I'm with you guys as well. I think conformation is important, and believe me, with a dog like a Boxer, with different head types, muzzle lengths & widths, too thick, too frail, cropped/floppy, docked/long tail...you definitely have your preferences. I am just not a fan of US conformation. In all the years of seeing it, I learned very little compared to what I've learned in European conformation. If and when I get another dog I believe is "conformation worthy", I will probably show it, just not in US conformation.

I've had the pleasure of meeting Ingrid's dog. A beautiful dog with lot's of substance IMO. And yes, I did notice the suspicious glint It is too bad the character qualities of some breeds work against them. That's not right.

On a postive note, I would like to mention that the rear angulation of the dogs of this breeder do not seem nearly as extreme as some, which I am glad to see! Gerry Darcy is quite a nice solid square looking dog actually.

http://www.heidelberg-usa.com/gerry.jpg

Honkin' big ears on the pups though....
http://www.heidelberg-usa.com/Typical%20litter%20pups-15%20wks-Web.jpg

Can anyone tell me what breeds exist who're consistently tested in the physical demands of their standard?

For as many modern breeds there are, there are scant few which are tested that way.

The only ones I can really think of are the malinois, dutch shepherd, a couple of latter day herders, working hounds, and maybe some terriers somewhere. Can you even say the same for most retrievers/pointers anymore?

The bodies are molded by attrition, and not a matter of what is supposed to LOOK useful, or what's supposed to be healthy on paper (hip and elbow x-rays).

Don't jump, don't bite, don't breed (broad, palisade, hurdle).

Can't herd sheep for some ungodly amount of time, don't breed.

Can't chase/catch hogs, don't breed.

Don't literally fit down a hole to bay a raccoon? Don't breed.

The extreme physical demands are what dictate the standard. Not: "This rear angulation shall result in a gait which is useful for X."

Meanwhile, the dog is many generations away from ever actually having done X. And that's where a paper audit has to take up the slack.

Yes, human selection pressure results in all these types, but for animals used for work and performance, it has never been the paper standard which came first. How stupid would that be? Just find the damn dog which does the task first, and go from there.

Steven,

I am not sure what you mean? Do you mean breed only what works and correct conformation will follow? I am not sure that is the greatest idea in the world either. There are plenty of working dogs out there with the drive and skill to die for but its body is crap and breaks down at an early age. Some of the fronts on these dogs make me cringe and I am not surprised that they can't work without coming up lame after the age of 7 or so. There are some breeders out there that are just as single-minded in their quest to breed for hard grips and drive as there are of some conformation folks breeding solely for what is the current fad.

I would say that my breed, the Australian Cattle Dog, works hard to stay true to it's heritage. Our breed has a "working standard" and much focus is on ensuring that the breed continues to excel in herding, and in particular, cattle.

Conformation is a component of a healthy working dog. I am not saying the conformation found in the breed ring is always that of a healthy working dog (with the Am GSD as a good example) but to discount conformation is a disservice to a breed just like discounting whether the dog has the ability to work or not.

 Quote: Alex Corral

I've had the pleasure of meeting Ingrid's dog. A beautiful dog with lot's of substance IMO. And yes, I did notice the suspicious glint It is too bad the character qualities of some breeds work against them. That's not right.

LOL, it was great meeting you and your wife as well! Perhaps I will be able to meet the newest member of the Corral family next February ;-)

 Quote:

There are plenty of working dogs out there with the drive and skill to die for but its body is crap and breaks down at an early age.

That's exactly my point. As far as one can tell by mere observation, a dog can achieve a correct paper standard at a pretty early age. Isn't that why the SL GSD is so many more generations removed from the first anscestors?

One doesn't know how durable a dog is until it's been worked over for a number of years. Then you can say: "Ok, those hips sure LOOKED good...but yet he's still showing apparent lameness in the course of being trained and worked."

Or, on the other hand: "That hip angulation certainly LOOKED "incorrect" from the outside (according to what some standard says), but wow...the dog's been running and jumping for years, and it's still in good shape."

 Quote:

Do you mean breed only what works and correct conformation will follow? I am not sure that is the greatest idea in the world either.

I was talking about how the body holds up in the course of whatever working venue we're talking about. In which case, it's the only idea there was for a long time. That's how every performance breed started. Uncompromising selection pressure for whatever applicable traits we're talking about... based directly on ability. Not what a hip angulation is supposed to SUGGEST about ability.

Ingrid not that you asked me but the best way to quantify orthopedic health is by extreme testing and seeing how that dog holds up to that training or of course seeing the dog do its work on a long term basis, there is no other way. The working GSD breed cub, the SV, has been making clear hips mandatory on all breed stock under their umbrella via x-ray’s and yet HD is still a big problem. Why? Because they weakened their test (schutzhund) so more dogs could pass. Orthopedic health and HD is more than clear hip x-rays it is (and I am paraphrasing) the tightness of a dogs ligaments, the development of the component bones forming the acetabulum, the quality of connective tissue and similar things; and some of them might be called "indirect acting" - genes affecting say conformation features which put an unfair load on the hip joint, the animal's ability or lack thereof to maintain good muscle tone, etc. etc. All of these things can more accurately assessed by hard work. The problem with health screening tests is they are rather narrowly focused in what they can achieve. Work identifies orthopedic health and soundness, rather than good hips.

Laura Sanborn said it best when she wrote:

“The German Shepherd Dog and Malinois derive from landrace populations that did quite similar work, and looked rather similar 100 years ago. Yet mandatory radiographic HD clearances of all GSDs used for breeding in Germany over the past 40 years has not managed to get the frequency of HD in that GSD population as low as that in the working Malinois population, even though the working malinois population has had less radiographic HD testing. A friend explained it rather succinctly when we were watching a French Ring (protection dogsport) trial. As I was marvelling at the effortless
athleticism of these dogs, nearly all of them working line malinois, he said of the palisade (vertical wall),
http://www.ringsport.org/Pictures/champ04/ring3/2004%20NARA%20Championships%20134.jpg
"that's our OFA". Indeed, the palisade and the other tests of agility in the protection Ringsports have done far more to select for useful athletic abilities and overall orthopedic soundness than the conformation show ring and 40 years of mandatory hip clearances have accomplished for the GSD breed in Germany”.

I agree in part Norman. I still think that it is idiotic not to OFA or Pennhip but I do agree that form follows function. However, I see far too many breeders breed to dogs when they are young and by the time that those same dogs are mid-aged, they can't sustain the work anymore. However, by that point they have been bred quite a bit and are perpetuating the problem.

So if one is to base conformation on what holds up over time, they should wait to breed to dogs that are 7 or 8 and still holding up and not the 2 or 3 year old sire ;-) Of course, you can't really do this with bitches so I guess you have to consider the longetivity of her parents.

 Quote:

Ingrid wrote in part:
So if one is to base conformation on what holds up over time, they should wait to breed to dogs that are 7 or 8 and still holding up and not the 2 or 3 year old sire ;-)

I agree the later the better but where I come from a dog goes through a lot of training by the time he or she is three.

But it is not the training that I am talking about. I am talking about being able to hold up physically. I believe that any dog with enough drive can handle the palisade etc but will their body hold up after a few years? A properly conformed dog is not only one that can do the routine but that is also not crippled by it later in life.