Conformation

[Ms. Cage]

Tell me about this dogs conformation....

Nice looking dog. Fairly straight legged in the rear. lacks rear angulation. Hard to tell by photos. We can make a dog look good or look bad in photo's. I bet he runs like the wind knowing the type of dog you enjoy!!

[KwikIrish]

Tell me about this dogs conformation....

I have to say I can't fairly analyze your dog based on these pictures. The first picture and the second picture portray two different dogs in my opinion , and that's what a change of camera angle and positioning can do to our perception of structure. The Main difference between the two pictures of the dog is the appearance of front assembly. In the first picture, the dog appears to have a relatively nice balanced front assembly. This balance exists in two areas on this dog, the first point of balance is the point of shoulder through the return of upper arm or where the upper arm meets the Elbow. In this picture, that line appears to be perfectly straight what you implies the front is balanced into itself. The second point of balance that I find pleasing in this picture is the angle of the front assembly seems to match the angle of the rear assembly or is in close proximity. This would imply that both the front and the rear are being engaged equally thus allowing maximum efficiency in motion. Everything else about this dog is relatively nice in my opinion.

Like I said, the second picture betrays an entirely different image Of your dog. In this photo, the front assembly seems to lack any sort of balance. If you notice the shoulder still has a decent amount of angle but the upper arm appears to be completely straight In its connection from the shoulder to the elbow. This is shown by the portrayal of the front legs coming out of the front part of the dogs neck. From this picture, I would imagine the dog does not extend its front under itself in full gait. When I'm settled into my hotel tomorrow, I'll try to sit down and draw a diagram showing what the pictures of your dog are portraying in regards to probable movement.

So which picture is the more accurate portrayal of your dog?

[Middlecreek]

Both, first picture is standing game and the second is stretching to see over a rise to see the bird fly away.

[JKP]

Sometimes not enough attention is paid to feet...and how conformation/movement affects how the dog places its feet...this can affect how well a dog holds up. Dogs that "lift and place" (for lack of a better description) generally hold up better than dogs that drag their feet through the cover. Dogs with tight, well arched toes don't "strain" the grass between their toes (almost like a header on a combine). Keeping nails short ....IMO....limits the amount of grass that gets dragged between the toes.

And then some dogs just have feet of iron....grass, desert or rocky hillsides....they just seem to shake it off.

[Neil]

You all should make a trip to the Bird Dog Museum in Grand Junction, TN for lots of reasons, but one is to see the mount of Count Noble. He looks a lot like the setters of today to my untrained eye.

You can sure tell more than from a photo.

[Neil]

Sometimes not enough attention is paid to feet...and how conformation/movement affects how the dog places its feet...this can affect how well a dog holds up. Dogs that "lift and place" (for lack of a better description) generally hold up better than dogs that drag their feet through the cover. Dogs with tight, well arched toes don't "strain" the grass between their toes (almost like a header on a combine). Keeping nails short ....IMO....limits the amount of grass that gets dragged between the toes.

And then some dogs just have feet of iron....grass, desert or rocky hillsides....they just seem to shake it off.

I think it may be a pain threshold thing, I have had littermates go through the same country, one stopping every 50 yards to chew out sand spurs, the other just slinging his feet like they do with ice balls. Both learned, in time, to skirt the really bad areas. And both were pretty tough, one just ended the day with bloody feet and mouth. But perhaps it is conformation.

[SCT]

You all should make a trip to the Bird Dog Museum in Grand Junction, TN for lots of reasons, but one is to see the mount of Count Noble. He looks a lot like the setters of today to my untrained eye.

You can sure tell more than from a photo.

How long was that mount done?? Do you think the taxidermist did a carcass cast to make sure he got it right, or did he articulate the skeleton?? Better than photos, Yeah right! Just because you don't care about conformation doesn't mean others shouldn't be interested in it. And concerning your other post about pain threshold, obviously, conformation has nothing to do with heart. The best conformation in the world without heart and toughness isn't much of anything. Try and stay on track.

[Neil]

SCT,

Please be more specific, I do want to stay on track, so I must need your help. I care a lot about conformation, I have never and will never own a dog that is not out of dual lines (well not since 1970 anyway).

Count Noble was mounted soon after his death, the display is amazing; native grasses, shrubs, and extinct lines of quail that look like TN reds. And one of the best setters of all time, rarely, if ever beat by a pointer. You really need to see it, all of you.

My point, in case it was too subtle for you, the pointing dogs of today should be able to compete in the show ring. Have you read the AKC standards? You ought to.

[SCT]

Neil, I don't doubt it's a beautiful mount. I do taxidermy for a living and have done well competing in that circle, so I know the ins and outs.

I agree, field pointers should be able to compete in the show ring, but not a show ring that doesn't care as much about scientific nature as some members/judges idea of what "looks good" to them. For pointing/hunting dogs designed to gallop, and I mean really gallop, and for long periods of time the "standards" should cater to that structure, IMO, rather than that of what "looks good" in some judges opinion. I've read the AKC standards for pointers and it seemed very vague to me. I can only assume it's left very vague so judges can pick the dogs they "feel" has the best "look".

I'm not good at explaining what I mean, I think it's great that you will only own dual bred dogs, and I can only assume you have pointers? I'm not here to change your own personal desires, as of course I won't be changing mine. Believe it or not, I would love to see an American field champion win in a show and a show pointer win an AF championship, but I haven't heard of any. Obviously, I'm exaggerating circumstances, but if I were to breed my bitch to a show champion pointer, I'd be afraid of losing something in the pups. I am not trying to offend anyone, this is just my perception from what I've seen of show pointers (and that's not much). Now, I could GAIN something from the breeding, but I don't think it would be in the direction I want to go. Probably wouldn't suit you any better

Sorry if this offends anyone, it's not my intention. I would love to see some recent photos of several show pointers if anyone would entertain posting some photos. Everyone likes different breeds and lines within those breeds, for their own reasons, thank God for diversity.

[Neil]

I would sususpect the ends and outs of taxidermy to have advanced some in 100+ years, all I know it is a great mount that looks like the dog in the photos of the period. The mount just allows you to see it in 3-D.

Since I left all-age pointers in 1970 I have had Brittanys, other than having the Dual Dog at the Futurity one year, I have done little in shows. But I know I could, as I have had many dogs with show points.

So I believe if the field group would work with the show crowd they could have the same success as the Brittany and to a lessor extent the GSP and V's. And I think it should be done. The dogs that win at Ames have perfect conformation, proven conformation.

[SCT]

So we agree!

[Neil]

So we agree!

Now if we could just get the FDSB pointer and setter guys to cross register their dogs with AKC, join their breed club, and start a serious judge's educational program. Just as we were taught in high school biology, form follows function. It really is that simple.

[SCT]

So we agree!

Now if we could just get the FDSB pointer and setter guys to cross register their dogs with AKC, join their breed club, and start a serious judge's educational program. Just as we were taught in high school biology, form follows function. It really is that simple.

Sounds great, except no judges allowed, only scientific data like what they used in high school. I guess we'd have to agree on what function will be used to teach from too. Very simple

[Neil]

Naw, the function is establised by the top dogs at Ames, and thus the form.

[Oscar]

Tell me about this dogs conformation....

For me your dog confirmation is perfect- I can to see in the FIRST picture- , all dog are very nice, his head like me too . Congratulations.

Is a black Hawk dog?

[SCT]

Naw, the function is establised by the top dogs at Ames, and thus the form.

Perfect, let's get to it then.

[Winchey]

"So I believe if the field group would work with the show crowd they could have the same success as the Brittany and to a lessor extent the GSP and V's. And I think it should be done. The dogs that win at Ames have perfect conformation, proven conformation."

If the dogs that win at Ames are exceptional bird dogs, and have "perfect and proven conformation" what in the heck is to be gained by working with the show crowd?

[Neil]

"So I believe if the field group would work with the show crowd they could have the same success as the Brittany and to a lessor extent the GSP and V's. And I think it should be done. The dogs that win at Ames have perfect conformation, proven conformation."

If the dogs that win at Ames are exceptional bird dogs, and have "perfect and proven conformation" what in the heck is to be gained by working with the show crowd?

Because you could breed better dogs.

By eliminating the split, the dog buying public (often uninformed) would not be confused.

It is harmful to both the field and show for there to be this split. It should be one breed, capable of competing in both. Most of the blame goes to the field group, the show folks just don't know any better.

[slistoe]

Most of the blame goes to the field group, the show folks just don't know any better.

I have been saying this for years on these forums - when the field folks abandoned the show ring the show matrons were left with nothing to go on but their own thought exercises. How many DC Brittanys would there be if none of the field folks took their dogs to a dog show? Virtually none, because without the field proven conformation the "concept" of functional conformation is reduced to a thought exercise that has no grounding in reality.

[Neil]

Most of the blame goes to the field group, the show folks just don't know any better.

I have been saying this for years on these forums - when the field folks abandoned the show ring the show matrons were left with nothing to go on but their own thought exercises. How many DC Brittanys would there be if none of the field folks took their dogs to a dog show? Virtually none, because without the field proven conformation the "concept" of functional conformation is reduced to a thought exercise that has no grounding in reality.

If only I could say it so well.

The Brittanys have always had 5 or 6 ladies (it has always been ladies) that cared about duals enough to educate judges, promote and fight for the ideal. Without them it would have never happened, and would be lost.

[clink83]

I'd love to more closely understand conformation. I get told my Britt has excellent conformation by vets/breeders, grant it he was intended to be a show dog. However, he would be very capable in the field with dual champion lines, if I were to find someone to train him. Though he's content with being a house pup.

Like the OP, I had issues getting side shots.

Here is my pup at 6 months intact, just for reference. His body has changed quite a bit, but it's easy to see structure.


Since I don't have stacked photos, here are some gait photos.

Not sure if it's the was he's standing or angled, or if it's a touch of roach back. 9 months, intact.

I think that's a great looking Britt, I think the only reason his rear end looks weird is his tail set is lower than most britts you see.

Smoother topline, straight extension, and his chest is very broad and deep. 9 months.


Something bugs me about his rear end.


6 months, rear end.


Current, 11 months.


Fun running pic. He is a running beast. It's ridiculous.

[clink83]

Most of the blame goes to the field group, the show folks just don't know any better.

I have been saying this for years on these forums - when the field folks abandoned the show ring the show matrons were left with nothing to go on but their own thought exercises. How many DC Brittanys would there be if none of the field folks took their dogs to a dog show? Virtually none, because without the field proven conformation the "concept" of functional conformation is reduced to a thought exercise that has no grounding in reality.

If only I could say it so well.

The Brittanys have always had 5 or 6 ladies (it has always been ladies) that cared about duals enough to educate judges, promote and fight for the ideal. Without them it would have never happened, and would be lost.

I don't think its a coincidence that Dave and Day Walker have so much success breeding quality dogs.

[SCT]

Where could I go, and what training would have to be done for me to put my male in a dog show? I'm in UT and I can't find anything that remotely looks like something resembling a bench show.

[KwikIrish]

Where could I go, and what training would have to be done for me to put my male in a dog show? I'm in UT and I can't find anything that remotely looks like something resembling a bench show.

Utah is hard. Shows are few and far between. Generally, I would encourage you to take him to handling class. Perhaps you should attend a show to get the general idea? There are some outdoor shows in the late spring. Is he akc registered? Does he have any disqualifying traits? I have quite a few pictures of pointers at shows. If you have any questions, feel free to message me.

[Neil]

Where could I go, and what training would have to be done for me to put my male in a dog show? I'm in UT and I can't find anything that remotely looks like something resembling a bench show.

Do a search at the AKC site, good luck.

[SCT]

Well, after reading the standard again, http://www.akc.org/breeds/pointer/breed_standard.cfm (from 1975 which is very outdated, but gotta keep the breed unchanged:-)) Jr would probably not qualify because of his height and weight. I doubt he will be 25" tall, even though his sire was about there, maybe 24.5" tall. He's more muscled up than his sire but 55lbs would be topped out. Also, his eyes are not darker than his ear colors, ( what a silly requirement). Of the 9-10 pointers I've had over the last 20 years I don't know that any of them would have fit into the "standard" height and weight, and Jr's sire was probably the tallest. In the 70s there may have been lots of field pointers that met the minimum requirement of 25" but in my experience, a 25"-28" height requirement today will rule out a high percentage of FDSB pointers. It's easy enough to register them for AKC but I haven't done it because from what I've understood those trials are often made up for shorter running dogs.

Too bad, because he's got a perfect bite, straight legs, he's bold and lovable, with a great physique. If he finishes out like his daddy (who he really resembles) he will have a regal appearance as well.

This helps to point out why the vast majority of field guys don't bother trying to compete in dog shows. The breed has gone in two different directions and you can blame it on the field guys, but I know which type I fancy

[JKP]

Well, after reading the standard again, http://www.akc.org/breeds/pointer/breed_standard.cfm (from 1975 which is very outdated, but gotta keep the breed unchanged:-)) Jr would probably not qualify because of his height and weight. I doubt he will be 25" tall, even though his sire was about there, maybe 24.5" tall. He's more muscled up than his sire but 55lbs would be topped out. Also, his eyes are not darker than his ear colors, ( what a silly requirement). Of the 9-10 pointers I've had over the last 20 years I don't know that any of them would have fit into the "standard" height and weight, and Jr's sire was probably the tallest. In the 70s there may have been lots of field pointers that met the minimum requirement of 25"

but in my experience, a 25"-28" height requirement today will rule out a high percentage of FDSB pointers. It's easy enough to register them for AKC but I haven't done it because from what I've understood those trials are often made up for shorter running dogs.

Too bad, because he's got a perfect bite, straight legs, he's bold and lovable, with a great physique. If he finishes out like his daddy (who he really resembles) he will have a regal appearance as well.

This helps to point out why the vast majority of field guys don't bother trying to compete in dog shows. The breed has gone in two different directions and you can blame it on the field guys, but I know which type I fancy

So many of the standards in the AKC are intended to preserve a phenotype...the look of the dog...to create the proper picture. Craig Koshyk has written some wonderful info on the start of all this in the 1840-50s in England when breeding to pedigree started..as opposed to function..first started. The Pointer in the US is a perfect example of how breeding to function has changed a breed. The sport of trialing, together with the need for a smaller, faster, more durable dog for the big open spaces of North America has changed the phenotype of the breed. I would say that in our practical culture, more than a few breeds have and will be changed to meet our needs.

The only danger is that FT will make all the breeds gravitate to "White and 50 lbs"

[ezzy333]

So many of the standards in the AKC are intended to preserve a phenotype...the look of the dog...to create the proper picture. Craig Koshyk has written some wonderful info on the start of all this in the 1840-50s in England when breeding to pedigree started..as opposed to function..first started. The Pointer in the US is a perfect example of how breeding to function has changed a breed. The sport of trialing, together with the need for a smaller, faster, more durable dog for the big open spaces of North America has changed the phenotype of the breed. I would say that in our practical culture, more than a few breeds have and will be changed to meet our needs.

Remember that phenotype you speak of was the form that allowed the dogs to function in the desire method of the day. Granted form has changed today for many breeds in this country because we have changed the function from what was intended. There are many reasons this has happened, some legitimate and some not so much so. The environment such as the open spaces that were here compared to Europe and the different style of hunting has been a major reason.

We can say form follows function and that is true in the wild state but often when man is included we change the form because we desire a different function that was not a part of the original purposes of the different breeds.

Ezzy

[clink83]

Well, after reading the standard again, http://www.akc.org/breeds/pointer/breed_standard.cfm (from 1975 which is very outdated, but gotta keep the breed unchanged:-)) Jr would probably not qualify because of his height and weight. I doubt he will be 25" tall, even though his sire was about there, maybe 24.5" tall. He's more muscled up than his sire but 55lbs would be topped out. Also, his eyes are not darker than his ear colors, ( what a silly requirement). Of the 9-10 pointers I've had over the last 20 years I don't know that any of them would have fit into the "standard" height and weight, and Jr's sire was probably the tallest. In the 70s there may have been lots of field pointers that met the minimum requirement of 25"

but in my experience, a 25"-28" height requirement today will rule out a high percentage of FDSB pointers. It's easy enough to register them for AKC but I haven't done it because from what I've understood those trials are often made up for shorter running dogs.

Too bad, because he's got a perfect bite, straight legs, he's bold and lovable, with a great physique. If he finishes out like his daddy (who he really resembles) he will have a regal appearance as well.

This helps to point out why the vast majority of field guys don't bother trying to compete in dog shows. The breed has gone in two different directions and you can blame it on the field guys, but I know which type I fancy

So many of the standards in the AKC are intended to preserve a phenotype...the look of the dog...to create the proper picture. Craig Koshyk has written some wonderful info on the start of all this in the 1840-50s in England when breeding to pedigree started..as opposed to function..first started. The Pointer in the US is a perfect example of how breeding to function has changed a breed. The sport of trialing, together with the need for a smaller, faster, more durable dog for the big open spaces of North America has changed the phenotype of the breed. I would say that in our practical culture, more than a few breeds have and will be changed to meet our needs.

The only danger is that FT will make all the breeds gravitate to "White and 50 lbs"

Well, thats the job of the parent club to update and change the standard as needed.

[LabGuy]

Off topic, but very nice point! Pretty stylish