Standard Changes

[dawn]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

From the Kennel Gazette ( )

Head & Skull

Long & lean, flat on top, tapering to muzzle with a slight stop, rather wide between the eyes, jaws poweful and clean cut. Nose black, in blues a bluish colour permitted, liver nose in creams and other dilute colours, in whites or parti-colours a butterfly nose is permissible.

 

Forequarters

Shoulders well laid back with flat muscle. Moderate space between the shoulder blades at the withers. The upper arm is approxiamately of equal length to the shoulder, placed so that the elbow falls directly under the withers when viewed in profile. Forearms straight & uprightwith moderate bladed bone. Front not too wide. Pasterns strong with slight spring.

 

Body

Chest very deep with plenty of heart room Well filled in front. Brisket deep. Broad, well muscled back, firm, somewhat long, showing graceful arch over the loin but not humped. Ribs well sprung. Loin giving impression of strength and power. Definite tuck up.

 

Hindquarters

Strong, broad across the thighs, with well developed second thighs. Stifles well bent without exaggeration with hocks well let down. Able to stand over a lot of ground.

 

Feet

Oval, well split up between the toes, knuckles well arched, pads thick, nails strong

 

Tail

No feathering. Long, tapering, reaching at least to the hock. When in action carried in a delicate curve not higher than the back.

 

Gait/Movement

Should possess great freedom of action. In profile should move with a long easy stride whilst holding topline.

The forelegs should be thrown forward and low over the ground. Hind legs should come well under the body giving great propelling power. General movement not to look stilted, high stepping short or mincing. True coming and going

 

Size

Desirable height

dogs 47-51 cms

bitches 44-47cms

[No change to General Appearance, temperament, Characteristics, Eyes, Ears, Neck, Coat, Colour, Faults and Note clauses]

effective 1st June

 

[dawn]

The attached is a samisdat edition of the standard - It has not yet been updated on the KC site

NOTE:

I have been asked (by phone) to point out that in the version agreed by the breed clubs the reference to forearms in FOREQUARTERS should read Forelegs

What I have writ is from the Kennel Gazette

On the attached document the BLUE is the changes.

Please ensure you keep checking the KC site for the new version (when the KC site is updated) and use THAT version when it is available.

old standard link to KC site

 

[Avalonia]

From the Kennel Gazette ( )
Size

Desirable height

dogs 47-51 cms

bitches 44-47cms

It is a good thing this is characterized as a 'desirable height' because the last time I attended championship shows in England (in October 2004) virtually every dog and every bitch in the ring would have failed this desirable height specification. Good thing it isn't a breed disqualification isn't it because a bitch who is between 44 cms and 47 cms is between 17.32 inches and 18.46 inches tall. And a dog who is between 47 cms and 51 cms must fit within 18.46 inches and 20 inches tall. I have a 17.5 inch bitch and I can tell you there is no where on earth I could show this bitch and put a title on her, including England, even though she is magnificently conformed and bodied right up. 17.32 inches ranks with the upper limits of field mice size in my books!

While we have our fair share of dogs and bitches who just fall within these rather narrow height confines, I have to say you have to work darned hard to keep height within these parameters, even when you are relying on using entirely English bloodlines as we are, in a breeding program.

Surely it would have been a bit more reasonable, given the improved nutrition that whippets enjoy today, that I think has contributed to a bit of added size even in the most carefully bred dogs, to up the cms by about 2 so that more dogs would fall comfortably within the narrow confines of the breed standard ? This would put bitches into the lower reaches of 19 inches plus and dogs into the 20.5 inch range which is where I think far more fall than the level that the standard proposes to retain.

Lanny Morry

Avalonia Whippets, Canada

 

[Claire]

Hi Lanny

As I understand It, there was a request to increase the height (possibly on the bitches only) but this has been rejected by the standrds committee at the KC, as well as some of the breed clubs.

 

[Avalonia]

Hi Lanny
As I understand It, there was a request to increase the height (possibly on the bitches only) but this has been rejected by the standrds committee at the KC, as well as some of the breed clubs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

This is what I would call the little Dutch boy syndrome at work... remember the old children's story about the kid who stuck his finger in a hole in the dyke hoping it would stay the flood? How darned stupid and shortsighted.. Obviously the standard is out of date -- I defy you to go to a champ show and show me that even a quarter of the entries, male or female meet the current "standard". This artificial height no longer reflects the health and nutrition of modern whippets and frankly it holds the English standard up to ridicule because it is so obviously political and not realistic. Who are you trying to fool or delude (yourselves perhaps?), and why?

I would suggest that it is high time for the breed clubs to acknowledge the fact that to keep many whippets down to the size conforming to the breed "standard" set long ago in days of yore may actually require breeders to use substandard old style racing or 60's style show stock or else starve pups to the point of emaciation from birth and deform their progress in order to keep them within the current "standard". This is clearly ridiculous and pathetically stupid and holds everyone who believes that the finger in the breed dyke will work up to worldwide ridicule. We all know the reality.

On the other hand, a minor change in the standard -- to acknowledge a reasonable progression in breed type and health since that established more than 100 years ago -- would simply acknowledge reality, not create a new "type" of whippet, and it would make the English whippet standard one to strive for, not one to mock or ignore for its failure to grasp reality.

Having attended the 1998 Centennary where there was much concern that a universal whippet standard that could encompass both the English and FCI standard whippets, and the American whippets where many are so big you could saddle them and ride them, would result in a significantly larger whippet, I acknowledge the concern of the breed clubs that by upsizing whippet size they will move closer to the American "standard", which is not a standard loved or appreciated in England. But no one is suggesting a modification of this magnitude, nor should they.

The fact is, a minor modification to address genetic and other current realities and not some long lost ideal that is no longer attainable, is not going to force you to reward those godawful oversized dogs with the flat greyhound toplines that everyone in England has every good right to scorn. You are, after all the foundation nation for the whippet, and your requirements, for size, for coat colour and eye colour and all the other areas in dispute with those who have different breed standards would hold far more sway with the rest of the world, if the English standard were, in fact, reasonable in all aspects -- as it nearly is except for this issue of size.

Far more sensible and wiser , in my view, would be for England to set a standard that reflects the breed as it acutally is found 100 years on in England, where the breed originated, and then and set strict penalties for those dogs that do not fall within that more realistic standard. Put a moratorium on the new standard for six months and then send out a scouting party to every champ show and measure the entries you have at every show to determine what the norm and average are. Then set a standard that reflects what is there, not what you wish the past would deliver up unto you again.

You can only expect the English standard to stand the test of time if you have a standard that reflects current English whippet reality. And this current height restriction is so laughable and so finger in the dykey that you are just holding yourselves up to ridicule by the rest of the world for trying to maintain an artificial standard that you are not even capable of meeting in your own country....

And as I have said in the past, though I am Canadian, I am a Canadian born in England, breeding purely English bloodlines as close as we can to the current English standard -- whatever that is, and may become.

Lanny Morry

Avalonia Whippets, Canada

Lanny

 

[stephen mason]

Early morning and still sleepy but I do not see any reference to "neck"in the "blue" version. Regards, Stephen

 

[dessie]

Early morning and still sleepy but I do not see any reference to "neck"in the "blue" version. Regards, Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you read Dawn's original post, her last sentence lists all those sections of the standard that have not been changed and 'neck' is included in those so therefore, no change to the current standard.

 

[dessie]

From the Kennel Gazette ( )
Size

Desirable height

dogs 47-51 cms

bitches 44-47cms

It is a good thing this is characterized as a 'desirable height' because the last time I attended championship shows in England (in October 2004) virtually every dog and every bitch in the ring would have failed this desirable height specification. Good thing it isn't a breed disqualification isn't it because a bitch who is between 44 cms and 47 cms is between 17.32 inches and 18.46 inches tall. And a dog who is between 47 cms and 51 cms must fit within 18.46 inches and 20 inches tall. I have a 17.5 inch bitch and I can tell you there is no where on earth I could show this bitch and put a title on her, including England, even though she is magnificently conformed and bodied right up. 17.32 inches ranks with the upper limits of field mice size in my books!

While we have our fair share of dogs and bitches who just fall within these rather narrow height confines, I have to say you have to work darned hard to keep height within these parameters, even when you are relying on using entirely English bloodlines as we are, in a breeding program.

Surely it would have been a bit more reasonable, given the improved nutrition that whippets enjoy today, that I think has contributed to a bit of added size even in the most carefully bred dogs, to up the cms by about 2 so that more dogs would fall comfortably within the narrow confines of the breed standard ? This would put bitches into the lower reaches of 19 inches plus and dogs into the 20.5 inch range which is where I think far more fall than the level that the standard proposes to retain.

Lanny Morry

Avalonia Whippets, Canada

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree!

 

[Terry & Sheila Smith]

Surely it would have been a bit more reasonable, given the improved nutrition that whippets enjoy today, that I think has contributed to a bit of added size even in the most carefully bred dogs,

Ive raised this point on more than one occaision & been ridiculed. It is a very valid point. However size does not disqualify in this country & in fact doesn't stop a good big dog being placed. Keeping the height standard at the bottom end will (hopefully) keep breeders mindful of the fact that Whippets are small sighthounds.

Terry Smith

 

[Karen]

Surely it would have been a bit more reasonable, given the improved nutrition that whippets enjoy today, that I think has contributed to a bit of added size even in the most carefully bred dogs,



Ive raised this point on more than one occaision & been ridiculed. It is a very valid point. However size does not disqualify in this country & in fact doesn't stop a good big dog being placed. Keeping the height standard at the bottom end will (hopefully) keep breeders mindful of the fact that Whippets are  small sighthounds.

Terry Smith

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

In the Breed Clubs defense , if we can breed longer/shorter, more/less angulated, dark eye, light eye, more coat, less coat, dogs with natural bob tails and dogs with masses of wrinkles all over there body Im fairly sure we can breed a smaller dog with all the attributes of the big ones we are seeing now. So nutrition is a very weak argument.

 

[Seraphina]

[In the Breed Clubs defense , if we can breed longer/shorter, more/less angulated, dark eye, light eye, more coat, less coat, dogs with natural bob tails and dogs with masses of wrinkles all over there body Im fairly sure we can breed a smaller dog with all the attributes of the big ones we are seeing now.  So nutrition is a very weak argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Actually, size is an inherited trait , animals do not grow bigger because you feed them more, just wider. If you really starve animal (to the point of being seriously malnourished) during its growing period it is possible to stunt its growth, but that will not get passed on to the next generation. The breed is getting bigger because we are (unwittingly) selecting for size. The big fat puppy catches everybody's eye, especially the inexperienced person's. So unless excessive size is penalized in the ring breeders will not try to breed the correct size. I think it is fine to keep the desired height as it is; people got used to the idea that couple of inches over the standard is OK; if the standard was altered we would see even bigger Whippets in the ring. Does anybody really want to see 23”, 24” or 25” Whippets?

 

[Avalonia]

[Actually, size is an inherited trait , animals do not grow bigger because you feed them more, just wider.  If you really starve animal (to the point of being seriously malnourished) during its growing period it is possible to stunt its growth, but that will not get passed on to the next generation.  The breed is getting bigger because we are (unwittingly) selecting for size.  The big fat puppy catches everybody's eye, especially the inexperienced person's.  So unless excessive size is penalized in the ring breeders will not try to breed the correct size.  I think it is fine to keep the desired height as it is; people got used to the idea that couple of inches over the standard is OK; if the standard was altered we would see even bigger Whippets in the ring.  Does anybody really want to see 23”, 24” or 25” Whippets?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

With all respect you are wrong about inheritance being the sole determinant of height. In humans, and in animals, genetics and nutrition ultimately determine size. There are so many studies that demonstrate this in humans, and the studies of wild animal populations in areas where they can feast on abundant fodder, and in areas where they are stressed by famine or overpopulation is well documented by scientists and biologists worldwide.

The evidence in the European and English human population over the centuries documents the impact of nutrition on height. To cite just one reference:

"Human height is regulated by many factors. Since the development of modern medicine and plentiful nutrient-rich food in the developed world average height has increased dramatically. Nutrition is the most important factor in determining height; and height records from military records and other documents can be used to quite accurately compare nutrition and height in various eras. Evidence has shown that height decreased in Britain in the early nineteenth century, before beginning its long increase around mid-century. Increase in height has not been constant; however. The European Middle Ages was an era of tallness with men of above six feet (1.83 m) considered unremarkable. In Europe human height reached its nadir at the start of the nineteenth century. Until the general rise in human health, as urbanization increased, the accompanying trend was a height decline.

Europeans in North America were far taller than those in Europe in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in fact the tallest in the world. The original indigenous population was also among the tallest populations of the world at the time. However, several nations, indeed many nations in Europe, have now surpassed the US in terms of average stature, particularly the Netherlands and Scandinavian nations. Most markedly is the Netherlands where average height has increased at the greatest rates. For instance: the Netherlands was in the late nineteenth century a land renowned for its short population, but today it has the tallest average in the world with young men averaging 6 ft 0.5 in (1.84 m) tall. The Dutch are now well known in Europe for extreme tallness. The increase has been so dramatic that various things have been redesigned to fit the much taller frames. In contrast, average male height in impoverished Vietnam and North Korea[1] remains comparatively small at 5 ft 4 in (1.63 m) and 5 ft 5 in (1.65 m) respectively. Currently, young North Korean males are actually significantly shorter. This contrasts greatly with the extreme growth occurring in surrounding Asian populations with correlated increasing standards of living. Young South Koreans are about 3 inches (8 cm) taller than their North Korean counterparts, on average. The difference between South Koreans, and even older North Koreans, compared to young North Koreans who grew up during the famine of the 1990s-2000s is extraordinary...

Genetics is a major factor in determining the height of individuals, though it is far less influential in regard to populations. Average height is increasingly used as a measure of the health and wellness (standard of living and quality of life) of populations. Attributed as a significant reason for the trend of increasing height in parts of Europe is the egalitarian populations where proper medical care and adequate nutrition are relatively equally distributed. Changes in diet (nutrition) and a general rise in quality of health care and standard of living are the cited factors in the Asian populations. Average height in the United States has remained essentially stagnant since the 1950s. Severe malnutrition is known to cause stunted growth in North Korean, portions of African, certain historical European, and other populations. Diet (in addition to needed nutrients; such things as junk food and attendant health problems such as obesity), exercise, fitness, pollution exposure, sleep patterns, climate (see Allen's rule and Bergmann's Rule for example), and even happiness (psychological well-being) are other factors that can affect growth and final height."

I guess ultimately what it comes down to is whether the Whippet Standard is meant to be a real standard or just a pile of pious piffle that no one really needs to pay too much attention to. I don't think that is the intention, so if it isn't then the question arises, why are the breed clubs pretending that whippet breeders today are continuing to breed to a standard that they are routinely not meeting? In whose interest is it to keep the standard artificially and laughingly out of touch with reality? There must be something in it for someone.

If indeed the standard is intended to be a real standard then it should be treated as such.

Realistic, defineable and attainable criteria based on a survey of the existing population should be determined and set set, and sanctions could be incorporated -- height limits for instance with disqualification from placement for dogs over or under the standard limit set -- so all breeders will confine their efforts to breeding within the standard. Even then there will be problems because breeds do continue to progress and the standard may, in 20 or 30 or 40 years require further refinement. The big guys will just have to be hidden away and placed as pets, or sold to Europe, as has been the practice for a long time already.

This seems to me to be imminently better than having a height "standard" hardly any of you can meet. If you are afraid of big dogs, then isn't the sensible solution to to set a reasonable standard that disqualifies over a certain height -- dogs 22 inches or taller, bitches 20 inches or taller -- instead of having a standard that sets a range so low it calls for field mouse sized bitches and that sets a limit for dogs that is being met pretty well only by your bitches right now.

Dare I say it, if the current standard were to be strictly applied at some point in future -- the entries for whippets would plummet dramatically at your champ shows. From what I have seen at the dozens of champ shows I have attended over the years since 1977, you would likely be able to start whippets at 10 a.m. and be finished by 11 or noon at latest!

Lanny

 

[Zephyr]

Very interesting about the connection between nutrition and height, as I was about to mention the Dutch as well. My brother and family live there with many very tall friends and family, and they say that the immigrants in Holland are also very tall within a generation, leading to the conclusion that diet must have something to do with it! They have very protein rich meals - cheese and ham for breakfast etc, could this be the reason?

 

[urchin]

[In the Breed Clubs defense , if we can breed longer/shorter, more/less angulated, dark eye, light eye, more coat, less coat, dogs with natural bob tails and dogs with masses of wrinkles all over there body Im fairly sure we can breed a smaller dog with all the attributes of the big ones we are seeing now.  So nutrition is a very weak argument.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Actually, size is an inherited trait , animals do not grow bigger because you feed them more, just wider. If you really starve animal (to the point of being seriously malnourished) during its growing period it is possible to stunt its growth, but that will not get passed on to the next generation. The breed is getting bigger because we are (unwittingly) selecting for size. The big fat puppy catches everybody's eye, especially the inexperienced person's. So unless excessive size is penalized in the ring breeders will not try to breed the correct size. I think it is fine to keep the desired height as it is; people got used to the idea that couple of inches over the standard is OK; if the standard was altered we would see even bigger Whippets in the ring. Does anybody really want to see 23”, 24” or 25” Whippets?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

ME!!!!!!!!!!!!! then Mr Digit would be the ideal specimen for all other whippets to be judged against.........now there's just the lttle matter of that one missing nadlet! :- " :- " :- "

 

[dessie]

Very interesting about the connection between nutrition and height, as I was about to mention the Dutch as well.  My brother and family live there with many very tall friends and family, and they say that the immigrants in Holland are also very tall within a generation, leading to the conclusion that diet must have something to do with it!  They have very protein rich meals - cheese and ham for breakfast etc, could this be the reason?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The same as the 'findings' between bottle-fed and breast-fed babies that is going on over here at the present time! Personally, I think the same analogy can be applied to puppies that are reared exclusively on complete feed and those reared on a 'natural' diet.

 

[dessie]

However size does not disqualify in this country

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I shall say again.

We do not have disqualifying faults in this country, we judge as we find and judges should NOT BE FAULT JUDGING!!!!

The only way a dog can be disqualified is by the Kennel Club

 

[Karen]

I personnally would like to see a max height disqualification phased in over say 10 years, you see the breeders would have those heights down in a generation or two easy.

I think it would be madness to increase the height in the standard this would just allow a few people to show even bigger dogs than they do now.

Can anyone tell me with all this better nutrition why, Greyhounds, Great Danes, Chow chow, Rough Collies, and too many to list here breeds are getting smaller and smaller.

 

[Millie]

I personnally would like to see a max height disqualification phased in over say 10 years, you see the breeders would have those heights down in a generation or two easy.
I think it would be madness to increase the height in the standard this would just allow a few people to show even bigger dogs than they do now.

Can anyone tell me with all this better nutrition why, Greyhounds, Great Danes, Chow chow, Rough Collies, and too many to list here breeds are getting smaller and smaller.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I can tell you how the Rough Collie got smaller :rant: It was because everybody was suddenly after a certain pretty head type, we suddenly got very bitchy looking males, who were also no bigger than bitches, getting used left right and center. Hardly any one could look beyond a pretty head with tiny eyes ! We lost size, comformaion and movement was terrible.

Thank fully things are turning again for the better :thumbsup:

But breeders have to be carefull YOU GAIN ONE THING - YOU LOSE ANOTHER !!

As for the feeding thing ! Who knows, all my collies (18yrs) and my whippets have been fed the same food. My collies have never been small, as for the Whippets !!! :- "

 

[Karen]

I personnally would like to see a max height disqualification phased in over say 10 years, you see the breeders would have those heights down in a generation or two easy.
I think it would be madness to increase the height in the standard this would just allow a few people to show even bigger dogs than they do now.

Can anyone tell me with all this better nutrition why, Greyhounds, Great Danes, Chow chow, Rough Collies, and too many to list here breeds are getting smaller and smaller.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I can tell you how the Rough Collie got smaller :rant: It was because everybody was suddenly after a certain pretty head type, we suddenly got very bitchy looking males, who were also no bigger than bitches, getting used left right and center. Hardly any one could look beyond a pretty head with tiny eyes ! We lost size, comformaion and movement was terrible.

Thank fully things are turning again for the better :thumbsup:

But breeders have to be carefull YOU GAIN ONE THING - YOU LOSE ANOTHER !!

As for the feeding thing ! Who knows, all my collies (18yrs) and my whippets have been fed the same food. My collies have never been small, as for the Whippets !!! :- "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But it does illustrate how quick a size change can happen, in the Rough Collie it was perhaps not what was wanted but quite easily done.

 

[stephen mason]

Just read the Standard in "Le Club Français du Whippet" which must be the FCI standard. Height is given as in the K.C. standard and as far as I can understand the expression "desireable" is not present. However, apparently there is a comment that a dog is outside the standard where its height is less than 45cms. and more than 53 cms. For bitches the heights are 42 cms. and 49 cms.One inch = 2.54 cms. ( I thought the U.K. went metric years ago ) At the big Madrid show last week a dog imported from France and of mainly British bloodlines was thrown out of the ring by the Slovenian judge. Best of Breed was Superlook du Manoir de la Grenouillère. Perhaps Morgan can expand on this. Regards, Stephen