Conformation Clearly Counts

By: Ryan Frame

Many people think that conformation is a ‘show thing’ that has nothing to do with a practical hunting or trial dog. Actually, whether we realize it or not, a dog is able to do is job because he is built to do it. The better built he is for the physical demands of his job, the better he can execute his job and, on average, the less physical problems he will accrue as he ages.

We are fond of saying that performance testing and field trials insure proper functional conformation, but this is not the case. Physical ability is only part of the test. So it is often the case that the best physical specimen might not win a trial for a variety of reasons. Perhaps his training is lacking or he did not have bird work. There could be any number of reasons as to why the most physically capable dog might not win a given trial.

Certain other dogs may, by contrast, have serious conformation flaws but have so much desire that they make up for their lack of physical prowess and win on heart. Still others may have flaws, which may show up later in life but are not readily apparent in youngsters. Either way, dogs with even serious flaws, such as bad hips, can and have won FDSB championships.

Having said that performance testing is no guarantee of proper functional conformation in any given dog , it must also be said that the opposite opinion, that a conformation is test is also a guarantee of ‘soundness,’ is even less true. Exclusively examining a dog’s physical structure, even in great detail such as is done at dog shows, is also no guarantee of proper physical abilities that a dog must possess. Even if the standards were accurate and scientifically proven, there is a lot that is hidden from our eyes and measuring tape, from things such as weak tendons in joints, bad hips, inadequate lung capacity and the like, to a variety of physical defects such as bad lungs or weak heart, to the vast and mysterious chemical processes by which animals process oxygen, metabolize food and water into useable energy, and rid themselves of excess heat.

Yet there is something to be learned from examining physical conformation. In our quest for finding and recognizing better and better bird dogs, physical conformation is part of the puzzle and so should not be ignored. What is learned about functional conformation can’t help but to be of benefit to both breeder and trialer.

Recently I viewed a 90 minute dog training video which contained a section on conformation. The man on the tape looked for two things, a high, cracky tail and straight legs. The fact is that in most books and vidoes these days, functional conformation is not discussed in great detail.

Delmar Smith outlines several principles in his book (written by Bill Tarrant.) For Delmar a high tailed dog meant that a dog had longer muscles in the hip area and could run better. He likes a dog slightly cow-hocked in the back, tight sound feet, and high set toenails. But most of his emphasis comes on the legs. His advice is still worth reading.

The most interesting book that I have encountered on the subject is Dog Locomotion And Gait Analysis by Curtis Brown. His book is intended for dog show judges but this is not to imply that the author ‘goes easy’ on dog shows. "It is unfortunate," he writes in the Preface of his book, "that some poorly established conclusions about locomotion have such wide credence in dog show circles, and particularly unfortunate because many of the conclusions now fostered are diametrically opposed to what now appears to be fact by provable measurements."

Brown studied not only dogs but also studied various wild canines and even other animals. For example, Brown notes a nearly upright shoulder angle in cheetahs as well as jack rabbits. Noting that these animals are built for short bursts of speed, but do not possess a lot of stamina, Brown notes that documented measurements of various dog breeds reveals that the dog with the steepest angled shoulder is the racing greyhound.

Hunting dogs are classified as requiring endurance at the gallop. As such, nature requires a certain form that can be measured. According to his measurements, dogs that must have endurance at the gallop need to have shoulder-blade angles of about 18 degrees off the vertical. He also notes that dogs in good running shape will have more space between shoulder blades than similar dogs that are not in shape, noting that some show judges consider the wider separation a fault. Brown illuminates several other characteristics that hold true to function. One is the ‘legginess ratio’ and is measured as follows. With the dog on a flat surface, measure from his chest down to the surface. Then measure from the top of the shoulder blade (called the withers) to the bottom of the chest (‘depth of chest’). Dividing the leg length by the depth of chest results in a very consistent ratio among performance dogs. With dogs built for pure speed, the leg length will be longer than the depth of chest at a ratio of about 1.3 Hunting dogs normally are about 1.2 to 1.25.

Another interesting measurement is for "squareness." Measuring from the top of the shoulder blade to the surface gets the dogs height. Measuring from the front of the chest to the butt gives you the dog’s length. They should be roughly equal, or ‘square,’ but a little variation can be expected. Dogs built for all out speed will be a bit longer in the body.

One of Brown’s most interesting observations is on size. When a dog, or any animal, doubles in size, the diameter of the leg must increase by more than twice the amount. Larger animals, therefore, need proportionally more infrastructures to do the same task as a smaller dog. While this seems to favor smaller dogs, the exact opposite is implied. A big dog who can go the time in good form should be prime breeding stock. A percentage of his offspring will be smaller and will still have the ‘big engine.’ Big dogs that proceed from small stock might not have the infrastructure required to move a big dog effectively with enough endurance.

Brown also does not disagree with Delmar Smith on the subject of cowhocks. Smith believes that some degree of cowhock was required so that the actions of the rear legs do not interfere with that of the front legs. Brown, ever the scientist does not go quite as far as Smith. Noting the number of cowhocked dogs that routinely win in performance trials, Brown concludes that the AKC is wrong in considering the condition a conformation fault. He further writes about a herd of Thompson’s Gazelles that he observed, all of which were cowhocked.

(to be continued)