The Racing Front

[aslan]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Hello Racing People!

As a showie I would love to know what you think about this excerpt from my favourite book "The Dog in Action" by Macdowell Lyon. It makes a lot of sense to me .....

 

[aslan]

The part that interests me most is that the chest does not reach the elbow. This is what I've seen on many racing whippets that I have looked at. As you probably know most show people would prefer the chest to reach the elbow. Our standard calls for the brisket to be "very deep". Do you think that show people over the years might have misinterpreted what was meant by "very deep"?

Where do you like the chest on your racing dog to fall?

 

[Vicky]

It's actually the main thing that sticks out to me the diference in the racing whips & the showing whips, imo the chest on some is far too deep.

 

[bardmand]

Very interesting excerpt. Most whippets I have seen in Norway are show-bred, so I cannot really compare. However, as the excerpt indicates, it is more than the actual depth of chest which determines whether it reaches the elbow or not.

The length of the upper arm is perhaps the most obvious (as the excerpt clearly state), and I think the short upper arm is a more widespread and serious fault in show whippets than excessive depth of chest. I also think show whippets in general are somewhat more angulated in the rear, which will contribute to "lowering" the dog's body and chest towards the point of its elbow. Front angulation is of course also important, and I think some racing whippets might have more open front angulation than favoured in show or coursing bred whippets, and I guess the fact that they are often very lean contributes even further to the gap between chest and elbow (again, judging from photos).

You only need to look at azawakhs. They usually have very deep briskets which never the less rarely reach to the elbow due to the azawakh's open front and rear angulation and extremely long limbs (including upper arms).

 

[Strike Whippets]

I personally don't know why any sighthounds chest needs to be really deep :unsure: .....It dosn't give more heart room as we are all told, if anything it gives less support to the heart .......Racers are bred to race and show breds are bred to show .....they are becoming two different looking types of dog as they both need some major different builds/angulation/shoulder placements etc..... to excell in what they are being asked/bred to do ..........This is just my personal opinion though ........Heres Miya though at 30lbs and only 19 inches to the shoulder .........Been told that she's the best looking racing bred on the track at the mo

 

[Judy]

As a biomechanics book, Macdowell Lyon been somewhat discredited in recent years. Apparently a lot of what he wrote was based on his knowledge of horses, rather than dogs.

In general the racing dogs are straighter in the front than show dogs which would account for the shallower looking brisket.

 

[John E Greenwood]

The thing is......do you breed from a dog with a deep chest, or a long upper arm......or do you breed from ONE WHICH WINS??......and if breeding from the latter results in a deep chest, or a long upper arm, ....does it really matter?

If breeding to show evolves a different dog than one which wins....SACK THE JUDGES.

JMHO of course.

 

[bardmand]

Pardon my ignorance, but are there still also whippets bred mainly for coursing and hunting in Britain? If so, how do they compare to racing bred whippets in terms of conformation?

BTW I think Miya is a really good-looking whippet. If anything might have prevented her from winning in the show ring, I don't think it would be her front or depth of chest (which I think look quite excellent). Also, I was under the impression that racing dogs were generally lighter than show breds, but after converting Miyas statistics to cms and kilograms I think I might have been wrong - she must be a fairly substantial bitch for her size - just the way I personally like them.

 

[aslan]

As a biomechanics book, Macdowell Lyon been somewhat discredited in recent years. Apparently a lot of what he wrote was based on his knowledge of horses, rather than dogs.
In general the racing dogs are straighter in the front than show dogs which would account for the shallower looking brisket.

I don't see why he should be discredited for making comparisons between dogs and horses - many of the comparisons are clearly explained and make a good deal of sense.

As to the "straighter in front" racing dogs - well that is what I thought for a long time... that they were straighter in front than their show counterparts but the description he gives sheds a good deal of light on the situation for me ...

"The racing front as seen on Whippets, Greyhounds and other double suspension travellers, in fact all gazehounds, falls into a special class as it is the only front required to produce suspension. We do not ask normal fronts to add power to locomotion to any high degree, driving power being almost overlooked in their consideration. This is true in horses as well as dogs. But the racing front must produce driving power in addition to doing all the other offices of that assembly.

....

The front starts with a shoulder blade laid back a good 50 to 45 degrees, usually the latter, and of such length as to extend half way down the dog's thoric structure. In length it compares with the depth ofthe body at the floating rib or the length of the head in front of the ears.

Below this blade is an upper arm or humerus equally as long and set at an angle which brings the elbow under the back edge of the top of the blade. This, an open angle approximating 130 degrees, dorps the elbow below the brisket. Such a set makes the dog appear straight in front. Pasterns take on a slope of 10 to 15 degress and usually bring the heel pad under the center of gravity and give the front a static balance.....

The speed and push in this front comes from the long upper arm, sloping pasterns and hare foot. The open angle between upper arm and blade lengthens the triceps and other muscles connecting the two and, as muscles contract two thirds their fleshy length, this increases action" p170 The Dog in Action

This actually give the reason (does it not?) for what racers have saying for ages that racing bred dogs are always faster than show bred dogs. But saying that these racing dogs are straighter in front is not actually true - they only APPEAR to be. So Judy it is not a straight front that "accounts for the shallower looking brisket" - but a longer upper arm. The angulation of shoulder blade to upper arm is still ~90 degrees. The Fox Terrier has a straight front (bigger angulation between shoulder blade and upper arm) with a very short upper arm and their chests actually often fall slightly below the elbow.

So, what I wonder is, why have we, as showies, been conditioned to believe that a chest reaching to the elbow is correct when the explanation above and the number of racing dogs we see ADHERING to the above explanation, seems to say that a deep chest (which would, it appears, come from a SHORTER upper arm) would not produce the required speed. ???? I can only think, (because as I've said before it is my firm belief that the standards were written by people who had developed the breed to do it's job of running fast and catching rabbits) that years of show oriented people have misinterpreted the phrase "very deep". Perhaps "very deep" originally did not necessarily mean "to the elbow", but that we have taken it to mean so.

It also appears to me now, looking back, that a number of the dogs I have bred (earlier in my breeding history) who were criticised by judges and other exhibitors alike for being too straight in front (and their chests did not reach the elbow) actually possessed the correct "racing" front which produces speed. I find a quiet satisfaction in that. I readily admit that it didn't come from design so much as perhaps that I really line bred to the Laguna background I had in my dogs at the start.

 

[whipowill]

Lana as I type this I have before me a soft covered book called "GAZEHOUNDS: The Search For Truth" by Constance O. Miller published in 1988 Holfin Publishing. It has a chapter titled 'The Whippet Enters The Showring' from which I will quote.

"The object of this book is hunting dogs that traditionally behave as lethal extensions of the owner's arms: dogs that chase and kill game, from rabbits upwards in size. By man-selection such dogs were invented weapons just as surely as the bow and arrow, or gun, and similarily, have undergone gradual improvements via testing and breeding on the basis of successful performance for hundreds of years. WITHOUT LIVE-GAME HUNTING, GAZEHOUNDS COULD NEVER HAVE COME INTO BEING!. Their appearance and behaviour(which remains among the mildest of dogs), are due to specialized evolution, which if not constantly monitored, behaves like a scattered snowball rolling downhill. Any renunciation of the gazehound's demonstratable functions - leads only to further evolutuoin - of highly exaggereated and generally NON-FUNCTIONAL trends of body and mind!."

Further on it and I quote again "The breed was first given stud book space by the Kennel Club in 1891 - with five entries...........A small group headed by the Duchess if Newcastle in 1899, successfully applied to the Kennel Club to register THE WHIPPET CLUB. Lewis Renwick's excellent monograph 'The Whippet Handbook' (1956) admits that all club minutes were lost until sometime in 1907. Predating the information in Renwick's book is that found in 'Les Races de Chiens' (deBrandyt, circa 1903) in the form of a full standard, along with the the listing of the Duchess of Newcastle as the club president........Whippet Club Standard - Circa 1900................

 

SHOULDERS - Oblique and muscluar

CHEST - Deep and capacious

BACK- Broad and square, rather long and slightly arched over the loin.

LOINS - Strong and powerful

FORELEGS - Rather long well set under dog, possessing a fair amount of bone.

HINDLEGS - Strong and muscular: stifles well bent: thighs broad and muscular: hocks well let down.

FEET - Round, well split up: with strong soles...........

HEIGHT AT SHOULDER - From sixteen to twenty inches."

So here apparently is the first attempt to put the standard on paper. Interesting I think. Simply asking for the shoulders to be oblique (well laid back), muscular and the chest deep and capacious. I personally think that "chest down to elbows" belief that pervades the show scene today is a throw back to gundog standards that were quite often written by those involved with horses (pointers and setters being a case in point) and their belief that great heart and lung room was needed for staying power.

Quite obviously the whippet evolved for quite a different purpose. I also would point out that in the photograph of "Miya" the deepest part of her chest is behind the elbows where IMHO it should be.

 

[Strike Whippets]

Pardon my ignorance, but are there still also whippets bred mainly for coursing and hunting in Britain? If so, how do they compare to racing bred whippets in terms of conformation?

I know that there are coursing line bred Whippets, and alot of show breds do well on the coursing field ........but I have just recently heard that some of the older coursing lot are anti racing breds being introduced due to their speed ......It's a shame that coursing is so hard to get into as I bet there would be a fare few racers that would excell in it

BTW I think Miya is a really good-looking whippet. If anything might have prevented her from winning in the show ring, I don't think it would be her front or depth of chest (which I think look quite excellent). Also, I was under the impression that racing dogs were generally lighter than show breds, but after converting Miyas statistics to cms and kilograms I think I might have been wrong - she must be a fairly substantial bitch for her size - just the way I personally like them.

Firstly thankyou ......she did win a best puppy in show once (even if it was only an exemption show )......Miya comes from a litter of 6 who range from 17 1/2 lbs to Miya who is very well covered at 30lbs ........I always say that she got the looks and her sisters got the speed , but then saying that Miya's fab sister who is has been rarely beaten this year, and has gained both of her Champion titles ( in her first year of open racing), has also been told by a judge that she's good enough to show ......(Just following in her Grandmothers footsteps I guess :thumbsup: ) .........Miya is certainly substantial and built like Arnold Schwarzawhippet lol :lol: .......and racing dogs are normally lighter and finer than the show breds most also seem to have a looser shoulder and elbow movement which I have been told is good for the running dogs, but it would be undesirable in the ring :blink: ......but as people say horses for courses ....... :thumbsup:

 

[tlewis]

>Pardon my ignorance, but are there still also whippets bred mainly for coursing >and hunting in Britain? If so, how do they compare to racing bred whippets in >terms of conformation?

In N.America all the top field coursing Whippets are race bred. The show lines don't even get close to a Jackrabbit. A Jackrabbit is a little faster than a brown hare, but most Whippets are larger to compensate for that.

 

[Judy]

"The front starts with a shoulder blade laid back a good 50 to 45 degrees, usually the latter, and of such length as to extend half way down the dog's thoric structure.  In length it compares with the depth ofthe body at the floating rib or the length of the head in front of the ears.Below this blade is an upper arm or humerus equally as long and set at an angle which brings the elbow under the back edge of the top of the blade.  This, an open angle approximating 130 degrees, dorps the elbow below the brisket.  Such a set makes the dog appear straight in front. Pasterns take on a slope of 10 to 15 degress and usually bring the heel pad under the center of gravity and give the front a static balance.....

Funnily enough I think the bit you have quoted is one of the reasons that more recent writers on biomechanics have discredited him. Apparently he didn't actually take any measurements of angles and lengths of bones and took a lot of his suppositions from an earlier book which had been written by a well known horseman. Can't remember his name for the moment.

For instance he says that shoulders are laid back a good 45 to 50 degrees but actual measurements have shown that a lay back of as much as 45 degrees is actually quite rare in any breed and that 30 degrees is more normal. The well laid back, 45 degree thing came from measurements of horses.

Also he says the upper arm is "equally as long" as the shoulder blade when in fact all dogs have upper arms longer than shoulder blades with the exception of of dogs such as dachshunds where they are about equal in length.

Sighthounds have proprtionately longer upper arms than other breeds and the angle between the upper arm and shoulder blade is about 10 degrees straighter or more open. It seems that straighter fronts go with speed.

I'm not meaning to rubbish what you have said Lana, its just the validty of the source I am questioning. He talks a good talk and it does seem to make sense but he has just based it all on some wrong facts.

A lot of standards that were written at the end of the 19th century when showing became popular were written by people who were familiar with horses. I think that might be part of the reason why we have the same nomenclature for parts of the dog (withers, croup, stifle, hocks etc.) as we do with horses.

 

[Judy]

BTW I think Miya is a really good-looking whippet. If anything might have prevented her from winning in the show ring, I don't think it would be her front or depth of chest (which I think look quite excellent). Also, I was under the impression that racing dogs were generally lighter than show breds, but after converting Miyas statistics to cms and kilograms I think I might have been wrong - she must be a fairly substantial bitch for her size - just the way I personally like them.

I have always loved Miya from when I first saw her as a puppy. She is very lovely in my eyes. However, I don't think Miya's statistics or build is particularly representative of racing whippets. Racing dogs are generally lighter in build than the show ones.

 

[aslan]

A lot of standards that were written at the end of the 19th century when showing became popular were written by people who were familiar with horses. I think that might be part of the reason why we have the same nomenclature for parts of the dog (withers, croup, stifle, hocks etc.) as we do with horses.

I would say that's exactly where we get the nomenclature from - he even says that in his book and I think that is perfectly understandable - the same things apply in nearly every instance. And when standards were written they had to use jargon that most people would understand. Most people knew horses so they knew where the withers were and what phrases like "hocks well let down" meant. I honestly can't see a problem with that.

If he has based his opinions on horses and he is wrong, may I ask (politely) then, what is/are the sources of your facts? I'm not being narky, I genuinely want to know.

Eg

actual measurements have shown that a lay back of as much as 45 degrees is actually quite rare in any breed and that 30 degrees is more normal.

Who found this out? How many measurements of how many breeds did they do? I'd like to know because every dog person I've ever talked to believes that well laid back means 45 deg.

in fact all dogs have upper arms longer than shoulder blades with the exception of dogs such as dachshunds where they are about equal in length.

I don't feel this is true ... but I also feel I can't dispute it as I feel I don't have any factual amunition to argue with, only what I believe I see in breeds, so I need you convince me that I am wrong ... how is the above information a fact?

I have tried very hard to word all of the above so that you don't think I am getting on my high horse and putting on a turn or being sarcastic/niggling/narky. I'm asking questions because I genuinely want to know the answers. If I'm going to change my mindset I need to be convinced to change. )

 

[Judy]

Hi Lana - don't worry, I won't think you are getting narky. Hope you don't think I am either. Am well aware that this is the sort of discussion that can get a bit like that though so let's not let it happen.

Anyway, to reply...

I would say that's exactly where we get the nomenclature from - he even says that in his book and I think that is perfectly understandable - the same things apply in nearly every instance. And when standards were written they had to use jargon that most people would understand. Most people knew horses so they knew where the withers were and what phrases like "hocks well let down" meant. I honestly can't see a problem with that

There isn't a problem with that, but it does point out that the early show people often came from a horse background and often believed that what was good for a horse was good for a dog.

actual measurements have shown that a lay back of as much as 45 degrees is actually quite rare in any breed and that 30 degrees is more normal. Who found this out? How many measurements of how many breeds did they do? I'd like to know because every dog person I've ever talked to believes that well laid back means 45 deg.

Scientists, researchers and writers interested in biomechanics of the dog have done measurements. How many? I don't know but I imagine there would have been enough to prove the validity of them or their papers would have been pulled apart from other reseachers in the field. I guess people only say 45 degrees for the same reason you are, because thats what they have been led to believe by books like McDowell Lyon's and the wording of breed standards. They make the assumption that what they see is 45 degrees because that is what they have been told by other people. Its a self perpetuating myth. That's NOT meant to be a dig at you Lana by the way.

in fact all dogs have upper arms longer than shoulder blades with the exception of dogs such as dachshunds where they are about equal in length.I don't feel this is true ... but I also feel I can't dispute it as I feel I don't have any factual amunition to argue with, only what I believe I see in breeds, so I need you convince me that I am wrong ... how is the above information a fact?

Its just an anatomical fact, just like the fact that horses have longer shoulder blades than upper arms or the femur is the longest bone in the human body. Don't know how to prove it you really. Suggest you look at some skeletons/anatomy books.

 

[aslan]

Thanks heaps Judy.

Scientists, researchers and writers interested in biomechanics of the dog have done measurements.

Can you point me in the direction of any of these articles/books/writers of same? I'd like to read some of this stuff if possible. Thanks in advance...

 

[Judy]

I thought you might ask that - It's a fascinating subject and you are obviously interested so I am sure you'll enjoy it.

Try :

Nature Publishing - Browse around - you can get access to scientific papers on loads of subjects. Often have to pay for the full text though.

Exploring Biomechanics - R.McNeill Alexander

Principles Of Animal Locomotion - R.McNeill Alexander

The Horse In Motion - Sarah Pilner

Dogsteps - Rachael Page Elliott

The Dynamics Of Canine Gait - Leon Hollenbeck

K9 Structure & Terminology - Gilbert & Brown

Horse Gaits, Balance and Movement - Susan E. Harris

Dog Locomotion And Gait Analysis - Curtis Brown

Meanwhile - here is quite a fun webite for Oricom Technologies a robotics company. There's even a reference to Lyon. A lot of his stuff is good but unfortunately just not the bit you quoted.

HJere's another Motion Analysis Mostly human gait analysis but interesting

 

[aslan]

Thanks so much! That lot'll keep me busy!