There is some improvement - to my untrained eye. Could it be the way he is / is not stacked? In any case, I hope you are right.

You can't really tell until they are moving. Usually that's when the real horror show begins. I suspect the main difference you're seeing is the stack. If you look at the first photo the hock is lying on the ground and in the second the hock is raised.

Is this "stack" supposed to make the dog look like he's ferocious and ready to "spring" at a bad guy in police work ? The hocks are so flexed that the leg is on the ground like a rabbit. The Belgian dogs don't seem to have this at all. They look much sounder to a non-fancier.

 Quote: Katie Finlay

I never really understood breeding for conformation to begin with.

Well, since the whole notion of dog breeds is a human invention, it seems that conformation breeding is what defines and continues a breed. Without it, the notion of breeds as they are presently defined would not exist. Conformation breeding is what makes a Cardigan different from a Pembroke. One could argue that such distinctions are irrelevant, but that horse has left the barn. Breed definitions are completely esoteric. Without them, what gives anyone the right to say that Cockapoos or Golden Doodles aren't really a breed?

I don't participate in conformation shows; it's just not my thing. But here's my take on the whole business: the dogs participating in conformation shows are well fed, have vet care, and are regularly engaged in an activity with a human that cares about them. By that measure, they are well ahead of most dogs in the world.

Different strokes for different folks and their dogs. Somebody else's enjoyment of their activity doesn't diminish mine in a different arena.

I agree100%. I just thought the GSDs looked odd.
I love my ACD mix, he suits me perfectly, he is exactly what I was hoping for.
Others were HORRIFIED.

I have nothing at all against showing in conformation so long as the dogs are well rounded and healthy. I've considered showing Conan myself just for kicks. But these dogs look deformed, and I don't see how that keeps up with the original idea. Conformation says function follows form. These dogs would not function without injuries due to their form.

I actually enjoy watching conforamtion shows. Now, there are some breeds i look at with horror, but over all, i find it interesting.
Im actually working on titling an American Bulldog in conformation(UKC), and even there, its hard to watch some of the dogs.

My own personal opinion is, if a dog is not titled, or workign towards a title, or otherwise PROVEN in an area of work, relevant to the breed, it should not be allowed to champion out.

A pointer that cannot work in the field has no business being declaired a champion(i.e. best conforming to the WHOLE standard, which includes temperament and workability for many breeds), etc etc.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE a well built dog, don't get me wrong. I am constantly scanning dogs, ready to go "yeah, thats what that dog should look like", and i feel that in order to work without riskign injury, a dog SHOULD be conformationally sound, but conformation without the other breed charactoristics is meaningless.

A beagle that won't use its nose is NOT a beagle, no matter how nice it's "suite" is. A bulldog that won't bite and hold is not a bulldog, no matter how big its head. A GSD that couldn't all out run, turn sharply, and otherwise manouver without tripping over its floppy pasterns , and shies away from things is not a GSD, at least in my book.

 Quote: mallory kwiatkowski

I actually enjoy watching conforamtion shows. Now, there are some breeds i look at with horror, but over all, i find it interesting.
Im actually working on titling an American Bulldog in conformation(UKC), and even there, its hard to watch some of the dogs.

My own personal opinion is, if a dog is not titled, or workign towards a title, or otherwise PROVEN in an area of work, relevant to the breed, it should not be allowed to champion out.

A pointer that cannot work in the field has no business being declaired a champion(i.e. best conforming to the WHOLE standard, which includes temperament and workability for many breeds), etc etc.
I LOVE LOVE LOVE a well built dog, don't get me wrong. I am constantly scanning dogs, ready to go "yeah, thats what that dog should look like", and i feel that in order to work without riskign injury, a dog SHOULD be conformationally sound, but conformation without the other breed charactoristics is meaningless.

A beagle that won't use its nose is NOT a beagle, no matter how nice it's "suite" is. A bulldog that won't bite and hold is not a bulldog, no matter how big its head. A GSD that couldn't all out run, turn sharply, and otherwise manouver without tripping over its floppy pasterns , and shies away from things is not a GSD, at least in my book.

YES! These are my thoughts exactly. Except you laid them out in a much nicer, clearer fashion.

and, i will add, not all the conformation peeps are "bad". I know at least in the UKC(which *started* as a workign dog registry, then went the way of the AKC), and even some AKC hunting breeds(many of the bird dogs, setters, etc) ARE titled in either feild trails, or they actually hunt.

The American Bulldog im working with, her pedigree is PACKED with dogs that are not only championed out, but have working titles, even in Mondio Ring. And she is just a stunning young bitch, i mean, she looks right, and she hits hard with a nice full bite, and loves every minute of it.

My boyfriend, for example, he HATES conformation showing, and has the "if it works, who cares what it looks like" mentality, which isn't wrong, or bad. But its not good for breed preservation. Sure, if the dogs a phenom worker, and healthy, then by all means, set up a working breeding, even if said dog is a little short, or has wrong ears. But, if you are striving to have a working line, recognizable and true breeding, you need to have some level of emphasis on conformation.

You CAN have it both ways, it just takes work, lol.

I wholeheartedly agree that having titles at both ends of the dog's name is the ultimate indication of a true champion.

And yet, I still wonder how many dogs in the real world actually do the historical "work" that their ancestors were bred for? And at what point does it become less important that the best examples of a breed can kill rats, hunt badgers or guard monasteries but rather they are able to live in the world they were born into and still be happy and fulfilled?

Do the differences between breeds today have even more to do with appearance than they perhaps once did? And if so, what does that mean for dogs? I don't foresee a world when their historical work will be returned to very many dogs in anything but weekend sport, and then only for those that are very lucky to have owners that will schlep them to classes like I do.

I don't have the answers to any of these questions--I'm just wondering like the rest of you. But my sense is that all the "working" breeds are headed towards a time when their working ability will either become less important to their definition as a breed, or the surviving examples will be very frustrated.

At some point--perhaps we are already there--the original differences bred into dogs for "work" will only remain as differences in appearance. But if the work itself is gone, is that a problem? For the dog?