Roached/Banana backs - Page 4

"I have seen very few GSD's with a true roached back.  A True Roached Back for any breed is when the back is higher than the withers." 

Whether a roach is present or not, is dependant on the line of the back between withers and croup, not the actual level in relation to the ground.  If you draw a line between those two points, and the backline rises above this... then there is a roach.

To use your method of defining a roach, you are reliant on the anatomy of the hindqurters.  That's to say, if a dog stands in a crouching pose, as so many German showline dogs do, you are lowering one end of the topline, with the withers remaining in position as the pivot.  If the same dog stood with normal hindquarter stance, the topline would run the same line, but the roach would be higher, and so above the withers.  Same if you stood the dog downhill.... well more or less, there would be some balance compensation but you know what I mean.  The withers would be lower and the line of the back would rise above.

Agree, POD.

I agree the stack can make alot of difference.  I have said this before "A good dog is a good dog period" !

Pod, I understand what you are saying, but I stand firm in my belief that a dog standing on level ground, in a normal hindquarter stance, with a roach higher than it's withers is a roachback. I believe that had "HALF" not been in a stacked pose, the top of his roach, might be higher than his withers.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/5219.html

Many of your coursing breeds are true roached backs.  My new neighbor, owns 2 Borzoi. Both are true Roached Backs.

If those Borzois stood with crouching hindquarters and with the line of the back unchanged, would you still consider them to be roached?

I have seen Borzoi with flat backs. I have seen Borzoi with a slight roach. If one would arrange the hindquarters of one of these slight roached Borzoi, I imagine one could make it appear, the dog was not roached backed. In the case of my neighbor's Borzoi, the roach is so pronounced, that no stance will make them appear any other way than roached.

No matter how someone sets up the stance, or poses a dog. A Roachback is a Roachback.  To be "dog correct" Roachbacks should be referred to as "Loinbacks", as the rise is usually at the loin.

I think 'roachback' is a preferable term to 'roached topline' as the latter does lend some credence to your interpretation Abhay    The topline is assessed in relation to the ground, so yes you could argue that if the line doesn't rise in the middle in relation to the ground, then it isn't roached.  But if you're looking at the line as part of the dog, no matter what angle he holds his body, then a rise in the middle is a roach back. 

To use Jeck's fish in the other thread as an example.  If this fish was to swim uphill, it may remove the roach in the topline, but the back would still be the same ie. roached.

And how this applies to the standard is the crux of the matter.  Roach backs are "undesirable" not roach toplines.

AS I DISCUSSED TIS ISSUE WIT MANY PEOPLE..... ROACH BACK IS A NATURAL THING TO A DOG....IT IS NOT ARTIFICIAL....IF THE AREA BETWEEN THE WITHERS & LOIN IS CARRIED...IT IS TERMED AS ROACH BACK....

MANY PPL THINK TAT DOG HAVIN ROACH BACK PERFORMS BETTER,,BUT TATS NOT TRUE,WEN THE BACK IS CARRIED..ITS CROUP LOOKS SLOPY & DESCENDING,THUS GIVES A FLASHIER LOOK TO TAT DOG....IT SLIGHTLY AFFECTS ITS MOVEMENT ESPECIALLY TOWARDS THE HIND.....

IN OUR COUNTRY.. (I DON'T WANT TO MENTION THE DOGS), SOME GOOD DOGS HAV LOST SEVERAL TITLES & AWARDS DUE TO THIS CONDITION.....

Does the angulation of the hind quartes cause a roach back, or at least the image of one?

I have a male with what I suspect is over angulated back legs, but a straight back.   In my eyes this causes a huge locomotive problem. He moves like a scuttling crab.  All kinked up, and back high.  But when standing square, he looks fine.

No, this is a separate problem. Is your dog an American bred, because this is very, very common with the Am. shepherd. The breeders have bred for a very long upper thigh, to increase the dog's length of stride and allow it to reach further under the body. The dogs may trot nicely, but at the walk they move like crabs!  In terms of mechanics, I think they are having trouble finding room for those long legs underneath the body, so they tend to throw the legs out to the sides. This makes them appear cow-hocked, and indeed, a large number of them ARE cow-hocked!