Vancamp,

Placing figures on something so intangible is stupid and ignorant in it's own right. Like people saying a dog should be working 50/50 prey defence or that to get a good working dog you need 70% genetics and 30% training or what ever. These figures are totally irrelivant. There are no magic numbers.

The fact is that a dog is a total package and one part without the others is incorrect. I to am not interested in winning any show, like I said I want the opinion of an experienced breed judge to tell me independant of what I want to believe it may be. I am not looking to win but I wish to know weither or not my dog complies and where his/her faults lie so I can work on these. In the end we all should be looking towards the perfect dog. Clearly non of us will achieve it but to aim at so-so levels is rubbish.

You are certainly correct that temperament is more important. You live with it 365 days a year and I too believe that the ability of a dog to do the job required of it is infinatly more important than it's ability to win in the show ring. But to ignore confirmation because you dont care for it will weaken your dog. Confirmation is related to movement it is only in it's highest levels of application that other factors are brought into the equation. If the dog moves incorrectly then you have problems that will lead to a reduction in its ability to do it's job.

On a personal note VanCamp, personal attacks only weaken the argument of those making them. You disagree with something I say, then give a valid point against it and I will do the same for you. If all we do is abuse those with a difference of opinion then we acheive nothing but make others unwilling to post here and learn and in the end weaken the board.

Just this "JOKER'S" humble opinion.

Mick

LOL, that was pretty funny. It seems, Mick, that you have a little problem with my post, even though we are saying about the same thing. You know what, I don't care. I'm not trying to make a living as a dog trainer, so I guess I have that advantage. I can be as edgy as I wanna be. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> There I go bringing the board down again. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

Now, what is so tough about 50/50? Intangible? Please. . . That ideal confirmation crap is what is intangible. If a dog conforms to the standard then who cares about whether or not he is perfect looking. This is all about the form vs. function problem. Our working dogs are bred for function. FUNCTION

This is how I think it should work. Confirmation should be rated as a pass or fail, like back in college. Working ability should get regular marks like A, B, C, D, or F. You should breed working dogs this way- Working ability good, high marks? YES Conforms to standard? Yes = Breed

I want to see dogs with good confirmation, but poor confirmation does not in any way affect their working ability. That is a myth. Faulty confirmation, now that could be a problem. It all comes down to this. What should a utility dog be, should he be pretty or should he be able to work. You say both, so do I. I just don't think that judging beyond conformity to the standard is necessary. That is stupid. What difference does it make? None, zero, no difference. Conform to standard, conform to type, look like what the dog is spos' to look like. Any judging beyond that is foolish. Are you going to look at your dog or are you going to live and work with him? As long as the dog can work and conforms to the standard you have a good dog. A few inches here or there is BS. That so so crap is wrong, you will be producing the best working dogs possible that also conform to the standard. What more could you ask for? The best working dog IS the best confirmation dog, right? That is what we should be thinking. If one dog looks just a little bit better, that is really what you are talking about in confirmation competitions, then that is ok. But working ability should be put above that. Maybe not like 90/10 or anything, but how about working ability rated at 90%+ and confirmation a P/F?

That is all I'm saying here bro. And just for your info, I call everybody jokers. It's kinda like a joke 'er something. Get it? No insult intended. Why don't you have a few laughs and smiles and chill the -F- out. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> There are plenty of people here on the board that enjoy my posts.

Van Camp,

We are indeed saying very similar things however there are slight differences. To say that a dog confirms to the standard, or it doesn't, that it is black and white, right or wrong shows that you do not understand what it is nor it's importance. Any dog that fits the desired measurements fits the standard, but how well they move etc is only relative to how they move compared to another dog. Many dogs will pass a SchH title, or be certified for police service but there are varying degrees of quality within these standards as to how well or how poorly they will perform within this standard. Not all dogs perform like Brawnson, so there is a higher level test to seperate those that excell from those that pass the grade. True confirmartion as a measurement of movement is no different to this. All dogs move, some just do it better than others.

To say that confirmation does not effect working ability is rediculous. Movement greatly effects a dogs ability. The longevity and the ease within it's movement will greatly effects its ability to track and to work for long periods using little energy. One of the big problems within the Rottweiler at present is its lack of stamina due to poor movement and the amount of injuries that are sustained within the working of these dogs. A lot of these dogs have good drive levels but fatique to quickly as the dog is using a lot of energy to move and tires quickly thus losing the disire to work.

Do not confuse the measurement of cosmetics for the true measurement of confirmation. Cosmetics may sperate too dogs in the ring (I have already stated I am not looking to win, but produce the best dog I can) but any dog with correct movement will perform well in the ring. As I too am looking to produce working dogs I place more emphasis on working ability but it is very much possible still within this breed to hold true to both. There is a large list of dogs that have excelled in both work and true confirmation.

Now I am off to smile and chile out. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Mick.

Hey Richard I have no problem with conformation. In fact, as far as conforming to a standard that keeps dogs healthy i firmly support. But, IMHO, form should follow function, and not the other way around. I think you are changing the argument in order to be right. The concern wasn't about conformation it was the pointless nature of dog shows.

I actually like the ARV shows, they test Rotts against Rotts in all capacities.Testing a dog against himself and testing your own skiils as a trainer I can accept that. I personally don't find any point in a rottweiler winning a beauty contest. Comparing a Rott to a poodle and a King charles cavalier spaniel is the height of human self indulgence and certainly an exercise for folks with way too much time on their hands.

I think testing a dog for his working abilities against a written standard gives trainers a goal they can shoot for. In the end that criterion may be subjective but the rules are written on paper and all trainers know what they want. If you lose you still have a trained dog yo can work to improve his skills, you can work to attain perfection, plus you still have a very useful working dog. If you lose a beauty contest this week, then oh well take out a few more adds in the Dog Show magazine, kiss the judges rear ends and other talk shop with other "Dog Show" people, take your dog to a judge that likes your breed and you have a pretty good chance of winning next week. I was reading were owners of certain breeds don't take their dogs to certain shows where they know certain judges will be judging. That, to me, is the nature of dog shows.

Mick wrote:"To say that a dog confirms to the standard, or it doesn't, that it is black and white, right or wrong shows that you do not understand what it is nor it's importance."

That is bullshit. I understand exactly "what it is", I just don't agree with it. I think that silly ideal is stupid. And further it means nothing to a dogs working ability.

Mick Wrote:"Any dog that fits the desired measurements fits the standard, but how well they move etc is only relative to how they move compared to another dog."

That is bullshit as well. Either dogs move well or they don't. You are talking about running the dogs around in a little circle. You don't need to see them run around "in show pace" to see how they move. Who cares, I see just how well a dog moves on the trial field. That is where it counts. You are subscibing to the show world bullshit that real confirmation is a dog that "moves" and has "that show quality" that says he is a winner. Are you a pro-handler in the AKC or what? Have you ever trained a dog in Schutzhund or some other real working discipline? You are starting to sound more like an AKC handler. All that crap is just that, crap. How do you explain all the dogs with piss poor confirmation, or even disabilities that still can work, and work very well. My cousin has a little farm dog mutt shepherd. He lost a foot, and still works animals for over 8 hours a day. That is drive in action. Confirmation takes a back seet to that kind of working ability. Now if a confirmation test was more like an overall agility test them I might change my mind, but you would have a problem. Dogs with shit confirmation will often do as well, or better than the dogs with good confirmation. It is a drive and athleticism issue, not a pretty issue.

If a dog conforms to the standard, and has working ability, then that is what "true confirmation" should be. Not the flying trot, or any other crap like that. It makes no difference in the animals working ability. He looks better while moving or he looks worse while moving is what you really mean, right? If the dog can move well then it shows in his work. All those little "refined" animals in the show lines are garbage. A fantasy sold to us by the "fancy". I don't think YOU understand what you are talking about. A dogs drive goes a lot farther than his confirmation in his stamina. That is a fact. A good dog will work himself to death. If that takes 18 hours and the more refined mover takes 18 1/2 that makes no difference. That is the type of miniscule thing you are talking about. They both move well, that is a yes or no question with a simple answer. Same as the rest of a dogs confirmation to the standard. Black or white, sounds pretty good to me. Either a dog is a representative of his breed or he has some severe faults that make him not breedworthy. That is the way I see it, like it or not.

Mick and Richard have written some very interesting and factual comments on the standards,sadly others are now turning it into a fight,training a dog in Sch is only part of the story,it is when they are really working,PSDs,Real protection dogs,SAR and the like that the truth really shows,a long shift soon shows up the weeklink.
Lets keep it on track without the personal attacks that just destroy what is a very good subject to debate.
I would also say that those who make there living training dogs have more concern as to the dogs ability than those who do it for fun.
Paul

I agree with everything Richard has said, . . .I think. I just don't agree with everything Mick is saying. Confirmation is important, but working ability really has nothing to do with confirmation, in a #1 show dog, way. A dog should conform to it's physical standard, that is it. I don't believe in that moving, balance, show crap. I also didn't say that Schutzhund is the be all and end all test of a dog. I hella think that the best police dog is the animal that we should all be trying to breed. That is the ultimate in training and temperament. How many police dogs are out there with show winning confirmation? Come on. . .is anybody feeling me here? How many dogs have got their AD degrees that have poor confirmation? Lots. One more time, the only test of a dogs confirmation should be if he is conforming to the standard. Not in a judging contest where there is a winner, unless there is also a working test that is more important in that same contest. Function should dictate form within the limits of the standard. Not some silly ideal show dog, that the AKC or similar orgainizations promote.

Don't misrepresent what I'm saying here. Why doesn't anybody listen to what I am saying. Confirmation does not = stamina. Stamina = stamina, strenght = strenght, agility = agility, are any of these qualities measured in the confirmation ring? No, they are not, just estimated according to someones ideal of what is correct form.

Just because someone says they are a dog trainer doesn't make their commitment any greater to their dogs than any of the rest of us. That is stupid. If it is true for you then that is you, not me. GSDs and training is a way of life for myself and my family. It goes back generations on both sides of my family. That is one of the reasons I get so damn hot about this crap.

VanCamp,
What is conformation,if we are talking about the show ring then yes it is crap but if we are talking the true breed conformation it is not as the GSD proves,go back before the current type show GSD and the breed standard called for exactly what you are looking for,it is the current market value for pet dogs that has been the downfall of so many breeds.They want them sloppy,so thats how they change the rules.
My grandfather started with GSDs in 1918 only 19 years after the breed was accepted and as a child I grew up with powerful intelligent dogs not what we generally see now.
Sad but true.
Paul

OK Paul.