Standard Changes

[JAX]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

My personal little whinge; I have a problem with the "dog able to stand over lot of ground", which some people interpret that the longer the better.  While others stands their dogs with their hind leggs so far back they loose all shape and rear angulation.  8) I would like to see it clearly stated what proportions  we should be aiming for; lets say the height should be  9/10 of the body length, aproximately - allowing for bitches being slightly longer than males. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

How I agree with you there :cheers: Hocks should be verticle at all times , So many pictures I have seen here on K9 where the poor dogs are stretched far too much at the rear losing all shape and giving a sloping topline ( not desired at all !) How I wish I could stand the dogs how they should be stood , they, IMO, would look so much better . , and some of these pics are of winning dogs too

 

[chelynnah]

I meant to post on this thread ages ago and never got round to it :- " I noticed that it says nose colour black, or liver bla bla, well my fawn bitch has blue pigment, so she has a dark blue/grey nose, eye rims and lips.

I have seen lots of other blue pigmented fawns, partis etc- wonder if this now means we will all be penalised? Surely not... or at least I hope not :- "

Liz and the Monellis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Liz, the actual colours in the wording haven't changed from the original.

Wendy

 

[bardmand]

How I agree with you there  :cheers:   Hocks should be verticle at all times , So many pictures I have seen here on K9 where the poor dogs are stretched far too much at the rear losing all shape and givinga sloping topline ( not desired at all !)  How I wish I could stand the dogs how they should be stood , they, IMO, would look so much better . , and some of these pics are of winning dogs too 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree a too sloping topline is not desirable, but the standard does not actually state that it is not, does it? Just goes to show that there will always be room for interpretation and blank spots in the breed standard.

I think the wording stems from the days when short-coupled whippets with a very cramped stance were far more common. A whippet should certainly cover more ground than an Italian Greyhound or a Sloughi, but the German Shepherd or "Dachshund-on-stilts"-style shape that some modern show bred whippets have is at least as untypical and undesirable in my view.

Edited: Typo

 

[JAX]

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.

No you are right it say nothing about `falling away` , but I dont think they look balanced if they IMO :cheers:

 

[alfie]

I meant to post on this thread ages ago and never got round to it :- " I noticed that it says nose colour black, or liver bla bla, well my fawn bitch has blue pigment, so she has a dark blue/grey nose, eye rims and lips.

I have seen lots of other blue pigmented fawns, partis etc- wonder if this now means we will all be penalised? Surely not... or at least I hope not :- "

Liz and the Monellis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Liz, the actual colours in the wording haven't changed from the original.

Wendy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Well I never!!

I didn't think to check before I posted about nose colour- can't have read the standard properly on that point- I thought it was only the US standard that stated 'black nose' Doh! :- "

Thanks for that Wendy! :thumbsup:

Liz and the Monellis

 

[Seraphina]

I agree a too sloping topline is not desirable, but the standard does not actually state that it is not, does it? Just goes to show that there will always be room for interpretation and blank spots in the breed standard. Edited: Typo

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The too sloping top line is a direct by-product of stretching the dog too much. And yes it stems from misinterpretation of the standard - unless of -course the exhibitor does it to cover some fault. But newcomers see a dog like that winning so they also try to stand their dog like that. My whole point was that it would be nice if as many of the point in our standard were put such a way it is NOT open to interpretation.

In EVERY breed both the front legs (from elbow to pastern) and the hind legs (from hock to ground) should be perperdicular to the ground.

BodyChest 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.

No you are right it say nothing about `falling away` , but I dont think they look balanced if they  IMO  :cheers:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The "dog able to stand over lot of ground" bit is under the hindquarter heading. We have here people who stretch their dogs like this;

 

[Seraphina]

It want let me to edit :b ; it ought to be perpendicular

 

[bardmand]

The too sloping top line is a direct by-product of stretching the dog too much.  And yes it stems from misinterpretation of the standard - unless of -course the exhibitor does it to cover some fault.  But newcomers see a dog like that winning so they also try to stand their dog like that.  My whole point was that it would be nice if as many of the point in our standard were put such a way it is NOT open to interpretation.

Well yes, and no. I think a standard can become too detailed as well. I think the general impression should always be the most important part. A too detailed standard will only encourage judging for faults.

In EVERY breed both the front legs (from elbow to pastern) and the hind legs (from hock to ground) should be perperdicular to the ground.

Where does it say so? German shepherds are not shown that way, and it is really only a matter of custom. I think whippets look better if stood the way you describe, and as long as all dogs are shown the same way, it is obviously easier for the judge to fairly assess their relative merits.

What worries me about this style of showing is that the sloping topline becomes an ideal to the extent that people start breeding for overangulated rears and straight fronts - a common development in many breeds.

Edit: Which is why I think it as a good thing that the new standard states: "Stifles well bent without exaggeration with hocks well let down."

 

[Seraphina]

In EVERY breed both the front legs (from elbow to pastern) and the hind legs (from hock to ground) should be perpendicular to the ground.

Where does it say so?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

It does not say so in the standards, but this is what a healthy skeletal structure of an archetypal dog looks like – 90degrees between shoulder blade and humerus, and 90degrees tarsus to the ground;

 

[Seraphina]

Most breeds are somewhat exaggerated in one way or other. These two breeds have almost no angles in the rear, but their bone from hock down is still perpendicular to the ground.

 

[Seraphina]

German shepherds are not shown that way, and it is really only a matter of custom.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Not necessarily, it may mean that the dog has a problem. This GSD, with all the angles, certainly has also his tarsus perpendicular to the ground. And so do many others.

 

[Seraphina]

I think whippets look better if stood the way you describe,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Of-course they do, that is what they look like if they have correct bone structure.

 

[chelynnah]

I meant to post on this thread ages ago and never got round to it :- " I noticed that it says nose colour black, or liver bla bla, well my fawn bitch has blue pigment, so she has a dark blue/grey nose, eye rims and lips.

I have seen lots of other blue pigmented fawns, partis etc- wonder if this now means we will all be penalised? Surely not... or at least I hope not :- "

Liz and the Monellis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Liz, the actual colours in the wording haven't changed from the original.

Wendy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Well I never!!

I didn't think to check before I posted about nose colour- can't have read the standard properly on that point- I thought it was only the US standard that stated 'black nose' Doh! :- "

Thanks for that Wendy! :thumbsup:

Liz and the Monellis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Theirs doesn't allow for any other colour than black. By ours having the permissible combinations it seems to allow them by default in our 'dilutes' (though we don't use that term as much as the US does).

Wendy

 

[Avalonia]

[Well I never!!

I didn't think to check before I posted about nose colour- can't have read the standard properly on that point- I thought it was only the US standard that stated 'black nose' Doh! :- "

Thanks for that Wendy! :thumbsup:

Liz and the Monellis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Theirs doesn't allow for any other colour than black. By ours having the permissible combinations it seems to allow them by default in our 'dilutes' (though we don't use that term as much as the US does).

Wendy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You should be really thankful that the number of American judges you get over there can be counted on the finger(s) of one hand, because of course their standard is out of step with the rest of the world in terms of eye colour and pigmentation. They are now starting to realize that by excluding a vast number of dogs of "dilute" colouration they are eliminating an important -- no, let me say essential -- part of the whippet gene pool. And there is talk afoot in America of amending this stupid standard to get in step with the originating country -- England -- and the FCI in terms of what is permissible. About bloody time!

In the meantime we here in Canada have to deal with ignoramuses who attempt to apply the American standard to dogs here in Canada, even though our standard does not contain any of the offensive "requirements" for whippets that the US standard imposes. I have to tell you that we actually breed for a dark eye and dark pigmentation because we prefer it, but when you breed a blue fawn brindle or a blue fawn and white (my very favourite whippet colour is blue fawn brindle and white) , your chances of getting nothing but dark eyed, dark pigmented pups are approaching nil even when bred to the blackest brindle and white dog you own.

When we imported Eng.Ch. Nevedith Ceefa Ceely (daughter of Eng.Aust.NZ Ch. Nevedith Rare Rogue x Eng.Ch. Nevedith Justa Jenie) we assumed the quality of the bitch, and her impecable movement would serve her in good stead and usher her to a very fast Cdn.Ch. title, which is, let us be frank, pretty darn easy to earn. To be a Cdn.Ch. she had to earn 10 points (max of 5 in any one show) under three judges. Judges one and two put her up to BOB and a group placement and all she needed was one point to finish. Then we met an esteemed American all breed judge with an international reputation (in her own mind) for what we expected to be an easy coast to Ceely's Cdn.Ch. title. Well, she put her second to a bitch who, three years later still has only one of her 10 points despite active showing by her owners (who did not breed her and who are whippet novices), who cannot seem to recognize the dog is a pet, and should never, ever be shown. I have to admit it, I was stung and so I tried to figure out how I could politically approach the judge about what she saw in the pet that gave her reason to put her up over Ceely.

At the end of the show (where she was the BIS judge) I felt it safe to ask her why she had placed Ceely second to the pet. And she told me that Ceely fell outside of the standard because her eyes were not dark enough for "the standard". I must say that it took all of my composure to ask to what "standard" she was referring. And she said well, the American standard. I asked her then was she aware that the Canadian and American standards were not the same and the Canadian standard did not contain a preference for black eyes. And she admitted that in fact she had not read the Canadian standard before judging the breed in Canada.

Then, to placate me, she made some polite mewings about how Ceely was a vastly superior whippet on the move, and she asked me how she was doing in the show ring in Canada.

I have to tell you that there was a certain salacious delight in telling her that had she put up Ceely she would have made her a Cdn.Ch., which would have been a nice addition to her Eng.Ch. title that she already held. I watched her jaw drop -- this is a judge who has judged often in England and on the continent, though not whippets in England that I have ever seen (with obviously good reason) because she knew exactly how hard it is to earn an English title, and she knew, positively knew, how much she had blown it with Ceely.

Fortunately the next judge in our roster was an FCI judge from South America who took one look at Ceely and made her BOB and gave her a group placement all of which completed her Cdn.Ch. title very nicely, and then he tried to buy her from me!

For a whippet, eyes and pigmentation should reflect coat colour, and coat colour is supposed to be -- absolutely immaterial.

I am clipping a photo of two 9 week old Ceely pups sired by Fin.Swed.Cdn.Ch. Scheik's Ardbeg Avalonia out of her 31 March litter. The red and white is Avalonia Forbidden Desires (Rogue due to his resemblance to grandfather Eng.Aust.NZ Ch. Nevedith Rare Rogue), and litter sister Avalonia Blueberry Baroque -- call name Ten - so named because she was the teeny tiny tenth pup in the litter.

Lanny Morry

Avalonia Whippets, Canada

 

[stephen mason]

Going back to Seraphina´s comment of June 11 relating to proportions would the following be out of place? Distance from nose to stop to equal distance from stop to occiput; distance from nose to occiput to equal to distance from occiput to withers ie. length of neck; ground to elbow to equal elbow to withers; height at withers to just exceed length from breast to buttock. Regards, Stephen

 

[Seraphina]

Going back to Seraphina´s comment of June 11 relating to proportions would the following be out of place? Distance from nose to stop to equal distance from stop to occiput; distance from nose to occiput to equal to distance from occiput to withers ie. length of neck; ground to elbow to equal elbow to withers; height at withers to just exceed length from breast to buttock. Regards, Stephen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Yes, that sounds pretty good to me, except the height at withers to just exceed length from breast to buttock.. I thought it is the other way around?

Anyway, it is these proportions which give Whippet his shape. When you consider them together with the standard there is a less oppportunity of missunderstanding. :thumbsup:

 

[stephen mason]

sorry Seraphina you are right; too early in morning again, or old age.regards, Stephen

 

[JAX]

[Well I never!!

I didn't think to check before I posted about nose colour- can't have read the standard properly on that point- I thought it was only the US standard that stated 'black nose' Doh! :- "

Thanks for that Wendy! :thumbsup:

Liz and the Monellis

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Theirs doesn't allow for any other colour than black. By ours having the permissible combinations it seems to allow them by default in our 'dilutes' (though we don't use that term as much as the US does).

Wendy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You should be really thankful that the number of American judges you get over there can be counted on the finger(s) of one hand, because of course their standard is out of step with the rest of the world in terms of eye colour and pigmentation. They are now starting to realize that by excluding a vast number of dogs of "dilute" colouration they are eliminating an important -- no, let me say essential -- part of the whippet gene pool. And there is talk afoot in America of amending this stupid standard to get in step with the originating country -- England -- and the FCI in terms of what is permissible. About bloody time!

In the meantime we here in Canada have to deal with ignoramuses who attempt to apply the American standard to dogs here in Canada, even though our standard does not contain any of the offensive "requirements" for whippets that the US standard imposes. I have to tell you that we actually breed for a dark eye and dark pigmentation because we prefer it, but when you breed a blue fawn brindle or a blue fawn and white (my very favourite whippet colour is blue fawn brindle and white) , your chances of getting nothing but dark eyed, dark pigmented pups are approaching nil even when bred to the blackest brindle and white dog you own.

When we imported Eng.Ch. Nevedith Ceefa Ceely (daughter of Eng.Aust.NZ Ch. Nevedith Rare Rogue x Eng.Ch. Nevedith Justa Jenie) we assumed the quality of the bitch, and her impecable movement would serve her in good stead and usher her to a very fast Cdn.Ch. title, which is, let us be frank, pretty darn easy to earn. To be a Cdn.Ch. she had to earn 10 points (max of 5 in any one show) under three judges. Judges one and two put her up to BOB and a group placement and all she needed was one point to finish. Then we met an esteemed American all breed judge with an international reputation (in her own mind) for what we expected to be an easy coast to Ceely's Cdn.Ch. title. Well, she put her second to a bitch who, three years later still has only one of her 10 points despite active showing by her owners (who did not breed her and who are whippet novices), who cannot seem to recognize the dog is a pet, and should never, ever be shown. I have to admit it, I was stung and so I tried to figure out how I could politically approach the judge about what she saw in the pet that gave her reason to put her up over Ceely.

At the end of the show (where she was the BIS judge) I felt it safe to ask her why she had placed Ceely second to the pet. And she told me that Ceely fell outside of the standard because her eyes were not dark enough for "the standard". I must say that it took all of my composure to ask to what "standard" she was referring. And she said well, the American standard. I asked her then was she aware that the Canadian and American standards were not the same and the Canadian standard did not contain a preference for black eyes. And she admitted that in fact she had not read the Canadian standard before judging the breed in Canada.

Then, to placate me, she made some polite mewings about how Ceely was a vastly superior whippet on the move, and she asked me how she was doing in the show ring in Canada.

I have to tell you that there was a certain salacious delight in telling her that had she put up Ceely she would have made her a Cdn.Ch., which would have been a nice addition to her Eng.Ch. title that she already held. I watched her jaw drop -- this is a judge who has judged often in England and on the continent, though not whippets in England that I have ever seen (with obviously good reason) because she knew exactly how hard it is to earn an English title, and she knew, positively knew, how much she had blown it with Ceely.

Fortunately the next judge in our roster was an FCI judge from South America who took one look at Ceely and made her BOB and gave her a group placement all of which completed her Cdn.Ch. title very nicely, and then he tried to buy her from me!

For a whippet, eyes and pigmentation should reflect coat colour, and coat colour is supposed to be -- absolutely immaterial.

I am clipping a photo of two 9 week old Ceely pups sired by Fin.Swed.Cdn.Ch. Scheik's Ardbeg Avalonia out of her 31 March litter. The red and white is Avalonia Forbidden Desires (Rogue due to his resemblance to grandfather Eng.Aust.NZ Ch. Nevedith Rare Rogue), and litter sister Avalonia Blueberry Baroque -- call name Ten - so named because she was the teeny tiny tenth pup in the litter.

Lanny Morry

Avalonia Whippets, Canada

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

What poor pigment they have :- " Pups to die for I think :wub: :wub:

Fancy admiting you havnt read the revelent breed standard for the country you are judging in (w00t)

 

[dessie]

Fancy admiting you havnt read the revelent breed standard for the country you are judging in  (w00t)  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Not only that but fancy putting up an inferior specimen, both constuctional & movement, because of ONE part of the anatomy, what happened to taking the OVERALL into account?? Surely if you are going to fault judge, not that you should, do you not put up the dog with the LEAST number of faults????

Ah well, what's the saying .................. every dog has its day!!!

 

[Avalonia]

Fancy admiting you havnt read the revelent breed standard for the country you are judging in  (w00t)  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

We have a huge number of American judges who officiate at our Canadian shows and happily the very vast majority have read our standard and know that the rest of the world parts with the requirements of the American standard in this respect. Many have said they think the American standard is stupid and out of step with reality. When they come to Canada I think they welcome the increased range of dogs they will find, and they judge the dogs they find on the day and usually do a pretty good job of it.

In the US a few breeders are bravely beginning to show the dogs they produce that they have been spaying and neutering and hiding away in pet homes for the last two or three decades because of their eye and pigment colour related to their coat colour, and some of these dogs are starting to do some modest winning (it will only be modest until there is greater acceptance of the natural diversity of eye and pigment colour in the breed and after the word "dilute" no longer is a word that is spit out in disgust). There is also a newfound appreciation on the part of many that whippet breeders are actually lucky to have a standard that allows such a range of colouring and marking vs other breeds which are so restrictive. However, the challenge is still like that of Sisyphus, pushing rocks up hill, to get many of the newbie "breeders" and aficanados to appreciate that black eyes and tar black pigment does not necessarily a good dog make.

And of course there are, sadly, those who enhance pigment with tattooing which is permanent, or good water resistant mascara so that the real slatier colour of their precious dogs eye rims and noses is disguised. This is strictlly illegal, but who is going to go up to a top breeder/exhibitor and challenge whether or not the dog's eye rims or nose have been filled in and enhanced or not?

Lanny