Fore-Angulation/Shoulders in Pointers.

[Allin13]

How about Browntown johnny reb front end?

[dan v]

I mean, the trial folks are obsessed with range, speed, style. That seems to be about it. You hear stories all the time about such and such a dog who was the hardest thing to train, was the meanest cuss around, was dumb as a box of rocks, but boy you should have seem him fly and, whoa, did he go up high on both ends when he stacked up!

I find this tiresome and perhaps you should spend some more quality time in the presence of a higher quality of "field trial folks."

[Allin13]

Stoneface your probably reading old stuff. Pointers are becoming a much more softer dog. Back in the days of really being hard on dogs im sure those dogs were everything you described. My pointers are a lot calmer then my gsps.

[Oscar]

Oscar, I really like the build on Pepe Grillo. Do you have any profile shots of him? I like the way a lot of those solid-white dogs look. I wonder if Ferel bred for chest and shoulders at all.

IN México champ
http://imageshack.us/a/img220/144/dsc01710he.jpg


front

[Stoneface]

Slistoe, no I've never owned what I would call a competition dog. I've ran a few NSTRA trials, a few AF trials and one AKC trial. Been to a few more just to watch and enjoy the company. Never have ran a broke stake, but Moxy's in training for it now. So, that's a solid "no" to your question. But, you don't have to own a national champion to talk to folks who do and know their mentality. At a trial about a year and half ago I turned Moxy out to use the bathroom off lead and just kept her close verbally. A veteran came over and said, "Rowdy, we need to teach you how to deal with trial dogs. You don't want that much control on your dog. You want her to be just on the verge of catchable." I was out locally with a pro who said he wants a dog he sees at the breakaway and when he finds him on point, that's it. I was looking at a pup awhile back and when I pulled up his flews to check his bite, the breeder said, "they don't point birds with their teeth."

I guess you could say she's shooting-dog bred. Neither of her parents were competitors, but her two grandsires were Go Boy and Attitude. Her grand dam on the bottom is an Erin dog. Here's a link to her pedigree: http://www.perfectpedigrees.com/4genview.php?id=4483

SCT, I never said that I "didn't say the angled front ends were better." What I said was, "I was not saying... hard angles were better." I definately think angle in a fore-assembly is correct. No way around that. If you have a dog that looks like he has stilts attached to the front of his chest for legs, he's not put together right. What I'm not saying is that "hard angles" (as in the considered 90' angle) is all that much better than, say 110'. Like was said earlier in this thread, a dog's shoulders are not attached to the dog's main skeletal body. It's attached to muscle tissue. Consider this then think about how much pounding is taken by the dog's front end when he runs. Look at your diagram above. The dog's back legs push off and his front legs absorb the contact. A dog should be put together so his shoulder blade and humerus are well-angled. Consider a comparison. Have you ever ridden on a trailer where the frame was attached directly to the axle? As you head down the road, you can feel ever rock, pot hold, uneleveled spot on the road, etc. Now, consider there are nice, impact-absorbing leaf springs there to buffer the impact. Everyone knows the leaf springs are going to absorb a heck of a lot of shot. The dogs' fore-assembly should act like leaf springs. Save the dog's shoulders from all that shock and impact afforded it when he runs. Now, is 90' the optimal point to absorb impact or is it 100'? Maybe 110'? I don't know. But, I know straight shoulders, from elementary science class, cannot absorb much impact.

I've been wonder, but haven't asked, about your first comment on this thread. You pretty boldly said something to the effect that the 45' shoulder bit was a bunch of bologna. Can I ask what your opinion of a good front is? What constitutes a bad front?

[Stoneface]

Here are some photos of The Moxy Dog and new dog. I don't have any good profile shots of Cinna.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?f ... =3&theater
Moxy

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php?f ... =3&theater
New pup.

[Stoneface]

This is my last Shorthair, Darby.


This is a dog I'd like to get a look at as a potential stud. Doesn't show off much of his angles, though.

[Elkhunter]

I mean, the trial folks are obsessed with range, speed, style. That seems to be about it. You hear stories all the time about such and such a dog who was the hardest thing to train, was the meanest cuss around, was dumb as a box of rocks, but boy you should have seem him fly and, whoa, did he go up high on both ends when he stacked up!

I find this tiresome and perhaps you should spend some more quality time in the presence of a higher quality of "field trial folks."

Agreed! His "expertise" on what FT's want is pretty entertaining.

[Stoneface]

Show me where I said anything - ANYTHING - about having expertise about trial dogs or trialing in general. You don't have to be a master mechanic to spot a dragster or point out the obvious things that make it a dragster. Everything I'm saying is taken strictly from the hard impressions I get from folks who are active in trialing and have a lot vested in it. I am becoming more involved, but am just a novice at the competition end of it. I know it. But "obvious is as obvious does."

[Elkhunter]

I mean, the trial folks are obsessed with range, speed, style. That seems to be about it. You hear stories all the time about such and such a dog who was the hardest thing to train, was the meanest cuss around, was dumb as a box of rocks, but boy you should have seem him fly and, whoa, did he go up high on both ends when he stacked up!

This is what you said. Which is bunk. I own 2 AA bred dogs that I foot hunt 3 times a week. They get TONS of wild birds pointed, and I even shoot them. So your assessment of what FT people want is bunk.

[Stoneface]

I don't see the conflict in my post and your's. I didn't say anything about an AA dog not being able to run off foot, not being able to hunt wild birds or anything like that. I have said they were bred to be fire-breathing, ground eating dogs that are high on flash and dazzle. They are. I don't think this is just a figment of my imagination, when you hear people talk about such and such a great dog they always talk about how big the dog runs, how fast and how much style. Those are high points that are sure to be touched on. That's what gets peoples' blood going. heck, that's what gets my blood going. Nothing wrong with that. But, I have been given the hard and fast impression, as I think most have, that trial dogs have been bred to win trials. I don't see the conflict in what I'm saying. Why would you try to produce trial prospects that weren't flashy, have range and speed? I met a guy about a year ago who was trying to get rid of all but one pup in a litter he bred. His reason? Well, there were several. One dog liked people too much and didn't have enough style. Forget that the dog was as biddable as soft putty, he had a 10 o'clock tail and and wasn't frigid to the point of not wanting to recall. What about the sister? Well, she'll point anything you put in front of her and is just a pretty and loving as can be, but she just doesn't have the extra flare in the field to win trials. The guy wanted a trial dog. That's what he bred for, that's why he kept his pick and that's why the others didn't make the cut. Does it mean the pick won't make a good hunting dog? Heck, I don't know, but he was bred for the sole purpose of winning trials.

If you want to breed a horse that will win the Kentucky Derby, you don't go to the local farm and pick up trail horses. You just don't. They are two different types of horses with two different intents. But, I did know a couple by the name of Chuck and Vernie in Texas who rehabbed washout Thoroughbreds and would make them into weekend horses that they road all over the place. But, they were bred to race.

[slistoe]

Show me where I said anything - ANYTHING - about having expertise about trial dogs or trialing in general. You don't have to be a master mechanic to spot a dragster or point out the obvious things that make it a dragster. Everything I'm saying is taken strictly from the hard impressions I get from folks who are active in trialing and have a lot vested in it. I am becoming more involved, but am just a novice at the competition end of it. I know it. But "obvious is as obvious does."

Sometimes obvious is rather obscure to some. Like the person who looks at a group of pointing dogs with the most functional conformation, as tested in the most rigorous environment for over a century and states that it is almost impossible to find an example of good conformation. Or the person that concludes that a dog that will give you all it has for 3 hours in front of a horse in any weather would be unable to cut it for an all day hunt.

But then "pretty as is pretty does" is not valid either, is it?

[Elkhunter]

You know more than me!

I have said they were bred to be fire-breathing, ground eating dogs that are high on flash and dazzle.

Once again you are wrong.

[Cajun Casey]

And, you don't put a trotter in a Thoroughbred stake. I've seen chihuahuas with better conformation than ring bred pointers when it comes to moving outside of the trot. If those front ends you are so crazy about are so great, then why aren't AKC pointers dominating the upper side of Agility. Simple answer: they are lacking in flexibilty at high speed.

[slistoe]

And, you don't put a trotter in a Thoroughbred stake. I've seen chihuahuas with better conformation than ring bred pointers when it comes to moving outside of the trot. If those front ends you are so crazy about are so great, then why aren't AKC pointers dominating the upper side of Agility. Simple answer: they are lacking in flexibilty at high speed.

Because an agility course is the best place to find the best bird dog. :roll:

Why aren't AKC CH pointers dominating AF trials?

[Cajun Casey]

And, you don't put a trotter in a Thoroughbred stake. I've seen chihuahuas with better conformation than ring bred pointers when it comes to moving outside of the trot. If those front ends you are so crazy about are so great, then why aren't AKC pointers dominating the upper side of Agility. Simple answer: they are lacking in flexibilty at high speed.

Because an agility course is the best place to find the best bird dog. :roll:

Why aren't AKC CH pointers dominating AF trials?

Because show dogs are bred to move at a trot.

[Ruffshooter]

You know this was kind of a good subject started good and was a friendly discussion, with some good info and observation with a good demeanor to it. Now some of you got your panties in a wad and now it is just another one of those post that went where it was not intended. Thanks for ruining it.

And you know who you are. :roll: :roll:

[KwikIrish]

this thread has really begun to veer off topic, and that's a shame. I feel I can really learn a lot from conversations like this, and pictures with descriptions from these threads.

Kwik, are you saying that if the fronts had the same exact angles as the rears they would be more balanced? And that would give them more reach? I'm being sincere, not understanding your thoughts.

I would guess that more forward reach would offset front leg footfalls putting the rear too far forward and putting the dog on his face. Just a thought.

Okay I have two meanings behind my balance comment.

First, I'll talk about the balance of the front and rear angles. If the dog has more front than rear, that dog SHOULD be seen as front driven. This would imply the dog would propell of its front and the rear would be the lesser effort. The rear which is lacking the same angle as the front can not physically cover the same ammount of ground as the front and can be seen as "along for the ride" during part of the motion OR it can cause the dog to have part of the front movement suspended (or delayed) in motion as it can not physically cover maximum ammount of ground AND keep in sync with the rear. Think big tire little tire, the big tire up fron means that the little tire in the rear would be working at a higher rate to keep speed with the big tire. This wouldn't be possible for a dog's gait, thus it has to be under-utilized or suspended. Vice versa with a more angulated rear and lesser front, making the dog a rear driven dog. I feel like the rear driven is the most common in show dogs, but field dogs tend to split.

Second is the balace of the proportions of the front.

if you look at this diagram, you will see kind of what I am trying to explain. If I dont have the ideal front, I want a "A" rather than a "B" or "C". That is based on the notes in RED under B and C, as those are the physical areas which risk injury via impact and stress of a dog with B and C. Nevermind what the black text says about being just "too short" or too straight.

I think area # one (balance of front and rear) is far more important than area two as area one means the dog is under utilizing its self, whereas a dog affected by #2 might not have enough, but it can use all what if has.
Just my $.02

[SCT]

In another passage from Brown's book, it reads "No one has shown by tests that 90 degree angle at the point of shoulder is optimum for a given purpose, and it is especially wrong for swift dog." He also states that, " No swift dog observed has ever had anything near 90 degrees: Cheetahs have very little bend at this point". If I were to guess, most of today's pointers would fit in the 110-120 degree angle, maybe less.

[KwikIrish]

In another passage from Brown's book, it reads "No one has shown by tests that 90 degree angle at the point of shoulder is optimum for a given purpose, and it is especially wrong for swift dog." He also states that, " No swift dog observed has ever had anything near 90 degrees: Cheetahs have very little bend at this point". If I were to guess, most of today's pointers would fit in the 110-120 degree angle, maybe less.

I won't argue the degree of angle, but what I find most important about this is the balance in the front. The shoulder aligns with the point of the return of upper arm. Could this be more important than the angle?
Ie in my diagram, could A actually be proven as superior to B and C?

[slistoe]

Ie in my diagram, could A actually be proven as superior to B and C?

As in the Foxhound where speed and endurance are critical to the breed?

[SCT]

Kwik, I cannot answer your question because I don't know. Now, in your diagram there is four separate angles and alignments. In my opinion, the first one that he calls "correct" is what I believe show people would agree with. Type B is the same in that the 90 degree line touches the back of the shoulder blade and the back of the elbow, however the two major bones are shorter, hence the straighter leg. I believe both are balanced but extreme on either end, and compared to my diagram, his (brown's) drawing falls somewhere in the middle of those two, but is balanced. My eye would tell me Brown's figure is more functional than the others, for today's field pointer. Strictly my opinion.

To me the top "correct" one is closer to equine angles and inefficient (overly angled) for pointers. In the next day or two I'll try and get some broadside shots of my field bred pointers and post them up. It's crucial to have good lighting and be on an even level with the dog. Most importantly the view needs to be perfectly perpendicular with the dogs head in a naturally alert position. Not that my pointers are special, I just believe, after watching them get across the ground with grace and speed, as well as their agility and bounce in the yard, that they are decent specimens I have also seen my bigger male pup chase and corral antelope with extension and speed I've never witnessed before. Just like his daddy, and it was impressive. I believe their physical restrictions are minimal.

Steve

[KwikIrish]

Kwik, I cannot answer your question because I don't know. Now, in your diagram there is four separate angles and alignments. In my opinion, the first one that he calls "correct" is what I believe show people would agree with. Type B is the same in that the 90 degree line touches the back of the shoulder blade and the back of the elbow, however the two major bones are shorter, hence the straighter leg. I believe both are balanced but extreme on either end, and compared to my diagram, his (brown's) drawing falls somewhere in the middle of those two, but is balanced. My eye would tell me Brown's figure is more functional than the others, for today's field pointer. Strictly my opinion.

To me the top "correct" one is closer to equine angles and inefficient (overly angled) for pointers. In the next day or two I'll try and get some broadside shots of my field bred pointers and post them up. It's crucial to have good lighting and be on an even level with the dog. Most importantly the view needs to be perfectly perpendicular with the dogs head in a naturally alert position. Not that my pointers are special, I just believe, after watching them get across the ground with grace and speed, as well as their agility and bounce in the yard, that they are decent specimens I have also seen my bigger male pup chase and corral antelope with extension and speed I've never witnessed before. Just like his daddy, and it was impressive. I believe their physical restrictions are minimal.

Steve

Steve, for some reason I posted "a" as my preference of a,b,and c, but I mean b. hence my reference to the other two's red wording. The balanced but lacks angle was the one that is so strikingly similar to your diagram and the general idea of well built pointer. Sorry for the confusion of my mistake.

I would much rather see a dog with less angle but equal length of shoulder and upper arm than a dog with too short of a shoulder or the dog with too short of an upper arm. Above all though, I would still like to see my dog balanced in front and rear angle, as my tire analogy explains.

[KwikIrish]

Ie in my diagram, could A actually be proven as superior to B and C?

As in the Foxhound where speed and endurance are critical to the breed?

Replace a with b... But yes, as is nessicary in most hounds, correct?

[SCT]

Kwik, I cannot answer your question because I don't know. Now, in your diagram there is four separate angles and alignments. In my opinion, the first one that he calls "correct" is what I believe show people would agree with. Type B is the same in that the 90 degree line touches the back of the shoulder blade and the back of the elbow, however the two major bones are shorter, hence the straighter leg. I believe both are balanced but extreme on either end, and compared to my diagram, his (brown's) drawing falls somewhere in the middle of those two, but is balanced. My eye would tell me Brown's figure is more functional than the others, for today's field pointer. Strictly my opinion.

To me the top "correct" one is closer to equine angles and inefficient (overly angled) for pointers. In the next day or two I'll try and get some broadside shots of my field bred pointers and post them up. It's crucial to have good lighting and be on an even level with the dog. Most importantly the view needs to be perfectly perpendicular with the dogs head in a naturally alert position. Not that my pointers are special, I just believe, after watching them get across the ground with grace and speed, as well as their agility and bounce in the yard, that they are decent specimens I have also seen my bigger male pup chase and corral antelope with extension and speed I've never witnessed before. Just like his daddy, and it was impressive. I believe their physical restrictions are minimal.

Steve

Steve, for some reason I posted "a" as my preference of a,b,and c, but I mean b. hence my reference to the other two's red wording. The balanced but lacks angle was the one that is so strikingly similar to your diagram and the general idea of well built pointer. Sorry for the confusion of my mistake.

I would much rather see a dog with less angle but equal length of shoulder and upper arm than a dog with too short of a shoulder or the dog with too short of an upper arm. Above all though, I would still like to see my dog balanced in front and rear angle, as my tire analogy explains.

Totally agree KwikIrish, however I don't have much knowledge about rear angulation and interestingly, Brown's book seems to focus more on front ends. Like mentioned earlier, I agree that rear angles would be easier to "fix" than fronts simply because they can be seen easier at 8 weeks old and can be culled from the breeding program. The reason I say "easier" is because the rear angles affect the dogs stance more visually.

Now, I'm an artist and believe that a observant human eye can see mechanics that are out of balance, and even though that eye (observant person) may not be able to say for sure what's wrong, they instinctively know something is wrong.

Much agreed, balance is above all.

And Rowdy, Curtis Brown's book really is worth the $30-$40, I can guarantee you will cherish it. I know you have thought deeply about form and conformation and I'm confident you'd enjoy this, more than any book you've read on this subject.. It doesn't make me an expert on anything, but it has cleared some stuff up in my mind. I also think if you read it you'd much more appreciate the conformations of your own dogs.

Steve

[Stoneface]

SCT, thanks for the recommend. I'm going to order the book for sure. And you're right that I think about it alot. I'm sure almsot everyone on this board thinks about birddog constantly. I mean, it truly is an obsession. I have notebooks riddled with jottings and notes and sketches about birddogs. I've decided not to comment anymore on this thread. It's exhausting to post a point of view that's against the norm on this board. You'd have to type in formal structure and legalese because one misrepresented comment and you feel like you're being interrogated for death row. Either way, I didn't start this thread as a means to stand on a soap box and preach my opinion. I was asking for some photos or names or something.

[SCT]

I've got a question about dogs with deep chests. Could it be possible that they might do better in real steep country like where I chased chukars today?

Just a thought,

Steve

[KwikIrish]

I've got a question about dogs with deep chests. Could it be possible that they might do better in real steep country like where I chased chukars today?

Just a thought,

Steve

Can you explain why this might be?
I would like to see pictures of what you all consider to be a deep chest in a pointer vs not deep. Anyone have examples and opinions?

[SCT]

No, I'm just thinking out loud. Wondering if a deeper chest would allow for more frontal pull. It seems gsp's have deeper chests than pointers, and that's just a general observation. Could they have more front end pulling power?? I'm not talking speed here, just pulling strength.

[SCT]

A good comparison may be a cheetah vs a leopard. Both have more flexible backs than pointers, but one's a sprinter and one hauls whole animals up trees. Which would have more front end strength??

[Wenaha]

No, I'm just thinking out loud. Wondering if a deeper chest would allow for more frontal pull. It seems gsp's have deeper chests than pointers, and that's just a general observation. Could they have more front end pulling power?? I'm not talking speed here, just pulling strength.

You don't want a dog that "pulls from the front" - there are any number of reasons - including wear and tear of the front feet, distorted gait, etc. Dogs generate the most power from the rear legs. The front end supports that power.

I wonder is anyone has used this 'shoulder angularity theory' to analyze the top 10 or 20 AA pointers/setters? I do hear a lot of discussion of this theory by some AKC people - seldom, if ever, by trialers running FDSB pointers and setters.

[mountaindogs]

I also wonder beyond extension and power is there a shock absorption factor to correct angulation. More angle should give room for more contraction/ impaction also... provided all else is in line and working well????? Just speculating from the "armchair "

[V-John]

I also wonder beyond extension and power is there a shock absorption factor to correct angulation. More angle should give room for more contraction/ impaction also... provided all else is in line and working well????? Just speculating from the "armchair "

Good question. I'd like to hear the answer on this one as well.

[SCT]

[/quote]You don't want a dog that "pulls from the front" - there are any number of reasons - including wear and tear of the front feet, distorted gait, etc. Dogs generate the most power from the rear legs.[/quote]

And maybe that's why you don't see as many really deep chested dogs as you use to. I think you would find that the photo I posted of the shoulder and forearm from Brown's book would correlate quite closely to the aa field trial dog of today.

[SCT]

I also wonder beyond extension and power is there a shock absorption factor to correct angulation. More angle should give room for more contraction/ impaction also... provided all else is in line and working well????? Just speculating from the "armchair "

"Not on a swift dog". Maybe on a swift, heavy horse though.

Okay, I have to admit, this thread has lost it's appeal.

[KwikIrish]

I wonder is anyone has used this 'shoulder angularity theory' to analyze the top 10 or 20 AA pointers/setters? I do hear a lot of discussion of this theory by some AKC people - seldom, if ever, by trialers running FDSB pointers and setters.

I would love to do a field study of this.

[ezzy333]

To have stamina there has to be a large source of oxygen so a large chest is necessary. That comes from either a narrow deeper chest or wider shallow chest. Either will provide the oxygen but the wider chest promotes the bad fronts that force the elbows out and impede the smooth movement we all look for. This has been a problem with a lot of pointers and is one of the things that Wehle tried to change and was pretty successful. One of the major problems with that type of a front is longevity as it puts undo pressure on much of the muscle structure that tends to get weaker with age.

The shock absorber is normally where the pasterns of any animal come into play. Too straight and you lose the flexibility needed for animals that live and run on hard surfaces. It is a real major factor in a race horse and why the condition of the track is parmount. The wide chest causes problems by throwing the elbows out of line while the pasterns act as the shock absorber for up and down stress.

The angle of the blade and the length of the forearm and leg provides for easy movement and reach of the front legs when running while the angulation of the back leg provides for a much greater reach and extension backwards while the foot is flat on the ground providing fot the greatest traction that allows the strength of the dog pushing it forward to maintain that push for a far greater distance which results in greater speed.

I haven't done the work with any of this but it is what I see when working with dogs and know it happens with other animals and has been backed up with things I have read . Makes me think what I have seen is right but............................

Ezzy

[SCT]

I wonder is anyone has used this 'shoulder angularity theory' to analyze the top 10 or 20 AA pointers/setters? I do hear a lot of discussion of this theory by some AKC people - seldom, if ever, by trialers running FDSB pointers and setters.

I would love to do a field study of this.

Yes, but I would like to see it done on winning dogs that have flowing gaits, fast ground speed, and tons of bottom. Galloping treadmill videos would be invaluable.

[Rajin Kennel]

Form follows function.....

[slistoe]

To have stamina there has to be a large source of oxygen so a large chest is necessary. That comes from either a narrow deeper chest or wider shallow chest. Either will provide the oxygen but the wider chest promotes the bad fronts that force the elbows out and impede the smooth movement we all look for. This has been a problem with a lot of pointers and is one of the things that Wehle tried to change and was pretty successful. One of the major problems with that type of a front is longevity as it puts undo pressure on much of the muscle structure that tends to get weaker with age.

The shock absorber is normally where the pasterns of any animal come into play. Too straight and you lose the flexibility needed for animals that live and run on hard surfaces. It is a real major factor in a race horse and why the condition of the track is parmount. The wide chest causes problems by throwing the elbows out of line while the pasterns act as the shock absorber for up and down stress.

The angle of the blade and the length of the forearm and leg provides for easy movement and reach of the front legs when running while the angulation of the back leg provides for a much greater reach and extension backwards while the foot is flat on the ground providing fot the greatest traction that allows the strength of the dog pushing it forward to maintain that push for a far greater distance which results in greater speed.

I haven't done the work with any of this but it is what I see when working with dogs and know it happens with other animals and has been backed up with things I have read . Makes me think what I have seen is right but............................

Ezzy

The dogs I have owned that had the most speed, endurance and bottom were wide in the chest, out in the elbows and slightly cowhocked.
Too bad they weren't better built - I could have still been hunting them 4 hours a day when they were 15 years old instead of having them slow down at about 13 years of age. I must admit that at 17 my Mickey dog was down in the pasterns and sore in the elbows.

[ezzy333]

To have stamina there has to be a large source of oxygen so a large chest is necessary. That comes from either a narrow deeper chest or wider shallow chest. Either will provide the oxygen but the wider chest promotes the bad fronts that force the elbows out and impede the smooth movement we all look for. This has been a problem with a lot of pointers and is one of the things that Wehle tried to change and was pretty successful. One of the major problems with that type of a front is longevity as it puts undo pressure on much of the muscle structure that tends to get weaker with age.

The shock absorber is normally where the pasterns of any animal come into play. Too straight and you lose the flexibility needed for animals that live and run on hard surfaces. It is a real major factor in a race horse and why the condition of the track is parmount. The wide chest causes problems by throwing the elbows out of line while the pasterns act as the shock absorber for up and down stress.

The angle of the blade and the length of the forearm and leg provides for easy movement and reach of the front legs when running while the angulation of the back leg provides for a much greater reach and extension backwards while the foot is flat on the ground providing fot the greatest traction that allows the strength of the dog pushing it forward to maintain that push for a far greater distance which results in greater speed.

I haven't done the work with any of this but it is what I see when working with dogs and know it happens with other animals and has been backed up with things I have read . Makes me think what I have seen is right but............................

Ezzy

The dogs I have owned that had the most speed, endurance and bottom were wide in the chest, out in the elbows and slightly cowhocked.
Too bad they weren't better built - I could have still been hunting them 4 hours a day when they were 15 years old instead of having them slow down at about 13 years of age. I must admit that at 17 my Mickey dog was down in the pasterns and sore in the elbows.

Well I waqs sure a couple of you would straightened it out if I posted it. Just lucky that we all know now than the poorer the conformation the better a dog hunts

Ezzy

[slistoe]

Well I was sure a couple of you would straightened it out if I posted it. Just lucky that we all know now than the poorer the conformation the better a dog hunts

Ezzy

Really? What about if the dogs that hunt better and last longer (as in productive years) are the ones with the better conformation? I spent a lot of years with the 4H Horse Clubs and there is Show Conformation - which is a thought exercise and there is working conformation which is an in the dirt, hammer it out process. The animals from each are most definitely not the same. You couldn't give a working cowboy a perfect specimen of Show Conformation as they cannot function as needed in the field. But then a top notch roping horse bears little resemblance to his working cousin the cutting horse, and what makes each of them great is counter to a comfortable riding line horse.

[TChism]

I mean, the trial folks are obsessed with range, speed, style. That seems to be about it. You hear stories all the time about such and such a dog who was the hardest thing to train, was the meanest cuss around, was dumb as a box of rocks, but boy you should have seem him fly and, whoa, did he go up high on both ends when he stacked up!

I find this tiresome and perhaps you should spend some more quality time in the presence of a higher quality of "field trial folks."

+ 1

[Wenaha]

You cannot judge a bird dog based on anybody's 'conformation standards'. It's so much BS that is carried over from bench people obsessing over what looks good and has little practical application when looking at a bird dog. There is much more to the equation that a tape measure and geometrical calculations will reveal.

The dog that moves right for a cover dog trialer (usually a little short backed and gaited, quick and snappy) is not the dog that will get it done for a prairie hunter or AA trialer. The requirements are different.

Here are things that I feel are worth discussing...

- Brains (intelligence) a dog without a good mind is a POS. Hard to train, doesn't retain training well, can't look at the ground and pick out logical objectives based on what it has learned about birds, scenting, and where birds are likely to be found. The dog with a high degree of intelligence is a joy to train and requires much less handling.

- Genetics - Some dogs come out of the box running to the front, hunting, and using their nose. They are the 'naturals'. Others don't have these traits and are have to be taught (see above) -- these are the dogs that you drag around the course or have to constantly direct when hunting.

- Gait (closely related to endurance and somewhat related to heat tolerance). A dog that is light on his feet and has a smooth gait is going to last longer running and be less prone to injury. He will not burn up his feet like a choppier dog.

- Heat tolerance - I do not know where this comes from, but it does seem to be related to genetics, grit (bottom), and the physical build of the dog. A dog that is not thick and chunky in the body will not retain heat like a heavily built dog. Look at the setter in my avatar... he is small (about 45 lbs.) and slight, he does not have a wide chest. He has good long legs and a fairly long back. There are VERY few pointers that he will not burn on the ground. He has run on some huge ground - Montana and North Dakota - and has proven that he has what an AA dog needs. And a few AF AA wins to prove it.

- Nose. All the above is pretty worthless is the dog does not have a good nose. Most of this is mental, not physical - the dog has to have the brains to learn to use his nose and understand what his senses are telling him.

What it have described is the dog that finds birds, no matter what it takes. He doesn't hunt the available cover, he hunts he country and keeps going until he finds birds. You may not like this type of dog, but, by God, I sure do!

Thanks for the opportunity to express my views.

[SCT]

You cannot judge a bird dog based on anybody's 'conformation standards'. It's so much BS that is carried over from bench people obsessing over what looks good and has little practical application when looking at a bird dog. There is much more to the equation that a tape measure and geometrical calculations will reveal.

The dog that moves right for a cover dog trialer (usually a little short backed and gaited, quick and snappy) is not the dog that will get it done for a prairie hunter or AA trialer. The requirements are different.

Here are things that I feel are worth discussing...

- Brains (intelligence) a dog without a good mind is a POS. Hard to train, doesn't retain training well, can't look at the ground and pick out logical objectives based on what it has learned about birds, scenting, and where birds are likely to be found. The dog with a high degree of intelligence is a joy to train and requires much less handling.

- Genetics - Some dogs come out of the box running to the front, hunting, and using their nose. They are the 'naturals'. Others don't have these traits and are have to be taught (see above) -- these are the dogs that you drag around the course or have to constantly direct when hunting.

- Gait (closely related to endurance and somewhat related to heat tolerance). A dog that is light on his feet and has a smooth gait is going to last longer running and be less prone to injury. He will not burn up his feet like a choppier dog.

- Heat tolerance - I do not know where this comes from, but it does seem to be related to genetics, grit (bottom), and the physical build of the dog. A dog that is not thick and chunky in the body will not retain heat like a heavily built dog. Look at the setter in my avatar... he is small (about 45 lbs.) and slight, he does not have a wide chest. He has good long legs and a fairly long back. There are VERY few pointers that he will not burn on the ground. He has run on some huge ground - Montana and North Dakota - and has proven that he has what an AA dog needs. And a few AF AA wins to prove it.

- Nose. All the above is pretty worthless is the dog does not have a good nose. Most of this is mental, not physical - the dog has to have the brains to learn to use his nose and understand what his senses are telling him.

What it have described is the dog that finds birds, no matter what it takes. He doesn't hunt the available cover, he hunts he country and keeps going until he finds birds. You may not like this type of dog, but, by God, I sure do!

Thanks for the opportunity to express my views.

Very well said!

[JKP]

GREAT discussion...would put the show ladies in the shade. Nothing to add that hasn't been said about construction and movement. However, I don't think of any bird dog being in a full extension gait for the duration of a day's hunting or a trial.
What I see is a powerful, efficient gait that is easily repeated. This requires proper proportion, geometry and alignment. If a dog is well balanced it can overcome faults. When a dog has too little reach or too much drive, things can break down. The extremes of the show ring and breed books don't work in the real world, IMO. An extreme range of motion of the large muscle groups burns through the available stored energy. A greyhound has to catch the coyote within 1 1/2 miles...the cheetah the gazelle within 1000 yds. The angles need to be matched to the purpose.

The thoroughbred is the fastest horse over 1 1/4 miles.....yet Arabians are a favored breed for 150 mile endurance race. They are very different in type.