Conformation question,

[juliepoudrier]

One thing I should note about Twist is that she looks much bigger in the front quarters than she is. She inherited that neck ruff from her sire, and it tends to make her whole front end, from the front of the shoulder to the withers look bigger than it is--it's all hair. I wish I had a good photo of Bud to share, but all was lost when the dogs killed my computer a few weeks ago....

 

Here's a side view taken at a trial last summer when her neck ruff isn't quite, so, well big:

(photo by Michelle Dobbs)

 

J.

[geonni banner]

One thing I should note about Twist is that she looks much bigger in the front quarters than she is. She inherited that neck ruff from her sire, and it tends to make her whole front end, from the front of the shoulder to the withers look bigger than it is--it's all hair. I wish I had a good photo of Bud to share, but all was lost when the dogs killed my computer a few weeks ago....

 

Here's a side view taken at a trial last summer when her neck ruff isn't quite, so, well big:

(photo by Michelle Dobbs)

 

J.

 

Twist looks taller in this photo - higher on the leg - I was having trouble reconciling the earlier photo of her trotting and the "stacked" photo. With less hair she looks leggier and less beefy.

 

I wish I could get to a trial sometime. I would love to see these dogs work in person. Maybe toward the end of the summer. I'm not good with heat. I can happily stand in pouring rain, but temps over 75 lay me out.

[border_collie_crazy]

old but, here is what mine look like standing: both old pics but the best I could find lol

 

 

 

Misty is a total powerhouse, but only for a short length of time, she would not for example handle a cattle drive very well, she tends to falter within about 20 minutes of working. Happy however is all power and stays strong until you stop.

 

Happy on stock(5 year old really bad pic from her first time on stock, but you get the idea lol)

 

I should take a pic of Happy today..she is shaved so you can actually see without all her coat in the way lol

[geonni banner]

I'm going to give Sugarfoot a bath in the next day or so, and I'll try to get pics of her wet so it shows better how she's built. I think your Happy's legs are a tad longer than Sugar's, but otherwise they seem very similar to me.

[SS Cressa]

I have no idea what this means? Care to elaborate? Are you saying it would be easier to judge the conformation of a dog trotting around a show ring vs. trotting around sheep in a field? And I really have no idea what "playing herding games" means.

 

J.

 

I look for angles and smoothness/proportions of a dog in a natural stand. If a dogs is in a crouch the angle of the shoulder/rear is off and can throw off its proportions. Also just a side view of a natural stand can say a lot about the dog. I wasn't suprise to see Jill has HD. From her pix I would think she has an injury since her rear is tuck under. I would think there is also an (old?) injury or something off with Kat rear or back since her rear is tucked under. And Pip look like something is tight or injuried in the rear due to both pix he looks to be distributing his wieght???

 

Cressa in her recent pix she has a foot tucked under her. Her back has been tight lately.So am not suprise her foot is being kept under!

 

Playing "in the crouch" or "eyeing each other" or "stalking" games.

 

I wouldn't evalutate structure in the field. I would check the dog out before it enter. How it looked, its movement(even walking can give clues to injuries or possible issues), and manners before working. Then watch the dog work the sheep in awe. Looking for speed, intensity, willingness to work with handler, giving work 110%, and etc.

 

**Of course I am coming from an agility propective and mindset.** Don't know how different they are from the working folk.

 

BTW: Your dogs did awesome for not being use to it. Cressa won't let me "stack" her. It doesn't help if I say wait or stay she drops in a down. That and a very dirty look is all I get from her.

 

I love Phoebe structure! And Ranger... LOVE how he looks! But might be a little bias toward the look and also the built.

 

Anyways thats just my thought. Border Collies come in all shape and size and as long as they can get their job done and the owner likes them who cares if they don't have the prettiest moves/trot or they're not eye candy.

[SS Cressa]

Actually this pix is a good representation of what I am refering to in injuries:

 

You can see her rear is tuck and her right front paw is forward while standing. She is relieving the pressure from her lower back which is tight. She isn't standing in a relax natural(?) or carefree(?) position. LOL Not sure what is up with her tail either?!

[NorthfieldNick]

Julie, I think I've asked this before (and forgot the answer), but how is Kat bred? She & my Nick are built a lot a like. Nick is a son of Debbie Bailey's Ben (if you've seen him- they run in your part of the country) & looks just like him.

[juliepoudrier]

I look for angles and smoothness/proportions of a dog in a natural stand. If a dogs is in a crouch the angle of the shoulder/rear is off and can throw off its proportions. Also just a side view of a natural stand can say a lot about the dog. I wasn't suprise to see Jill has HD. From her pix I would think she has an injury since her rear is tuck under. I would think there is also an (old?) injury or something off with Kat rear or back since her rear is tucked under. And Pip look like something is tight or injuried in the rear due to both pix he looks to be distributing his wieght???

 

And this is the funny thing about photos and why *I* think you *can't* tell a lot from them. Sure you can't hide egregious faults with a photo, but as someone who owned, rode,and showed horses for years, I know full well you can photograph in a way to minimize/hide some problems, so I just don't ever judge solely on the basis of photos. Nothing beats seeing an animal in person.

 

None of my dogs was on a perfectly level surface. None of them was particularly happy to be asked to stand, and in Pip's case he kept leaning against Jack, hence the odd foot placement. The other dogs were playing with a basketball and sometimes running up and throwing it in Jack's (and whatever dog he happened to he holding) face. Jack tried his best to get the dogs to stand square, but often it didn't happen and I didn't have all day to get it done, since they weren't being cooperative anyway, so I just snapped away.

 

Anyway, since I noted Jill has HD, it's hard to know if you already had that in your mind looking at her photo. She is nearly 14 years old and had a successful open trial career up till about age 11. She does have an old hip injury, but that was 7 years or more ago (Twist was a year old and running in nursery at the time). She doesn't take any lame steps and still goes walking with us several times a day. That said, since retirement, she no longer has the muscle mass she used to in the rear and so her rear *is* more unstable than it used to be. I've always thought she was rather long bodied though.

 

Neither Kat nor Pip has ever had an injury. Jack tried to place Kat's feet and she kept wiggling around, so I just snapped a picture. I don't know if you remember the discussion in the H&G section a while back about dogs who "camp out"? Kat is a dog who normally camps out. So to get a picture of her with her hind legs tucked under is unusual!

 

This is more typical of Kat, although in this photo she's taking a step to creep forward because she thinks I'm going to send her:

 

BTW: Your dogs did awesome for not being use to it. Cressa won't let me "stack" her. It doesn't help if I say wait or stay she drops in a down. That and a very dirty look is all I get from her.

 

Well I don't think we were successful at actually truly stacking any of them, which is why some look a little odd. When Jack tried to place feet properly, the dogs would invariably crouch or lie down or turn around or something not conducive to me getting a side view photo.

 

I love Phoebe structure! And Ranger... LOVE how he looks! But might be a little bias toward the look and also the built.

 

And in Phoebe's photos you'll notice that neither is a perfect side shot) so her rear legs look a bit longer than they really are. That said, I like the smaller compact dogs like Phoebe and Kat. Lots of folks like Ranger because he's such a classically marked dog. Ranger is the one dog who is showing real evidence of ouchiness in a photo. If you look at his left front, you'll see that he has his weight on his toes and not on the pad, which is apparently bruised.

 

Anyways thats just my thought. Border Collies come in all shape and size and as long as they can get their job done and the owner likes them who cares if they don't have the prettiest moves/trot or they're not eye candy.

 

True. That's why I said Kat has a somewhat odd structure, because she does. But when she's moving, she's poetry. It's why I argue against simply looking at a dog standing still. Sure some obvious faults might jump out at you, but watch the animal move and if it all works together nicely, then it just works. And of course eye candy is very much in the eye of the beholder. Ranger is my least favorite as far as looks go (I love my smooth-coated, prick-eared dogs), but as long as he turns out to be a good worker, I'll overlook all the extra grooming I'll be required to do!

 

J.

[juliepoudrier]

Julie, I think I've asked this before (and forgot the answer), but how is Kat bred? She & my Nick are built a lot a like. Nick is a son of Debbie Bailey's Ben (if you've seen him- they run in your part of the country) & looks just like him.

Ben,

I've seen Debbie's Ben, but I don't know his breeding.

 

Kat's dam was Kate, who was by Bill Reed's Imp. Lad (by Brady's Jim) and out of Laura Rizzo's Maid/Cassidy (who was bred by Gene Estes). Kat's sire is Frank, owned by Don Carpenter. Frank's sire was @Taff (Pero), owned by Kenneth Sigel (CT) and bred by R. T. Jones, Wales. His dam was Jess, owned by Brian Beck and bred by Flo Wilson. So Kat is a Wilson's Roy great granddaughter on her sire's side. Does any of that look familiar?

 

I love, love, love Kat and wish I could have another like her. I tried breeding her a couple of times with no success, and later talked to Bill Reed trying to find a similarly bred dog, but apparently those lines don't much exist anymore. Nancy Schreeder's Link, I think has some common breeding a generation or two back, but he's like the only dog around (remotely) related to her that I know of (this was a discussion that took place at Dr. Ben's trial a couple of years ago, so I had a bunch of folks who know the lines discussing how to find me something similar--no luck. )

 

J

[Donald McCaig]

Dear Doggers,

 

I know that lots of people, some who haven't touched a drink for years, are concerned about doggy structure. I am at the other pole; I couldn't describe my dog's structure or coat if they were out of the room. (I'm better with their weights).

 

While it is grossly true that morphology effects the dog's ability to do certain tasks (I wouldn't send a Corgi on an 800 yard outrun) claims for its importance have been inflated by dog showers who need to make much out of very very little.

 

I often announce at Kingston and I loved it when Kate Broadbent was running Decks. As Decks made his outrun I'd describe Kate's occupation (professional shepherd) and Deck's everyday work. Deck'd sweep behind his sheep and down. As he came down the course on the fetch, he'd be much slower and his stride would break up/ Not noticeable at full tilt, it was apparent to spectators that, although he was working well, something wasn't right.

 

I'd then point out that Decks only had three legs.

 

Decks won a lot of trials.

 

Donald McCaig

[border_collie_crazy]

ok Happy under all the hair....and quite a few years older...and really not happy about this lol

 

[geonni banner]

Donald McCaig:

"I often announce at Kingston and I loved it when Kate Broadbent was running Decks. As Decks made his outrun I'd describe Kate's occupation (professional shepherd) and Deck's everyday work. Deck'd sweep behind his sheep and down. As he came down the course on the fetch, he'd be much slower and his stride would break up/ Not noticeable at full tilt, it was apparent to spectators that, although he was working well, something wasn't right."

I'd then point out that Decks only had three legs.

 

Decks won a lot of trials.

 

Great story, Mr. McCaig.

 

My interest in conformation is largely academic. I get the impression, especially with Border Collies and terriers, that if "the spirit is willing," the flesh had better try and keep up! That said, I think that a dog with nicely balanced conformation can do more work with less effort than one with serious faults - provided they both have the same "wiring" and attitude.

[MaryP]

That said, I think that a dog with nicely balanced conformation can do more work with less effort than one with serious faults - provided they both have the same "wiring" and attitude.

 

That sounds dangerously close to Dog Fancy speak and the beginning of a slide down a slippery slope. How would you define a serious fault? Like Mr. McCaig, I know of a border collie with a missing foot that works sheep. She is owned by some friends of mine and I watched her being worked at a clinic a couple of years ago. You'd never know that she was missing a foot until she stopped moving and would be holding the stump up. I think that a missing foot (or leg) might fall under the "serious fault" category, but it didn't seem to matter to my friend's dog. She was actually quite talented. I don't think they trial with her, though. They mostly just use her to manage their own small flock.

 

I don't put much value on conformation and, thankfully, I wouldn't even know how to judge a dog's conformation. I've never shown a dog or horse, though I've enjoyed both species all my life. I certainly know when a dog looks nice to me, but I couldn't really describe why using meaningful [conformation] termonology.

 

I think that Julie's example of her funky proportioned Kat is a perfect example of why it's a bit of a waste of time to make some sort of correlation between a dog's conformation and it's ability to "do more work with less effort."

[geonni banner]

That sounds dangerously close to Dog Fancy speak and the beginning of a slide down a slippery slope. How would you define a serious fault? Like Mr. McCaig, I know of a border collie with a missing foot that works sheep. She is owned by some friends of mine and I watched her being worked at a clinic a couple of years ago. You'd never know that she was missing a foot until she stopped moving and would be holding the stump up. I think that a missing foot (or leg) might fall under the "serious fault" category, but it didn't seem to matter to my friend's dog. She was actually quite talented. I don't think they trial with her, though. They mostly just use her to manage their own small flock.

 

I don't put much value on conformation and, thankfully, I wouldn't even know how to judge a dog's conformation. I've never shown a dog or horse, though I've enjoyed both species all my life. I certainly know when a dog looks nice to me, but I couldn't really describe why using meaningful [conformation] termonology.

 

I think that Julie's example of her funky proportioned Kat is a perfect example of why it's a bit of a waste of time to make some sort of correlation between a dog's conformation and it's ability to "do more work with less effort."

 

Have no fear - I see the slope and am wearing my pitons!

 

What I said was: "a dog with nicely balanced conformation can do more work with less effort than one with serious faults - provided they both have the same "wiring" and attitude... If the two dogs were exactly the same, in attitude, drive and working experience/savvy (and no two are exactly the same, which is why I say this is an academic argument,) but if given that they were, the more balanced dog would have an advantage (in economy of effort only)- however small. And, I understand that there is no one conformation type that is better than another, it is more important that the individual dog is balanced nicely - regardless of type. The Fancy tends to choose a single type and want all dogs of that breed to conform to that type - discarding all other attributes - therein lies the failure of the conformation showing mindset.

 

A dog that's built like a jackrabbit could be the best dog in the field on a given day, but it would probably because of his heart and mind - his drive, intelligence, biddability, training and natural talent. Mr. McCaig's example of a three-legged dog proves this.

 

Edited to add: Sorry, I did not answer your question of what is my idea of a serious fault. Since I would be judging form a standpoint of utility, rather than one of a breed standard, I would say that something like a poorly constructed joint - one that severely limited pain-free mobility of a joint, would be a serious fault. Something like a very short back on a long-legged dog would potentially be a serious fault - if the dog habitually struck its fore-pasterns when trotting it could result in chronic injury to the pasterns, instability of balance or just a dog who tires easily from trying to avoid striking. A roached back, depending on the degree of roach, could also cause chronic pain in a working dog.

 

Things I would not consider serious faults (or faults at all) are things having to do with hair coat color, length, or texture. I would not be concerned with the length of legs, (unless they were corgi-length), Length of neck, back or tail, (again, unless they actually made it difficult or impossible for the dog to move freely), head shape, ear-set, amount of "timber," (although very heavy bone would I think be sub-optimal.) To me, anything that doesn't make it hard for a dog to work well is not a fault. Some things are a matter of degree. Straight stifles will not likely be a problem unless they are so extreme as to shorten the dog's stride so that it has to take twice as many steps to cover a given distance than a more suitably structured dog. He will simply get tired faster - how much faster is the key to whether it's a problem or not.

 

As for an abnormality like a missing leg or eye - I do not believe they should be considered faults, as they usually arise as a result of injury or disease. They are not part of the dog's original conformation, and like many structural faults of a greater or lesser degree, some dogs will be able to compensate for them with talent, drive or just plain old grit. Naturally, I think that a dog should be taken off work or given light duties if it has a severe fault, illness, injury or anything that will cause it to undergo severe pain or threaten its health or safety.

[G. Festerling]

So strictly academically, that is how we got conformation classes yes???

 

That said, I think that a dog with nicely balanced conformation can do more work with less effort than one with serious faults - provided they both have the same "wiring" and attitude.

 

Being that "wiring and attitude" can only be tested over time and in/on the field? And not everyone is hands on or able?

So the "academic" approach starts with specific conformation. Or form to function? Which I will not deny has its place.

But one of the most charming things for me about the BC has always been that there is such a wide variety in every single aspect of appearance.

[rushdoggie]

So strictly academically, that is how we got conformation classes yes???

 

 

 

Being that "wiring and attitude" can only be tested over time and in/on the field? And not everyone is hands on or able?

So the "academic" approach starts with specific conformation. Or form to function? Which I will not deny has its place.

But one of the most charming things for me about the BC has always been that there is such a wide variety in every single aspect of appearance.

 

 

Form should always follow function. Many in the dog fancy get it backwards.

[geonni banner]

G. Festerling'

So strictly academically, that is how we got conformation classes yes???

 

Believe me, as a youngster I did my time on the end of a martingale show lead, and came to see the futility of that whole milieu long before I met my first Border Collie. The only useful thing that I carried away from the experience is to be able to accurately describe a dog's anatomy.

 

Being that "wiring and attitude" can only be tested over time and in/on the field?

I think that's true. The proof is in what the dog can do - not how it's put together.

 

And not everyone is hands on or able?

 

Can't answer that one. If I had to guess, I would say that most people who have the willingness to learn what makes a good stock dog, and had the wherewithal to get a good teacher, could learn. I doubt that one could consider oneself of good judge of stockdogs unless they had logged a lot of hours with a lot of dogs on a lot of stock - preferably with the help of said good teacher(s).

 

So the "academic" approach starts with specific conformation. Or form to function? Which I will not deny has its place.

 

Form to function is obviously the ticket. Sadly, for me, the academic approach did start with a conformation dog - a Rough Collie. And I suspect that someone who came into dogs - Border Collies in this case - from a stock working working background would have little time or need for an academic approach. However, for myself, I have an analytical mind. And the eye of an artist/ photographer. What an individual Border Collie looks like is not so important to me as why it looks the way it does. While I do feel that the one most important question that needs to be asked about an individual Border Collie is, (at least, one that is to be bred) "How is he/she with stock?", it is not completely ridiculous to consider the dog's physical soundness for whatever task it will be asked to perform. And soundness is impacted by how the animal is put together.

 

My situation is exacerbated by having an anxiety disorder which keeps me at home more than I'd like, and a budget when coupled with my disability forbids much in the way of spectating, let alone hands-on learning . My "experience" with Border Collies - excepting my own dog - is, lamentably, vicarious. But my interest and enthusiasm is nonetheless avid - and I know enough in general to bow to those with real experience and practical, hands-on knowledge. I am here to learn about these remarkable animals, and the only way I can do that is to engage in supposition, and have discussion to either support or disprove my conclusions.

 

But one of the most charming things for me about the BC has always been that there is such a wide variety in every single aspect of appearance.

 

This is absolutely, undeniably and delightfully the case for me too. But as seasoned old cowpoke can walk around a corral full of horses and make shrewd guesses as to which one will be a good cow pony, Border Collies do have a certain something that is recognizable. And soundness does not need to be expressed in one way only. A variety of shapes and sizes can be equally good at their work. But balance and harmony of the various parts of a dog is definitely a plus. The different types may "sing different tunes" but they all do the dance.

[Ooky]

Form to function is obviously the ticket. Sadly, for me, the academic approach did start with a conformation dog - a Rough Collie. And I suspect that someone who came into dogs - Border Collies in this case - from a stock working working background would have little time or need for an academic approach. However, for myself, I have an analytical mind. And the eye of an artist/ photographer. What an individual Border Collie looks like is not so important to me as why it looks the way it does. While I do feel that the one most important question that needs to be asked about an individual Border Collie is, (at least, one that is to be bred) "How is he/she with stock?", it is not completely ridiculous to consider the dog's physical soundness for whatever task it will be asked to perform. And soundness is impacted by how the animal is put together.

 

I think where an academic approach that puts any sort of serious weight on form as judged by an external eye falls down is the assumption that humans can accurately judge the "type" of form that leads to good function. I think it is mainly a myth perpetuated in the dog fancy. Additionally, in the very small amount of time I have spent around those who know about conformation showing, they all use the same terms but often come to very different conclusions about a specific dog unless they are relating it to a type liked by a judge or a current breed standard - the attempts to describe function based on appearance (not assessment of serious defect or injury) seem very much like a "just so" story to me. Humans like these stories, we are susceptible to them.

 

I just think that the body is so complex that while it seems logical to assume a certain form will give rise to certain inevitable benefits or drawbacks, you are never seeing everything that goes into the equation and so are fooling yourself. Yes, a certain lever with a given pivot point will give rise to a certain force able to be applied, but that is a poor analogy for a body, which has levers in it but isn't just made of them.

 

To describe what I'm trying to say (apologies as I am rather obsessed with certain ideas/fears right now), I'll describe a comparatively very simple example of human "conformation" and how it might relate to a function: childbirth. If humans were being judged conformationally for how well they could have babies, I think the first physical trait anyone would logically consider is hip width/size. Yet it is a well known fact that larger women with large pelvises sometimes cannot give birth to a small, 6-lb babies, while many small-boned, slim-hipped women have no trouble giving birth to 9-lb babies. This is a simple function, right (getting the baby through a certain size hole)? The hole is inside the pelvis though, and you can't see it with the naked eye, you only see the outside shape of the pelvis. But drs., who can now use ultrasound to measure the baby's head AND measure the internal pelvic outlet, STILL do not make prior predictions of which first time moms will be able to give birth vaginally and who will need a c-section without seeing the woman attempt the job itself. There are other factors that come into play and can't be predicted - you only know after you try to perform the function. By the way, I am aware that in my example simple does not equal easy. I'm just saying, it's only one task - compared to the millions of separate tasks involved in moving/running/stopping/turning/accelerating etc.

 

PS Can I say that I have really enjoyed this thread though to get to see pictures of all the dogs, especially Sugarfoot and Julie Ps dogs who I rarely see pics of!

[geonni banner]

'Ooky'

"I think where an academic approach that puts any sort of serious weight on form as judged by an external eye falls down is the assumption that humans can accurately judge the "type" of form that leads to good function. I think it is mainly a myth perpetuated in the dog fancy. Additionally, in the very small amount of time I have spent around those who know about conformation showing, they all use the same terms but often come to very different conclusions about a specific dog unless they are relating it to a type liked by a judge or a current breed standard - the attempts to describe function based on appearance (not assessment of serious defect or injury) seem very much like a "just so" story to me. Humans like these stories, we are susceptible to them."

You are so right about that! I've seen it again and again. What I found was that, like the outside of the dog, conformation breeders only relate to what the bones and muscles of a dog look like. They don't give a "flying fork" what function those bones and muscles are supposed to help the dog do. They know where the dog's croup is, but they only care because the standard says it's supposed to have such and such an angle. They are so wrapped up in the "correct" number of dewclaws and the "correct" wave of the hair coat that they can't see the dog for the "breed."

 

I know a bunch of Greyhound rescue people who deplore the life of the track Greyhound, but they watch Westminster every year with 'bated breath. They rant and rail against lure-coursing - you have to sign a form that says you won't let your dog do it - because the dog might get hurt. Dog Fancy people are mostly as full of s**t as a Christmas turkey, but they swear, like you say, that they want their dogs to look a certain way because it fits them for the work they were developed for. HA!

[SS Cressa]

While I am not trying to say function follows form. Form does have a impact on fuction. err At least in agility it does.

 

I think most of the "bias" or thoughts on structure comes form personal experience. ex: All the dogs I know that keep their feet tucked under them. Are due to back issues or had a back injury. and etc... Dogs with the straighter fronts have bar issues and back issues from jumping. Dog with too much angulation in the rear don't have the power needed to jump proper and their front ends up taking a beating. Dogs that look balance(body/leg ratio) can turn much tighter then those that don't. etc...

 

But your right you can't really tell or judge from a pix. A good photographer can hide the faults and with a quick groom your dog can appear to be perfect in form. The best way is to see the dog in person.

 

I think It is what IN "the package" that will make the dog. But it still "the package" that will hold it together and help keep it in. While you can't tell whats in the package just by looks. I think you can tell (a little at least) how well the package would be able to contain whatever is in it.

 

Hope I make a little sense. Just moved today and got little to no sleep last night. **yawn** Gonna go to bed now... zzzzzzz