Type Vs Conformation

[~Myschafis~]

Hi All,

I am opening the floor to a discussion for different thoughts.

For aspirants, judges, breeders, exhibitors etc.

I hear two scenarios.

Dog A: Not quite structurally sound, but excellent breed 'type' displaying all hall mark characteristics of said breed.

Dog B: Structurally sound as a bell but lacking breed type.

I am hearing any mutt can be sound but has no breed type and there in is how a pure bred society is differentiated, I hear a breed cannot have correct 'type' without soundness.

I am sure a lot of people are going to say its a culmination of the two, you need a sound typey dog, you need to choose the closest.

Would you sacrifice the hall marks of a breed on a sound dog, for breeding etc?

[LizT]

Based on much that I have read and heard of the "Purebred" dog today, some would say that "Soundness" is being sacrificed for "type" already.

[Dante]

As a breeder / shower - pet home both A and B and start again. Neither are good enough to show or breed with.

[~Myschafis~]

As a breeder / shower - pet home both A and B and start again. Neither are good enough to show or breed with.

My question is more faced with if these were your two options full stop, whether due to limited gene pool... As a judge these are the two dogs presented in the ring etc.

Perhaps you have the ideal bitch, but the dogs you are faced with either have one or the other...all dogs have faults

I hear quite a lot any mutt can be sound but it doesn't distinguish a breed, therefore type is more important..

Unfortunately it would seem this is the reality for some breeds with a smaller gene pool they dont have the luxury of having it all.

[FHRP]

For me soundness has to win. With the pressure on purebred dogs being healthy pets, and with my own interest in the working side of my breeds and competitive dog sports, breeders must be doing everything possible to produce physically sound dogs IMO.

In the show ring I have been disappointed several times seeing noticebly lame dogs win large awards. I would prefer to see a sound dog lacking type placed over an unsound typey dog. However, I would not like to see either win any substantial award including Challenges if the lack of soundness or type is bad.

[Dante]

I would assume structurally unsound would be severe or detrimental to the breed, so i wouldn't consider it as part of a breeding program. But the dog lacking type could be put to something with good type and potentially produce good type pups. You didn't mention limited gene pools so I didn't consider that.

With a particular mating, I would say it depends on that individual circumstance, and what you were aiming to achieve from the mating. This would determine which dog to use.

A judge always has the option to null award.

[WreckitWhippet]

It would have been a non-award for me

If they were mine, neither would have made the ring and would have been desexed and pet homed.

There are plain but sound dogs and bitches and there's nothing wrong with that, but an animal that lacks the "hall marks" of a breed is no better than an unsound animal.

Type, temperament, structure and soundness...

[Lowenhart]

Structural soundness is part of breed type and lacking breed typical soundness is a case of lacking breed type.

[Dellcara]

Structural soundness is part of breed type and lacking breed typical soundness is a case of lacking breed type.

exactly ....

and it depends on what you mean when you say "soundness" .... it's a very "loose" term bandied about by many.

a slightly wide front - a slightly close rear end are things I would forgive for other hallmarks of the breed.

light eyes, foreign expression are thing I would not forgive in my breed.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Dellcara

[Alyosha]

There would be so many individual variables like seriousness of unsoundness, and extent of lack of type.

The deciding factor has to fall within the scope of - "Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded should be in exact proportion to its degree and its effect upon the health and welfare of the dog".

For instance, in my breed a lack of type may include something that on first glance seems visual, like snipy/weak head or underjaw - the head being such a hallmark in this breed. Yet this fault, while giving the impression of a lack of type rather than soundness, could indeed be a fault that has a larger impact on the individual dog and/or it's offspring. Weak jaw and head can interfere with correct feeding, as well as with any performance of original function - weak jaws and high speed hunting... not a good mix.

So would a dog with a small, snipy head go up over one that had less angulation in the rear? The degree of impact and seriousness can be a very hard thing to call on the spot.

[Diva]

For instance, in my breed a lack of type may include something that on first glance seems visual, like snipy/weak head or underjaw - .

Yep, or high set ears or tight skin - these may seem cosmetic and just part of type but they actually strongly correlate to speed on the flat for my sighthound breed, and that's as important for them as a sound looking ring trot.

I agree with the posters who said that soundness is part of type. A really unsound dog would be pushing it to rate with me no matter how good its finer breed points. Same for clearly poor temperament. A really unsound dog is by definition for me lacking type - unless it is clearly injury affected etc. Still shouldn't win in the ring of course.

[kirst_goldens]

interesting topic!

i agree wiht a few above it would depend on the degree of unsoundness or lack of type..

Goldens~ a dog with acceptable but less the perfect angulation may still be balanced and ok... but a dog with a yuk head is no good for me... their head is soo important - jaw for holding game and expression etc... i am seeing more and more light eyes as well which is GROSS!!

hrmm... interesting lol love reading everyones replies - most make more sence then mine hahaha

[SkySoaringMagpie]

I like what Alyosha and Diva have said.

I think it's also important to understand the difference between what I might call a "plain" presenting dog, and an "eyecatching" dog. The "plain" dog might have all the breed hallmarks, and the "eyecatching" dog might not. So for example, a very long narrow muzzle in Afghans or an overangulated rear and straight front in Salukis might look "typey" to an uneducated eye, but in fact it's just flashy and not actually reflective of breed type at all.

I'm not saying all the plain sound ones have excellent breed type. Many don't. But it's important to understand what is REALLY breed type and what is just generic show dog.

[poodlefan]

I'd not choose either dog but if I had to choose I'd have soundness over type.

You can breed to improve type but with starting with an unsound dog, you've got less than nothing.

[conztruct]

As a breeder / shower - pet home both A and B and start again. Neither are good enough to show or breed with.

My question is more faced with if these were your two options full stop, whether due to limited gene pool... As a judge these are the two dogs presented in the ring etc.

Perhaps you have the ideal bitch, but the dogs you are faced with either have one or the other...all dogs have faults

I hear quite a lot any mutt can be sound but it doesn't distinguish a breed, therefore type is more important..

Unfortunately it would seem this is the reality for some breeds with a smaller gene pool they dont have the luxury of having it all.

I know what you're saying but I have to agree with Dante's comment above.

All too often judges will put up a less than good specimen of the breed over other less than good specimen/s of the breed. I think they should non-award more when this is the case - if they don't it encourages mediocrity and it also gives (especially inexperienced) exhibitors a false impression of the quality of their dogs and may encourage them to breed dogs that are not going to contribute to the betterment of the breed.

How do I know this? I have a bitch who is just lovely and loves showing but not a strong example of the breed - I would never consider breeding her because there is not enough virtue and there are many other superior examples of the breed. So we used to show just because she liked the run and getting out and about - of course, she got her points. Sometimes I think we make it too easy and focus on making everyone happy instead of being realistic.

I know there are many schools of thought on this and I'm not saying I'm right (I'm happy to hear other points of view because there may be things I haven't considered and it could change my opinion) - just saying what I think.

Edited April 27, 2011 by conztruct

[Sheridan]

My favourite clanger from a wheaten breeder:

In truth, forsaking breed type for health is costing us the breed we have worked so hard to create.

[Katie P]

I really like that quote Sheridan.

[RallyValley]

My favourite clanger from a wheaten breeder:

In truth, forsaking breed type for health is costing us the breed we have worked so hard to create.

I think in working breeds sacrificing soundness for 'type' which can often be determined by show ring fashion is just as detrimental to the breeds as is breeding soley for soundness/ability but sacrificing type - this is why some breeds that have split show and working lines have show dogs that may look closer to the original design but never perform the job they were developed for through exaggeration of features (showier coats, shortening muzzles, altering the plains of the head, building dogs longer and lower) if you don't know the true purpose of a feature how would you know the way it effects the breed?!? The opposite is also true for working type where they have sound or dogs with ability but over time they tend to loose the classic look of the breed.

I think if your only options were to choose between the totally unsound dog and a dog that lacked so much type you were questioning it's breed I would non award. I have seen a judge after a breed specialty of a split type gundog breed specialty take everyone aside after judging and tell them she could count on one hand the amount of dogs that she could take hunting with her, that the breed she was seeing that day had lost the ability to function which is the whole reason these breeds were created in the first place.

[~Myschafis~]

My favourite clanger from a wheaten breeder:

In truth, forsaking breed type for health is costing us the breed we have worked so hard to create.

I like that quote....

I think in breeds where the gene pool is limited its hard and/or you throw in a 3rd wheel being health issues.

When you are trying to pick a dog/bitch with a line free of health issues, that is sound and typey sometimes can really be a task in itself, you arne't willing to throw the baby out with the bath water so what do you do. Lose the characteristics of the dogs that make them 'that' breed, to have a sound, healthy dog. I think where people have the option, they would just take small steps in what they hope to be the right direction and PRAY that no recessives bite em in the butt

I truly dont know if there is a 'right' answer to this question, they are right when they say, you can have a sound healthy mutt, that is a mix of 50, you can have an unsound dog displaying every hall mark of the breed. You can have a sound, type dog with everything going for it with a pedigree riddled with health issues. Which point do you sacrifice to move forward.

(Note: For the purpose of this discussion, for 'type' I am referring to breed charecteristics that are somewhat aesthetic the spots that make a dally a dal... the spectacles of a keeshond, the rolls of a sharpei, the colour and coat of an OES etc, the things that make that breed unique.)

[Janba]

I sat with some people one day who had a long bodied short legged BC and almost asked if it was a corgi/BC cross. Glad I didn't as it was a show champion BC. It may have been sound and passed all its health checks but there is no way the dog could have worked all day or had the speed to get to the head of the sheep if necessary. It also had such heavy bone it would have had stress injuries if worked hard.

I really think when you are looking at the show ring you need to differentiate between the current fashion and the breed type that could do what the breed was originally intended to do and they are not necessarily compatable. It is not a working vs show issue but a structure issue and type issue. Typey is fashion.

I personally would want a dog that is structurally sound over a dog that fits the current fashion for the breed. Fashions change but soundness doesn't and if you breed towards unsound dogs because that is what wins in the shown ring it will cause more problems than breeding sound dogs that fit the standard but might not be right for the current show ring fashion.