Turn of the (20th) century GSDs:

VA Hektor von Schwaben, B. 1898


VA Peter von Pritschen, B. 1900


V Beowulf Sch III S.Z. 10 B. 1899


Turn of the (21st) Century:

2xGV Ch. Campaigner's-Gatewood Uzi ROM,AOE,TC,HIC,TDI,CGC B. approx 1990


GV Ch. WeLove Du Chien's R-Man ROM B. approx 1991



My personal feeling is that the breed's appearance has declined. These are obviously American show line German Shepherds.

Those last two dogs look crippled. Seriously, instead of winning a trophy, those dogs should be banned from the gene pool. Disgusting. And very sad for the dogs. I keep thinking of Dr. Frankenstein.

Last dog: Ow ow ow ow owwwww.... his foot looks completely broken.

Anyone watch the recent Eukanuba show? The GSD was, of course, floppy when gaiting, and wobbly when walking/turning.

Good articles: http://www.terrierman.com/rosettestoruin.htm
http://lowchensaustralia.com/articles/bestdog.htm

This photo is off of shawlein.com: http://shawlein.com/The_Standard/13_Breed_Type/kunming_dog.JPG This is not a German shepherd dog, yet it seems like it could be a decent example of one, give or take a few areas. I can't speak for what's between the ears, but just on looks alone it seems decent. It's a Kunming Dog.

What was the purpose of the sloping back on these dogs,and why is it desirable in the first place. I'm just trying to understand why a breeder would attempt to continue this mutation from the original dog, who looked perfect in form and function. What is their justification for requiring this particular body shape over the original shepard. They wouldn't even consider my GSD, because her back is straight, and she is from the working lines. My dog is a real beauty, just ask me. Why does her back have to slope like that to win a prize. Who decides that, and what gives them the right to do so.

Oh my, you've hit on my pet peeve and given me an excuse to rant. I absolutely agree the appearance has declined, but not only in American show line dogs. I think the current fad of roach backs in German show (and some working) lines is almost as bad. I say almost because the roach backs are at least not as functionally dysfunctional as the steep sloping backs. But I have the same questions as Bruce: "What was the purpose of the roach back, and why is it desirable in the first place? Who decides that, and what gives them the right to do so?" If a dog works well but happens to have a roach back, then so be it. But to reward that in the conformation ring? Sorry, no. They are ugly. The dogs with extreme roaches look like the front end of the dog is disconnected from the back end. How can that be better than the level top lines of the early years? We don't see the roach back in any animal that I can think of in the wild. Wolves and coyotes, who have to travel long distances and fight large prey, do not have roach backs. For thousands of years, people have bred working sheepdogs for performance only, and none of those dogs had roach backs until "conformation experts" decided they knew better than nature's original design and started promoting the feature. The most rational discussion I have seen of this (okay, maybe I think it's rational because I agree with it...) is by Linda Shaw, at http://www.shawlein.com/The_Standard/04_The_Back/The_Back.html
She makes the point that a roach back is NOT efficient for a trotting dog. It's only stronger than a straight back when needed to carry weight. How many GSDs are pack animals? Why haven't other dog breeds been bred for roach backs, if that structure is so useful?

It's time to tell both American and German (and Czech, and whomever else) breeders and judges that the emperors have no clothes. The dogs they're producing and rewarding are ugly and not suited to the breed's purpose. I refuse to blindly accept what judges and some breeders tell me is good.

Sound the battle cry! Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war! Give us our sensibly structured breed back!

I get a little excited over this subject....

Anita, you've hit on a good point.. I've seen a few *working* lines with the roach. How does that figure? Here's one example: http://www.eurosportk9.com/forsale/o/orest/orest1.jpg Note I am not picking on the breeder/broker at all; since the pedigree database had a brain fart this is the only site off the top of my head with a good variety of dogs. Anyway, I'm not sure if it really is just the stack, but I do believe that guy's got a slight hinge effect going on. Please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

The more I study pedigree and structure on the GSD, the more I wonder if I should just skip the GSD for a mal or dutchie.

Diana,

I saw the dog show myself. The GSD, although handsome, was a mess. I just picked up a new training prospect as PPD w/no pedigree and I'll take those all day over that GSD.

Another thing that agravated me on that show was the commentators. They constantly talked about working ability in the dogs and the high drive, of which I couldn't see. I could have put an end to all that banter with one firecracker. :-)

Howard, that would have been fantastic. Did you happen to notice the opening video for the Sporting Group? They showed field bred dogs that looked obviously completely different from anything in the group, and like you said, the commentators blab endlessly on working ability which is mostly not there. At least one of those individuals was also a field hunter, much to my surprise, but yes, working ability is quite diminished in many breeds.

I'm sorry to say it, but that Sealyham looked more steady and confident than the GSD. I think you could have blown an M80 up behind him and he'd just turn around and glare at you, muttering something about the darn whippersnappers these days.

Well if you look at the dogs back in the days(1800 1900) the dogs were built more for endurance, lighter in weight, thinner hinds, which is what dogs are supposed to have.But Now you see ,and not just in GSD"s, bigger size, more showee.If you look at rotties it's the same thing, they were not as big as they are today.So many people think that bigger is better, always comparing how big their dogs are and so on. I am one to say that I like my big males(gsd) they are much bigger than they probably were back in the 1800 but I think NOW some(not all) people have gotten used to that size (of today) and want nothing smaller or thinner.Mine are all working line and they work, and yes they are bigger than the ones on the picture that is showing(1800) and so on, but I like the way my dogs look and they still have good movements and good endurance.Do I like the dogs in those pictures(1800)? Yes, would I want one ,no.Too thin for me.Just being honest.I think the Gsd of today is what a lot of people must have wanted.Was the german Shepherd meant to be over 100 lb, probably not. We have a few guys in our club that like smaller GSD and others that like the bigger males ect...I bet some people see the 2 bottom pictures(most recent one ) and think "great looking dogs"
I think changes go along with peoples desires.I think in some cases it's unfortunate and others well it was long over due.
Just my thoughts
http://s141.photobucket.com/albums/r77/cadogancna/

The sloping back is caused by the dog being over-angulated in the rear. I think it was Lance of Fran-Jo who was a big winner with that type of conformation & it's just become more & more exagerated since then.

My personal preference is for the smaller GSD. All I can think of when I see a large heavy-boned GSD is how much his weight must affect his joints. As far as show dogs go, it's just fashion & unfortunately people jump on the bandwagon & want dogs that look like the current winner, instead of breeding according to the original standard. Anyway, I'll stop before I start ranting...