fall into a written standard doesn't meen it's a bad one. but a dog with good conformation and no fire and heart is just an eating,sleeping, shitting ornament nothing more. as soon as you start judgeing an animal for the way it look's, the look's become priority, look's should be a bonus.
if your talking ferrari and axle's, then why do you think if my axle doesn't fit your standard's it's brocken. my axle is just built differently the only way to see who's got the best axle is to test them on a track, not look at them in a field. conformation should be known about and studied yes i agree but not prioritised and don't have a standard of conformation because as soon as you standardise anything you don't leave room for improvement. a dog doing A frame, weight pull, lure racing, ferreting or any other activity should be judged on how well they carry out said activity,a dog stood in a ring should be viewed or looked at nothing more.
is owen's boy sonny a good bull terrier because he look's good, or is he a good bull terrier because he's going to show them huskie's the way home.
yes i have put my dog in the ring but why? i have done it for other's, they've asked me for various reason's, i've been asked to judge them in a ring and i've alway's refused, just not my cup of tea.
painting's should be judged on how they look that's their only function, dog's have alot more to them with look's way down in the order.
|
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 13, 2010 16:05:31 GMT
okedoke m8, cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by ragingstormkennels on Feb 13, 2010 16:16:59 GMT
Thats all well and good that dogmen of the past, most likely did not pay much, if any, attention to a dogs conformation and as long as it was successful at the work it had been bred for - thats all that mattered, but the question I think is, in order to judge a "Show dog" for correct conformational values, should it not be necessary to know why a dogs structure is the way it is. Good conformation is an illustration of a dog that would theoretically be more likely to succeed in its specific task. For example, say you have a dog with great heart and fire, but lacks conformationally, then you have your 2nd dog that has equal amount of heart and fire but has perfect conformation, I personally think the dog with the correct conformation will be more likely to succeed, it will have the advantage of having the correct structure for it to enhance its movement and strength. IMO. The original question asks..."or educated themselves on conformational issues, but know a good dog when they see one. can this be the case"....Joe Mallen could hold a Stafford out at arms lenght and guess its weight correctly he didnt learn that from a book it came from years of experiance of being around the dogs the same can be said when judging a dog an exsperianced eye can tell a lot from watching it move around...i would bet that most of the best producing sporting dogmen in history had little education on the finer points of anatomy...'Dog' mentions the people down at the Ockendon greyhound track...i have had a good chat over a cuppa with the old boy down there who runs the lure...bet he's never read a book on anatomy in his life...but bet he knows a good dog when he see's it!... imo atb ect I appreciate what youre saying, but Joe Mallen wasnt picking his dogs out of a ring, without seeing how it moved around.....as a show judge you are picking a dog out for, unfortunately, the way it looks, you rarely have a chance to see the dog overall characteristics like his speed, power and intelligence. |
|
|
|
Post by ragingstormkennels on Feb 13, 2010 16:19:12 GMT
yep conformation will improve a dog with fire and heart, but a dog with fire and heart and conformation that doesn't fall into a written standard doesn't meen it's a bad one. but a dog with good conformation and no fire and heart is just an eating,sleeping, shitting ornament nothing more. as soon as you start judgeing an animal for the way it look's, the look's become priority, look's should be a bonus. Agree with you there Lyndon, like Owen said, a dog ideally needs a good balance of everything to be a good dog! But as said above, you are judging on looks at shows, so a dog built correctly will be more desirable than that of one that has faults. |
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Feb 13, 2010 19:15:38 GMT
first thing is to understand dogshowing and the function of this exhibition. it is an activity with a clear focus on type and the interpretation of what is written down in so called breedstandards, this projected towards dogs who's owner has payed to recieve an opinion about his dog matching the points within the written standard as far as these points can be judged within the boundries of that showring.
Conformation can be judged towards a certain degree in a show ring but then someone should have a life time of experience in working dogs and then the capability to translate that towards movement in a showring.
This is mainly not the case as we have the sad situation that things are split up. So i understand that one can say that one can reckognise a good dog when he sees one but the art is to explain why that is a good dog compared towards the others to let every one understand. i wonder how manny people would like it to be a judge when they had to wear a head set and let the crowd here them speak there minds on the proces i also wonder how popular this honest way of showing would become. A dog show and his judges should be appreciated as a possibility to hear from different people invalved in the breed if there specimen is reckognised by them as a SBT EBT etc etc.
If you want to know you also have a good dog besides a typical dog you need to get out of the ring and put your dog towards as many tests as possible. I see a lot of great dogs that looks far away of what was meant to be a SBT but are good sound dogs.
Now when you want to breed a SBT you have rules to follow when you want to breed just a dog you are a free man. Judging is focussed on the historical preservation of a certain type of dog that ones was used for a specific task. Working dogs are about improving without preservation of history but possibly makes history in his own right. i reckon these two are a world of differences.
so knowledge about conformation is not nessesary as a show judge nor as a sporting man it is indeed a great help when you want to achieve something. but to me a dog can only be a champion of his breed when it is reckognised as typical and has proven to be rancked among the best in a canine athletic competition.
I hope my words help my friend.
Cheers - Marco
|
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 13, 2010 22:59:47 GMT
indeed they do mate, cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by cadgi on Feb 14, 2010 15:19:02 GMT
yep conformation will improve a dog with fire and heart, but a dog with fire and heart and conformation that doesn't fall into a written standard doesn't meen it's a bad one. but a dog with good conformation and no fire and heart is just an eating,sleeping, shitting ornament nothing more. as soon as you start judgeing an animal for the way it look's, the look's become priority, look's should be a bonus. Agree with you there Lyndon, like Owen said, a dog ideally needs a good balance of everything to be a good dog! But as said above, you are judging on looks at shows, so a dog built correctly will be more desirable than that of one that has faults. So what you are saying is a show dog with good conformation according to show rule's will beat a show dog with bad conformation according to show rule's, and then go on to be the best looker according to show rule's. with you now, just one last question,what will happen if they change the rule's/standard again. will all these show bred, good looker's suddenly be full of show fault's according to the rule's of showing?
|
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 14, 2010 22:27:15 GMT
The structure, not 'looks' are just as important as the drive, if we are to improve the dogs we work. To be honest there's lots of shit out there and by shit i don't mean it doesn't conform to a standard, i mean its not got the correct tools for the job. We cannot test our dogs at the function they are ment for, but we should understand the mechanics behind a real pit/bull dog. The winners were not just the the ones who wanted it most, they were the ones with that quality plus the mechanics to do the job. These mechanics i believe should be well understood by judges and breeders. Researching it should be enjoyed by the real enusiast. Just to say you have worked dogs so that will do isn't enough i believe to judge anyway.
My views are not the same as everyone elses but thats debating i suppose. But if we improved our judging systeme's then we would improve our credibility with the masses imo.
|
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Feb 14, 2010 23:09:02 GMT
The structure, not 'looks' are just as important as the drive, if we are to improve the dogs we work. To be honest there's lots of shit out there and by shit i don't mean it doesn't conform to a standard, i mean its not got the correct tools for the job. We cannot test our dogs at the function they are ment for, but we should understand the mechanics behind a real pit/bull dog. The winners were not just the the ones who wanted it most, they were the ones with that quality plus the mechanics to do the job. These mechanics i believe should be well understood by judges and breeders. Researching it should be enjoyed by the real enusiast. Just to say you have worked dogs so that will do isn't enough i believe to judge anyway. My views are not the same as everyone elses but thats debating i suppose. But if we improved our judging systeme's then we would improve our credibility with the masses imo. i am sorry mate  i totally agree so there is not much room for a debate with me ;D Cheers mate! Marco |
|
|
|
Post by cadgi on Feb 15, 2010 2:55:57 GMT
Conformation should be known about, but when you put a dog in a ring all you do is LOOK at the conformation, you don't see it functioning so yes your judgeing them on LOOK's.
As you say we can not test them for the function they were ment for, so test them as i've said on other function's which will show the conformation functioning, why put them in a ring and judge them for what you think LOOK's the best conformationed dog according to a standard.
Also these pitt/bull dog's and their mechanic's, how did they know they worked, they didn't put them in a ring and LOOK at them, they put them in the field to see if they worked.
Your last statement ''because you've worked a dog'' and so on, if that was aimed at me, then why have you along with other's on this forum asked me and friend's of mine who only WORK dog's to judge YOUR dog's. when you wanted a terrier you went to people who worked them, not some one who judged them in a ring,look out, if you lean forward you may fall off that fence your on. Read all you want, that just prove's you can read, understanding is another matter, I've read book's on plumbing but i'm the first to admit i'm no plumber.
for more info on judgeing stucture/conformation see the K.C. they'll put you right.
Don't forget people it's the men/women who've worked and produced these breed's for you lot to sit there and judge them in the ring and now your telling them how they should behave and LOOK. J.M.H.O..........
|
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 15, 2010 8:26:43 GMT
it wasnt aimed at you mate, sorry you took it that way. Im not trying to tell you how they should look, why would i. i was talking about the athletic dog show scene. the K.C is were i look for info as there is none on functional conformation coming from the athletic side imo, but i question that kc info too. If you dont lean forward, then how will you learn, im not afraid to fall off m8. Cheers Lyndon, never was i pointing a finger at you but i suppose debating ruffles feather etc. Neil.
|
|
|
|
Post by dog on Feb 15, 2010 10:50:40 GMT
I think the reason people have asked you to judge in the past Lyndon is because you understand how conformation effects working ability and have changed what you've found to be wrong in mind and body of the dogs to create a true working dog. I've spoken to you alot about conformation and found out more from you than any other person or book and that's the way it should be, as I said before you can't ask books questions and speaking to someone knowledgable helps you clear things up that you're not sure about.
I totally understand your dislike of standards because they're so often misinterpreted, remember our conversation about how the 'strong underjaw' quoted in the EBT standard has somehow lead to show EBT's having no visible jaw muscles?!*?!. It goes to show that we all have a different opinion of what the words 'strong', 'very' and 'moderately' mean and misinterpreting them can be harmful to our dogs. I don't think Neil is talking about standards but rather something more relevant to working ability.
If you saw an EBT in the ring with a very short back, a rugby ball head, a curly tail, no visible jaw muscles and really short legs you wouldn't want that dog to beat a dog with the tools to do a job. There may be a chance that it's got the mental attitude to overcome it's problems but given two dogs with equal drive and intelligence you'd like to have a dog with a conformation better suited to working...like your dogs.
The way I see it is that good conformation is the lack of faults that will adversely effect a dog's working ability. Hopefully the form and function show along with other similar events will help to evolve showing into something more relevant to function because showing in many instances has become very little to do with function. Conformation can't be judged in isolation, testing will always be the most important part of the equation.
|
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Feb 15, 2010 12:30:52 GMT
Exactly owen, i know functional conformation, the biomechanics of the animal which will lead to physical advantage can be assed in the show ring. It does take both sides to decide a true champ, but the show ring does have a very valid contribution. |
|
|
|
Post by bullrover on Feb 15, 2010 13:12:16 GMT
Great debate with some sound points all round.
I think it is likely a dog which is good at a particular task will exhibit certain characteristics both mentally and physically but some will be hidden and not apparent in a show ring. Having first hand knowledge of good working dogs and which traits make them good and how they look must be an advantage which is probably more important than a knowledge of anatomy in itself.
The problem for me comes with a breed standard and setting it down in writing. I thinks some standards have been based on particular dogs that were considered, through their deeds, to be the best around at that time but that is not without its problems. Look at the K.C. dogs virtually all breeds have problems stemming from following a standard.
I agree a standard must be based around performance and the ability to do a particular job but ultimately it will always be a case of how good the dog is at its job not how it looks. I don't think the old pit dog men bred for looks but on ability- best to best or best producer to best producer.
|
|
