Breed Standards and changes over time Discussions

I disagree Azz, you might be basing your assertions on how a dog looks, i.e leaner, athletic with no exaggerations, but you can't tell what it hips , elbows are like whether it is a carrier for genetic disease , suffers heart issues, you can look at all the old photos you like and assume those dogs must be healthier than their current descendents, health screening, DNA testing and data bases were not existent then, it would have been far more likely to see a higher percentage of inbreeding in the ealy days, something frowned on these days.

I agree overweight dogs will suffer joint problems, but generally I can't see how you can assume the dogs of old are healthier than today's dogs.

Not all SL Gsd’s are like that, the slight slope was introduced to increase back strength and reach of stride, and therefore increase trotting/ ground covering capabilities & endurance, but sadly some breeders took it to the extreme, in some cases loose hocks can be firmed up with the right exercise

Yep, completely agree, a slight slope might well have been an *improvement* but the weak hocks and extreme slope to the back you see with some seems incredibly unhealthy.

I suppose we all have our bug bears about conformation and what is and isn't an improvement.

I'm going over old ground but taking the breed I know best (English Springer Spaniel) it's a subject which fascinates me.

I'm all for any changes to the 'breed standard' if the changes improve the well being of the breed however that applies to those who show or wish to conform to KC registration / breeding.

What of those who want a true working Springer Spaniel ?

That is the point of the breed.

Does the perfect 'breed standard' ESS mean it's best physically suited to it's job ?

I'd say not.

It's a tricky one.

Azz and Jackie, I feel you are both right in your own ways.
Certain aspects of a look are detrimental to a dog. These exaggerated traits lend to health problem(s) for the dog. At least in some cases it is the cause of a health issue, so the change in looks has created a less fit dog in that respect.
However due to genetic tests and more screening certain health problems can be eliminated from being produced or have the likelihood highly reduced. This has created more fit animal in that respect.

So it really depends what you are looking at, since there are different traits. An athletic looking dog with a genetic disease or a less athletic looking dog with excessive wrinkles causing skin issues but free from a genetic disease.

I'd like to know the incidence of back / disc issues in Doxies when they were used as working breed vs those from long line of conformation breeding. As it always at the same frequency or did it become more of a problem for show dogs?

@Phil Though there have been Show Champion Springers that qualified to gain their full title, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been a Dual Champion in the breed. The two types are almost two different breeds, and I think you would have to go back a very long way to find any shared parentage between the two types. (Pet litters excepted).
I once asked a friend who showed and trialled Springers whether she had ever been tempted to attempt to produce a Dual purpose line. The answer was a very definite NO!

Thankfully with Labradors, there's a bit of a resurgence of interest in working from the show side, so we are getting good numbers of show bred dogs capable of working, and working well. Whether we'd get as far as a dual champion I don't know, doubtful, as the field trialling side have gone to the other extreme, and there are few FT bred Labradors that would match the standards of past dual champions in conformation, so wouldn't have a chance in the show ring today.

I hadn't realised how long it had been since there had been a Lab. Dual Ch. till I Googled,
www.thelabradorretrieverclub/articles/scales-dualpurposelabradors.html. (I hope I've typed this right).
The first Dual Ch. Lab. was Banchory Bob 1915 - 1927, but I was amazed to discover that the last one was Knaith Banjo, who gained his Dual Ch. in 1946. Although I can see that modern show dogs would be too heavily built to have sufficient speed in the field, I would have thought that the change in show type occurred later than this.
I can just about remember the last Golden Retriever Dual Ch., in 1957, the beautiful David of Westley, (My second Golden was by Daniel of Westley). I would have to check with Val Foss to be certain, but I think there were three GR Dual Ch's, though several have come near to it since then.
Will we see another? I would be surprised if it was in my lifetime.

I think GR's are further split than Labs these days, and I'm sad to say I think FCR's are going down the same route, over coated with a flashy gait.

Speed isn't lacking in the show Labradors, it's a balance of ability and speed, and the desire to do the job. And there are lines that are producing this, along with lovely conformation, and the rest of the tick list, health, temperament etc. My youngest is faster than a lot of dogs, but she works because she gets enjoyment from it, not to please me, if that makes sense. It doesn't make any difference to me, I still work her, she just doesn't roll over like the working bred Labs to try and impress me. You can still give her a job to do, she'll carry as many beating flags as you can shove in her mouth between drives, because she think's a great thing to trot around and impress people, just not me alone. Whether or not there will be any lines that are capable of achieving top levels at field trialling I don't know, but then again, if FT goes the same way as the American competitions, I'm not sure I'd want to keep up with that level of ability, I'm a long way off now with my handling skills, and I don't want robot dogs, I'd rather have dogs that love to work, and want to work with me.

Yes, and that is a good reminder that there must be lots of capable dogs out there who love their jobs, but have owners who just enjoy their sport, and are not fussed about a Stud Book entry, and a piece of cardboard.