~Myschafis~ Posted May 2, 2011 Author Share Posted May 2, 2011 I am not sure that I agree Typey is 'fashion', type to me is what makes a breed 'type', what makes a breed 'unique'... Nothing to do with whether or not big coats are in this season etc. Just my interpretation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janba Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 I am not sure that I agree Typey is 'fashion', type to me is what makes a breed 'type', what makes a breed 'unique'... Nothing to do with whether or not big coats are in this season etc.Just my interpretation I am looking what has happened over the last 30 years. If you definition of typey is what fits the breed standard not necessarily what wins I would agree but if it is what wins it is often what fits with the current fashion. I am looking at a breed that still performs its original function and while are top show dogs still could conformationally there are also a lot lot who physically couldn't because of their type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benshiva Posted May 2, 2011 Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) It can be as sound as a bell and "do" the job it's bred to do but if it doesn't LOOK like the breed it's meant to be it could be ANYTHING at all!!! Thought I had better add that this is of course MY opinion only. Edited May 2, 2011 by benshiva Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr_inoz Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 OK - I am fairly new to it all and am getting to know my breed standard. I actually don't get the original question. In my breed - if it hasn't got good conformation, then it isn't true to type. The standard call for good rear angulation, a good upper arm, etc... I know that people interpret our breeds head shape differently (although how you can misinterpret a 'flat backskull' is beyond me, as some judges can), but basically our breed standard is all about good conformation. i find it interesting in my breed when the 'best presented" (read best groomed - double coated breed,) gets put up over the so much more obviously better moving, better conformed, meets the standard best, dog. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poodlefan Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I"ll add Pat Hastings interpretation of this argument. Conformation to the breed standard IS type. You can't have one without the other. What was her test: If you can't tell what breed of dog it is with just its head sticking over the fence, and with it in silhouette on a hill at sunset, it lacks type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 I am not sure that I agree Typey is 'fashion', type to me is what makes a breed 'type', what makes a breed 'unique'... Nothing to do with whether or not big coats are in this season etc.Just my interpretation I am looking what has happened over the last 30 years. If you definition of typey is what fits the breed standard not necessarily what wins I would agree but if it is what wins it is often what fits with the current fashion. I am looking at a breed that still performs its original function and while are top show dogs still could conformationally there are also a lot lot who physically couldn't because of their type. I don't think that's type tho'. It's usually "generic show dog", which is not type by definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lappiemum Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 (edited) 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. I'm in the working dog group, and for me, fit for purpose should be considered along with type and soundness. They all go hand in hand. I'm probably out on a limb here, but I look at pics of the old GS's and what I see now, and I have diffuculty understanding where that has gone. However, to my eyes, its now more about type, and type, as noted above, can be influenced by fashion, or even just a single dog that did well in the ring. eta - I know in my breed in Finland, there has been a similar argument over 'show' and 'working' lines. Ideally, I would love to think that a 'show' dog in my breed has an aptitude for 'work', but I know that is not always realistic. Edited May 5, 2011 by lappiemum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nabs Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 In my humble opinion a dog cannot display breed type without displaying soundness. It goes hand in hand. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 In my humble opinion a dog cannot display breed type without displaying soundness. It goes hand in hand. It is a good opinion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RallyValley Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Yes I don't know a standard that calls for an unsound dog. Good call *Shelties N Danes* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr_inoz Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 In my humble opinion a dog cannot display breed type without displaying soundness. It goes hand in hand. Thank you SnD - what I was trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.mister Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 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. +1 That being said, my breed being BC's, if a dog was structurally sound but had zilch working instinct or drive, then it wouldn't really be a BC to me. Ideally, a good combination of both soundness and type is in order. But yes, I agree with what pf has said above, if I had to choose, it would be soundness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lowenhart Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Yes I don't know a standard that calls for an unsound dog. Good call *Shelties N Danes* But soundness differs in breeds. In Pekingese, a "sound" dog moves wide in front with a roll, and narrow behind. A Chow Chow must have a stilted gait, mostly caused by it's "perfectly straight" rear. Some breeds are not supposed to noticably converge to the centreline when moving, others are supposed to single track. This is why I say: lacking breed typical soundness is a case of lacking breed type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nabs Posted May 5, 2011 Share Posted May 5, 2011 Yes I don't know a standard that calls for an unsound dog. Good call *Shelties N Danes* But soundness differs in breeds. In Pekingese, a "sound" dog moves wide in front with a roll, and narrow behind. A Chow Chow must have a stilted gait, mostly caused by it's "perfectly straight" rear. Some breeds are not supposed to noticably converge to the centreline when moving, others are supposed to single track. This is why I say: lacking breed typical soundness is a case of lacking breed type Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now