|
In the February 1986 issue of the RASKC Journal and the KCC magazine in March 1986 an article was published that was written by the highly respected All Breeds judge Dr. Harry Spira. The article titled `German Shepherd Dogs - A Question of Type' was centred around the controversy and arguments that existed between GSD Specialist judges and All Breed judges on what is `correct type'. I responded to Dr. Spira's article via the April issue of the All Breed magazine `National Dog’ and with some amendments, the GSDCA Review and a number of other magazines. This is the article and an interesting insight into that very early period. |
I commence my response to Dr. Spira’s article by stating that I am genuinely a great admirer of Dr Spira. I feel he has been largely responsible for giving the Australian dog world an enviable level of professionalism and tone that is missing in many other countries and he has been very supportive of the German Shepherd Dog and the GSDCA. His article furthers my admiration of him. Dr. Spira has once again put his money where his mouth is for which he is to be commended. I only wish there were more people in positions of authority both GSD specialist and All Breeds oriented alike who would do likewise. Unfortunately this is not the case, very few people publicly share their experiences and opinions and this is to the breed’s great detriment.
As an unashamedly dyed in the wool GSD enthusiast and judge, or as some may call it, a GSD Specialist, I was naturally drawn to his article. To abstain from replying would have been contrary to my nature, furthermore it would be selling Dr. Spira's interest in the breed short.
As GSD enthusiasts we tend to be self-righteous, unbelievably self opinionated and one eyed about ourt breed. We are grossly intolerant of people who are not involved in our breed and we are very quick at assuming a "know it all" status.
An All Rounder's opinions should be encouraged as they can often give us a different perspective, an opportunity perhaps to see the forest from the trees. Outside opinion, be it praise or criticism that is based on a genuine interest in the breed is healthy, particularly when it is made openly and comes from a highly respected individual with a wealth of dog experience. I suggest Dr. Spira's efforts were motivated by nothing less than constructive factors and as such they deserve a response.
In very broad terms I wish to say that I feel Dr. Spira’s observations and opinions are in some parts plausible and in some parts correct, however we differ considerably on a number of fundamental points and they are:
(i) We differ on the point that whilst his comments may be reasonable relative to the sketches he provided, they are not reasonable relative to those dogs as they exist in the flesh. His comments are very selective.
(ii) We differ with regard to his presumption that if a photo of a dog appears in a Specialist breed magazine then that dog should be taken as the Specialist's example of "correct type".
(iii) I have some disagreement on not all but certainly some of his opinions relative to the structure and inferred quality of the Australian GSD during the 45 odd year importation ban.
(iv) We differ strongly on his summation of the GSD controversy, as it exists in this country.
Before venturing forth into detail, I must say that what really appeals to me about Dr. Spira's article is that whilst these are his personal views they seem to me to mirror the sentiments of the great majority of All Rounders in this country and overseas. Undoubtedly they also mirror the views of a small number of breeders of the GSD both very new and very old, the latter who stand on the fringe and are caught in a time warp.
I welcome the fact that a few individuals will say that Dr. Spira's views are in fact not similar to most All Rounders in Australia, but it is unquestionable in my mind that they are similar.
Dr. Spira has put his personal opinions on paper just as I have but they may be taken much further. I suggest they may be taken as the opinions of the majority of both the All Rounders and the GSD Specialists in this country. As such it gives both articles much more depth, meaning, and importance. It is, in fact, the primary incentive for me now taking pen to paper.
There is only one type.
Dr. Spira opens his article by asking if such a thing as "specialist type" exists. He then asks, "Did the authors of the original official German Shepherd Dog breed standard really intend for it to be so loosely worded as to permit the quite remarkably broad variations in interpretation which abound these days?"
On the first point does `Specialist type' exist? They do exist. The words are used by some individuals to describe a type of GSD they see being promoted by Specialists, and that differs markedly from the type that wins under the All Rounder. The words `Specialist Type' are, in my opinion, as erroneous and as misused as their opposite term `All Breed Type'. These are words borne out of a lack of understanding of the breed, an inability by some people to interpret the standard and an inability to accept that young breeds evolve.
There cannot be more than one type. There is only one `standard type'. Type, to my mind, is created by the fusion of all the elements that are contained within the standard, the dog's constitution, sex characteristics, size, expression, proportions, strength, temperament and general conformation. These things are set down in the standard and should not be open to wide variation. Variation from the standard type must be avoided, particularly by the judges. For only by judges consistently placing standard determined type to the fore can the average be raised.
This leads me to the second and closely related point, that of broad variations in interpretation. Whilst written standards allow interpretation it is an unfortunate fact but I guess an inevitable one that our breed would, over time, be open to various interpretations even extreme ones, particularly as it moved away from the management influences and controls from within its country of origin.
Regardless of how undesirable broadening of interpretation may be, most people would state that to suggest variable interpretations would not occur over time and particularly as a breed developed geographically, would be to show a most naive approach to life in general. Regardless of this the creator of the GSD, Captain Max von Stephanitz did not have this view. He envisaged ongoing clear understanding and support by all breeders and judges of one standard and one interpretation of that standard – his!
He envisaged a strictly controlled, clearly planned evolutionary development that would achieve a very specific and clearly perceived goal - the realisation of the perfect German Shepherd Dog and at its core the fundamental principle that it is a working dog. Whilst he was very aware of the split views between show dog and working dog enthusiasts he did not envisage that there would be any ‘significant and variable interpretations’ of the written blueprint.
 Captain Max Von Stephanitz
|
Captain von Stephanitz as the author of the standard and the President of the SV (the German Control for GSDs with a membership now exceeding 100,000 +) saw himself as the guiding force. He envisaged that on his retirement or death this responsibility would be passed on to a new like-minded President, ad infinitum.
This system applies in Germany to this day and hopefully will continue as such. It is the President's function, with the total support of the SV judges, to dictate the breed's development and to see that it adheres to his inherited interpretation. To my knowledge no other breed in the world has had such dedicated breeder support, strong continuity of management, or administrative breed control. In the eyes of the German breeder there is no dispute on what the ideal GSD should look like. It is as the President states and the breed’s well-being relies heavily on that individuals commitment to the von Stephanitz ideals and legacy. |
This somewhat less than democratic but extremely effective system has been recognized throughout the world by the vast majority of GSD enthusiasts as being a positive management tool. The dangers are of course well recognized; with the wrong President the breed can very quickly lose direction. The fact that not all countries can easily follow this doctrine is also understood.
Most countries tend to have a more liberal, more democratic approach to the breed's administration and their success tends to rest with having a capable and skilled leader.
What is relevant however is that most enthusiasts of the GSD throughout the world support the German direction, philosophies, type and ideals. They recognise the system's inherent weaknesses but also acknowledge the massive benefits it can provide to the breeds development.
Within this framework then there is very little argument on interpretation. The ideal is quite clearly perceived and aggressively pursued. As an aside, the President of the SV recently stated that he considers that there are now a small numbers of dogs in Germany that are close to the ideal.
To many people, particularly those outside the GSD breed, this may all be received with a mixture of cynicism, amusement and even disbelief. After all one can read a standard, any standard, and find at the end of reading it that without an example of the dog to look at, one really is left up in the air on many points, that is, the written standard does not adequately fill the `mind's eye'.
Whilst the written standard establishes specifications, it does not adequately explain them. The accurate interpretation of most if not all standards is often difficult because they are a mixture of words that are often sweeping, sketchy, assumptive, and ambiguous. They are an attempt at creating a word picture, but as a whole, absolutely reliant for accurate interpretation on the reader seeing a good example of the desired type. Add to this the problem of people seeing different dogs, each of which is often supported by opinion based on indulgent self-interest, rose coloured glasses and markedly different interpretations of the standard.
These problems do not exist in the country of origin at a concerning level because of the autocratic system that exists, but for some of us in Australia they obviously do. Furthermore the problems have been compounded by our remote geographic location and a unique 50 year ban on the GSD, made even worse when a small but nonetheless influential group of English breeders took it upon themselves to amend the German Standard both in a written and physical form. These amendments and type were in turn approved by the English Kennel Club and then adopted in Australia, the colonial outpost.
Alsatians - Not German Shepherd Dogs!
There is no question in my mind that the shortening and subtle amending of the original standard was a significant factor in creating a breed in England that was to become right from its early beginning, far removed from the German ‘standard type’ and in due course because of our very close association with the UK this greatly influenced All Breeds judges here in Australia.
This statement may appear to be too sweeping - until one considers the following - when Captain von Stephanitz judged in England in 1924 he said, "large numbers are overfed and the number of weak backs is astonishing". Some considerable years after von Stephanitz's death, the late Dr Funk, concluded a judging appointment in the UK by saying, "It is good you English call these dogs Alsatians because they are definitely not German Shepherd Dogs".
These were not the comments of any judge, they were the comments of the breed's creator and one of his immediate successors. Clearly the die had been cast.
The following photographs demonstrate the point and when one realises they are photographs taken four generations after Dr Funk, it can be seen that the advice of von Stephanitz and Funk was by and large ignored. We see an example of a mid 1960's top winning English Champion, Fenton of Kentwood, and his top winning German counterpart, Jalk v Fohlenbrunnen. They are examples of the type each country supported en masse.
Most countries tend to have a more liberal, more democratic approach to the breed's administration and their success tends to rest with having a capable and skilled leader.
What is relevant however is that most enthusiasts of the GSD throughout the world support the German direction, philosophies, type and ideals. They recognise the system's inherent weaknesses but also acknowledge the massive benefits it can provide to the breeds development.
Within this framework then there is very little argument on interpretation. The ideal is quite clearly perceived and aggressively pursued. As an aside, the President of the SV recently stated that he considers that there are now a small numbers of dogs in Germany that are close to the ideal.
To many people, particularly those outside the GSD breed, this may all be received with a mixture of cynicism, amusement and even disbelief. After all one can read a standard, any standard, and find at the end of reading it that without an example of the dog to look at, one really is left up in the air on many points, that is, the written standard does not adequately fill the `mind's eye'.
Whilst the written standard establishes specifications, it does not adequately explain them. The accurate interpretation of most if not all standards is often difficult because they are a mixture of words that are often sweeping, sketchy, assumptive, and ambiguous. They are an attempt at creating a word picture, but as a whole, absolutely reliant for accurate interpretation on the reader seeing a good example of the desired type. Add to this the problem of people seeing different dogs, each of which is often supported by opinion based on indulgent self-interest, rose coloured glasses and markedly different interpretations of the standard.
These problems do not exist in the country of origin at a concerning level because of the autocratic system that exists, but for some of us in Australia they obviously do. Furthermore the problems have been compounded by our remote geographic location and a unique 50 year ban on the GSD, made even worse when a small but nonetheless influential group of English breeders took it upon themselves to amend the German Standard both in a written and physical form. These amendments and type were in turn approved by the English Kennel Club and then adopted in Australia, the colonial outpost.
Alsatians - Not German Shepherd Dogs!
There is no question in my mind that the shortening and subtle amending of the original standard was a significant factor in creating a breed in England that was to become right from its early beginning, far removed from the German ‘standard type’ and in due course because of our very close association with the UK this greatly influenced All Breeds judges here in Australia.
This statement may appear to be too sweeping - until one considers the following - when Captain von Stephanitz judged in England in 1924 he said, "large numbers are overfed and the number of weak backs is astonishing". Some considerable years after von Stephanitz's death, the late Dr Funk, concluded a judging appointment in the UK by saying, "It is good you English call these dogs Alsatians because they are definitely not German Shepherd Dogs".
These were not the comments of any judge, they were the comments of the breed's creator and one of his immediate successors. Clearly the die had been cast.
The following photographs demonstrate the point and when one realises they are photographs taken four generations after Dr Funk, it can be seen that the advice of von Stephanitz and Funk was by and large ignored. We see an example of a mid 1960's top winning English Champion, Fenton of Kentwood, and his top winning German counterpart, Jalk v Fohlenbrunnen. They are examples of the type each country supported en masse.
Jalk v Fohlenbrunnen
|
Fenton of Kentwood
|
The differences are quite great, they need to be understood because these differences have a great bearing on a number of misunderstandings that exist today in this country. They show clearly what happened when the country of origin lost its influence. An inferior type was developed that was given the blessing of those in power in England. In turn, for what was parochial rather than breed reasons the vast majority of people here accepted it all without question in Australia.
When one studies the pictures of these two 1960s winners the differences are probably very obvious, I note them anyway.
The most obvious is that Fenton is far too long and his body, his chest and even his trunk is much deeper than Jalk's. The fact that the photo of Jalk is taken from above does not quite highlight this point as much as it actually existed. The forehand assembly on Fenton is inferior to Jalk, the upperarm is quite well laid but shorter, a pronounced forechest and the relatively long shoulder is too laid back, that is the centre of the scapula falls too far behind the foreleg and creates imbalance. Both the wither and sternum on Fenton are far too prominent and he is grossly over angulated in the hindquarter particularly in the lower thigh, highlighted by Jalk's very moderate hindquarter. The back on Jalk is obviously much stronger and shorter than that of Fenton, the very long defined withers on Fenton are a manifestation of this. On the whole, the main difference to me is one dog has balance, strength, harmony, and proportion and one does not. Only one dog reflects standard type, working dog type and that is Jalk.
With the lifting of the importation ban, interest and incentive arose for Specialist judges to emerge. Prior to the ban being lifted they did not exist. They took it upon themselves to right the wrong. It is a grand irony to me that this Australian initiative to correct type may have had a considerable impact on the now fast growing trend to do likewise in the UK! Satisfy a market?
The fact that the ANKC still supports the English standard is beyond me. We hear that the World Union of Kennel Controls agreed to the principle of adoption of standards from their country of origin. This seems to be very logical and sensible yet nothing has been done, hopefully in time this will happen.
Less hostility in Australia than in England
Whilst the points I have raised are by and large relative to interpretation of the standard they also have a bearing on Dr. Spira's comment regarding the hostility and debate that exists in regard to the GSD breed.
It must be said that in Australia the differences in opinion that may be referred to as hostility, exist not within the ranks of the great majority of enthusiasts of the GSD as it is in England, but between breed enthusiasts and a large number of All Breeds Judges. The differences in opinion are many and varied.
They range from a difference of opinion on what is correct type through to the administrative needs of the GSD both inside and outside the show ring. Whilst one could say the All Breeds judges have little to do with the administrative issues, their influence on the Controls, particularly the larger ones, is considerable and has been particularly so on this subject. There seems to be a greater fascination with the GSD than any other breed of dog at that level!
Before proceeding any further, it may come as a surprise when I state that I have genuinely endeavoured to keep my article as free of politics and further aggravation of the current and long running ‘them and us’ problem as I possibly could. Considering the topic, not an easy thing to do but, nonetheless, in the present circumstances a necessary one. Having said this I have found that in addressing the issue it has been quite impossible not to stir up just a little dust.
What I hope though is that readers such as Dr Spira take this article as one written in a positive and constructive manner. I have written this to help our situation not to aggravate it.
Dr. Spira suggests the GSD `debate' is deeper and more hostile here than anywhere else, more than in any other country in the world. I disagree with this statement.
I have a very good feel for GSD issues throughout the world as a result of regular overseas correspondence and more particularly attending the World Union of GSD Clubs (WUSV) each year in Germany. As an example, last year there were 42 countries represented at the meeting. Consequently, first hand and up to date information was, and is, available on all world issues pertinent to the GSD.
This is a very provocative comment.
I suggest to Dr. Spira that when the GSD fraternity in South Africa breaks away from its Kennel Control and forms its own Control for the GSD as a reaction to differences in opinion and unresolved disputes, then that in my mind constitutes a situation far more serious than here. When some notable GSD authorities in England are openly talking about a breakaway from its Kennel Club and even splitting the breed in two i.e. German Shepherd Dog and Alsatian, this constitutes a far graver situation than exists here!
With all due respect to Dr. Spira, whilst we may have problems in Australia it is quite misleading and inflammatory of him to suggest they are more serious here than elsewhere. Whilst the `debate on type' is not the singular issue that lies at the heart of the problems that exist in Australia it does nonetheless play a significant part and as such I feel further discussion and an open airing on type is necessary.
In this country not all but a large number of the All Breeds judges have an opinion on what an ideal GSD should look like. A smaller number of GSD Specialist judges together with a significantly large number of GSD enthusiasts have their opinion. Broadly speaking the accepted view is that the opinions are not the same.
Indeed on some issues they are reputed to be absolutely opposed, but are they?
I pose this question because I suggest that the opposed views may turn out to be far less than is popularly expounded. Oh yes, I have no doubt there are some GSD hard heads who will probably disagree with everything I say, they are always in the shadows, but I refer here to the majority. Minority elements exist in both camps, some are influential power brokers, but they have no real place in this important debate.
I feel our problems in this area have been brought about by a multitude of factors. They include: a lack of desire or perhaps even an inability on behalf of the necessary organisations and influential people on both sides of the fence to communicate effectively; They include a very effective element who systematically and relentlessly destroy needed communications between the two parties; then there are the Specialists themselves failing, unable to offer clear concise details on their ideals, goals, and motives.
I can only presume that this must be a problem shared by a few other breeds, but it is given less airplay in a national sense because the numbers are considerably less, and the breeds lack leadership, and/or suffer general apathy. In the long term, though, I predict it may prove to be a significant problem as other breeds organise themselves on a national basis. I am probably treading on thin ice politically when I say that I cannot help but feel the days of people accepting without question the direction and stipulations of those in power are gone and that individuality and development of National Breed Clubs is going to be a growing trend. The recent ANKC decision to register National Breed Clubs including the GSDCA of which I am President supports the latter. There is no question in my mind that these factors will have a significant positive effect on the future dog scene in Australia. I suggest they will lead to growth, real breed improvement and mutual respect.
Whilst the role of the All Round judge and the All Breed Show has been extremely important to the sport of dogs and will remain so long after we are all gone, it needs to be said that individual breeds have always owed their well being and development to Specialists. Individual breeds were created, guided, and developed by a Specialist mind not an All Rounder's mind, Specialists came before All Rounders.
Interference not welcome!
Dr .Spira stated "development in quality and type must be tolerated, providing it takes place in the form of improvement and remains within the perimeters of the standard'.
I support his comments wholeheartedly, but wish to seek his and his colleagues’ support and indulgence when I suggest to them that under the eye and control of the Specialist this is in fact exactly what is taking place in the breed within Australia right now. Constructive input and comment from people outside the breed is welcomed, but blatantly wrong and uneducated input is not. Worse still, and I feel this is very much at the root of the issue, is the outright interference by people totally outside the breed.
With all due respect to the All Rounder and Kennel Control committee members, whilst they obviously have a significant part to play, particularly in an administrative sense, it is not their domain and responsibility unless they are actively involved in the breed to interfere in the breed's specialised needs and its evolutionary development.
They are not qualified to do this. This is the prerogative and right of the Specialist judges and the GSD breeders. They en masse are the breed’s caretakers, the, breeds guardians and their input and efforts are based solely on a dedicated research, deep involvement, and a love and passion for one breed. For many like me the breed is their main interest in life. They would no more hurt the breed than their own children. To suggest otherwise, as tends far too often to be the case, is a gross insult. This is a fundamental issue; nothing will really be achieved in this country unless that is understood and more importantly, accepted.
I said that the ideal in the mind of a Specialist and an All Rounder may not be too different! Impossible I hear you say - not so I suggest. Granted, there are some issues that appear to be clearly in disagreement and on these things I will comment.
I feel that part of the problem stems from the 45 year ban. Prior to the ban being lifted there were no conflicts, no problems, no hostility. Why is that so? An analysis of the period may provide some answers.
Up until the late 1970's the majority of shows for the GSD both All Breed and single Breed were judged by Group judges and by All Rounders. Whilst there were a few GSD Breed judges, the word `Specialist' did not exist in this country's dog vocabulary. There were a small number of people who could have been classified as Specialist judges but they were not afforded the status. As judges they were seen as having no more authority nor understanding of the breed than their All Breed colleagues. Any Specialist notion was at a breeder's level never at a judge’s level.
My early teacher and mentor, Ian Stirton, of Glen Angus Kennels, was a classical example. Never once, not once did I hear Ian say that he had any disagreement with or knew more about judging a GSD than say his mentor the late Fred Wheatland, an All Breeds judge from Victoria and he instilled the importance of that basic mutual respect into me.
No public dispute!
Clearly these were less volatile times than now. In the past the vast majority of breeders appeared to have no dispute with All Breeds judges on what was desired type but soundness was understood as being fundamental to any judgment regardless of breed.
No question that this very harmonious mutually respectful environment was a result of the prohibition ban. Pre ban if anyone had an opinion on the differences in type between the English the German and the Australian dogs they did not air it, publically at least. There were exceptions, notably the Executive and small band of supporters of the German Shepherd Dog Council of Australia which was founded in 1963. However, for most people any argument was hypothetical, so why create a fuss?
Pre ban, whilst the GSD in Australia had some minor State differences such as colour, in type they were virtually all the same, same good characteristics same bad characteristics, but more to the point nothing other than the lifting of the ban could change anything. The breed was caught in a 1930 time warp. Why would one argue and fuss over a totally hypothetical issue? Lift the ban though and you've got a very different ball game.
The prohibition times are still fondly referred to by a few individuals as `the good old days' but thankfully they are long gone hopefully never to return. They were times that were not in the best interests of the breed. They were times of a prohibition ban on the GSD with no possibility of breed improvement and no clear breed direction. Whilst some individuals got a kick out of supporting a stagnant and maligned breed, facts are that for the GSD it was the absolute pits.
But to continue, the ban had been in place for almost 2/3 of a lifetime, or more to the point seven generations in dog terms, and the lifting of the ban was nowhere in sight. My recollection is that most breeders, clubs and Kennel Controls had accepted the fact that it would never he lifted. Consequently the backward and totally stagnant breed was here to stay.
The point I am leading to here is what sort of dogs did the judges see and use to set their eye? The breed in 1960 in Australia had not progressed significantly past its German ancestry of the very early 1930s. This point is graphically illustrated by the following photo of the 1929 German Sieger, Utz v Haus Schutting, a dog who incidentally started the trend toward deeper bodies and heavier bone. (The term `Sieger' is used for the dog officially recognised in Germany each year, by the President as the dog most closely resembling the ideal in anatomic, temperament and producing terms).
Utz vom Haus Schütting
As line breeding and later inbreeding developed the typical Australian dog after some 30 or so years, became significantly deeper and perhaps even showed an improvement in the upperarm but the resemblance in all other respects is very obvious, particularly, with regard to the back, croup, upper and lower thigh, and even the pasterns.
I was quite actively involved in the GSD for the last 15 years of the ban and I cannot recall any All Breeds judge I knew going to Germany to look at the GSD. I suppose there was little point in doing so. After all there were books, and anyway if one were to go abroad to look at Shepherds, because of the adoption of the English standard and its well-established type, one would go to the UK.
Whilst a few Judges went to the UK, most studied photographs, ‘English photographs.’ What I learnt later was that whilst a fairly good general impression can be had from a photograph, the detail is often totally lost and certainly nothing can be appreciated with regard to movement and temperament. Regardless of what can and cannot be seen I learnt later at considerable personal cost that photographs and especially a sketch could very effectively mislead. They can mislead just as Dr Spira's have done.
In his article Dr. Spira gives us a very lengthy summary of the issues, implications and politics before and during the prohibition years. Then with the support of a sketch he gives a critique on his recollections of a basic Australia GSD from the prohibition period. (Incidentally, I do not consider the sketch is being indicative of a basic prohibition GSD at all, it is flattering to say the least.)
I was quite actively involved in the GSD for the last 15 years of the ban and I cannot recall any All Breeds judge I knew going to Germany to look at the GSD. I suppose there was little point in doing so. After all there were books, and anyway if one were to go abroad to look at Shepherds, because of the adoption of the English standard and its well-established type, one would go to the UK.
Whilst a few Judges went to the UK, most studied photographs, ‘English photographs.’ What I learnt later was that whilst a fairly good general impression can be had from a photograph, the detail is often totally lost and certainly nothing can be appreciated with regard to movement and temperament. Regardless of what can and cannot be seen I learnt later at considerable personal cost that photographs and especially a sketch could very effectively mislead. They can mislead just as Dr Spira's have done.
In his article Dr. Spira gives us a very lengthy summary of the issues, implications and politics before and during the prohibition years. Then with the support of a sketch he gives a critique on his recollections of a basic Australia GSD from the prohibition period. (Incidentally, I do not consider the sketch is being indicative of a basic prohibition GSD at all, it is flattering to say the least.)
Vornhill Vigilante
|
The critique on the typical pre ban Australian dog went as follows:
"Relatively tall and of square construction. Bones strong and clean, chests deep and wider than modern specimens. Pasterns sloped nowhere near as much as they appear to be these days. 'Toes generally well knuckled up and closely knit, feet of correct shape with well cushioned pads. Backlines mostly level and firm standing and in movement. Pelvic girdles relatively short and of correct slope". If one disregards the German standard and its influence for a moment and accepts his description as being one based on the English standard and supported by the typical top winning English dogs of the late 1960s (Fenton) to early 1970s era (Vornhill Vigilante) his comments can appear to make some sort of sense. However, the facts in several regards are contrary to what he has stated, indeed quite incorrect and in some fundamental areas decidedly sketchy. It shows clearly though the difference in opinion, in understanding and in the priorities of an All Rounder compared to a Specialist. I suggest that had the Australian Kennel Controls used the standard and examples from country of origin to lecture Australian judges then Dr Spira's comments would be quite different. |
I feel the following four photographs do much more justice to history and accuracy. In all fairness they do depict a slightly distorted view in that they are photographs of not average but well above average dogs of the late 1970s. Each was a major winner at All Breeds and single breed events including multi Group and Best Exhibit wins at Royals and gold medals under German SV judges at Nationals. Some are my own dogs.
As a matter of record I considered the male ‘Arngold Theriac’ to be far ahead of most dogs of the period.
I stated that photographs tell you nothing of movement. I can tell you that these dogs, as with all prohibition dogs, did not possess powerful flowing, far reaching, effortless gaits. A simple analysis of their structure will tell you why.
As a matter of record I considered the male ‘Arngold Theriac’ to be far ahead of most dogs of the period.
I stated that photographs tell you nothing of movement. I can tell you that these dogs, as with all prohibition dogs, did not possess powerful flowing, far reaching, effortless gaits. A simple analysis of their structure will tell you why.
Silver Medal winner 1st National – Glen Angus Contessa – owned by the author
Gold Medal winner 1st National – Glen Angus Toni – owned by the author
|
Arngold Theriac
Gold Medal winner 1st National - Almark Black Prince
|
Referring to the same anatomical points as Dr Spira, I suggest that had he been exposed to and accepted the country of origin's `standard type' his generalised critique on pre ban Australian dogs would have gone more like this:
"Good medium sized quite well proportioned dogs, bone strong and clean, chest a little deep and a little too broad, slightly steep pasterns, short upperarms, moderate hind angulation, very good feet, backs should be much firmer, croups very short."
To assist further in this I provide a sketch by the late Dr Walter Gorrieri, a pillar of the breed who led the GSD fraternity in Italy until recently, and whom 1 greatly admire and respect. This gives some support to Dr Spira's comments but also shows clearly where he is wrong. It should be noted that the dog depicted stands four square and as such the back assumes a level position.
"Good medium sized quite well proportioned dogs, bone strong and clean, chest a little deep and a little too broad, slightly steep pasterns, short upperarms, moderate hind angulation, very good feet, backs should be much firmer, croups very short."
To assist further in this I provide a sketch by the late Dr Walter Gorrieri, a pillar of the breed who led the GSD fraternity in Italy until recently, and whom 1 greatly admire and respect. This gives some support to Dr Spira's comments but also shows clearly where he is wrong. It should be noted that the dog depicted stands four square and as such the back assumes a level position.
If now we compare the sketches by Dr Gorrieri and Dr Spira, besides gleaning some interesting observations and additional comments we can also draw some conclusions:
I provide a simple one line sketch to demonstrate the point.
- Dr Spira stated that the prohibition dogs were square. It was considered by von Stephanitz that the ideal ratio of height to length for a trotting dog was 10 to 9 between length of body and the height of the shoulder. Therefore a dog 65 cm high at the wither would have a trunk length of 72 cm. Some variance to this has occurred, in part possibly as an influence of the need for a bitch to be slightly longer than a dog and so we have an accepted ratio of 8.5 or 9 to 10. The length of the trunk is taken as being from the point of the sternum to the ilium tuberosity. The height is measured by having the dog standing four square and taking a measurement from the withers plumb through the elbow joint to the ground. The hair should be pushed down and care is needed in not allowing the measuring stick to travel up the neck as it is too easy to overmeasure.The ratio of 9 to 10 is featured in the sketch by Dr Gorrieri and where the proportions he personally favoured. If one was to calculate the ratio of Dr Spira's average Australian prohibition dog one would find the dog shows a ratio of 8.8 to 10. I suggest this was, in fact, typical and shows a well proportioned dog length to height.
- Dr Spira stated that the prohibition GSD was tall. I assume he means large! Whilst there is some variation in size between the English and German standards due to metric conversion the middle height is 62.5 cm for dogs and 57.5 cm for bitches with a deviation of 2.5 cm either higher or lower being acceptable. Size obviously cannot be measured off a photograph but having measured a great many prohibition dogs I can tell you they were generally around medium size, not large.
- Dr Spira said bones were very strong on the prohibition dogs and that the desired substance and strength is being lost at the present time. If one was to take the average weight of dogs registered in the German SV Breed Survey Books since their inception one would find that the average weight has gradually fallen over the years. As size and condition has not changed the obvious conclusion is that the bone mass has. As the bones contribute 14% of the overall weight they obviously provide a considerable impact in this regard and the result, can be seen.
- Whilst Dr Spira does not say prohibition dogs had better angle of pastern he seems to infer it. If one checks the angle on his sketch it shows an angle of approximately 18 degrees which was in fact normal. The German standard refers to an angle of about 20 degrees whilst Dr Gorrieri refers to an angle a few degrees more than this. Either way, it is quite clear from this that prohibition dogs in nearly every case had slightly steep pasterns and this helps the feet. The relevant factor here is that the prohibition dogs who possessed the steeper pastern would not be considered ideal endurance dogs as the effect of the steep pastern is to create stress on the muscles of the shoulder due to jarring and rotation of the scapula thereby resulting in premature fatigue. Whilst an All Rounder may consider this a hypothetical issue; the specialist most certainly does not.
- Dr Spira gives a great deal of airplay to the feet. I find it peculiar that many All Breeds judges do this. Prohibition dogs had great feet but to give expansive airplay to feet and totally disregard something like angulations perplexes me and I have made to comment about how steep pasterns impact on the feet!
- The backlines on prohibition dogs were not as Dr Spira states. Whilst there were exceptions, they were almost always very weak. The sketch of the prohibition dog is just a little misleading, but nonetheless correctly shows the prohibition dog's tendency toward this fault. The fault in the back is best seen as a sharp angle where the withers join the back. This shows clearly why there is a need for sloping withers to join a sloping back in a continuous unbroken line. This weakness must be clearly understood by All Breed judges in this country. At the moment it certainly is not.
- Dr Spira says pelvic girdles were relatively short and correct slope. I do not clearly understand this term but I assume it means croup relatively short and correct slope. Most prohibition dogs had very short croups that were quite mixed in their lay.
- Dr Spira says most dogs were strong and sound and free of' anatomical exaggeration. With some areas of disagreement I support these views. The loose open elbows and loose hocks that are a common occurrence now were rarely seen. Males were masculine, bitches, even though they had a tendency toward being just slightly too strong in head, were still feminine. Unlike many of the English counterparts our dogs were certainly free of exaggeration, particularly in the region of the neck carriage, length and hindquarter angulation.
- Chest and ribs on prohibition dogs were as Dr. Spira states, deep and appreciably wider than nowadays. In reality far too deep. The ideal depth to overall height should be 45%. Nonetheless, his point is still valid. This is well illustrated when one looks at the number of dogs today who stand east west due to a narrow, shallow chest.
- Whilst not mentioned, the great majority of prohibition dogs had many missing teeth, three or more was not uncommon. Written records do not show this because virtually no judges of the era wrote critiques or considered a few missing premolars or molars as being of any real consequence and it seems most All Breeds judges still do not. The fact that the English standard fails to reflect the German Standard's requirement for 42 teeth is obviously most significant here. The All Rounder seems to feel the Specialist's view toward teeth is bordering on paranoia. The desire for a full set of healthy strong teeth is obviously based on the dog's needs with regard eating and protection but a most significant factor is one relative to the overall skeleton itself. One of the first areas to show skeletal degeneration is the teeth, particularly the lower incisors. I have observed the reduction in size of the lower incisors (1 + 1) and their ‘squeezing downward’ , shows the earliest signs and is logically followed by the reduction and then disappearance of the P.1's. The penalisation, therefore, of dogs exhibiting underdeveloped, weak, or missing dentition is based more on the degenerative consequences rather than the effect on the dog's ability to chew, bite, or hold.
As the consequences of missing teeth are so profound, the GSDCA regulations pertaining to the degree of penalisation are best listed here:
- Excellent Grading • Faultless, gapless, healthy dentition with correct bite.
- Double P.1's allowed.Very Good Grading • Not quite correct scissor bite OR
- Missing one only P.1. OR
- Missing one only incisor OR
- Distemper teeth OR
- Slightly level bite OR • Severely worn teeth not due to age
- Good Grading • Missing two only P. 1's OR • Missing one only P.1 plus one only incisor OR • Missing one only P.2
- Unsatisfactory • Missing one only P.3 plus one additional tooth OR
- Missing one only canine OR
- Missing one only P.4 OR
- Level bite OR
- Missing one only molar OR
- Missing altogether three or more teeth OR • Over and Undershot bite
- Prohibition dogs did not have a significant temperament problem but the facts are many were shy. On the whole temperament and character in today's dogs, contrary to Dr Spira's opinion is still more correct particularly in the area of nerves and protective instincts. As the prohibition dogs were virtually never tested at shows it leaves us with a pleasant but false memory. One of the standard's requirements is that the GSD whilst being a pleasant member of the family and able to adjust to every situation should readily go into attack at his master's command. This later point is grossly misunderstood in this country, mainly through ignorance and fear. As such this most vital and typically GSD characteristic is kept suppressed and to the detriment of the breed.
- Dr Spira does not mention angulations, yet the sketch of the prohibition dog shows almost perfect forehand angulations. Forehand angulations tended to be very good, in fact on average better than many of our dogs in Australia today. Facts are though that well laid but very short upperarms were commonplace.The German standard states the shoulder blade is long and set about 45 degrees and the upperarm is set at an approximate right angle.This would necessitate the upperarm to be as long as the shoulder blade and at right angles to. Whilst this is undoubtedly a favourable situation not often observed, I personally favour the school of thought that the upper arm is set at approximately fifty-two degrees to the horizontal and longer than the shoulder blade.
NOTE: There may be some confusion created by what exactly constitutes the angle. Should it be taken through the centre of the upper arm or from the intersection of the shoulder and upper arm at its joint. The fifty-two degrees I refer to, is based on the latter. It is my opinion that many of the world's top dogs are closer to the fifty-two degrees as I have described it.An aspect of this is that in order that the engineering principles of balance are maintained, the upperarm that is inclined to 52 degrees needs to be longer than one inclined at 45 degrees. The additional length provides a slightly deeper chest cavity but more importantly gives better reach.
I provide a simple one line sketch to demonstrate the point.
Dr Spira's sketch of the prohibition dog also shows quite deep angles with unusually broad thighs. Facts are the hindquarter is grossly misleading. The prohibition dogs had very short upper and lower thighs. Furthermore, as a consequence of the short croup the thighs could not have been as broad as those depicted in the sketch. The photographs of the four Australian dogs illustrate this perfectly.
It may be of some interest to note that with correct hind angulation, the rule of thumb is that when the hock is plumb, a plumb line dropped from the root of the tail should only strike about 2" in front of the toes. Unlike the English dogs of the early 1960s to late 1970s, no prohibition dog exceeded this, most fell well short. Whilst this restricted drive, it no doubt had a most positive effect on the hips of the Australian dogs.
The sketch by Dr Gorrieri shows the desired hindquarter balance and angulations. The 2" rule of thumb is clearly demonstrated.
- The length of foreleg on the sketch of the prohibition dog shows a percentage of 42% of overall height. The ideal is 55%. i.e. Forelegs should be a little longer than the dog's depth of chest. The 42% is in fact a very accurate reflection on the prohibition dog that was proportionately short in foreleg as a result of too deep a rib cage.
- Finally, a small point but one I wish to raise. Prohibition dogs had beautiful, firm, thick, well set ears. Too many dogs at the present time have soft, thin, and/or low set ears.
The Topline
The comparison of the toplines of our dogs with the European counterpart was, as previously stated, based on English not German dogs and whilst the English GSD fraternity at large has shifted its emphasis, the All Breed oriented fraternity has not.
The topline the All Rounder as an aspirant was lectured on and consequently put into effect in the showring in Australia was based on the type of GSD that was and still is winning under the vast majority of All Rounders at All Breeds Shows in the U.K.
It must be said here as a matter of record and acknowledgement that there were a small handful of enthusiasts in the UK such as Percy Elliott and, more notably, his late wife Nem Elliott, who have pursued vigorously the correct type. They have fought against great odds and made great inroads but their efforts and the dogs they promoted had no influence on the Australian scene in an All Breeds sense. In a Specialiat sense they had a very significant impact. Indeed, my early awakening was due to reading Nem's first book which was then reinforced by reading the opening remarks of the book written by Thelma Gray and Joseph Schwabacher. These people, plus others such as Gwen Barrington and Madeleine Pickup showed me that English dogs in the main were not following the standard type envisaged by von Stephanitz. Up until my enlightening by these wonderful people that I can now call my friends I followed the accepted path, a path I now try to correct.
If one looks at the following photographs of two animals that I consider to be typical examples of top winning dogs from both Germany and England at around the time the ban was lifted I suggest one can clearly see that when compared to the previous photographs even after some considerable time had elapsed there were still very marked and fundamental differences between the two countries.
The significance of this is that these two bitches confirmed a developmental trend and can be taken as representative of the current type of dog that influences people in this country. The English bitch, Kingsmans Witchcraft I suggest is typical of the type that influences the All Rounder. The German bitch, Nora v d Brennerei Kettner is typical of the type that influences the Specialist.
I suggest these two animals can be seen in a broad sense as examples of the "All Breed Type and the Specialist Type" as described earlier in the article. One is wrong! I acknowledge Dr. Spira may state the English bitch does not epitomize his ideal, but in broad "type" terms, when compared to the German bitch I suggest she would go close. Both animals are unquestionable improvements on the typical 1960's GSD and are predictable evolutionary extensions.
A brief description of these two bitches would seem worthwhile. Kingsmans Witchcraft has a very good head and expression with strong foreface but has an untypical "swan neck" created by her steep upperarm and a shoulder that has too much layback. In effect the top of the wither has become part of the neck. She is also too long showing a ratio of approximately 8 to 10 as opposed to Nora who shows a ratio of approximately 8.5 to 10. With slightly excessive hind angulation, Witchcraft shows excessive slope to the topline. The length of foreleg on both bitches is good. The croup on Witchcraft is noticeably short and the back is too long. Nora shows a very slight rise over the back. The angulations on Nora, both front and rear are exceptional. All in all Nora is the type to aspire to.
Kingsmans Witchcraft
|
Nora v d Brennerei Kettner
|
Dr Spira said that on the lifting of the ban the majority of early English imports looked attractive, presumably he felt the German ones did not! It is no surprise to me that he found the English dogs attractive - after all they mirrored in the flesh what had been used for the lectures, and would have been seen winning shows in the UK.
As I saw lngo v Hafenlohrtal as an example of correct German Shepherd dog type so Dr Spira saw Shootersway Urbanus as likewise. His preference was as predictable as mine. He was influenced by England, and by Germany. As with the previous two bitches some comments are worthwhile. It must be stated that Urbanus was a very good dog, in fact, this country would have benefited considerably had he remained in Australia and not been sold to Singapore. Nonetheless, he was anatomically exaggerated.
Urbanus was long, and whilst this was accentuated by his too deep hindquarter angulations the length was primarily in his back. (This is not as obvious when compared to Ingo as he was also a little long in the back.) The neck on Urbanus tended to be carried a little too high. The withers on Urbanus are long and high. The croup on Ingo is long but slightly flat; the croup on Urbanus is a little steep and quite short. The forehand angulation on both dogs are exceptional whilst the hind angulation on Urbanus is decidedly excessive.
All in all two good dogs, but Ingo is more correct and closer to correct type.
As I saw lngo v Hafenlohrtal as an example of correct German Shepherd dog type so Dr Spira saw Shootersway Urbanus as likewise. His preference was as predictable as mine. He was influenced by England, and by Germany. As with the previous two bitches some comments are worthwhile. It must be stated that Urbanus was a very good dog, in fact, this country would have benefited considerably had he remained in Australia and not been sold to Singapore. Nonetheless, he was anatomically exaggerated.
Urbanus was long, and whilst this was accentuated by his too deep hindquarter angulations the length was primarily in his back. (This is not as obvious when compared to Ingo as he was also a little long in the back.) The neck on Urbanus tended to be carried a little too high. The withers on Urbanus are long and high. The croup on Ingo is long but slightly flat; the croup on Urbanus is a little steep and quite short. The forehand angulation on both dogs are exceptional whilst the hind angulation on Urbanus is decidedly excessive.
All in all two good dogs, but Ingo is more correct and closer to correct type.
Ingo v Hafenlohrtal
|
Shootersway Urbanus
|
Urbanus was a very good dog but he was exaggerated, he was too long , there was too much in too many places, Ingo was a little long but overall more correct.
The typical prohibition GSD had a chronically weak back, Urbanus did not. Yet the recollection of many All Rounders like Dr Spira seems to be that they were both straight and firm. Absolutely and categorically wrong, Why? I can only suggest this is caused by a lack of understanding of what constitutes a correct back, and its relation to the wither and croup.
To go even further, I suggest that whilst the back may appear to be the issue at point, I feel a great many people from within and outside the breed do not understand the topline as a whole, and as such some broad explanation may be of assistance.
It would seem to me that the best way to explain the topline is to firstly note all those points in the standard that relate to it. From this we may be able to put together a composite picture. Hopefully this will provide some enlightenment and clarity.
The following extracts whilst not always referring directly to the topline are nonetheless relevant in order to attain its overall picture:
I will now try to do this.
The typical prohibition GSD had a chronically weak back, Urbanus did not. Yet the recollection of many All Rounders like Dr Spira seems to be that they were both straight and firm. Absolutely and categorically wrong, Why? I can only suggest this is caused by a lack of understanding of what constitutes a correct back, and its relation to the wither and croup.
To go even further, I suggest that whilst the back may appear to be the issue at point, I feel a great many people from within and outside the breed do not understand the topline as a whole, and as such some broad explanation may be of assistance.
It would seem to me that the best way to explain the topline is to firstly note all those points in the standard that relate to it. From this we may be able to put together a composite picture. Hopefully this will provide some enlightenment and clarity.
The following extracts whilst not always referring directly to the topline are nonetheless relevant in order to attain its overall picture:
- The GSD is moderately elongated.
- Harmonious proportions and balance.
- Neither too much or too little - balance
- Ears carried erect . . . in movement and in lying down resting position most dogs tip their ears back, this is not faulty.
- In movement head pushed forward . . . a balanced and steady trotter . . . displays a gently curved topline from tip of ears over neck and level back to tip of tail
- Neck carried at angle of roughly 45° to the horizontal . . . it is carried more erect in excitement and lowered when trotting.
- The back including the loins are straight and strongly developed between withers and croup not too long.
- Withers long and set high enough, well outlined in relation to the back into which they merge gently without interrupting the topline is sloping moderately front to rear.
- Croup is long and gently sloped (23°).
I will now try to do this.
Ears: Whilst they are really only an ornament, they give the dog an intelligent wide awake characteristic "Shepherd Dog" expression. When the dog is at rest or moving he usually lays them back. It is not natural for a dog to keep his ears up continually. The requirement for continuously erect ears is wrong. Nevertheless in stance the GSD with correctly shaped erect ears is obviously desirable in order that the desired `tip of ear to tip of tail' flowing topline is achieved.
Neck: The GSD does not have the relatively long erect neck of, say, a Doberman nor the thick short neck of a Boxer. It must be long enough to allow for the dog to track at any pace yet be strong enough to carry the head in a level position. As the standard states, the neck should be carried at approximately 45° when the dog is alert but level and stretched out in movement. In relaxed repose the neck tends to be dropped a little below the 45°. A dog with a short, steep upperarm and/or too much lay back of shoulder will show anything from an erect to swan neck. This is a fundamental fault created by bad forehand structure, a point that seems to be little understood and in fact sometimes even admired! The habit of some inexperienced handlers to lift the dog's neck upright via a chain under the throat is a manifestation of this misunderstanding.
Withers: Should be long. They are composed of the thoracic spires of the dorsal vertebrae of which the upper ends run in an almost even line and do not undulate as in the horse. Withers, whilst visible, do not come strongly into evidence externally particularly as the dog lowers his neck. The too familiar prominent withers of the Australian prohibition dog and English GSDs of the 1960s and 1970s has not helped understanding in this area. Conversely, flat withered dogs are not desirable either as they fall slightly on the forehand when gaiting. Whilst the actual need is only for a marginal difference, the wither must be higher than the back.
I feel too many people have difficulty in determining where the wither ends and where the back begins. This is understandable perhaps in that outwardly the wither connects into the back without real definition. The back and wither are a continuous line showing a slight slope, the wither itself only becoming clearly defined when the dog is excited and the head is raised high. A clear indication of the length of the wither can be seen in the photograph of Fenton of Kentwood. This is made all the more visible by his relatively long and slightly weak back.
Croup: It seems to me that too many people view, what in reality is a short croup as being one of correct length. The croup must be long. The accurate determination of the length and lay of croup, to the inexperienced, can be difficult.
In the National Dog article, a typing error would lead the reader to believe that the croup is as long as the back. The croup's impact on the shape of the topline on a dog is very significant. In my opinion this is the major feature of the GSD least understood by All Breeds Judges in this country. The correctness of the croup's construction and its position is vitally important to efficiency in movement. A by-product of a short croup is that it gives reduced muscling to the thigh and results in greatly reduced thrust and endurance. As stated previously, prohibition dogs had very short, often flat, croups. A long correctly laid croup when compared to these dogs shows a dramatically different topline. Accurate assessment of the croup is not easy for most people. The lay is easier to ascertain in movement than in stance.
Back: Should be straight, tight, firm, strong, and short. It should be understood that it is the body not the back that is moderately long. The standard says back moderately sloping but for the sake of clarity I suggest a more correct understanding may be had if one Pictures the topline as slightly sloping in stand. I say this because too many people seem to interpret the word "moderate" wrongly. What they construe as moderate is in reality excessive. Very slight dips and bumps such as a slight nick behind the wither should be noted but as an aesthetic desirability not fundamental structural fault.
Finally, whilst the back shows a slight slope in stance it is level in gait. Any deflection in the back is undesirable. The following photograph of the VA dog, Irk v d Wienerau and the ideal topline in movement.
Neck: The GSD does not have the relatively long erect neck of, say, a Doberman nor the thick short neck of a Boxer. It must be long enough to allow for the dog to track at any pace yet be strong enough to carry the head in a level position. As the standard states, the neck should be carried at approximately 45° when the dog is alert but level and stretched out in movement. In relaxed repose the neck tends to be dropped a little below the 45°. A dog with a short, steep upperarm and/or too much lay back of shoulder will show anything from an erect to swan neck. This is a fundamental fault created by bad forehand structure, a point that seems to be little understood and in fact sometimes even admired! The habit of some inexperienced handlers to lift the dog's neck upright via a chain under the throat is a manifestation of this misunderstanding.
Withers: Should be long. They are composed of the thoracic spires of the dorsal vertebrae of which the upper ends run in an almost even line and do not undulate as in the horse. Withers, whilst visible, do not come strongly into evidence externally particularly as the dog lowers his neck. The too familiar prominent withers of the Australian prohibition dog and English GSDs of the 1960s and 1970s has not helped understanding in this area. Conversely, flat withered dogs are not desirable either as they fall slightly on the forehand when gaiting. Whilst the actual need is only for a marginal difference, the wither must be higher than the back.
I feel too many people have difficulty in determining where the wither ends and where the back begins. This is understandable perhaps in that outwardly the wither connects into the back without real definition. The back and wither are a continuous line showing a slight slope, the wither itself only becoming clearly defined when the dog is excited and the head is raised high. A clear indication of the length of the wither can be seen in the photograph of Fenton of Kentwood. This is made all the more visible by his relatively long and slightly weak back.
Croup: It seems to me that too many people view, what in reality is a short croup as being one of correct length. The croup must be long. The accurate determination of the length and lay of croup, to the inexperienced, can be difficult.
In the National Dog article, a typing error would lead the reader to believe that the croup is as long as the back. The croup's impact on the shape of the topline on a dog is very significant. In my opinion this is the major feature of the GSD least understood by All Breeds Judges in this country. The correctness of the croup's construction and its position is vitally important to efficiency in movement. A by-product of a short croup is that it gives reduced muscling to the thigh and results in greatly reduced thrust and endurance. As stated previously, prohibition dogs had very short, often flat, croups. A long correctly laid croup when compared to these dogs shows a dramatically different topline. Accurate assessment of the croup is not easy for most people. The lay is easier to ascertain in movement than in stance.
Back: Should be straight, tight, firm, strong, and short. It should be understood that it is the body not the back that is moderately long. The standard says back moderately sloping but for the sake of clarity I suggest a more correct understanding may be had if one Pictures the topline as slightly sloping in stand. I say this because too many people seem to interpret the word "moderate" wrongly. What they construe as moderate is in reality excessive. Very slight dips and bumps such as a slight nick behind the wither should be noted but as an aesthetic desirability not fundamental structural fault.
Finally, whilst the back shows a slight slope in stance it is level in gait. Any deflection in the back is undesirable. The following photograph of the VA dog, Irk v d Wienerau and the ideal topline in movement.
Irk v d Wienerau
As Dr Spira spent a considerable amount of time in word and sketch covering dogs with a rise over the back I felt a thorough explanation was needed in this regard. It needs to be made quite clear that neither Specialist nor enthusiast considers anything other than a straight back as being correct. A curvature of the spine clearly diminishes reach, drive, and the Shepherd dog's most important characteristic, outside temperament, its power of' endurance. Having said this it is obvious that the Specialist is less concerned than the All Rounder about a slight rise over the back. This is because he has a better understanding of the physical and inherent aspects of the fault. The rise that I refer to is one that extends from the wither to the croup. This is not to be confused with a vaulting over the loin region which is a serious fault that does not correct itself with time.
It must be understood that a by-product of the guided evolutionary processes of the breed has seen in some bloodlines a rise over the back. It is not an all encompassing uncontrolled `teutonic' inheritance as Dr Spira may call it. It comes from a small number of clearly defined lines. A small number of our truly top dogs with perfect backs have descended from lines possessing this fault. Consequently, we have a situation whereby some dogs with a straight back may pass on the fault, whilst others with a rise may not.
Economics tends to play a significant part in most sports. Our sport is no exception. In fact with G.S.D. it plays perhaps too significant a part. It needs to be understood that to purchase a top GSD from Germany costs anywhere from $15,000 to $50,000. A truly outstanding dog costs far in excess of this. A dog with a rise over its back is cheaper to buy than one that does not. Add to this it may a) if purchased young, lose the rise with age and end up with an absolutely straight back or b) not pass it on to its progeny. Considering this it is not surprising that a small number of people opt to buy dogs with this fault. But unlike Dr Spira intimates, they do not all pretend it is not a fault. Either way they at least see it in a correct and balanced context.
The degree of fault is only relative to the effect it has on the dog's movement. A straight back is desired not because it is aesthetically pleasing but because it is the desired back for transferring, carrying, and connecting. Observation will show that in the trotting dogs a rise tends to only affect endurance, reach and speed significantly when it exceeds the highest point of the wither. A GSD which has a rise over the back that exceeds this point will always be penalised to some degree in the showring under a Specialist. At the same time that same judge may consider the dog to be the most valuable stud in the country.
With all due respect to an All Rounder how can he know these things unless he spends the time to study the breed thoroughly.
I stated that many young dogs can display a rise over the back that can level out with age. Some do, some do not. A specialist knows however that a change is possible and relative to the degree and the breeding may give the benefit of the doubt.
To demonstrate this point, I provide two photographs of a German Siegerin. Perle v Wildsteiger Land, one before she became Siegerin and one after. 18 months the difference! This sort of thing is not unusual in our breed.
Perle v Wildsteiger Land (younger)
|
Perle v Wildsteiger Land (Siegerin)
|
I provide a photograph of a male GSD, Tell v Grossen Sand. Whilst this is not the best German Shepherd Dog I have seen, he represents what I consider epitomises the "correct type" as required by Captain von Stephanitz and pursued by Specialists in this country. I reproduce also the sketch of English Champion Evely's Bonnie Prince Charlie, a dog described by Dr Spira as, "One of three of the most beautiful dogs of any breed it has been my pleasure to handle".
Had he finished his article with only a comparison of Tanie v Trienzbachtal and Royvon's Danielle he may have won me. Alas he did not. The differences are marked and in my opinion clearly demonstrate the issue.
Tell v Grossen Sand (Germany)
|
Evely's Bonnie Prince Charlie (UK)
|
In conclusion, I accept this article is probably full of bias. For this I offer no apology.
I have tried to show that there should only be one type, `Standard Type', and that there may prove to be less difference in opinion than some would suppose, and that any major differences that do exist can, with understanding and dialogue be overcome. Whilst I may have ruffled a few feathers I trust I have respectfully put across the Specialist's viewpoint clearly.
Finally, I could not finish without calling on the ANKC to right a wrong and adopt the German standard. In doing so they will go a long way toward resolving many of this country's problems with regard to the German Shepherd Dog fraternity and consequently assist in the removal of any future debate on "German Shepherd Dogs - A question of type".
Louis Donald – President of the German Shepherd Dog Council of Australia - June 1986