Conformation trends and your breeding program

[winniecnm]

I had a simple but complex question.

How do the trends in the conformation ring affect your breeding program?

What brought this question to mind was that IF/when I do breed down the road, I have a particular vision of my "perfect" rottweiler. Quite frankly it does not alwasy match some of the "top" dogs in the ring today. Now what I DO like is within the accepted standard for a rottweiler. I do prefer a bitch to have a nice distinctively feminine head, for the front to be closer to the 50% of height proportion and for the rear legs to be a bit less angulated and a bit more under the body than a LOT of dogs I am seeing now through my "virtual" travels on the net. Sometimes I honestly feel like I am looking at an oversized black and tan bulldog in the making

(I am not pointing fingers at any one kennel here or trying to insult breeders who have different preferences BTW.)

Just thought I would pick your collective brains...

[poohbearsmom]

Within the standard, there's going to be different types, and I think we each have our own particular vision of what that is.

Knowing full well that none of have perfect dogs, if we're honest about the dog in front of us, and can truly pick the dog apart, conformationally speaking, then we can figure out what needs to be tweaked and nipped.

I think phenotype is easier to improve upon and maintain than other issues the breed is dealing with, but am interested in continuing discussion on this particular aspect.

In regards to trends, I'm not much of a trend follower. I know what I like, and I'm going to do my damndest to produce it.

[RottsNScotts]

After being POUNDED for mentioning the differing "types" in the ring - judge haughtily explained there is only ONE breed type! - I am training myself to refer to them as "styles"! LOL

But I have formed a theory on our differing styles; it's only a theory so don't kill me!

We have a strongly multi-purpose breed and my theory is that the differing styles may lend themselves to the conformation that best suits a particular job.

For example, my Schutzhund Rottie Abbo was very "Germanic" in appearance - thick, powerful, with short muscle bundles. His job required relatively short bursts of speed and great power. My herding Rottie Toby was a more upright, elegant kind of dog with long muscle bundles. His job generally required longer, calmer, slower periods of work and much more trotting of longer distances than Abbo's.

Form following function...

What do you guys think?

[BostonRott]

I think that you need to breed to the standard. What I'm seeing a lot of today is overdone heads and over-angulated rears.

As you mentioned, there is a desired proportion for the depth of chest to the overall height of the dog (50%).

From the AKC standard:

Depth of chest is approximately fifty percent (50%) of the height of the dog.

Heads should not be wrinkly, except if the dog is at attention.

FCI Standard:

Skin overall tight fitting. When the dog is alert, the forehead may be slightly wrinkled.

AKC standard:

Forehead is preferred dry, however some wrinkling may occur when dog is alert.

Muzzles on many Eastern block dogs are getting dangerously short.

AKC standard:

The desired ratio of backskull to muzzle is 3 to 2

There should not be loose throat skin hanging everywhere (pay attention to stacked photos, to the neck and see whether the leash is pulled tight to hide loose neck skin).

From the FCI standard, Faults section, Neck:

Showing dewlap or throaty.

From the AKC standard:

without loose skin

The other trend that I'm seeing a lot of are doggy looking bitches. And I know there are many who say that that is what they want. However, it is incorrect. To breed true to the standard, you should not be breeding for "masculine bitches." I'm not saying that bitches need to look like pansies, but if people are TRULY "breeding to improve the breed," they will stop this trend of wanting masculine bitches.

From the FCI standard:

Eliminating Faults
General: Distinct reversal of sexual type, i.e. feminine dogs or masculine bitches.

From the AKC standard:

Serious Faults--Lack of proportion, undersized, oversized, reversal of sex characteristics (bitchy dogs, doggy bitches).

Now.....many will come back and say "well that is what I like." Or "That is what is winning in the ring." Those are excuses. IF you truly want to breed to the standard (which is what people SHOULD be doing in order to maintain breed type), then you do not follow winning trends, or "what people like." You follow the written standard.

And with that in mind, I can see how the judge gave you a hard time Janet. Not saying it was well handled, but for any breed, there should be only ONE breed type, for is not type a major characteristic of how a breed is defined. Type involves both conformation and temperament, as both are defined in the standard.

This is not a slam on anyone's preferences, merely my views on what the meaning of having a written standard is, and what people "should" be striving for.

[BostonRott]

Here is an excellent article on "Type vs. Typey."

Typey dogs are what's popular in the ring right now....what's winning. "O, that dog is so typey." Well yes, typical of what is in the ring now and winning. BUT is it the right type?? I read this a few years ago on one of the Rottweiler lists and thought it was excellent.

[BostonRott]

Here is another good article written by some friends of mine (she has a PhD and does research at Boston Childrens', and is an AKC judge who is invited to judge all of the world. He is also an AKC judge). Forgive that is about Dobermanns.

Form Follows Function.

[RottsNScotts]

I think that bitch heads have been the biggest hurdle for people in recent years. There are few that are correct and even fewer that people can agree are correct!

I also think one sees a lot of regional differences.

For a while here in the Pacific NW, the bitch heads were getting too "elegant", in my opinion; lacked cheek, fill under the eye and muzzles getting a bit long, shallow and narrow. Right now, they generally seem to be much better.

I think rear overangulation is the current BIGGEST problem in our breed, nationwide. Even possibly worldwide, based on a large number of the imports I have seen in the last few years AND what the European judges are placing at shows!

[RottsNScotts]

I am looking forward to reading the articles, Gretchen! I think one of the problems with most of the judges we see in the AKC ring is that a lot of them are conformation only who "grew up" in the show ring and have never worked a dog in any field. Thinking our dogs are supposed to "fit" in that 40 X 40 ring is causing us some problems. AKC "tries" to address this with their judges' education series that include seminars with the dogs working but they are few and far between and, how do they say it, "You can lead a horse to water..."!
It is no replacement for years of working a dog!

[BostonRott]

May (the author of article #2) is a member of my former SchH club. She actively works her dogs in the sport and has gone back over to Germany to trial there and also obtain the Dobe equivalent of the ADRK ZTP and Korung. I have high respect for her opinions of both structure and type, with regards to working ability and the need of form to follow function.

One final note: she knows how to throw one HECK of a party too!!!!

[godfreyc]

I couldn't agree with all of you more. I really don't like the appearance of many of the dogs I see in the ring. I hate jowly over wrinkled faces and don't like the angulation of back legs the way it is progressing. But like everone said that's my preference. I just wish Joe Snuffy off the street wouldn't assume that that is what a rottweiler is suppose to look like.

[rottnluv]

Thanks for the articles Gretchen

Marina

[winniecnm]

Originally Posted by BostonRott

I think that you need to breed to the standard. What I'm seeing a lot of today is overdone heads and over-angulated rears.

I am glad that I am not the only one who has taken notice. So many people seem to like the over angulated rears and bulldogish fronts I was beginning to think that if that is not what you wanted in a rottweiler you were part of a dying breed so to speak...

I do love a looking at a bitch who is distinctively feminine in the facial features - there is just something in the expression that is priceless. I just don't feel that way when I see some of these bitches out there who look like males. And I prefer the look of a dog that has the longer, broader muscles, especially in the rear. It seems that people have forgotten that the standard calls for a medium - large sized robust dog, and no mention is made about an overly large head! My jasmine has exactly a 3/2 ratio backskull to muzzle with a nice, but not overpronounced stop - and a few people have commented that her head seems small. I think it is wonderful.

I guess it is best to breed within the standard and to read what the standard actually SAYS. It is pretty descriptive afterall....It seems hard to know that if you do that you might not be as sucessful in the conformation ring as the people breeding for the "typey" dog. I would want my pups to be able to be highly sucessful in the ring and on the field.

I will get on those homework readings ASAP - thank you Gretchen.

[Bob_B.]

As a breeder I don't breed for what is winning in the ring at the moment I have seen it change so many times over the years and there are so many different styles around right now. In AKC there are different styles winning from one coast to another . That being said males need to look like males medium robust the head is very important in this breed good backskull and good fill under the eye without too much skin. In bitches I like a more masculine bitch for breeding without being over done that is my preference. Generally speaking for the ring if you have good breed type and good movement you should do well.

[rottnluv]

One of the things that I see up here in Canada, which I do not prefer, are large, round, bulgy eyes. This is so far from what the standard calls for. Myself, personally do not like a round eye.

I also agree with what others of have said about over-angulated rears. Some people are getting so used to seeing this that when the see a correctly angled rear they make comments about the dog being "straight in the rear". When, in fact, the dog is actually correctly angled.

Please, nothing in this post is meant to offend anyone. These are just my personal observations.

[winniecnm]

Wonderful articles Gretchen! Thank you again for sharing.

Is it appropriate to say then, if you are going to breed to the standard, that you should consider selecting a working dog for a stud if you are going by the "form follows function" theory? Since he already performs the job (Schutzhund) his conformation might be more true to the standard?

I can't help but wonder what the over angulated rear issue is going to eventually do to the hip dysplasia woes as well - elbows too. Even if the ancestors of these dogs have "good hips" if you are breeding to change the dog's orthopaedic structure it would not be a suprise to find that it stresses other parts of the body. Just a thought.