# Mixed Breed Conformation



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

How would one judge the build of a mixed breed dog? Is it even possible? Obviously you wouldn't be holding it to a breed standard, but are there ways to evaluate a dog just for general conformation attributes (symmetry, balance, back heavy/front heavy, overall picture) and general structural indications of soundness (hocks, foot shape, shoulder angulation, pasterns)?

If that is possible, I think it'd be a fun thread to have here on DF.. yes Zim I'm totally ripping off your APBT thread idea  of course, our resident DF experts would have to be willing to give their opinions, but as a mixed breed owner I always get beat out in terms of having someone evaluate my dog


----------



## Pai (Apr 23, 2008)

I'd think overall balance and structural soundness would be universal traits, even in a mix.


----------



## Kat_Renee (May 6, 2009)

i think that would be an awesome thread.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

I know you know better than this, but this reminds me of a conversation I had with my hubby back when Kim was young, while a dog show (Westminster?) was on TV:

Me: [explanation]...so does that explain about conforming to breed standards?
DH: Yeah thanks. *pause* So...is Kim the correct color for her standard?
Me: *pause* Um...okay let's go back a step...


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

missmutt

check your pm box

(i really hate typing pm in the plural.  )


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Done. 

Thank you!


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

I think it would be hard since the physical charecteristics of one dog may make it more sutable to a different task.

For instance what if there was a short legged floppy eard sable mutt with stiff guard hair and a curly tail

and he was up aginst a long legged rose eard black dog that looked like MissMutt's dog.

Who would you pick as the winner? and why?


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

It sounded to me like the suggestion was for evaluations, not competitions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the thread would be looking at each mutt as an individual, not in comparison to other mutts.

Sounds like fun!


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Yeah.. I meant evaluating the dog against itself, NOT against others, for simple indications that it was put together well. A "mixed breed dog show" would be silly.

If a dog is cow hocked, for instance, that will affect him no matter what his job is, whether he is purebred or not. Obviously things like tail, coat color, ear shape don't matter because there is no standard.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

I'm in! LOL
Sounds like a cool idea MM. 
Now, does this mean we have to all have pictures of our dogs "stacked"? LOL

Btw...what the heck is 'cow hocked'?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

See how this dog's hocks (the pointy part at the back of the leg) are turned in? Those are cow hocks. Look what it does to the picture of the dog. Think, would a dog shaped like this be good at working, or would this structural fault leave him tired more quickly than a correct dog? This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about when I say we should judge our mixes. (There might be some breeds where cow hocks are acceptable, but I know for the vast majority of breeds they are not.

I think it would mean we need to reasonably "stack" our dogs, and maybe some gaiting pictures while we're at it.


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Thanks MM. I would have used the overly technical term "turny inny hind legs" lol.

Here is Miss C's "hunting pose"...the proportions are a little off, she is NOT this shortlegged...dang camera...









This is a "hock shot" lol


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Ah OK Sorry I thought you ment competitions lol sorry. 


OK everyone I'm in! at least I'll help "judge"

When stacking a dog the Hocks should be perpendicular to the ground and the back feet should be set just as wide as the hips no wider no narrower. THe front legs shold be set perpendicular to the ground and front feet should be spaced according to chest and shoulder width.

Of course I wouldn't expect everyone to be perfect. I just typed that as a basic guide to help.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

don't forget to havethe camera level with the dog


----------



## Tofu_pup (Dec 8, 2008)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> missmutt
> 
> check your pm box
> 
> (i really hate typing pm in the plural.  )


Lol.

I was actually just thinking about this when I found the thread.

How does one get into mixed breed conformation? I doubt I'll be doing it with hugh or kaki because I'd rather put my energy into rally and agility. Not to brag though, hugh would do really well. He is the only good looking, well built puggle that I have ever seen.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> Yeah.. I meant evaluating the dog against itself, NOT against others, for simple indications that it was put together well. A "mixed breed dog show" would be silly.
> 
> If a dog is cow hocked, for instance, that will affect him no matter what his job is, whether he is purebred or not. Obviously things like tail, coat color, ear shape don't matter because there is no standard.


To a certain extent we can look at those auxiliary features (tail, coat color, ear shape, etc) and make a recommendation as to what job each of our mutts might best perform based on physical attributes alone.

I am interested to see if I can even get Alvin to stack. He doesn't love physical manipulation a whole lot. He plants his dog feet and becomes roughly the weight of a small pony. It's especially good if I pull on his collar while he's doing this because it pulls his back wrinkles up over his face into a most disturbing frown. Perhaps I will try to get a picture of that, while I'm at it.


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

I would be sooo interested in this! I work with horses, and conformation is pretty much universal regardless of breed; I mean, a structural fault is a structural fault no matter what. 

I'd be really interested to hear more about the proper shoulder angles and croup angles, back length, neck length, etc. and how they affect the dogs' gait, endurance, speed, etc. 

For instance, Bandit has a reeaallly long back and what looks to me like a weak hind. Willow looks the most well-proportioned to me overall, but her neck is quite long, and her back seems a bit hollow behind the shoulder blades. Loki has a nice straight back but is very cow-hocked and possibly has bowed legs below the hocks? And maybe weak back pasterns?

I'd just love for someone with more experience to look at some nice level side shots of my dogs and tell me what they see, and if there is anything I can do to improve their comfort or health based on the conformational faults that may be present. It would also be cool to show shots of my dogs' gaits and see what people think... keeping in mind that they are sledding dogs, and that long, reaching, effortless strides are pretty much the ideal.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

Nekomi, your signature is lovely!

So are we using this thread to post pics of our mutts or are we starting a new one?


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Well, you guys will have to make due with the pics I've posted...I do have a play video or two but I no longer have a camera to play "stack the Cracker" with...someone stole my cellphone, which was my main source of pics. I don't have an 'upgrade' available til the fall and Im not about to go buy a new phone when in Oct I can get a hundred dollars off. 

She does have a fault, a slight curve to her lower foreleg on the right but otherwise she is a pretty well put together doggle....but I COULD be very biased. LOL


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Cracker said:


> Well, you guys will have to make due with the pics I've posted...I do have a play video or two but I no longer have a camera to play "stack the Cracker" with...someone stole my cellphone, which was my main source of pics. I don't have an 'upgrade' available til the fall and Im not about to go buy a new phone when in Oct I can get a hundred dollars off.
> 
> She does have a fault, a slight curve to her lower foreleg on the right but otherwise she is a pretty well put together doggle....but I COULD be very biased. LOL



actually she is. 

she has decent length of loin..allowing for a more agile dog. a dog with a short loin can't twist its body as well and therefore isn't as agile.

her limbs don't appear to turn out not are bowed in, she has nice flexible looking pasterns and decent angle to her hocks...limbs act as simple machines...the front steers and the hind part provides the power. 

good looking mutt.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> How does one get into mixed breed conformation? I doubt I'll be doing it with hugh or kaki because I'd rather put my energy into rally and agility. Not to brag though, hugh would do really well. He is the only good looking, well built puggle that I have ever seen.


I don't think any organizations do this officially. I was talking about it only from a structural point of view to do on an individual basis, not at an organized venue.

I think we definitely can use this thread to post our pictures. I don't know much, but I can respond with the little things that I do know about conf. Maybe our experts (Zim, Spicy, Keechak, Xeph, Redyre) can be nice enough to chime in.


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

OK guys, hit my mutts with all you've got! I don't know nearly enough about dog conformation so this will be really a neat experience. 

Willow:


















(the following were taken last year)


















Bandit next...


----------



## Kat_Renee (May 6, 2009)

nekomi said:


> I would be sooo interested in this! I work with horses, and conformation is pretty much universal regardless of breed; I mean, a structural fault is a structural fault no matter what.


Yup, that's what i was thinking. Figured you could do the same with dogs.


----------



## nekomi (May 21, 2008)

OK, for some reason I can't find the other pics I was looking for, so here's the best side shot of Bandit I've taken so far. I know his hind end is pretty stretched out in this pic... I'll try to find others to post later.










And lastly, Loki. I really feel there is something wrong with that hind end, but I can't tell exactly what? Is he sickle-hocked, or does he just have very weak back pasterns? Or, is he just severely cow-hocked? Or could it be that he actually has a bow in the lower half of the leg, from hock to pastern?? I'm having a hard time figuring it out. Does he look like a dypslasia candidate to any of you?

That aside, how does the rest of his conformation look?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

so nekomi

willow decided to volunteer to be our model for an explanation of a few of the more obscure terms you run across in conformation stuff..since she is natural model material


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

I think conformation is important even in mixed breeds. Or at least can be judged. As structure is what you'd be looking at. Not how they conform to a standard but that they do have a sound build.

For instance I'd rather not have a mixed breed with loose elbows and slip hocks.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> I think conformation is important even in mixed breeds. Or at least can be judged. As structure is what you'd be looking at. Not how they conform to a standard but that they do have a sound build.
> 
> For instance I'd rather not have a mixed breed with loose elbows and slip hocks.


I agree. It may not be judged against a specific breed standard but there are definitely areas of concern in conformation for soundness.

If you want your dogs conformation judged you should try to get a picture of your dogs standing something like this.










Although this is not the best shot, it is easier to judge conformation if the dogs is standing square. I know that Xeph has posted pictures of her dogs stacked and over stretched to illustrate the difference in how conformation appears based on the stance of the dogs. A very well put together dog can be stacked to look sort of catawonkie. A not so good dog will look slightly better if stood up a certain way. Though major faults will still be visible judges will put their hands on a dog to feel the structure too.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Wow Inga. My future dog looks very good, thanks for taking such good care of him.

Btw did you ever see my question of Rotts origin?


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Wow Inga. My future dog looks very good, thanks for taking such good care of him.


Hey now -- I have repeatedly laid claim to Carsten should Inga ever need to find him a home...back off 

Granted there are several DF dogs in that category...

Kobe, Aspen, Zoe, most of Wabana's crew, most of Shalva's crew, Cherokee, just to brush the surface...

Anyway -- will see if I have any relevant pics of my Super Mutts (standard and miniature).


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Spicy1_VV said:


> Wow Inga. My future dog looks very good, thanks for taking such good care of him.
> 
> Btw did you ever see my question of Rotts origin?


LOL You should see him now. That picture was taken a few months back when Xeph was still here. He has gained a little more mass. He is still a slug though. lol

Yes, I saw your question and responded.  Didn't you see my response? I can't even remember which thread that was in. (old age) 



> Hey now -- I have repeatedly laid claim to Carsten should Inga ever need to find him a home...back off


 Shaina, I am not sure I could re-home him with you until you promise to let him sit on you whenever he wants.   I think he is too much of a slug for you as well. A cute slug, but a slug all the same. ha ha. 
Oliver is sad that nobody is fighting for him. He is sitting in the corner crying right now.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Inga said:


> Shaina, I am not sure I could re-home him with you until you promise to let him sit on you whenever he wants.   I think he is too much of a slug for you as well. A cute slug, but a slug all the same. ha ha.
> Oliver is sad that nobody is fighting for him. He is sitting in the corner crying right now.


Hey after gasping for breath after running an Excellent level agility course (longer) earlier today with these those streaks of lightning (we really need to improve our distance work for the sake of my heart and legs), a slug would be kinda nice lol. And of course I am happy to act as his recliner...goodness knows I have practice...

Fighting for Oliver would be a waste of time. We all know that you parting with Oliver is, if possible, even more unlikely than you giving up Carsten  Such a sweet mama's boy


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Here is my two cents on Willow.

Nice angulation in the shoulders,
good strong pasterns
good angulation in the rear but could use a bit more
nice depth and width of chest
Hocks are a good length and apear to be not turned in or out=good
Neck looks like it could be a bit more arched but it's hard to tell with all that fur.
Good length of loin
She appears to have good rib spring.

Overall I would place her in the Working dog group as ether a Hunter or Drafting animal











Get a different picture. lol this would not be a good picture to show a judge.

Appears straight in stiffle=bad
Poor Shoulder and rear angulation
Cheast could use a bit more depth (need more pictures to tell width and rib spring)










Great Shoulder and Rear angulation
Seems a bit "butt high"
Neck apears to be well arched and well layed into the shoulder.
could use a bit more rib spring
Pasterns look strong
but front looks a bit turned out


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Inga said:


> LOL You should see him now. That picture was taken a few months back when Xeph was still here. He has gained a little more mass. He is still a slug though. lol
> 
> Yes, I saw your question and responded.  Didn't you see my response? I can't even remember which thread that was in. (old age)


I started this thread to re-ask
Question For Inga

I missed the response in the other thread. I tried searching for it, tried looking under my post and your post and can't find it. It was called something like which breeds should we keep, talking about the breed types they kept in "roman days". I can't find it at all! If anyone can that would be great and I could just read your reply there.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

oops, see other thread spicy. I am a spaz and wrote it all out here. I deleted it here so as not to take this thread off topic.  Sorry.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Here are mine of Marge for now. Not the best, I took another stacked picture this morning but haven't uploaded it yet.









(ground is uneven in this first picture, she's standing uphill but I like the overall picture of her in this one)








(As I said in the APBT thread her head is not this disproportionate lol)


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Ok before the pro's go at it I'll try my hand with Marge and see if others agree. When I look at Marge I see a well balanced, medium sized dog, neither front nor back heavy. Deep chest with nice tuckup. Neck is strong and proportionate. Topline is straight and carried straight/level while gaiting. 

Front legs are long, a little bony but mostly clean. The pasterns might be a tad too long and upright and the feet are loose and toe out in the front. Back legs are well muscled, but could be a bit cleaner around the stifle area and the hocks are a little bit underangulated.

Now someone just tell me about her shoulders... cause I can't judge shoulders for crap..


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

pasterns are a bit upright it looks like...could use a bit more angle to the point of hock but overall not bad imo. front and shoulders look decent. she is also long in the loin imo. overall..id say she is a dog built for agility. and her legs arent really long at all compared to how long she is in the body. in looking at these pictures..honestly she looks more pit like to me than before. her tail set is nice to me too also i think she could use a bit of development in the chest.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Marge is the dog of many looks.. at some angles she looks like she's on stilts, at other angles she looks markedly similar to the ratio of body:leg that you'd see in a typical Bully dog.

Being built for agility sounds right. She is a tight turning, zoomy-running speed demon. Loves her agility class and NEVER knocks a bar.. but she is NOT an endurance dog. Could be somewhat due to lack of conditioning, but a one-hour agility session knocks her out for the rest of the night on most days. And if it was all she was able to get from me, a 20 minute walk with one zoomy session on her 20' leash is enough to keep her content for a day.

Really want to thank you Zim for all the info you've shared w/ me and in this thread. I've picked up a lot.

Also just for fun here's a sort of stacked picture of her brother Homer (  ) I'm posting it because although based on her looks alone I suspect Marge is part sighthound, Homer REALLY is more of the sighthound body type than she is. (The more I look at the litter, the more I suspect more than one father, but that's for another thread lol) He looks better angled in the back than she does, especially up to the point of hock, maybe a little choppy at one point. His pasterns in the front look much more upright and icky. Again I'm a horrible judge of the front, but his whole front looks funky to me..


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

i think i just pinpointed the issue with her front. which means her chest definatly could use more development...which may be a contributing factor to her endurance....less chest=less room for lung capacity


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

though...too much chest and the dog is bulky and movement is affected

oh and Homer definatly looks more sighthound to me. will be back in a few with more comments on him


and im almost done with your list of links. and its no problem. i wish more people would take more time to understand this stuff because when you do..it makes it a little clearer why randomly sticking two dogs together isnt all that great and it makes the reality of the difficulty of responsible breeding clearer as well


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

I'm in, sounds like fun!

I did the best I could, they were a bit weirded out-didn't understand what the heck I was doing to them. It was raining out so we had to do it inside and the lighting sucks.

Lloyd first. I couldn't get him to not look at me. I tried putting a pile of treats on the floor in front of him, but he is trained to look at my face when food is around, so that is what he did.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

Now Allie

the bump past her shoulders is just her fur sticking up.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Can you judge Cherokee based on these pictures?


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

And here's the best butt shot I have of him, unlike Inga, I am not obsessed with dog butts


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Come on experts!! In the meantime I'll try your dogs.. but I'll skip alot because I only know a few things


Lloyd. His rear looks a little bit higher than his front, but it could just be the picture. Shoulder angle looks good but I can't say for sure because I'm just a newb to this lol. Front legs are nice and straight but he has loose feet, just like my dog. Pasterns look okay, maybe a bit shorter than they should be, they look better in the last picture than in the first so it could be the stack. As for the hindquarters I think I'm going to just omit this because I don't wanna tell the wrong things lol. It _looks_ like he has pretty good angulation but he does toe out a little bit.

Allie. Deep chest but I think she should have a little more tuckup in the back. Looks like a verrryyy long dog. Front legs look well placed, toes out a little in the front but looks fine in the back. Front feet look looser than the back feet. I really don't wanna touch the shoulder angles because I can't tell at all. Same with the back. Her stifles look long in comparison to her lower leg.

Cherokee. Front legs very straight, shoulders well muscled. Chest could be a bit deeper. Can't really tell from the pics but the front pasterns look well angled and a good length. All four feet look pretty tight, not 100% but most mixes I see have floppy looking feet anyway lol. Topline looks nice and level, maybe a little too rounded. Neck looks proportionate and is set well. Don't really know about his back end.. shaped alot like my dog though. Loooong stifles.

Feel free to pick these apart and tell me how wrong or right I am.. and tell me where I'm screwing up when I make a wrong judgement..


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

Okay, as I suspected Alvin did not like my physical manipulation. As such, not only is he not well stacked (I have no idea what I'm doing), but he also looks all hunched and anxious. 

Normally when I look at him I think he's quite a handsome guy. We get lots of compliments. But when I look at these pictures, he looks super funky, lol. 

Alvin is a 70lb Lab/Shar Pei mix (I suspect the presence of some bully breed, as well).


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

ok Lloyd

lloyd has decent rear angulation, a little underangulated in the front but nice straight forelegs, decently flexible pasterns, toes are a bit splayed, he appears to have a nice chest though its harder to tell with all that hair...decent length of loin, 
forelegs are a bit short and the neck may be a tad on the short side.

Allie

her front is a bit low but otherwise pretty nice, good chest, a bit long in the loin, i think she may be a bit underangulated in the rear and her hocks a bit straight. she is a very long dog..not basset doxie kind of long but long still. front legs look nice and straight and rear legs look pretty good too

Cherokee

he could use some more angle in the front, a bit more depth to the chest imo..long in the loin but not terribly..also could use a bit of angulation in the rear. and it appears as if one of his front feet is slightly turned out. he is a nice looking boy though..all of it works..what he has that might be considered soundness faults are all not drastic and he seems pretty balanced in what he has.

Alvin. WOo! Thats a big boy! nice front angles, though the front is low and his forelegs arent straight(could just be the pics), he has a short forearm. the chest is very deep, could use some bend in the stifle and he has a somewhat disproportionate rear in relation to his front. rear could also use some angulation, pasterns are nice and flexible looking too..


so there is my quick assessment...all very cute pooches.


----------



## GottaLuvMutts (Jun 1, 2009)

Oooh, fun!!! 

Here are a few pics of Kit. Best I could do for right now. I guess we already know she has sensitive eyes  Her neck is a bit longer than it appears here, cause she wouldn't cooperate and look straight ahead. 

I'll include a really old one, too. Back when I got her she was pretty overweight.

Also, let me know if you see anything other than BC/pointer!


----------



## ThoseWordsAtBest (Mar 18, 2009)

LOL I'm trying to convince myself to throw Smalls on the gauntlet here. She is a MESS.


----------



## ShadowSky (Aug 6, 2008)

This looks like a lot of fun. I'm in! Hope these shots are okay, tell me if you need different ones...

Buck:



















Can't believe I don't have a hiney shot. I can get one tomorrow if need be. I have a better selection for Jake.

Jake:



















Side shot coming up, one sec


----------



## ShadowSky (Aug 6, 2008)

Just shot these. I woke him up to do it lol.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

I'll have to try and get better pics of my guys, lol. Allie's front feet don't splay out normally I think I just put her legs somewhere and she wasn't moving cause I told her to freeze. I should try and get them to just stand square themselves instead of placing them. Its weird in the picture Allie does look very long but in real life she does not look so long compared to her height. Lloyd in real life looks a bit to long. IMO Lloyd could use a wider chest, his chest is pretty narrow. His front also isn't to great. What jobs would you say they would be good at based on their conformation?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Lloyd looks to be a pretty sturdy guy...if he were mine I might try him on carting/pulling..


Allie looks fast. she looks like shezd be a decent sprinter..if she were mine I might see how she took to lure coursing.


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Lloyd looks to be a pretty sturdy guy...if he were mine I might try him on carting/pulling..
> 
> 
> Allie looks fast. she looks like shezd be a decent sprinter..if she were mine I might see how she took to lure coursing.


Thanks those are actually both exactly what I thought. I think Allie may have some kind of sight hound in her. Lloyd most people guess as having some mountain dog in him.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I could see the Mountain Dog in Lloyd. He's got alot of bone about him.

Kit: First thing I notice is her rear is higher than her front. It throws her topline off and makes her look round instead of straight. Chest could definitely use development. Pasterns a *little* long and a little upright but nothing terrible. Nice tight feet. Looks like she's got a good shoulder. She toes out in the rear and her hocks could use some more angulation. 

Buck: Can't say alot in the pictures, but he looks low in the rear and I'd like to see more bone between the hock and foot. (It's called the cannon bone in horses, is it the same in dogs?)

Jake: Topline a little round. Shoulder angle looks good, maybe a little out at the elbows. Pasterns look nice in the front. Would like to see a liiittle more chest and a little more tuckup. Not terrible in the back but looks like he toes out.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Basic structure can be evaluated, though depending on the purpose and history of a given breed, things will vary. That is where judging mixes is difficult.

Type (ie in a Whippet, a looooong, arched neck, huge doe eyes, perfect rose ears, a curvey body, a long straight tail carried low, tight cat feet, impressive underjaw), an important factor in purebred dogs, obviously does not apply to mixes. A purebred with mediocre structure can have outstanding breed type and do some winning. A purebred dog with amazing structure but less striking breed type can succeed, too, depending on the judges.


----------



## MegaMuttMom (Sep 15, 2007)

Cherokee's right rear leg is slightly turned in. I would have never noticed that if this thread didn't pop up. I have no knowledge of dog confirmation at all.

So, the question is, could this lead to some potential problem in the future? Why does it matter? We do agility and the trainer absolutely loves the way he can turn on a dime at high speeds. Am I risking some kind of injury?


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Lots of agile dogs have cow hocks or poor rear angulation. 

The fastest Salukis and greyhounds often have straight upper arms and shoulders which would be considered poor on a retriever or many other breeds. Minimal rear angulation is often evident in these dogs, too.

Slower, show bred sighthounds have the prettier shoulder and rear angles. They may turn better, but they are not as fast on the straight track. In actual fact, the only breed truly CREATED for racing is the Whippet. The Greyhound was originally a coursing hound (like the Saluki). So, one COULD argue that the most correct Greyhound or Saluki is NOT the fastest on the track, but rather the one most capable of coursing long and hard over any ground.

It all makes for good discussion!

So far as injuries go, I disagree that the most sound dog in the SHOW ring is the dog that will be the most sound on the field. The vastly different appearance of working dogs to show dogs in most breeds strongly suggests otherwise.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

Aw, poor Alvin got skipped right over.

We all know what his conformation suits him for: napping.

He asks me to add, "Scaring away the mailman." He is, admittedly in good form for that, as well.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

FilleBelle said:


> Aw, poor Alvin got skipped right over.
> 
> We all know what his conformation suits him for: napping.
> 
> He asks me to add, "Scaring away the mailman." He is, admittedly in good form for that, as well.


No he didn't! 

From Zim:


> Alvin. WOo! Thats a big boy! nice front angles, though the front is low and his forelegs arent straight(could just be the pics), he has a short forearm. the chest is very deep, could use some bend in the stifle and he has a somewhat disproportionate rear in relation to his front. rear could also use some angulation, pasterns are nice and flexible looking too..


I essentially thought the same, his front looks very nice but a little funky in the back. I would have posted it again, but Zim knows more than I do so I figured it was pointless. I've only started learning this stuff in this thread, I have absolutely no background in it lol



> So, the question is, could this lead to some potential problem in the future? Why does it matter? We do agility and the trainer absolutely loves the way he can turn on a dime at high speeds. Am I risking some kind of injury?


Probably not, Cherokee's Mom. This same issue crops up when evaluating dogs' hips. Some dogs have hips that look AWFUL on X-Ray, but run agility better than dogs with "good" hips. There are dogs who are pretty much crippled but the X-Rays wouldn't lead you to believe so.

Cherokee looks like a sturdy dog, and if you're not having problems now there's no reason to worry.  If you ever get really serious and do heavy competing, THEN it might be a good idea to get his hips and elbows checked out.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> Alvin. WOo! Thats a big boy! nice front angles, though the front is low and his forelegs arent straight(could just be the pics), he has a short forearm. the chest is very deep, could use some bend in the stifle and he has a somewhat disproportionate rear in relation to his front. rear could also use some angulation, pasterns are nice and flexible looking too..


I completely missed this! Sorry, all.

Yes, Alvin is a very sturdy dog. It's his rear view that makes me think there might be some bully breed in him, in addition to the known Lab and Shar Pei. His back legs look like they could kick some serious butt. But I guess Shar Peis are a molosser breed, too, so maybe it's just coming from that.

I'm not totally clear, yet, on what "rear angulation" refers to. The slope of the lower back, right? I guess I understand the theory, but not the practice. Maybe we could have a couple of pics reposted side by side to show good angulation and poor angulation. And perhaps an explanation of "angulation" in general.

ETA: Alvin clearly gets his low-to-the-ground, tank-like appearance from the Lab in him. Looking at this picture of an English Lab versus Alvin, I see more what you're talking about when you say "rear angulation." The Lab's back clearly curves down into the butt, whereas Alvin's curve's up. I wonder if that tall butt comes from his Shar Pei side or if he's just built weird?

English-style Lab










Alvin










Shar Pei (couldn't for the life of me find one pointing the same direction as the other two)


----------



## ShadowSky (Aug 6, 2008)

I got some better pictures of Buck. I didn't want to fight him last night, I knew he'd want to keep sitting or following me. As it is I had my mom help me with these and it was still difficult lol!


































His right foot doesn't usually turn out like it does in that last picture, he was about to step towards me. Hope these work better.

And thanks Missmutt. Would a round top line inhibit Jake in anyway? I'm curious. I had noticed this before, but he doesn't seem bothered by it. I'm biased, but I think he's beautiful in motion... and he's in motion a LOT. I'm thinking I might want to do agility with him at some point, so I'm just curious.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I think Jake is built very well. See, the thing about "round toplines" or "too little angulation" is that some breed standards call for more than others and the dogs are still totally functional (or they're supposed to be). It's hard to say for sure whether one trait (unless it's extreme) is good or bad for a dog. With a mix, I think you have to kind of just look at the whole picture. So no, if he's fine now and moves well, I don't think any of this will inhibit him, really. Sure, there is an ideal in terms of what angles produce the most efficient moving, sound dog, but it's not a be all end all.

The big thing about Jake, I think, is that he needs to fill out some. 

Buck's topline is a little funky but I think it's because his rear is lower than his front. Back end actually looks pretty good, but again I wish the bone between his hock and his foot was longer. Forearms are a little short too. Front legs look nice and clean, feet look good, doesn't look like he toes out much or at all. Good depth of chest.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> he has a somewhat disproportionate rear in relation to his front.
> 
> 
> so there is my quick assessment...all very cute pooches.


Don't worry Alvin, you are NOT alone in this judgment. I also have a disproportionate rear in relation to my front/top half. ha ha

MMM It is not all dog butts that I am obsessed with. Just little cutie pie Rottie butts. 

Here are pictures of Champion Labrador Retriever and a Champion Shar Pei

















Now just imagine them in a mixer and which conformation points came to the forefront in Mr. Alvin.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Foyerhawk said:


> Lots of agile dogs have cow hocks or poor rear angulation.
> 
> The fastest Salukis and greyhounds often have straight upper arms and shoulders which would be considered poor on a retriever or many other breeds. Minimal rear angulation is often evident in these dogs, too.
> 
> ...



the idea behind it is which dog will have *optimal* movement. Meaning that the dog can be agile, fast, strong and enduring all at once..which IS in fact dictated by structure to a degree. 

if you look at the standards of all of the *most versatile* working dogs...the ones who are used for work more than they are really used as pets...they all have extremely similar structure. because form does help to dictate function.

your sighthounds are fast sure....but are they suitable for a wide variety of jobs? no...for really heavy endurance work...no they aren't . they are too lightly built and thin skinned. and while the breed standards I was basing these judgments off of don't include racing..all of the breeds are relatively strong, relatively fast relatively agile animals..

and science plays a part in it. the science is biomechanics. there are angles that put less stress on joints because they absorb more force more efficiently...and so on...engineering of the living organism...biomechanics.


----------



## ColoradoSooner (Mar 26, 2009)

Okay, I'll play. Why not? (Although I think my girl is probably a mess, conformation-wise.  )

First, the front. (I actually hate this picture. It was taken by the rescue when she was first put up for adoption and she's still very underweight here. The look on her face makes me want to cry. But it's the only front-on shot I have so...)










Side:










Not sure if this one is useful or not, but here goes:










Don't have any rear shots. I'll see if I can make that happen tonight. (But I'm not hopeful.)


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Indeed, but they are very good at what they do. My point was that there is not a universal structure that applies to *every* dog. Tons of angles and TRAD does not a good dog make (unless you just want group wins in AKC shows, of course). Many dogs with those traits can be fine workers, but I think hardcore show folks who ONLY do conformation and have no interest in performance and call working dogs ugly are not doing their breed any favors. They are, of course, entitled to their opinions. I share them in some cases (there are breeds where I find the working bred specimens to be decidedly unattractive, but once I see them perform, I change my mind!)


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Foyerhawk said:


> Indeed, but they are very good at what they do. My point was that there is not a universal structure that applies to *every* dog. Tons of angles and TRAD does not a good dog make (unless you just want group wins in AKC shows, of course). Many dogs with those traits can be fine workers, but I think hardcore show folks who ONLY do conformation and have no interest in performance and call working dogs ugly are not doing their breed any favors. They are, of course, entitled to their opinions. I share them in some cases (there are breeds where I find the working bred specimens to be decidedly unattractive, but once I see them perform, I change my mind!)


For what it's worth I don't think the intent was to call any dog/type ugly, but to point out that with specialization comes limitation. A dog built to be the ultimate at running a more or less straight flat line will have limitation in terms of tight agility. Likewise a dog built to turn on a time or to be exceptionally strong in the water could not hold a candle to the speed racer on the flat. There is something of a "middle ground" of course...the dogs that can work long hours but the not the longest...are fast but not the fastest...can go far but not the farthest...and from there specialization branches out in its various forms. 

Of course there are dogs whose structures lend themselves to problems in any line of physical activity...universal structural faults, so to speak. 

I saw this thread as a light-hearted attempt to point out deviations from the norm (the norm being that catch-all type) to suggest possible areas of specialization as well as pointing out major areas of concern...not to denigrate certain structural "types."

Again, just my personal interpretation.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Foyerhawk said:


> Indeed, but they are very good at what they do. My point was that there is not a universal structure that applies to *every* dog. Tons of angles and TRAD does not a good dog make (unless you just want group wins in AKC shows, of course). Many dogs with those traits can be fine workers, but I think hardcore show folks who ONLY do conformation and have no interest in performance and call working dogs ugly are not doing their breed any favors. They are, of course, entitled to their opinions. I share them in some cases (there are breeds where I find the working bred specimens to be decidedly unattractive, but once I see them perform, I change my mind!)



We aren't talking tons of angles.

we are talking balanced angles. if you speak to a sports vet you find out all kinds of interesting things like...

medium angles absorb shock to the skeletal system better than exaggerated ones.

a short loin does affect a dog's agility because it hinders the radius in which the dog is able to turn his body.


straight forelegs provide a stronger more effective fulcrum to assist the dog's motion and puts far less stress on the joints during physical activity than bowed legs do

gait abnormalities may indicate the presence of luxating patellas, hip dysplasia and other hindrances to normal physical function.

there are legitimate real scientifically verifiable and medically valuable reasons for evaluating mixed breeds in this manner..especially if the owner is interested in serious sports...of course ideally you want this evaluated by a sports vet but with what little I know(im learning this stuff in school) I can give a general idea.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Oh, I know! I agree. I was just sayin'... I have heard many dog show people in real life slam on working dogs, or say things like, "What a pet" as an insult, or make comments that a dog is ugly, but at least he might be good for obedience (since he isn't good enough to show) and things like that really bug me.

I actually agree with you. My post was I guess a misplaced rant about how a lot of show people think their dogs are correct, when many of the more extreme ones couldn't do jack out in the field where it counts. Sorry- I'll go back under my rock now!


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

> I saw this thread as a light-hearted attempt to point out deviations from the norm (the norm being that catch-all type) to suggest possible areas of specialization as well as pointing out major areas of concern...not to denigrate certain structural "types."


Yup.  I figured the only real way to judge a mix is based on some middle-of-the-road norm.. I mean, if you have a Bully mix maybe it's better to go to the bully thread, or a sighthound mix maybe it's better to evaluate from a sighthound person's point of view.. but on the whole most mixes are just kind of "average."



> Sorry- I'll go back under my rock now!


Don't you dare go back under your rock! Always nice to have different people's perspectives when talking about this kind of stuff!


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

In closing I will say that sometimes a dog with gawd-awful structure will blow your mind in a performance venue. I think at times what wins in the AKC ring, especially the group ring, is not always or even usually what does the best in the sporting events. There are some notable exceptions, like the Brittany and the Flat Coated Retriever. Gotta love 'em! 

I do agree that moderate, generally correct structure is pretty universal when evaulating the average dog. I think my point was that THAT should NOT be confused with the structure that can win championships in exreme show bred AKC dogs of many breeds. 

I often lose the plot by the time evening comes along...  Joys of motherhood!


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Mayzie looks like she's got a nice neck, lacking somewhat in arch though. Shoulder looks good, front legs might be set a tad too wide. Feet look tight. Chest could use some filling out, looks concave in the last picture. Pasterns are a good length but a bit upright. Topline's okay, croup is too rounded and steep. Good tuckup She looks to have very nicely angulated stifles but it's hard to tell for sure in the picture. The hocks might turn inward but hard to say for sure from the pics. Take all this with a grain of salt.. remember I'm not the expert here 



Foyerhawk said:


> In closing I will say that sometimes a dog with gawd-awful structure will blow your mind in a performance venue. I think at times what wins in the AKC ring, especially the group ring, is not always or even usually what does the best in the sporting events. There are some notable exceptions, like the Brittany and the Flat Coated Retriever. Gotta love 'em!


I agree with this completely. There's a definite gap between show and working/performance dogs, and some of the worst looking dogs from a structural point of view give it their A-Game in the field or on the course. It goes back to what I said about hip X-Rays... some dogs could be rated OFA Poor and still tear up Agility courses.. others could have a better rating and not have the same athletic ability, or even be crippled.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

Ya funny thing is The only standard I truly know the virtues and faults of is the aussie so I tend to base my reviews of these mixes on that.

For instance a butt high aussie is a VERY bad thing. so when I see a butt high dog here I tend to grade it baddly. But being butt high may not nessisarily be a bad thing for a different type of activity other than herding. I have noticed that many of the carting and Gladitorial breeds tend to be butt high. Is this a structural virtue for this type of work, hmm I really don't know.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Foyerhawk said:


> Oh, I know! I agree. I was just sayin'... I have heard many dog show people in real life slam on working dogs, or say things like, "What a pet" as an insult, or make comments that a dog is ugly, but at least he might be good for obedience (since he isn't good enough to show) and things like that really bug me.
> 
> I actually agree with you. My post was I guess a misplaced rant about how a lot of show people think their dogs are correct, when many of the more extreme ones couldn't do jack out in the field where it counts. Sorry- I'll go back under my rock now!


Haha no worries I would think of all the places on this forum, a gathering of the mixed breed people is where you are least likely to find a "type-prejudice" attitude! We are a very welcoming folk...just don't utter the phrase "just a mutt" within our earshot


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

This thread has really been a learning experience for me. I am really enjoying it, even if I've been choosing myself which parts of a dog I want to evaluate LOL  I've been Googling a few things and looking at some sites, and Zim has helped me out a lot, too.

Shaina, get your boring ol' mutts' pictures up!


----------



## melgrj7 (Sep 21, 2007)

Could someone who knows post what different kinds of "faults" could lead or be indicative of what kinds of problems, if any? And maybe what some of them mean, like 

Blabla means the tendons down the leg are loose and can make a dog more likely to get joint injuries in the leg.

For those of us how don't know as much? If you have time Or point us to a good website or book?


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Foyerhawk said:


> In closing I will say that sometimes a dog with gawd-awful structure will blow your mind in a performance venue. I think at times what wins in the AKC ring, especially the group ring, is not always or even usually what does the best in the sporting events. There are some notable exceptions, like the Brittany and the Flat Coated Retriever. Gotta love 'em!
> 
> I do agree that moderate, generally correct structure is pretty universal when evaulating the average dog. I think my point was that THAT should NOT be confused with the structure that can win championships in exreme show bred AKC dogs of many breeds.
> 
> I often lose the plot by the time evening comes along...  Joys of motherhood!


of course...because strictly physical evaluation leaves out an important factor...temperment and drive...a structurally faulty animal can have that go get'm attitude and take a whole lot of wins....BUT

therein lies an issue. long term damage to a dog allowed to push itself beyond its abilities. weak and faulty joint can falter after extended hard activity...arthitis and other issues can set in after so much wear and tear on an animal not built to be able to take that kind of abuse. i am of the opinion any animal who is competing in strenous physical activity should be evaluated to allow the owner the ability to know how hard their dog can be pushed. 

and of course the most structurally sound animal will fail miserably in performance if it doesnt have the drive to do that particular activity.


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

melgrj7 said:


> Could someone who knows post what different kinds of "faults" could lead or be indicative of what kinds of problems, if any? And maybe what some of them mean, like
> 
> Blabla means the tendons down the leg are loose and can make a dog more likely to get joint injuries in the leg.
> 
> For those of us how don't know as much? If you have time Or point us to a good website or book?


well..here is a major one for starters....

this is a problem that is commonly associated with having a straight rear. its caused by loose tendons not being able to support the bone structure and can cause *serious* injuries if the dog is pushed beyond its limits...do you see it?


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> Shaina, get your boring ol' mutts' pictures up!


Hey those are fightin' words!! lol




Alright here's my mutts/mongrels/mixes/what-have-yous  I'll keep my opinions to myself since I want to hear what you all think. They don't care so you won't hurt their feelings, no worries lol
*
The Flying Miami Batdog*:

Webster was so thrilled about this little experiment...can't you tell? He was a little hunched up as a result, but he really is butt-high...just not *this* much so. Oh well judge 'em as you see 'em


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

*The Golden Ditzhund*:

Who is more accepting of (resigned to?) my occasional crazy notions...





































Have at 'em, if you will!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

Kim is NICE. good angles, good loin, nice depth of chest, flexible pasterns, decent bend to the stifle, very moderatly built..

she's very nice and you can tell her i said so 



FilleBelle said:


> I completely missed this! Sorry, all.
> 
> Yes, Alvin is a very sturdy dog. It's his rear view that makes me think there might be some bully breed in him, in addition to the known Lab and Shar Pei. His back legs look like they could kick some serious butt. But I guess Shar Peis are a molosser breed, too, so maybe it's just coming from that.
> 
> ...


actually he doesnt have much of a bully looking rear..labs and shar peis both have somewhat straight rears..

angulation is the angles of the bones.. from the point of hock to the stifle to the hip. a straight angled rear puts more pressure on the joints than a moderatly angled one and an overly angulated rear affects the dog's ability to move.

Webster

he is a little out at the pasterns and could use some more rear on him but overall looks very solidly built.


----------



## tag322 (Aug 6, 2009)

Just to ask, though it may be a little off topic, but has anyone ever seen a German Shepard with normal height, but was 3 1/2 to 4 ft long? because i have, i actually owned it, just wondering if any body thinks it might be German Shepard/Dashund


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I'd never say just a mutt- certainly not in an insulting way. I don't actually believe in breed purity anyway! I think it is a ridiuclous notion, and I think closed studbooks do more harm than good. A fine dog is a fine dog!


----------



## CatintheHat (Jun 7, 2009)

"Conformation" is to a standard, so it applies only to "purebred" dogs that are defined by a standard of appearance. That appearance standard may be compatible or incompatible with "structural soundness". For example, the English Bulldog that conforms to the breed standard is severely unsound. There is no standard for non-purebred dogs, so it makes no sense to discuss "conformation" for those dogs. 

Another major misconception in this thread (and in the dog world generally) is that any dog of unknown pedigree is a "mix" of some "pure" breeds. That a dog is "purebred" means only that the dog has a known pedigree and that all entries in the pedigree are from a closed gene pool, nothing more, nothing less. Dogs of unknown pedigree are dogs of unknown pedigree, nothing more can be said pertaining to their breeding. We may certainly observe morphological or behavioral characteristics that suggest that a particular dog arises from some combination of ancestral landrace types, but as recent genetic testing has amply demonstrated, such phenotypes can be very misleading. 

For most of the human-dog relationship there was no concept of a "pure breed" of dog. It's only within the last 200 years or so that pedigree has become an important factor in the selection of dogs for breeding. Traditionally, the overwhelming majority of dogs were bred by positive assortative strategies, with a fair amount of randomness. Selection was for working ability, temperament, and health. This produced heterotic landrace types that were well suited to perform a range of functions in a range of geographic and climatic locales. Modern "pure breeds" are genetically simplified distillations of those landrace types. 




zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> the idea behind it is which dog will have *optimal* movement. Meaning that the dog can be agile, fast, strong and enduring all at once..which IS in fact dictated by structure to a degree.
> 
> if you look at the standards of all of the *most versatile* working dogs...the ones who are used for work more than they are really used as pets...they all have extremely similar structure. because form does help to dictate function.
> 
> ...


That's a cute theory and all, but in the real world, it has fallen flat on it's face. The vast majority of working dogs that have been selected for conformation have lost working ability. People who know dogs and are looking for dogs to perform actual work scrupulously avoid dogs with conformation titles in the recent pedigree. ABCA goes so far as to de-register any dog that acquires a conformation title, but allows registration on merit, (even for dogs of completely unknown pedigree) and will register a (non-Ch.) Rottweiler if it can do the work. 

That's because real working ability is found between the ears and comes from the double helix. It can't be measured with a tape measure or protractor. The only way it can be measured is by observing real work performed in the real world over an extended period of time. To the extent that anatomical structure limits working ability, this is automatically factored into breeding programs that select for working ability. 

People with many years of experience working with herding dogs often can't tell the difference between a working border collie and a working australian shepherd simply by looking at the dogs. The important difference is in working style (what's between the ears), that's what defines these dog types and that can only be observed when the dogs are working. The distinction is lost on many or most breeders of barbie collies and australian showdogs. Not coincidentally, true working BC and (at least up until ASCA got into bed with ACK) AS are more accurately described as "heterotic landrace types" then as "pure breeds." 

Trying to "guess the job" for which a dog of unknown pedigree is best suited, based solely on physical appearance, is entirely futile. Structurally sound dogs of similar appearance may be suited for vastly different jobs, depending on what's between their ears. For example, trying to get a born lurcher to work stock is not likely to have a happy outcome. Trying to get a wide-open scenthound to lurch (or at least shut the hell up until the quarry is at bay or up a tree) is not going to work. Trying to get a courser to open up as soon as he cuts a track, and then run slowly enough to be able to safely shoot in front of him is doomed. You can't teach a flusher to point or a heeler to herd by the head. You can teach a pit dog to retrieve, possibly even to retrieve downed qame, but the retrieved game is very likely to be mangled because "soft mouth" is coded by sequence that is not well-represented in the pit dog gene pool - pit dogs have been intensively selected for hard mouth. Working sheep sometimes requires bitework, called "grip". GSDs have a full bite, but some lines can still work sheep because they will only grip in certain areas where the grip does not seriously injure the sheep. This grip target limitation is genetic, and was selected for in the founding population of GDSs. The GSD lines that can still safely work sheep are the lines that have been selected to preserve this trait. You can't tell which GSDs have proper grip targeting by looking at them. Incidentally, show-line GSDs are pretty much the epitome of how selection for conformation absolutely ruins dogs, and does so in a very short span of time. 

For a dog of known pedigree (purebred or otherwise), one can form some reasonable expectations of the types of work for which the dog _may_ be suited. For dogs of completely unknown pedigree, only the dog knows.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

Great post!


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

This thread is getting more off topic by the post. 

Apologies to the OP for any contribution to that by me.


----------



## Kat_Renee (May 6, 2009)

Here's Belvie, a year old Aussie mix. These are the best i could do- he wanted to play, not stand still! If anyone could tell me what other breeds they see in him, be my guest! No butt pics- he wouldn't stay still long enough for that (i came home from early today sick and he slept most of the day with me, so he's ready to play). 

I'm not great with cameras, but here are a few shots!

He was turning toward me so his spine is not straight.




































Let me know what you see! I don't know dog conformation really well, so this is a great thread!


----------



## zimandtakandgrrandmimi (May 8, 2008)

all i have to say to catinthe hat is this.

working drive means nothing if a dog has a body that will break down from extended use.

take a peek into the science of biomechanics....which is directly relevant to performance medicine. and that is the standard by which mixes can be judged.


----------



## Pilfer (Aug 12, 2009)

zimandtakandgrrandmimi said:


> all i have to say to catinthe hat is this.
> 
> working drive means nothing if a dog has a body that will break down from extended use.
> 
> take a peek into the science of biomechanics....which is directly relevant to performance medicine. and that is the standard by which mixes can be judged.


I agree with Zim. Though Catinthe's post is very informative and has caused me to think even more -- thank you.

Since I don't know dog breeds well I was really enjoying this thread and reflecting on my newest love -- 7 month old border/aussie mix. However, I have an eye for body mechanics from a martial arts perspective. Though I can't tell from a photo whether or not a person has the mental aptitude or drive to do well in a certain physical activity, I sure can tell you in general whether or not their body composition would favor or not such activities like power lifting, marathon running, wrestling, boxing, etc.

Maybe the examples above are a nice way to view "pure bread" mechanics and then we can use body types that would be the best generalized performance such as Olympic decathlon winners -- mixed breeds.




Just a thought and I so love this forum. I have learned so much lurking and reading all your posts.


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

tag322 said:


> Just to ask, though it may be a little off topic, but has anyone ever seen a German Shepard with normal height, but was 3 1/2 to 4 ft long? because i have, i actually owned it, just wondering if any body thinks it might be German Shepard/Dashund


a normal GSD is about 2 and a half feet tall at the shoulder. Length of body can be mesured many different ways. (ex. from tip of nose with neck stretched out to tip of tail, from front of chest to base of tail, ect.) specify how the dog is stacked and measured.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Keechak said:


> a normal GSD is about 2 and a half feet tall at the shoulder. Length of body can be mesured many different ways. (ex. from tip of nose with neck stretched out to tip of tail, from front of chest to base of tail, ect.) specify how the dog is stacked and measured.


What "normal" GSDs have you been around that are 30" tall at the shoulder as a standard??


----------



## Keechak (Aug 10, 2008)

well I know they are taller than aussie males and aussie males are usually 22 or 23 inches in the show ring. So I figured GSD's would be around 25 (lol I agree 2 and a half was a bad choice of words tho hehe I didn't mean it literaly) it's kind of like when I say a 15 month old dog is a year and a half old, I do that sometimes.


----------



## sillylilykitty (Mar 11, 2007)

FilleBelle said:


> Okay, as I suspected Alvin did not like my physical manipulation. As such, not only is he not well stacked (I have no idea what I'm doing), but he also looks all hunched and anxious.
> 
> Normally when I look at him I think he's quite a handsome guy. We get lots of compliments. But when I look at these pictures, he looks super funky, lol.
> 
> Alvin is a 70lb Lab/Shar Pei mix (I suspect the presence of some bully breed, as well).





Inga said:


> Don't worry Alvin, you are NOT alone in this judgment. I also have a disproportionate rear in relation to my front/top half. ha ha
> 
> MMM It is not all dog butts that I am obsessed with. Just little cutie pie Rottie butts.
> 
> ...


Okay so, I think Alvin looks just like a Shar Pei Lab mix! Lol, his front end is lower then his hind end (Shar Pei's are supposed to have that look). And I had to laugh that Inga picked a picture of a Shar Pei breeder that I know (And get to see again this September), she's one of the top breeders of Shar Pei's in the US. One of her Shar Pei's was the #1 Shar Pei in the world during 2004 or 2005 (Cant remember which).

I think this thread is great, I'm just entering the show world so I love looking at conformation


----------



## canteloupe (Apr 30, 2009)

It seems like mutties often have higher rear ends. Has anyone else noticed this?

If so, does anyone have any ideas about why this happens?


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

No proof at all, but I have lots of ideas 

Lack of rear angulation, not being set up right for pictures, poor front angulation and standing that way to compensate for it, and my final theory- that butt high is not uncommon for the more natural, primitive dog if humans don't interfere as much with breeding. Many wolf dogs I have seen are butt high, as are quite a few of the finer coursing Salukis (the most primitive breed, definitely the coursing bred Salukis are all form follows function). Oh, and, a lot of pit mixes I see, and purebred pits too, are butt high when standing naturally- and I'd venture a guess that a LOT of mixes have pit in them.


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 18, 2009)

Oh this is so cool! I can't wait to see what ya'll will say about Harleigh. Unfortunately I'll have to put pictures up later this afternoon or this evening. My camera is in my mom's car...

I would put up some now, but the best ones i have right now are from high angles and I just don't think they are that good.. Is it okay that she is only 6 months old though? I don't think it would be, but I know nothing!


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

People... Do your thing!

Donatello is a mutt in every essence of the word... And these are the best pictures I could find.


----------



## deege39 (Dec 29, 2008)

One more... Excuse the sweater.  I told everyone, he's a pansy when it comes to cold weather!


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Wow, guys this has been a very interesting thread (even Cat in the hat's post was cool..even though I don't think she/he "got" the intention of the thread).

I think the butt high thing may, from a physical/biomechanics point of view, enable the dog to climb/jump/stand higher....and if, taking into consideration Foyerhawks idea of it being the primitive "default" hind end type, would make for a dog that does well on rocky, wooded, hilly terrain as it would likely denote a lot of hind end flexibility and power.

I too look at the dogs like athletes and the comparison to humans built for different sports is a good one. Back in the day my girlfriend and I used to have fun guessing what sport all the young men (we're talking WAY back here..lol) played and even were able to often guess the position the player took in team sports (defense or forward, point guard or small forward, catcher or third base) lol. We based this very scientific flirtation game on physical size, proportion and personality. 

Biomechanics are a fascinating subject and it IS helpful to know what may be a problem for our dogs over time, if only to ensure that the dog gets to do what it loves to do (even if it's not 'built' for it) in appropriate ways, for appropriate periods and with appropriate care.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

sillylilykitty said:


> Okay so, I think Alvin looks just like a Shar Pei Lab mix! Lol, his front end is lower then his hind end (Shar Pei's are supposed to have that look). And I had to laugh that Inga picked a picture of a Shar Pei breeder that I know (And get to see again this September), she's one of the top breeders of Shar Pei's in the US. One of her Shar Pei's was the #1 Shar Pei in the world during 2004 or 2005 (Cant remember which).
> 
> I think this thread is great, I'm just entering the show world so I love looking at conformation


SLK: Ha ha that is sort of funny. I posted the pictures that I did because to me, if you are comparing conformation to a certain breed then you need to be looking at one that is as close to the breed standard as you can, not just a back yard bred dog. 

I am not a huge fan of Shar Pei's mostly because of how over bred they were around here about 20 years ago. I do love the look of a well bred dog though. That holds true for almost every breed.


----------



## Inga (Jun 16, 2007)

Shaina said:


> Have at 'em, if you will!


For comparison two (not so good) pictures of champion Smooth Collies. Remarkable resemblance, I think.


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 18, 2009)

Okay... I was finally able to get some decent pictures of Harleigh that I could use. She did not want to be still for anything. Then I got the bright idea to use treats to get her to do what I want. Well we have taught her to sit and do some other random stuff sometimes (shake hands, lay down, spin, etc.) so she was so confused when she would sit and I just wanted her to stand up. Lol. But I hope these will do. If not, then oh well. I mean it is just for fun! Oh and BTW, Harleigh is a Great Dane/Bullmastiff. She's 6 months old and weighs about 70 or so pounds.





































Sorry the side ones are somewhat angled... My mom was taking them. Lol. And I couldn't get a good one of her front either because she would just walk towards me... Anyways.. Have fun!


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Inga said:


> For comparison two (not so good) pictures of champion Smooth Collies. Remarkable resemblance, I think.


Haha yeah whenever I go to a show, the smooth sables always make me double-take. Though the side view pic somehow makes Kim look like a bobble-head, she's not really that front-heavy. She doesn't look exactly like a smooth collie (has a little more coat for one thing) but there's a lot of resemblance in body type, facial structure (*especially* the eyes), ear set, etc. She's higher-drive (and higher herding drive) than most collie I know though, ironically.

I do wonder what is in my girl, lol.


----------



## Foyerhawk (May 7, 2009)

I love Kim!


----------



## Pilfer (Aug 12, 2009)

Cracker said:


> We based this very scientific flirtation game on physical size, proportion and personality.


Ironically this sounded like it should be on a "breeding" thread rather than this mutt one 

j/k


----------



## Cracker (May 25, 2009)

Pilfer said:


> Ironically this sounded like it should be on a "breeding" thread rather than this mutt one
> 
> j/k


Too funny!


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

Nikkiluvsu: It's a little hard to tell from the pics but I'll give it a go.

The one think I will say is that if possible, when stacking, you don't necessarily want the dog's legs to be right under them. Save for a few breeds most stacks have the lower part of the rear leg (can someone PLEASE give me the definition for this?? Are these the rear pasterns??) to be perpendicular to the ground. 

Harleigh looks like she's got a well angled shoulder, maybe a little upright but nothing drastic. Hard to judge the depth of chest in the pictures. Pasterns don't seem to have enough "flex" to them.. look sort of upright. She's butt high, but she's only 6 months old so that really doesn't mean anything  She's got another two years of growing ahead of her. Looks to have good angulation in the back, doesn't toe out or anything either. A very solidly built dog.. looks like she should be pulling carts when she gets a little older  BTW What a pretty face! And Totally unrelated but I just love her brown undertones. Reminds me of Marge.


----------



## FilleBelle (Aug 1, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> And Totally unrelated but I just love her brown undertones. Reminds me of Marge.


I tell Alvin that he disappoints me because I was told I was getting a black dog and what I really got was a brown dog in a black suit. In bad light, he's black...in full sun he is clearly dark brown!



sillylilykitty said:


> Okay so, I think Alvin looks just like a Shar Pei Lab mix! Lol, his front end is lower then his hind end (Shar Pei's are supposed to have that look). And I had to laugh that Inga picked a picture of a Shar Pei breeder that I know (And get to see again this September), she's one of the top breeders of Shar Pei's in the US. One of her Shar Pei's was the #1 Shar Pei in the world during 2004 or 2005 (Cant remember which).
> 
> I think this thread is great, I'm just entering the show world so I love looking at conformation


Oh, yes, he's confirmed Lab/Shar Pei. Most of the time when I look at him I see Lab, but every once in a while I catch him from some Shar Pei angle that makes me do a double take. It's usually his back end that does it...not only does he have the tall butt, but his back legs have this incredibly muscular, wide stance to them that I have NEVER seen on a Lab. He looks like he probably could kick serious dog butt in his younger days.


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 18, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> Nikkiluvsu: It's a little hard to tell from the pics but I'll give it a go.
> 
> The one think I will say is that if possible, when stacking, you don't necessarily want the dog's legs to be right under them. Save for a few breeds most stacks have the lower part of the rear leg (can someone PLEASE give me the definition for this?? Are these the rear pasterns??) to be perpendicular to the ground.


Is this kinda what you are talking about... You know except for it being angled. 
About the feet I mean. How one is kinda in front of the other? I'm not any good at this conformation thing... If you couldn't tell.


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

No, not that one is in front of the other. Only GSD's stack like that lol.

This is just a random Google picture but this dog:










See the leg in the bottom right corner? How that lower part below the point of the hock is at a 90 degree angle to the floor? That's what you want. This dog's rear legs seem to be set a bit too wide, but they're stretched out far enough behind him and it shows what I mean.

Of course I could be all wrong too, I'm no pro at this as I've stated 1354343 times before, but that's how most dogs look when stacked


----------



## nikkiluvsu15 (Jun 18, 2009)

Oh okay.. Gotcha!  I don't think I'm gonna have any luck getting Harleigh to do that... She's got a mind of her own. It was a pain in the butt just to get the ones that I got! Lol.

Well you have a LOT more knowledge in it than I do!


----------



## Kat_Renee (May 6, 2009)

Kat_Renee said:


> Here's Belvie, a year old Aussie mix. These are the best i could do- he wanted to play, not stand still! If anyone could tell me what other breeds they see in him, be my guest! No butt pics- he wouldn't stay still long enough for that (i came home from early today sick and he slept most of the day with me, so he's ready to play).
> 
> I'm not great with cameras, but here are a few shots!
> 
> ...


Anyone have any comments? I'm vury curious


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I'll give it a go I guess.

First of all what pretty color  Topline looks okay, maybe a little downhill with the front being a bit higher than the back. Loin looks a little short IMO.. might limit flexibility. Could use a little more angulation in the back. Feet are nice and tight. Legs are straight from what I can see. His chest could be a bit deeper, seems to be shallow. Being a newbie at this I honestly can't judge his front end  but he is a very good looking dog over all. If I had to guess he's probably not _terribly_ fast, but could go go go for a while. Though he does have long legs so maybe he _is_ a speed demon.. I guess only you know that


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Hm, nobody wants to touch poor Web. To be fair the little guy is built for leaping and turning, but not for speed lol. Plus he looks darn miserable and hunched up.

Thanks for the lonely reply on Kim, Zim  

Really I'm okay with criticism too lol



FWIW I'm terrible at judging pictures of dogs unless they are pretty much perfectly posed so I apologize for asking for feedback without giving much. I'm more of a movement person...but as I've said before, who can't pick out nice motion?


----------



## MissMutt (Aug 8, 2008)

I thought Zim replied about Webster too. Woops!

It seems I'm the only one left in this thread doing critiques.. which really is bad because I'm still not quite sure what I'm saying


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

MissMutt said:


> I thought Zim replied about Webster too. Woops!
> 
> It seems I'm the only one left in this thread doing critiques.. which really is bad because I'm still not quite sure what I'm saying


Haha yeah there were a few to show interest but they seemed to have vanished after the purebred/structure bashing contest.


----------



## Kat_Renee (May 6, 2009)

MissMutt said:


> I'll give it a go I guess.
> 
> First of all what pretty color  Topline looks okay, maybe a little downhill with the front being a bit higher than the back. Loin looks a little short IMO.. might limit flexibility. Could use a little more angulation in the back. Feet are nice and tight. Legs are straight from what I can see. His chest could be a bit deeper, seems to be shallow. Being a newbie at this I honestly can't judge his front end  but he is a very good looking dog over all. If I had to guess he's probably not _terribly_ fast, but could go go go for a while. Though he does have long legs so maybe he _is_ a speed demon.. I guess only you know that


Thanks! I really only know horse conformation, so i've been basing what he looks on that  He's got some speed. Can turn really turn it on, although not the always the fastest. He can turn on a dime though (the aussie in him i guess). He can *jump* though. After our Maine vacation where he spent a lot of the running up and down a hill (oh blessed hill work), he can jump up to my head (i'm 5'10- that's jumping high to me)!


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

have fun with Roxie, lol.

[








The best front shot I have - sorry.









Stackfail.









Butt.









head.

breed guesses are welcome.


----------



## Shaina (Oct 28, 2007)

Kayota said:


> Stackfail.


Okay that made me laugh


----------



## railNtrailcowgrl (Jul 24, 2008)

Ok so I have been meaning to do this for, well over a week now I guess the thread is a bit old but I would love someone's opinion on Pebs, I only know horse conformation so I have a hard time seeing what's good and bad in her. She's a 4 year old Jack Russel Rat Terrier Mix








































Oh, I forgot to add, she usually isn't this hunched up, she was like WTF mom WHAT are we doing? And in the head view, she was standing a bit crooked, but I also think she healed weird from an injury previously to when I acquired her.


----------

