British And American Whippets

[seaspot_run]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

I love it that the bone in the front legs is specified as moderate and bladed in the UK standard.  I absolutely wish we had this wording in ours.  I prefer the UK standard to ours in many respects, except that I prefer our wording about underjaw.

My biggest pet peeve in US Whippets at this time is round bone which is massive and foxhound-like.  Tends to go with straighter pasterns and rounded, cat feet.  To me, very atypical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Yes, I think that the bladed bone bit is very important and should be in every standard.

As far as the fronts go, we definitely discussed whether the angulation means the angle between the axis of the humerus and scapular or something else, but I cannot see anywhere where we actually discussed the length of these bones, which is another important point. Especially as the standard depiction is wrong.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think our disagreement comes down to actual vs. apparent. I was trying to illustrate concepts based on apparent points which can be easily found by feeling for locations on live dogs or looking for reference points easily seen on photographs, and as are generally accepted among dog people here in the USA for judge's education to my knowledge. You are going from anatomical points on bones of the revealed skeleton.

I really don't think it matters all that much so long as one is consistent in their checkpoints. By your checkpoints, the shoulder angle will be more open as you are locating the elbow as being further down than I am. But in terms of comparing the angulation of forequarters of dogs to each other, as long as you put those points the same, the comparisons will be valid.

 

[Scudder]

I don't think there's that much of a slope.  Except of her topline.  She looks like she has more rear angulation relative to front angulation to me in the lower shot. 
I didn't take the photos. Maybe Scudder can tell me if she was perched on a hillside for the second photo. I think that's a bit of a ridge behind her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

She's standing in front of my ivy pole in both photos. In the first one she's in front of it and in the second she's about 4 steps from her original position. The slope is negligible. I can reproduce these photos with a change in stacking and a bit of camera angle.

Karen, should I post Striker's photos of him at the National verus that picture of him in the yard with all that read angulation?! That would be a shocker. Talk about a difference photos can make! :blink: :blink:

Kristen

 

[seaspot_run]

I don't think there's that much of a slope.  Except of her topline.  She looks like she has more rear angulation relative to front angulation to me in the lower shot. 

I didn't take the photos. Maybe Scudder can tell me if she was perched on a hillside for the second photo. I think that's a bit of a ridge behind her.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

She's standing in front of my ivy pole in both photos. In the first one she's in front of it and in the second she's about 4 steps from her original position. The slope is negligible. I can reproduce these photos with a change in stacking and a bit of camera angle.

Karen, should I post Striker's photos of him at the National verus that picture of him in the yard with all that read angulation?! That would be a shocker. Talk about a difference photos can make! :blink: :blink:

Kristen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Well, there it is.

8)

 

[Seraphina]

I really don't think it matters all that much so long as one is consistent in their checkpoints. By your checkpoints, the shoulder angle will be more open as you are locating the elbow as being further down than I am.  But in terms of comparing the angulation of forequarters of dogs to each other, as long as you put those points the same, the comparisons will be valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

That is true, but then we would need to convince the people of other breeds to conform to this new way of measuring angulation. I have never found it difficult to locate middle of the joint on living dog. Anyway, i would not want to go back about discussion whether the correct angle is exactly Xdegrees and X+2degrees is incorrect. The shoulder is a movable joint, dog can be set up less or or more upright - as was illustrated by the photos above. Also pups start with more angle, go upright and finally settle into bit more angle again.

What we did not talk about is the length of scapula and humerus. The humerus looks very short on many Whippets nowadays, not anywhere equal to the length of scapula, which is even more worrying when you look at the skeleton of wolf in my post #690

 

[seaspot_run]

I really don't think it matters all that much so long as one is consistent in their checkpoints. By your checkpoints, the shoulder angle will be more open as you are locating the elbow as being further down than I am.  But in terms of comparing the angulation of forequarters of dogs to each other, as long as you put those points the same, the comparisons will be valid.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

That is true, but then we would need to convince the people of other breeds to conform to this new way of measuring angulation. I have never found it difficult to locate middle of the joint on living dog. Anyway, i would not want to go back about discussion whether the correct angle is exactly Xdegrees and X+2degrees is incorrect. The shoulder is a movable joint, dog can be set up less or or more upright - as was illustrated by the photos above. Also pups start with more angle, go upright and finally settle into bit more angle again.

What we did not talk about is the length of scapula and humerus. The humerus looks very short on many Whippets nowadays, not anywhere equal to the length of scapula, which is even more worrying when you look at the skeleton of wolf in my post #690

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Let the record show I am 110% in favor of a longer humerus than is found on many Whippets. However, your wolf has a very different anatomy and proportion than a sighthound breed, and its proportions shouldn't hold sway.

I love to watch nature shows and for my money, wolves and wild dogs have gaits that would never pass muster in any show ring. Most wolves are very east/west in front and they move with their heads lowered in a skulking manner. If you watch wild canids trot, they don't move much like any breed standard description. This, more than anything else, shows me that most of our valuations on show ring movement are much more aesthetic than functional. :teehee:

The breed they are most similar to today would be the working Border Collie. The whole point of breeding for various pure bred types is to get something that doesn't much look or trot like a wolf. :unsure:

 

[Seraphina]

I was not suggesting that we should aim for shoulders as wolf . However, as the wolf was the basis for domestic dogs I feel it does not hurt to look at them and their skeletal structure, when deciding what is good for our breed. Long time ago I assumed that the equal length of humerus and scapula at 90 degrees (my way ) is the correct front of archetypal dog. The 90 degrees, across all breeds, went out of the window 20 years ago but the length ratio is something I am only just considering now. I am not sure what i think, that is why I brought the subject up

 

[Seraphina]

I love to watch nature shows and for my money, wolves and wild dogs have gaits that would never pass muster in any show ring. Most wolves are very east/west in front and they move with their heads lowered in a skulking manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you watch wild canids trot, they don't move much like any breed standard description.  This, more than anything else, shows me that most of our valuations on show ring movement are much more aesthetic than functional. :teehee:

I agree absolutely and it leaves me feeling very uneasy about what we are doing to dogs.

Somebody, often with no real understanding of anatomy, described the breeds long time ago and we go on quoting them as if that was a divine truth. So much damage has been done to so many breeds by trying to conform the dogs to various myth.

 

[aslan]

I love it that the bone in the front legs is specified as moderate and bladed  in the UK standard.
My biggest pet peeve in US Whippets at this time is round bone which is massive and foxhound-like.   Tends to go with straighter pasterns and rounded, cat feet.  To me, very atypical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I have always known that "bladed" (I was told "flat"?) bone is necessary and round bone is not correct, but I have never understood why, and actually I don't think I've ever asked anyone, so....

Could you please tell me, Karen?

The reasoning is something I will be glad to add to my knowledge.

Also Bo Bengston says the bone "should not be bladed like a borzoi's but slightly flat and definitely not round" (but he doesn't say why)

So what IS the correct terminology - bladed or flat?

 

[UKUSA]

I love to watch nature shows and for my money, wolves and wild dogs have gaits that would never pass muster in any show ring. Most wolves are very east/west in front and they move with their heads lowered in a skulking manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you watch wild canids trot, they don't move much like any breed standard description.  This, more than anything else, shows me that most of our valuations on show ring movement are much more aesthetic than functional. :teehee:

I agree absolutely and it leaves me feeling very uneasy about what we are doing to dogs.

Somebody, often with no real understanding of anatomy, described the breeds long time ago and we go on quoting them as if that was a divine truth. So much damage has been done to so many breeds by trying to conform the dogs to various myth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

.Seraphina, I have read your posts with interest and they always leave me wondering why you have pure bred dogs.You seem to feel that pure bred dogs are on their way to hell in a handbasket.To talk about people who were in at the beginning, if you like, as though their lack of anatomical knowledge was the beginning of the end for the breed I think is quite breathtaking. If you feel so strongly get a licencse and get a wolf.

Nicky

 

[patsy]

I love to watch nature shows and for my money, wolves and wild dogs have gaits that would never pass muster in any show ring. Most wolves are very east/west in front and they move with their heads lowered in a skulking manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you watch wild canids trot, they don't move much like any breed standard description.  This, more than anything else, shows me that most of our valuations on show ring movement are much more aesthetic than functional. :teehee:

I agree absolutely and it leaves me feeling very uneasy about what we are doing to dogs.

Somebody, often with no real understanding of anatomy, described the breeds long time ago and we go on quoting them as if that was a divine truth. So much damage has been done to so many breeds by trying to conform the dogs to various myth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

.Seraphina, I have read your posts with interest and they always leave me wondering why you have pure bred dogs.You seem to feel that pure bred dogs are on their way to hell in a handbasket.To talk about people who were in at the beginning, if you like, as though their lack of anatomical knowledge was the beginning of the end for the breed I think is quite breathtaking. If you feel so strongly get a licencse and get a wolf.

Nicky

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

All this talk about wolves on a whippet thread leaves me cold. I don't like them wouldn't want one, am not applying for a licence, the nearest thing would be a German Shepherd so if you wanted to be in a Wolf sort of breed this is what I would go for not any sight hound, so different in all ways thank god!!!!

 

[UKUSA]

Well thats you and me in bother Patsy!

As for movement.All dogs move in a certain way when doing their job. We train dogs to move in a certain way for the ring, put a show lead on a dog that has never been trained for the ring and he wont move like a show dog. I know that that is rather stating the obvious and I hope that Im making sense.

Nicky

 

[Judy]

What we did not talk about is the length of scapula and humerus.  The humerus looks very short on many Whippets nowadays, not anywhere equal  to the length of scapula, which is even more worrying when you look at the skeleton of wolf in my post #690

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The upper arm is longer than the scapula in all breeds until you get to the very short legged breed like Dachshunds and Bassets when they are of about equal length or slightly shorter. These are as measured on actual skeletons. Apparently the problem with some of the early standards was that they were often written by people who had a great deal of knowledge about horses and they made certain assumptions about canine anatomy, one of them being that like horses, their scapula would be longer than the upper arm.

 

[playawhile]

I love to watch nature shows and for my money, wolves and wild dogs have gaits that would never pass muster in any show ring. Most wolves are very east/west in front and they move with their heads lowered in a skulking manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you watch wild canids trot, they don't move much like any breed standard description.  This, more than anything else, shows me that most of our valuations on show ring movement are much more aesthetic than functional. :teehee:

I agree absolutely and it leaves me feeling very uneasy about what we are doing to dogs.

Somebody, often with no real understanding of anatomy, described the breeds long time ago and we go on quoting them as if that was a divine truth. So much damage has been done to so many breeds by trying to conform the dogs to various myth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

.Seraphina, I have read your posts with interest and they always leave me wondering why you have pure bred dogs.You seem to feel that pure bred dogs are on their way to hell in a handbasket.To talk about people who were in at the beginning, if you like, as though their lack of anatomical knowledge was the beginning of the end for the breed I think is quite breathtaking. If you feel so strongly get a licencse and get a wolf.

Nicky

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

All this talk about wolves on a whippet thread leaves me cold. I don't like them wouldn't want one, am not applying for a licence, the nearest thing would be a German Shepherd so if you wanted to be in a Wolf sort of breed this is what I would go for not any sight hound, so different in all ways thank god!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Patsy I know you had a peke earlier on so get a new one, geneticly pekes is one of the breds closest to the wolf!!!

Henrik

 

[aslan]

I love it that the bone in the front legs is specified as moderate and bladed  in the UK standard.
My biggest pet peeve in US Whippets at this time is round bone which is massive and foxhound-like.   Tends to go with straighter pasterns and rounded, cat feet.  To me, very atypical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I have always known that "bladed" (I was told "flat"?) bone is necessary and round bone is not correct, but I have never understood why, and actually I don't think I've ever asked anyone, so....

Could you please tell me, Karen?

The reasoning is something I will be glad to add to my knowledge.

Also Bo Bengston says the bone "should not be bladed like a borzoi's but slightly flat and definitely not round" (but he doesn't say why)

So what IS the correct terminology - bladed or flat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Anyone?

 

[patsy]

,

I love to watch nature shows and for my money, wolves and wild dogs have gaits that would never pass muster in any show ring. Most wolves are very east/west in front and they move with their heads lowered in a skulking manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you watch wild canids trot, they don't move much like any breed standard description.  This, more than anything else, shows me that most of our valuations on show ring movement are much more aesthetic than functional. :teehee:

I agree absolutely and it leaves me feeling very uneasy about what we are doing to dogs.

Somebody, often with no real understanding of anatomy, described the breeds long time ago and we go on quoting them as if that was a divine truth. So much damage has been done to so many breeds by trying to conform the dogs to various myth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

.Seraphina, I have read your posts with interest and they always leave me wondering why you have pure bred dogs.You seem to feel that pure bred dogs are on their way to hell in a handbasket.To talk about people who were in at the beginning, if you like, as though their lack of anatomical knowledge was the beginning of the end for the breed I think is quite breathtaking. If you feel so strongly get a licencse and get a wolf.

Nicky

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

All this talk about wolves on a whippet thread leaves me cold. I don't like them wouldn't want one, am not applying for a licence, the nearest thing would be a German Shepherd so if you wanted to be in a Wolf sort of breed this is what I would go for not any sight hound, so different in all ways thank god!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Patsy I know you had a peke earlier on so get a new one, geneticly pekes is one of the breds closest to the wolf!!!

Henrik

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Henrik how could you, it has spoilt my memories of poor little Picky Peke,she certainly put some form of fear into the whippets I thought it was because she was Oriental,Wolf never. Now don't tell me Nacho our Chihuahua was something awful in another life.

 

[patsy]

I love it that the bone in the front legs is specified as moderate and bladed  in the UK standard.
My biggest pet peeve in US Whippets at this time is round bone which is massive and foxhound-like.   Tends to go with straighter pasterns and rounded, cat feet.  To me, very atypical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I have always known that "bladed" (I was told "flat"?) bone is necessary and round bone is not correct, but I have never understood why, and actually I don't think I've ever asked anyone, so....

Could you please tell me, Karen?

The reasoning is something I will be glad to add to my knowledge.

Also Bo Bengston says the bone "should not be bladed like a borzoi's but slightly flat and definitely not round" (but he doesn't say why)

So what IS the correct terminology - bladed or flat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Anyone?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No sight hound should have round bone, I agree with Karen the things that go with round bone, straight pasterns and a very round foot are not wanted. In the early eighties I judged the breed abroad for the first time, was asked back again some years later, I could not believe the heavy round bone that had crept in. I wrote about it in their magazine. Talking to breeders later I said how shocked I was and they said they thought it had come in with their American imports.

 

[seaspot_run]

I've been quick to leap to the defense of the US Whippet on this thread, but this is one area where I can't defend them. The round bone issue is a nightmare here because it's often to be found on the dogs with the most eye-catching and powerful-looking side gait.

It's not going away over here any time soon because it goes hand-in-glove with so many other things that are very much favored by breeders and judges.

And the judges do NOT penalize it. Not even some of the international visitor judges seem to care a whit or iota about it.

Ok, off my soapbox.

I judged nearly 200 Whippets at East Anglia and didn't see a single ONE with massive, round bone. Well done to the UK on this one. Hold that line, please. Round bone on a Whippet is a very bad type fault, no matter how prettily they trot at speed.

 

[UKUSA]

I would have thought that round , heavy, dense bone along with cat feet and straight pasterns was more the province of an endurance dog, like a Dalmatian or as Karen has said a Foxhound not a dog bred for short bursts of incredible speed.

Nicky

 

[Seraphina]

To talk about people who were in at the beginning, if you like, as though their lack of anatomical knowledge was the beginning of the end for the breed I think is quite breathtaking.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

At the time when many of the original standards were being composed, in mid to late 1800s, Darwin's theory of evolution was only just published. Most people believed that all dog breeds were created by god and were present on Noah's ark. The first descriptions of breeds were mixture of observations, wishful thinking and myth. Yet we are trying to breed dogs to fit these standards. When we realise that for instance we never get Whippet to have 90 degrees shoulder angulation, we just decide to measure it by some imaginary lines, instead of agreeing on a realistic angle.

And no I do not want a wolf or German Shepherd, nor do I want Whippets to look like them. On the contrary, I am not the one who insist that Whippet should have shoulder the same angulation as GSD.

 

[Seraphina]

I have always known that "bladed" (I was told "flat"?) bone is necessary and round bone is not correct, but I have never understood why, and actually I don't think I've ever asked anyone, so....Could you please tell me, Karen?

The reasoning is something I will be glad to add to my knowledge.

Also Bo Bengston says the bone "should not be bladed  like a borzoi's but slightly flat and definitely not round" (but he doesn't say why)

So what IS the correct terminology - bladed or flat?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I do not know if others think there is a difference, but to me flat and bladed mean pretty much the same. The reason why flat (or oval) bone is better for fast running bred is because that shape can withstand lot higher stress than round bone of the same weight/thickness/density. That way sighthounds' bones can be light, keeping the bodyweight down, which makes it easier for these hounds to achieve high speed.