Phrase From Whippet Standard

[Sidewinders]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

I have a question to all whippet breeders and if possible - judges!

We have an argue on Russian forum about what doest it mean - quotation from the official FCI Whippet standard №162:

"HINDQUARTERS: Strong. Dog able to stand over a lot of ground and show great driving power."

Maybe the translation to Russian is not completely correct... but is that phrase means that whippet should have very good angulations behind? Or long back, loin, croup, what?

Some breeders explain that this phrase means Whippet should have... wide chest :blink: and wide croup :blink: and thus will cover a lot of ground.

Some think Whippet should have very long body or very good angulations behind...

I consider myself as a newbie, so I'm not arguing, only reading, but my idea is that the main thing about Whippet standard we should pay attention at is:

"GENERAL APPEARANCE: Balanced combination of muscular power and strength with elegance and grace of outline. Built for speed and work. All forms of exaggeration should be avoided."

And also watching many pictures and remembering Whippets I have seen, I can only suggest :b that evem if dog has enough good angulations behind, BUT has too short loin and croup than this dog wouldn't be able to stand over a lot of ground. I may be wrong, it's only IMO. :b

Waiting for everyone's ideas, please!

 

[dessie]

Whippets are not a square dog but then nor should they be a very long oblong, they are only fractionally longer than higher if they have well laid back shoulders & return of upper arm, good length of rib and loin which, in my opinion, is what gives the correct proportions and topline plus hind angulation to match the front. When you talk about a dog covering a lot of ground, it is the amount of ground that the dog stands over NATURALLY when in repose, i.e. between its front and back legs. Here's one who stands over a lot of ground. If they can stand naturally over a lot of ground, then ground covering movement should follow!

View attachment 37126

 

[Nine Lives]

Very good explanation, Dessie. What you see very often in the showrings are whippets, stretched out far over their normal angulation. If the angle of the hindleg is too open, then it looks for some judges like a ground-covering dog, but experienced whippet people will see that the length of body and the normal angulation is not sufficient for the artificial position of the hindlegs.

Pity, when such handled dogs win a lot, lacking length and angulation are combined with bad movement.

Ulrike

 

[~JO~]

I think with regards to hind angulation (of stifle) it is getting very over exagerated in many whippets - and dare I say it it seems more prominent out of the UK.

I think that perhaps many see 'dog able stand over plenty of ground' as this and that is why we are seeing many with some anguation of stifle nearly 90 degrees in some cases and in turn this seems to go hand in hand with a very long second thigh - so much so it is unable to bring the rear legs right underneath when moving.

I think 'all forms of exgeration should be avoided' needs to be remembered!

 

[bardmand]

I think this is the single most unfortunate phrase in the whippet standard. I have also seen pictures of dogs with nearly no bend of stifle but overangulated hocks, that could still look as if they fit the standard.

I think emphasis should be put on STRONG, and perhaps the phrase originated from a need to emphasise the difference in structure between a whippet and the italian greyhound, which often has a more rounded croup and cramped stance (even if they show as much rear angulation as whippets).

 

[Seraphina]

I think there should be a statement in EVERY standard saying something like:

"When the standard calls for long, short or wide it does not mean the longer the better, the shorter the better or the wider the better".

This covering lot of ground is the typical example, as others already mentioned.

I believe there was in one time stated that Whippet's height should be aproximately 9/10 of his body length, with bitches being just smidgen longer than males. Friend of mine who used to breed horses claims that the expression to stand over a lot of ground is a "horsey" term, but in that case the ground the horse stands over is meassured between 2 lines perpendicular to the ground, one dropped from the wither and the other from his pin bones. Nothing to do with where the hind legs are positioned.

 

[dessie]

I think there should be a statement in EVERY standard saying something like:"When the standard calls for long, short or wide it does not mean the longer the better, the shorter the better or the wider the better".

This covering lot of ground is the typical example, as others already mentioned.

I believe there was in one time stated that Whippet's height should be aproximately 9/10 of his body length, with bitches being just smidgen longer than males.  Friend of mine who used to breed horses claims that the expression to stand over a lot of ground is a "horsey" term, but in that case the ground the horse stands over is meassured between 2 lines perpendicular to the ground, one dropped from the wither and the other from his pin bones.  Nothing to do with where the hind legs are positioned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It is a horse term but you must remember that the hind legs on a horse are somewhat different to a dog as it is standing on its middle toe and they do not have the 'bend of stifle' that a dog has. This is why I said in my original answer it is in relation to the front angulation being correct, i.e. the front legs well under the body combined with length of rib and loin. If the hind angulation matches the front the dog can then stand squarely with its rear pastern (hocks if you prefer) perpendicular to the ground and the dog will automatically or naturally 'stand over a lot of ground'

 

[Seraphina]

  If the hind angulation matches the front the dog can then stand squarely with its rear pastern (hocks if you prefer) perpendicular to the ground and the dog will automatically or naturally 'stand over a lot of ground'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree, and the photo you posted illustrates it very well. Beautiful rear as well as front. There are so many dogs exhibited (and some win a lot here (w00t) ) with the elbow directly unde the shoulder, with shoulder blade sloping back at degree close to 45 with the ground and hind legs stretched so they are straight. :rant:

 

[bardmand]

I think there should be a statement in EVERY standard saying something like:"When the standard calls for long, short or wide it does not mean the longer the better, the shorter the better or the wider the better".

This covering lot of ground is the typical example, as others already mentioned.

I believe there was in one time stated that Whippet's height should be aproximately 9/10 of his body length, with bitches being just smidgen longer than males.  Friend of mine who used to breed horses claims that the expression to stand over a lot of ground is a "horsey" term, but in that case the ground the horse stands over is meassured between 2 lines perpendicular to the ground, one dropped from the wither and the other from his pin bones.  Nothing to do with where the hind legs are positioned.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It is a horse term but you must remember that the hind legs on a horse are somewhat different to a dog as it is standing on its middle toe and they do not have the 'bend of stifle' that a dog has. This is why I said in my original answer it is in relation to the front angulation being correct, i.e. the front legs well under the body combined with length of rib and loin. If the hind angulation matches the front the dog can then stand squarely with its rear pastern (hocks if you prefer) perpendicular to the ground and the dog will automatically or naturally 'stand over a lot of ground'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

So would it not have been better if the phrase occured under a different subheading in the standard? "General appearance" for instance?

 

[dessie]

So would it not have been better if the phrase occured under a different subheading in the standard? "General appearance" for instance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Most probably ............... ours is not to reason why!