Conformation vs. Working.

Hibachi · November 2009

Just wanted to ask what everyone thought of conformation showing vs. working, agility, etc events. First things first. This is what a working German Shepherd should look like: <a href="http://i38.tinypic.com/2i971gn.jpg"; target="_blank" class="bb-url">http://i38.tinypic.com/2i971gn.jpg</a> And here is what a conformation shepherd looks like: <a href="http://i38.tinypic.com/5v91sm.jpg"; target="_blank" class="bb-url">http://i38.tinypic.com/5v91sm.jpg</a> If you are wondering what the difference is, take a look at how the second ones back arches - German Shepherds already suffer from hip problems and breeders that try acheiveing this look completely alter the breed. The next breed, the bull terrier. What they use to look like: <a href="http://i34.tinypic.com/oikvl.jpg"; target="_blank" class="bb-url">http://i34.tinypic.com/oikvl.jpg</a>; <a href="http://i38.tinypic.com/1234jyg.jpg"; target="_blank" class="bb-url">http://i38.tinypic.com/1234jyg.jpg</a> What they look like now: <a href="http://i33.tinypic.com/352kn4n.jpg"; target="_blank" class="bb-url">http://i33.tinypic.com/352kn4n.jpg</a> I understand a breed changes overtime - but I have seen breeding in the bull terrier go so overboared that it looks like they have a tumor coming off the top of their muzzle, when actually it's just the way they where bred to look like. So what where views on conformation before reading this? Have the changed? Or have they stayed the same? I don't mind some conformation - there are actually breeders who do not do this to their breed and they show them in conformation. I personally, lean more toward work, agility, etc. and plan to event my dogs in events that bring out what the dog was bred to do. Remeber keep it VP appropriate. ^^

tarnish · November 2009

For the shepherds, their hips like that looks painful to me or at least uncomfortable. We used to own a shepherd but she was bred as a working one so she didn't have hip problems or that weird shape. I dont get why they need the hips like that. Maybe someone could tell me why a breed standard event like conformation chooses to change the dog from their natural looks?

Hibachi · November 2009

I'm not really sure why the standards are like that. I am actually learning about AKC breeds, standards, etc. for animal behavior college. So, that's something I will have to look into and ask my instructor.

3eagles · November 2009

Kennel clubs/judges/breeders are ruining breeds these days.. They're making them unhealthy AND not so cute. :P I definitely go towards working dogs in most breeds just because they're normally healthier and well-rounded dogs. Some show show dogs *coughgermanshepherdsandamericanbulliescough* are so unhealthy they can barely function. The difference in some breeds is absolutely amazing..

reina__ · November 2009

YES finally a thread like this. Thanks Avla. Okay, so I might be like 2% of the people on VP who will actually breed/show/work dogs in real life. I know only one that actually seriously passionately to the death want to breed. Originally, all breeds were primarily developed for some type of working purpose. The way they were developed depended on their conformation. There was never ONLY conformation, and there was never ONLY working. Conformation played a part in working, working played a part in conformation. To take your breed examples, the German Shepherd was bred for protection, tracking, and herding. Therefore "Schutzhund" was developed as a test for the German Shepherd's working ability. They had to have strong hocks, deep chest, big heads and long snouts for deep bites. They have to have medium-length fur to withstand Germany's outdoor weather. Bull terriers on the other hand needed to be short so as they bit cattle they'd only bite on the ankle and not the leg. If there were scars on the legs it would bring down value of the cattle. sorry if this is so long.. but it's true In MY opinion, I prefer the working GSDs over the show GSDs. They just look better. More mass, shorter bodies, thicker heads. I don't like the washed out red coats and skinny too tall legs. Another thing is the dog's temperament. A dog can have great feet, strong legs, good shoulder and hip, smooth straight gait, but if it doesn't have the temperament, it can't protect or work squat. That is the average conformation/show dog. I don't care if it's pretty, if it jumps at every loud noise or can't protect me without putting its tail in between it's legs, it's not worth feeding for 10 years or spending thousands of dollars trying to train it. Truth.

3eagles · November 2009

Yeah, that's what I was going for Reina. :P I agree!

Berton · November 2009

I actually like todays Bully better, but thats me. Alot of dog breeds arent close to what the standards are anymore. My mom lost to a wheaten whose coat was PINK. Not kidding you, Wheatens are also alot bigger then standard says, and Airedales are being bred smaller, My grandma has a male Airedale, that is what the Min, Height is supposed to be, and let me tell you he is Beastly, and the show Airedales I see are nothing like him in height. I don't even think I'm going with this well. >.<

Hibachi · November 2009

I was hoping you would reply, Reina. xD After studying the standards and looks it really made me question conformation breeders intentions. I mean really what is going on in their heads to cause even more health issues.

Wheaton wrote:

I actually like todays Bully better, but thats me. Alot of dog breeds arent close to what the standards are anymore. My mom lost to a wheaten whose coat was PINK. Not kidding you, Wheatens are also alot bigger then standard says, and Airedales are being bred smaller, My grandma has a male Airedale, that is what the Min, Height is supposed to be, and let me tell you he is Beastly, and the show Airedales I see are nothing like him in height. I don't even think I'm going with this well. >.<

xD The reason why breeds are being bred smaller is because it has that "aww" factor. When I started researching the poodle more at the begining of this year I discovered teacup poodles! :shock: Of course I went "Aww" but to acheive that size who knows how much inbreeding was done. PLus, they can't be used in show as there is only 3 sizes is should come in. The thing with the bully is having a face like that can cause breathing problems.

reina__ · November 2009

I think it becomes like an obsession to see which mating produces the pups with the best coat, best ear set, best all these things that don't ACTUALLY matter. If the dog can hear, then good-oh. You don't need a high ear set in reality. It's just a "standard." Wheaty, it's true. Dogs are now, down to the button, looking nothing like the standard actually states. Everyone's such perfectionists and even though we have dogs winning Supreme Int'l Grand Champion with numerous conformation titles and Best in Shows, EVERY breeder will tell you "there is no perfect dog." So why is it s SIGC if it's not perfect? That means everyone's going to breed their imperfect females to an imperfect male and get imperfect puppies which will grow up to get 12308 best in shows and create more imperfect dogs with no good working temperament who jump at a car horn and cower in the corner and bite children. What a thing to be obsessed with.

reina__ · November 2009

I discovered teacup poodles! Of course I went "Aww" but to acheive that size who knows how much inbreeding was done. PLus, they can't be used in show as there is only 3 sizes is should come in. The thing with the bully is having a face like that can cause breathing problems.

For real. All those teacup poodles, munchkin cats, teacup chihuahuas even, miniature GSDs..... that is the dwarfing gene. Yes, dwarfing. That "awww" factor has a serious price, and a serious priceTAG. Those miniature and teacup breeds have a LOT of health problems, and if not, they die much sooner. I personally wouldn't want that even if it was really cute. All puppies are cute... so you might as well buy one that you can keep for longer than 5 years because it didn't die of a dwarfed heart or mitral valve prolapse. :evil:

Hibachi · November 2009

reina__ wrote:

 For real. All those teacup poodles, munchkin cats, teacup chihuahuas even, miniature GSDs..... that is the dwarfing gene. Yes, dwarfing. That "awww" factor has a serious price, and a serious priceTAG. Those miniature and teacup breeds have a LOT of health problems, and if not, they die much sooner. I personally wouldn't want that even if it was really cute. All puppies are cute... so you might as well buy one that you can keep for longer than 5 years because it didn't die of a dwarfed heart or mitral valve prolapse. :evil:

Exactly. And on a different forum I remember someone telling me that a shiloh shepherd was a REAL breed. :roll: It's a mutt. >.> And everyone was complaining that purebreds are more expensive and less healthy than a mutt. When in petshops will sell "gooldendoodles" "yorkiepoos" for $600-1000+ and people actually buy them. Not to mention their mutts parents could have had a deadly disease, hip dysplasia, etc. and not everyone will adopt from a shelter becuase buying from a reputable breeder ensures what you are getting ecspecially when asking questions.

reina__ · November 2009

Yes, very true. Breeders usually have guarantees too so if your dog gets sick the burden won't all be on you. Plus that thing about mutts being healthier than purebreds isnt all true. That's a whole other story though.

Hibachi · November 2009

And also, breeders are willing to take dogs back in. ^^ Some people are just too naive.

reina__ · November 2009

Another thing. I'll just quote it from my post on a different forum that had a thread similar to this.

I have a Great Dane/Lab cross right now. Her conformation is very nice and unique, has a great topline, flowing gait, NO joint or hip problems at all ever and she is 11 years old, got a thick undercoat and topcoat like a Lab, humorous, "doofus"-type temperament like the Dane. Pretty. This is what people strive for when producing PUREBRED dogs. Hard to believe I have a mutt that has the same type of characteristics people want in a purebred. Ever since she was young, she was uncontrollable. We were the average family 11 years ago, I was only 8 years old, my Mom wanted a dog that could protect her and her 3 little girls and baby boy. Like most mothers right? She was IMPOSSIBLE to walk. She gets NERVOUS extremely easily. She gets OVEREXCITED in a split second. She cowers at every inanimate object, even though she was socialized around them with good experiences. At every loud sound, she cowers again. She does not show interest or curiosity- she runs. It took me hundreds if not thousands of hours of researching how to "rehabilitate" a dog born like this. Took me at least 8 years to figure out how to control her. I'm 18 almost 19 in a few days now, and she's 11 years old, and the same. Except she heels. Doesn't matter that she's a mutt. She's pretty, good natured, good gait, no health problems. She would never be able to work in any regard due to nervous characteristics. If she was a Corso, it would all be even worse probably. Keilah's only 90 or so pounds- a Corso can be 140 pounds easily. Imagine that. That's my experience with pretty dogs with no working ability. Now you probably see where I'm coming from.

So what I mean by working temperament is - stable, calm, NOT easily excited, NOT easily spooked, discerning, willing-to-please. It doesn't matter so much if the dog actually works, like breeds that aren't really needed for working purposes anymore. What matters most imo is that the dog has a true working temperament. If it doesn't, "it won't 'work' in a home environment." My mutt has all the physical characteristics purebred people want. So what's better, a PRETTY dog that has no temperament, or a MEDIOCRE-looking dog that has a GREAT temperament? Obviously there's a lot of breeders willing to sacrifice the more important things for prettiness. Shallow in my opinion. BUT You CAN have a PRETTY dog with a GREAT temperament. It just takes more work.

That said, I am not against conformation showing, but I think it should only be used as a supplement to work. If you can't work, then don't breed. My opinion only. Not trying to flame anyone of course. I know there are those out there who health test like crazy and only conformation show and you have much luck with that (congrats), and that is fine. But with me, I want to produce a bloodline of working Cane Corso for the future and the generations down the road. I'm willing to sacrifice pretty dogs that get stressy under chaos for pretty dogs that do not.

Zagari Wolf · November 2009

When I get back from play practice, I'll post some cool photos.

Zagari Wolf · November 2009

Maybe this has nothing to do with this thead, maybe it does. I just felt like contributing what little knowledge I have on the subject of breeds changing over time. Honestly, I enjoy watching a good AKC show. I do agree with most here thought when I say I prefer a working dog over a pretty show dog any day. Some people have seen this before but I'll show it again. I'm going to use my breed since I know most about them. American Pit Bull Terrier/American Staffordshire Terrier There's not much difference other than some body type. Dogs are still dual registered in AKC and UKC. These are the top winning dogs in each registery. Keep in mind they are all the "same breed" of dog. The first dog is from the ADBA. This is basically was a bulldog looked like back in the day. These dogs have changed very little over history. The second dog is UKC, still called an APBT but quite different. The third dog is from AKC and called an AmStaff. This was created by a former member on VP but has since left. In her own words:

Originally authored and researched by Lyndsay Biddle (aka bahamutt99) This was something that I've always kinda wanted to see done. There are people who insist that the APBT and the AmStaff are the same dog, and that if you slim down an AmStaff, you'll get an ADBA-ready APBT. And there are others who feel like although both breeds come from common heritage, the last 70+ years have caused them to diverge sufficiently so that they're not the same breed anymore. And then there is the sticky situation that is the UKC ring, where AmStaffs are registered as APBTs and are more prevalent than dogs resembling the old gladiators. Anyway. I went through and located as many pictures as I could of the current top-winning dogs from each of the big 3 registries. (Disclaimer: The comparisons are not exact -- ie, while the first set are all #1 dogs, the 2nd set might not all be #2s, and so on. The UKC only gives a top 10, and when I couldn't find one of them, I had to use a winning dog from 2007.) I think the side-by-side comparison is rather eye-opening. Conditioning and ring training versus type? Also note the color bias. The ADBA dogs are varied in color (and the only registry with rednose represented in the top numbers), whereas blue fawn seems to be the big thing in UKC, and fawn or brindle in the AKC. Also interesting to note that all the UKC/AKC dogs are cropped, while the ADBA dogs are largely natural.

Howdy, Stranger!

Conformation vs. Working.

Comments