Saying Hail Mary's before typing this..... - Page 6

mirasmom,

I recall CH Caralon's Phantom v Lebarland (http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/412367.html and http://www.globalspan.net/shilohpedigrees/phantom.htm

He was a good looking and very decent dog--not a great mover--favored by handful of judges who were very fond of blacks. Was he a great dog or even an above average producer?

I take Helen Miller Fisher's comments about Phantom with a grain of salt. Gawd, you should have read her prejudiced critiques of the German dogs--about whom she appreciated absolutely nothing (IMO). What can I say? Helen was, well...Helen.

I have always thought maybe Utz was a bit - swaybacked (more specifically, broken-backed - looks like someone put a karate chop behind his withers).  I think that's the only photo I've ever seen, and either it's a bad photo, or he's in a bad position.  Or it's just an illusion of the hair.

Besides that, I think his head is a bit heavy and saggy; not much, but definitely in comparing photos, I'd prefer his sire, Klodo.  I'd still take Utz over probably 90% of "great dogs" today, though, as more of a real GS.

Surprised Erich v. Grafenworth was mentioned as "unsure".  He was a huge influence - it is probably due to him that his granddam, Flora Berkemeyer, became so highly influential as the "beauty of the breed" - stamping the breed with the stereotypical black&tan saddle/blanket markings.  And she herself was mentioned as being "shy".

I don't even recognize the name of Phantom - I doubt he is in the pantheon of "great" American dogs in any sense.  I certainly know of the kennel Caralon, but otherwise I have no memory of this dog from reading very good books or delving into the American show scene in the '80s (and I'm big on pedigrees - the reason I'm on this site).

My understanding of Erich von Gravenworth(sp) was that he was a very sharp dog and I could never really find out if the sharpness was one of strength or insecurity. I also know that Erich was known for his wirily coat on the bach that mixed with grey prematurely. this was sometimes called the Gravenworth coat. (Don't know why i can't spell his last name but don't feel like going back and getting correct spelling..smile) 

"Curly" for an Erich coat is a strong word in that writing - actually, it's just "wavy", and many, many dogs I've seen have it.  I don't think it's any big deal; probably just a throw-back to the longer-coat and wiry-coat dogs, who were not far removed in these pedigrees.  I guess Erich's great influence pretty much stamped it (although surely others had it, too, with no connection to him).

OLR, Actually wavy was the word I was looking for as the first bitch I ever had, had an Erich coat and she also was very sharp but tough as nails!  Thanks! 

Angulation is so different now, and part of it is that the standard WAS changed. I started in the GSD in the mid 70's, and bacause I am anal, I studied a great deal of information from earlier in the breed, and talked to many 'old timers' that had been in the breed form the 1930 and 1940 era. The BIG change in structure in the USA anyway started in the mid to late 60's.

The breed standard used to have a sentence that made 'correct angulation' much more clear. It used to say the angle of the upper and lower leg, and upper leg to croup was to be determined with the foot directly under the hip joint. When standing that way a dog that looks like it has little angulation in the  'show pose' will have much more angle between the mentioned bones when the foot us directly under the hip socket. The bones were to be the same length from hip to stifle (knee) and from stifle to hock (ankle). This gives stability to the rear and efficeient of stride. The bones in the front leg/shoulder were to be essentially the smale length and angle as the rear leg/croup so the dog took the samel length of stride in the front as in the back for balanced gating whth great endurance and also agility.

 When that sentence was taken out, breeders said the upper and lower leg should make  a right angle when in the show stance. This was not possible in dogs that were considered 'correct' prior to the change.

Dogs were then bred to have a longer l bones from stifle to hock so the rear leg could be stretched further back, and weaker ligaments were selected for (like an over stretched rubber band) so that the dog's rear would 'sink' more to give the new right (90 degree) angle in the show pose stance that breeders wanted. The lower rear resulted in a straighter shoulder, and the part of the standard that describes the correct topline as "a high wither sloping gently into a level back"  was essentially ignored. The standard said teh dog should show gently curves, not angles. This weaker ligamentation (along with the less slanted shoulder) allowed the dog to extend the legs farther in each stride (remember the over stretched rubber bands). Length of stride became more important than strength of stride.

Because the shoulder was more upright, the dog in the USA was bred to have an exaggerated prosternum. This made the front chest bone stick out farther in front of the dog, giving the ILLUSION of a better shoulder angle.....on to next post

Jackie again.... Just 20 or so years ago, when  Herman and Walter Martin were in control of most German 'show breeding', they brought us the roach back dogs. Even until now Germans critized the USA dogs as being overangulated, and rightly so.  You see the 1972 German Sieger Marko Cellarland had a level back. In a few more years you see the camel back dogs were winning the VA positions at the Sieger shows.  The weak ligimentation selected for in the American dogs to allow for the sinking of the rear for the ski slope topline also brought with it long feet (weak toes) and weak pasterns. The strength of toes and pasterns are ciritcal in a working dog so it can stand up to riggors of real work.

I was in Germany at a local show just before this year's Seiger show. I was able to stand right next to many dogs that are already VA dogs that were out to be seen, and many were from other famous kennels with dogs that expected to do very well in the Sieger show (and did). The number of overangulated, flat footed, weak pastern dogs was overwhelming, and it was virtually all of them. I was able to go to the amous Holtkamper See kennel and I mentioned to Mr. Niederkastle that I felt the dogs were overangulated. He gave me the same line that the American breeders did in the 70's "yes, but you need a dog with too much to correct for bitches that do not have enough". What ever happened to breeding correct dogs to get more correct dogs? The whole thing is very ad to me. Now I'll duck and cover in case I get attacked! 

Terrific run-down, JGA.

You're only confirming what this neophyte specatator has instinctively suspected (long legs more than "angulation", change in German dogs, excuses for changes, etc).

"You need a dog with too much to correct for bitches that do not have enough"

Huh?  So after all these years/decades, bitches are still somehow NOT angulated, but the "dogs" are?  They're all from the same gene pools!  Magically, females are underangulated and males, over?  You'd think if this were all true, normal-looking dogs would at some point result!