British And American Whippets

[petrezselyem]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Surely the whole point of having a carefully thought out "standard" of any breed, is so that, that particular breed, whatever it may be is instantly recognisable.  We can all have our preference but surely for the continuation of our lovely breed, we shouldn't let our preference overide what is set down in black and white.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But it's not set down in black and white, not really. In some cases, it is. Such as, the US standard says that the nose should be entirely black. So, a nose which is not entirely black is therefore not correct.

A blue eye is a disqualification here. Also--not a matter of opinion.

But what about this?

"Front not too wide."

:- "

What's too wide? Too wide to fit in a standard starting box for racing without greasing the sides down with soap? Bull terrier wide? Boxer wide? Too wide to fit under the fence if the dog lays on its side and really pushes?

You can see how one person's "too wide" might be another person's "good substance and sturdy".

Hindquarters:

"Stifles well bent without exaggeration with hocks well let down. Able to stand naturally over a lot of ground."

Wow, breeders everywhere argue over this one. Does well mean "very", "extremely", "somewhat", "well enough so the dog looks balanced", or "more than, say, a Doberman Pinscher, you know, a really good one"? No exaggeration, surely, but WELL bent, WELL let down, and standing naturally over a LOT of ground (which can be gotten by having more rear out behind the dog, and indeed, this is implied because it's in the section on rear, not the section on body length.

And this is where the seeds of people who breed for very moderate-looking rear angles and length of rear bones stake their ground, while those who prefer more angulated hindquarters which set out behind the dog hang their hats on the same wording.

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance, as do other standards. But it did not, so I assume there is interpretation possible here and those who like a bit more rear on their Whippets have an argument, and so do those who prefer a more moderate rear also have their case. The one kind of rear which is clearly incorrect is a straight, stilted, underangulated rear, but this rear can be found on a lot of good sprint Whippets, so there you have the seeds of another controversy.

I think such differences of opinion are not only legitimate, they are vital to keeping our sport so interesting and allowing breeders to put their personal stamp on dogs that nonetheless fit the standard well enough to be competitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

:thumbsup: :thumbsup:

agree

 

[kris]

I don't think I saw anybody on this thread say that they were trying to breed ouside the standard.  As far as I can see the argument is that some think that others breeding programmes don't fit with their interpretation of the standard.  So we have the question of type.  That is a personal preference.  It is a shame that everybody cannot appreciate a good example of every type.I know I am not a showing buddy but I am not unfamiliar with the show scene in a different sphere.  Being impartial I do not feel the need to rush to anybodys defence or attack any haples person that falls outside the circle.

I'm jusy saying it as I see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

well said!ive been in a breed where one breeder did a lot of winning and their interpretation of the breed was complately wrong to the standard.but because this person had a lot of influence in the breed people fell over themselves to agree with him and to follow suit.me ive never been one for following the crowd, i do my own thing and i had this copy of the breed standard in my head when i bred a litter and knew what i was breeding for and left the lemmings to do what they wanted to do.the size of this breed got to ridiculous heights that they werent only 1 inch oversized but sometimes 3 or 4!when this person went out of the breed the rest of us were left to pick up the pieces and to try to get the breed back on an even keel.nowadays no one breeder has the influence to change this breed, theres just a lot of small dedicated breeders and the type has got back to a much more closer definition of the standard.sometimes the emperor really has no clothes on but it takes guts to say so! no one person should say this is right and that is wrong.a well bent stifle to one person is a straight stifle to another.we all have our own ideas of what we want in a dog and a sort of mental picture of the ideal according to our interpretation of the standard.when you watch someone judge, the same dogs dont win every week and what a boring life it would be if they did. -_- noone would show dogs cos wed all know whats going to win all the time if everyone had the same interpretation of the standard.the standard is the blueprint for the breed but type is a personal preference and it is in this that a breeder can stamp their preferences.how often when reading a judges critique do we see the phrase just my type?or just the type i like?theres nothing wrong in that.its their interpretation of the type they like in that breed.if you dont like a persons particular type so what?they have to live with them and they obviously like that type as thats what they are breeding.you might prefer a different type.but that doesnt mean you are right and they are wrong.they are all still perfectly allowable according to the standard.if they werent then they wouldnt be successful in the ring and at the end of the day thats where a show breeders breeding program stands or falls. :thumbsup:

 

[dragonfly]

But it's not set down in black and white, not really.  In some cases, it is.  Such as, the US standard says that the nose should be entirely black.  So, a nose which is not entirely black is therefore not correct.
A blue eye is a disqualification here. Also--not a matter of opinion.

But what about this?

"Front not too wide."

  :- "

What's too wide?  Too wide to fit in a standard starting box for racing without greasing the sides down with soap?  Bull terrier wide? Boxer wide? Too wide to fit under the fence if the dog lays on its side and really pushes?

You can see how one person's "too wide" might be another person's "good substance and sturdy". 

Hindquarters:

"Stifles well bent without exaggeration with hocks well let down. Able to stand naturally over a lot of ground."

Wow, breeders everywhere argue over this one.  Does well mean "very", "extremely", "somewhat", "well enough so the dog looks balanced", or "more than, say, a Doberman Pinscher, you know, a really good one"?  No exaggeration, surely, but WELL bent, WELL let down, and standing naturally over a LOT of ground (which can be gotten by having more rear out behind the dog, and indeed, this is implied because it's in the section on rear, not the section on body length. 

And this is where the seeds of people who breed for very moderate-looking rear angles and length of rear bones stake their ground, while those who prefer more angulated hindquarters which set out behind the dog hang their hats on the same wording.

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance, as do other standards.  But it did not, so I assume there is interpretation possible here and those who like a bit more rear on their Whippets have an argument, and so do those who prefer a more moderate rear also have their case.  The one kind of rear which is clearly incorrect is a straight, stilted, underangulated rear, but this rear can be found on a lot of good sprint Whippets, so there you have the seeds of another controversy.

I think such differences of opinion are not only legitimate, they are vital to keeping our sport so interesting and allowing breeders to put their personal stamp on dogs that nonetheless fit the standard well enough to be competitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

[SIZE=14pt]Could not agree more[/SIZE]

Cathie

 

[petrezselyem]

a useful link

STANDARDS

 

[JAX]

Surely the whole point of having a carefully thought out "standard" of any breed, is so that, that particular breed, whatever it may be is instantly recognisable.  We can all have our preference but surely for the continuation of our lovely breed, we shouldn't let our preference overide what is set down in black and white.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But it's not set down in black and white, not really. In some cases, it is. Such as, the US standard says that the nose should be entirely black. So, a nose which is not entirely black is therefore not correct.

A blue eye is a disqualification here. Also--not a matter of opinion.

But what about this?

"Front not too wide."

:- "

What's too wide? Too wide to fit in a standard starting box for racing without greasing the sides down with soap? Bull terrier wide? Boxer wide? Too wide to fit under the fence if the dog lays on its side and really pushes?

You can see how one person's "too wide" might be another person's "good substance and sturdy".

Hindquarters:

"Stifles well bent without exaggeration with hocks well let down. Able to stand naturally over a lot of ground."

Wow, breeders everywhere argue over this one. Does well mean "very", "extremely", "somewhat", "well enough so the dog looks balanced", or "more than, say, a Doberman Pinscher, you know, a really good one"? No exaggeration, surely, but WELL bent, WELL let down, and standing naturally over a LOT of ground (which can be gotten by having more rear out behind the dog, and indeed, this is implied because it's in the section on rear, not the section on body length.

And this is where the seeds of people who breed for very moderate-looking rear angles and length of rear bones stake their ground, while those who prefer more angulated hindquarters which set out behind the dog hang their hats on the same wording.

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance, as do other standards. But it did not, so I assume there is interpretation possible here and those who like a bit more rear on their Whippets have an argument, and so do those who prefer a more moderate rear also have their case. The one kind of rear which is clearly incorrect is a straight, stilted, underangulated rear, but this rear can be found on a lot of good sprint Whippets, so there you have the seeds of another controversy.

I think such differences of opinion are not only legitimate, they are vital to keeping our sport so interesting and allowing breeders to put their personal stamp on dogs that nonetheless fit the standard well enough to be competitive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I just wish I had your way with words karen , Spot on :cheers:

 

[Seraphina]

  No exaggeration, surely, but WELL bent, WELL let down, and standing naturally over a LOT of ground (which can be gotten by having more rear out behind the dog, and indeed, this is implied because it's in the section on rear, not the section on body length. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

That expression was explained to me by an old horse friend as meaning the distance between front legs and the point where line dropped from the hip would hit the ground. So stretching the dog's hind legs does not make it cover more ground, just ruins his angulation and overall shape.

 

[Seraphina]

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front of toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

However dog that is build that way is in no way going to have stifles well bent; and hocks well let down and close to the ground. unless it is badly sickle hocked.

I know that rear was described that way in the past, in the same time front was thought to suppose to have 90degree angle between the shoulderblade and upper arm, with shoulder blade being at 45degrees with the ground. I do not think that anybody would agree with that at present. I think that we all now understand that the Whippet the scapula-humerus angle needs to be far more open, about 120degrees.

For me the rear angulation should look something like this

 

[seaspot_run]

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front of toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

However dog that is build that way is in no way going to have stifles well bent; and hocks well let down and close to the ground. unless it is badly sickle hocked.

All I can say is that the top winning USA show whippet of all time, Multi-multi-multi-BIS and SBIS Ch. Sporting Fields Kinsman does conform to that description and is in no respect sickle hocked.

 

[Seraphina]

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front of toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

However dog that is build that way is in no way going to have stifles well bent; and hocks well let down and close to the ground. unless it is badly sickle hocked.

All I can say is that the top winning USA show whippet of all time, Multi-multi-multi-BIS and SBIS Ch. Sporting Fields Kinsman does conform to that description and is in no respect sickle hocked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No he is not sicklehocked, but then again line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground does not touch his toes

To me he looks very close to my drawing of correct rear.

 

[Seraphina]

There are 3 possibilities of a dog having line run through his hips to hit the toe:

= he has a rear like an IG, with stifles well bent but stuck under him

= not much bend in stifle or hock

= sickle hocks

 

[~JO~]

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front of toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

However dog that is build that way is in no way going to have stifles well bent; and hocks well let down and close to the ground. unless it is badly sickle hocked.

I know that rear was described that way in the past, in the same time front was thought to suppose to have 90degree angle between the shoulderblade and upper arm, with shoulder blade being at 45degrees with the ground. I do not think that anybody would agree with that at present. I think that we all now understand that the Whippet the scapula-humerus angle needs to be far more open, about 120degrees.

For me the rear angulation should look something like this

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I find it of concern to see the number of whippets which are very long from stifle to hock (second thigh) and can't seem to get their back legs and feet underneath them when they more creating some very strange movement.

 

[patsy]

How right you are Jo, it is stifle to hock where many fail, with no width of second thigh and hocks not well let down. With this type of construction they cannot get their hind legs under them to drive and have the long easy stride so desireable.

 

[Juley]

I suppose the point I was trying to make is that, yes, we all interpret the standard in our own way and have a "type" we may prefer BUT when selecting what to breed from or too should not let our own preference for one particular feature overide the general picture. i do believe we should try to endeavour to breed to the standard not alter the standard to fit the breed.

 

[aslan]

I know that rear was described that way in the past, in the same time front was thought to suppose to have 90degree angle between the shoulderblade and upper arm, with shoulder blade being at 45degrees with the ground.  I do not think that anybody would agree with that at present.  I think that we all  now understand that the Whippet the scapula-humerus angle needs to be far more open, about 120degrees.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Does everybody agree with that? I'm not sure I do. What's the reasoning?

The ANKC extended whippet standard [for judges] (prepared with the co-operation of the WAV and W&GCSA) says that the shoulder angle of 90 deg is correct and 130 deg is too upright.

 

[chelynnah]

I was away all weekend and SO dreaded opening up this topic as I heard about it in person and over the phone. But I have to say that overall I think it's been a REALLY interesting discussion. I can see why a couple of people have felt singled out, but I think the subject overall has developed beyond that, and I think has a lot of merit. I'm certainly learning lots

I think, in re-reading the original post, that there were 2 parts to it, and while it quoted from one website, I don't think the feeling is specific to that site or kennel. I do believe the quote was used as an example. The first point I believe is why attempt to breed a different type if that's what the goal of the website owner was, and 2nd why say it was unique to have this type, when there have been American dogs bred into English lines for many years (and vice/versa). There are certainly, these days, very few of us who don't have other countries' breedings behind our whippets. I have Rivarco Classic Jazz in my lines which means I've American and Italian for sure. But I still think we need to breed to the standard for the country that we live in. I think it's great to help with diversity to bring in dogs from other backgrounds, and perhaps in this way (as suggested in a couple of posts) regain some things we've lost (ie a bit more length in neck) , but I still think there is a 'type' that we should breed to which is the English Whippet.

I certainly believe there is room for personal interpretation and preference while still conforming to the 'blueprint' of the standard. I also think that presentation can alter perception. Karen showed a perfect example of this recently on another board where she posted one of her and Kristen's half US half UK bitches posed in an 'American Show Pose' and then in a 'British Show Pose'. Still looked like a beautiful bitch, but also looked very different in each photo. My eye was immediately drawn to the pose of her in her 'British' pose and I liked her much better - but that's what I've been trained to see. It doesn't mean I didn't think she was absolutely lovely in her 'American' pose.

I think I'm kind of babbling and I do apologise. I hope that the discussion can continue peacefully and not get personal as I'm personally finding it very interesting overall. I appreciate the thoughts and comments from people who've been in the breed a heck of a lot longer than me from all over the world. I appreciate the opportunity to learn, even if there's something I don't agree with, it's a wonderful opportunity to look outside the box and see/understand where another person is coming from.

So lets keep it friendly folks!

Wendy

(edited for spelling)

 

[seaspot_run]

Seraphina, you are right that my photo of Luke (the only blurry one I could find on the internet) doesn't really show that plumbbob line. He appears to me to be pulled back a bit far as his hocks aren't perpendicular to the ground in that photo, and you have drawn your line a bit farther forward than I would have, but still, even when I marked it myself, I couldn't get an exact touch.

My memory of that dog was that in a lot of the photos that were published of him, he was one of the very few winning show Whippets I saw which fit that description. Or even came close to it. He certainly displays that a dog can be very moderate in rear angulation and sweep here and win at a very high level.

My issue with your statement was the original implication that the only way to achieve that was to have the Whippet be sickle-hocked, but I agree with your drawings now that you have clarified that there are other ways to fit that description. It is one that I have actually seen American breeder/judges use in judge's education....these would be judges who have done some racing, perhaps, or know people who race, and feel that moderate angles and bone lengths are the most functional.

FWIW, I do not think it's correct type to have a Whippet fit that description in the rear as it is not ENOUGH rear for a Whippet, IMO. There are, however, a fair number of breeds who do--one that springs immediately to mind is the Labrador Retriever. I think the length and a bit of sweep in the rear enhances the overall outline of the dog and makes it more typical, but as you can see in the above example, not all American top winners are extreme in rear.

But if a very moderate rear was desired, then that description would have been one way to achieve it. Since it is not described that way, I conclude the Whippet should have more sweep of rear than a typical Labrador and this is probably to be gained with having longer bones, proportionally, than through having additional angulation.

 

[seaspot_run]

We've strayed a bit--the example of the rear was to show that in the absence of a concrete description that can be ascertained by measurements, there is latitude for interpretation.

I am curious how people in FCI countries and the UK feel about size. Your standard gives an ideal size range for dogs and bitches but it seems a lot of the winning dogs exceed it.

I have been told that if you want to have a bitch who can win in South America, they have to be under 20" and a male has to be under 21", but that's still an inch over ideal.

How much weight should a judge put on size, and why isn't there an upper limit? I know we have set ours rather high, but at least our standard doesn't leave it up to the judge to decide if a dog outside stated ideal range should still be considered for a top prize.

 

[maggie217]

What a fascinating thread this is. Hope it never ends :thumbsup:

Pauline

 

[patsy]

What a fascinating thread this is.    Hope it never ends  :thumbsup: Pauline

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Karen when the standard was revised I was on the comittee, although the kennel club allowed the height to be raised for dogs they would not raise it for bitches which was very silly, where are the 17!/2 to 18!/2 bitches.

There has been over all the years that I have been showing the biggest part of the entry over the standard height. When I first came into the breed the height was given then the wording an otherwise good specimen should not be unduly penilised so you can see how it happened, the ones that were slightly larger seemed to be the better animals. That clause was then taken out when the standard was next revised. When it was revised again we asked the kennel club if the word ideal could be put in, this was to help our friends in some countries that would measure very good animals out of a breeding programe because they were over size. Now last year FCI have removed that clause. It is many years ago that the great Chs Courtney Fleetfoot Tantivvey Diver and later Charmoll Clansman were exported to the USA,none of these were small dogs, none of them had any difficulty in gaining their titles in the UK

 

[Juley]

Although I don't have anything like the experience of some of the people who have contributed to this thread, its a great topic and thats why i decided to "jump in" with my thoughts!

How much weight should a judge put on size, and why isn't there an upper limit? I know we have set ours rather high, but at least our standard doesn't leave it up to the judge to decide if a dog outside stated ideal range should still be considered for a top prize.

I would think that size should be considered along with any other fault and I guess everybody has their own idea of how much they would penalise an otherwise good dog/bitch. Personally, i would rather have something a little on the larger size ( or smaller) that still exudes breed type and moves well, than a correctly sized animal with for example poor movement or an incorrect bite.