# Underline- too much tuck?



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

A recent comment (today) from Carmen:


> Her underline is nice, good depth to the body for that lung capacity . Been seeing a few shallow bodied dogs *or dogs with too much tuck *. This one looks good.


The tummy tuck is not something I've put a lot of thought behind when critiquing dogs (whether written, or just in my own thoughts of critique). I considered a dog with a nice tuck to simply be well conditioned and aesthetically pleasing. I _didn't_ consider that there could be too much tuck.

So- what is too much? What is just right?

This comment about too much tuck made me very curious because I think Pimg actually has quite a bit of tuck. I'm not sure that Pimg has too much- I think she looks really good. The comment opened up a new section of the dog to study that I had previously defined as nothing more than "nice tuck."

Not really looking for a critique on Pimg; she already has a critique thread here. I'm using this photo simply as an example of a dog underline.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

(Sorry, I guess this should have gone under "The Breed Standard" sub forum. Mods, please move if appropriate.)


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Kenya has a lot of tuck too, I think, but in general her conformation is more shall we say athletic than pretty! Her chest isn't really that low but from the front you can't tell she's only 50lbs because it's not narrow, if that makes sense? I think she's a bit barrel-chested? But from the side her chest doesn't drop that far *and* she's always been really skinny without much coat to add substance.


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Lies, I'm not sure I've ever seen photos of Kenya before. Is she Alta-Tollhaus-Krieger in your signature?

She does have a lot of tuck. And see, that's why I think this is an interesting topic. To me, if I were critiquing her, I'd definitely say "Very nice underline, nice tuck." I don't know if it's too much or not.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Yes that is her. She is going on 9 years old, retired from training and competing but a house pet with a "job" of being a barker/visual deterrent because she's actually soft and wouldn't harm a fly (and honestly doesn't look any different than when I got her at 3 years old, but she was already gray on the muzzle then). She actually looks better moving than stacked. IMO she's the best moving dog I've had as far as balance and her movement being efficient and effortless. Firm back, great hips, nothing loose. None of that reaching into the next county or anything like that but a dog anyone could picture working a flock all.day.long. When she moved in the ring her tail would sort of swish-swish back and forth very rhythmically with each step. This is her when I showed her once for fun (altered - she was altered when I got her but a CH with two GRCH legs).









Anyway, that's beyond tuck but since you like to critique you can have fun with her! She's a good agility dog too (two of her sons have crazy agility titles, one is MACH and has been top 20 GSD for the past few years). She's skinny, finer boned, tight coated, and sable which don't add up to the most pleasing stack outline but she is a dang healthy dog (and her dam lived to be almost 15, sire almost 12 I think).


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

Great stuff Lies! I thought you only had three dogs. You should post more of her! Happen to have any video you could PM me?


----------



## Rei (Oct 10, 2008)

I agree with Carmen in that I've been seeing many dogs with too much tuck (which is something Xeph on this board pointed out to me a few years back, too). Of course, now that I actually go out of my way to find examples online, I come up with nothing! 

Seeing photos of Kenya, I never thought that she had too much of a tuck up, but then again, I do only seem to notice when it affects the overall picture/outline of the dog.

I hope you don't mind me picking on Pan's dam, Lies, but Irmhild von der Staatsmacht is a bitch I find to have quite a bit of a tuck up, even as a young dog. Although, if that's actually an illusion created by other aspects of her structure/conformation, I would appreciate the correction!


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

I guess what I'm asking is: 

-What is too much; how do you tell? 
-Why is "too much" too much? 
-What negative does "excessive" tuck have?


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

> Although, if that's actually an illusion created by other aspects of her structure/conformation, I would appreciate the correction!


Pan's dam isn't too bad, but her incredibly steep croup accentuates the tuck


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

From a UKC/AKC ring standpoint, an accentuated tuck always makes the dogs look 'disjointed' to me, like their front and back halves are moving out of synch. If you took two dogs with identical movement, one moderate tuck and one accentuated tuck, IMO the latter would look 'worse' and almost wiggly and uncomposed. I've seen this twice when I've shown UKC up north. Not sure if that's just me, though...


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

*I* don't mind, but I'm not the owner. To me Hilde looks rather square (which I know is not correct but I tend to prefer too square over too long). I don't like that second photo, never have (it looks like the handler is pushing down on her rear). I like the top picture better.


----------



## Rei (Oct 10, 2008)

Xeph said:


> Pan's dam isn't too bad, but her incredibly steep croup accentuates the tuck


THAT'S it. I was wondering about that, which was why I mentioned it being more of an illusion to the untrained eye. My first thought was the topline, but her topline looks fine to me, but now that you've pointed it out, it's definitely the croup that leads to an appearance I attributed to her tuck (incorrectly). 



Liesje said:


> *I* don't mind, but I'm not the owner. To me Hilde looks rather square (which I know is not correct but I tend to prefer too square over too long). I don't like that second photo, never have (it looks like the handler is pushing down on her rear). I like the top picture better.


I thought that could be another possibility - she is more overstretched in the second photo, too, but since she seemed to be at a different age I wasn't sure how much of a difference the stack was making. It may be a matter of preference, I personally prefer the slightly longer than tall (though my own male is much too long for my taste). 

I do think that if it were not for the croup and shorter length, I would not have noticed the tuck up. Honestly I just find that it gives her a rather athletic appearance and see Hilde as a lovely bitch. She was the first GSD I could think of as an example (because I have the owner website bookmarked), and even then my assessment/impression was clearly wrong. I absolutely admit that it was probably poor form to post without permission from the owner and apologize for that.


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

I have found that dogs with extreme tuck are often roachy, have steep croups which accentuate the tuck, and, to that end, have a rear that looks pinched.

Think of a woman that's wearing a corset that's too tight. You have that over accentuated hour glass shape.


----------



## robinhuerta (Apr 21, 2007)

I looked around for a picture that might help.....
This is my female...12-18mos in the picture, not in good coat......so it's really easy to see the underline and tuck.
IMO...albeit she is a longer dog....she has balance in her body proportions & chest(brisket) for her age, and her "tuck" is correct for her age development.









*Paris von Huerta Hof*


----------



## wildo (Jul 27, 2006)

I'm still wondering how one is to determine the correct amount of tuck?? I don't see anything in the standard that mentions the underline. How does one make this decision?


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

"*Neck, Topline, Body *
The _neck_ is strong and muscular, clean-cut and relatively long, proportionate in size to the head and without loose folds of skin. When the dog is at attention or excited, the head is raised and the neck carried high; otherwise typical carriage of the head is forward rather than up and but little higher than the top of the shoulders, particularly in motion.
_Topline_-- The _withers_ are higher than and sloping into the level back. The _back_ is straight, very strongly developed without sag or roach, and relatively short.
The whole structure of the _body_ gives an impression of depth and solidity without bulkiness.
_Chest_--Commencing at the prosternum, it is well filled and carried well down between the legs. It is deep and capacious, never shallow, with ample room for lungs and heart, carried well forward, with the prosternum showing ahead of the shoulder in profile. _Ribs_ well sprung and long, neither barrel-shaped nor too flat, and carried down to a sternum which reaches to the elbows. Correct ribbing allows the elbows to move back freely when the dog is at a trot. Too round causes interference and throws the elbows out; too flat or short causes pinched elbows. Ribbing is carried well back so that the loin is relatively short. _Abdomen_ firmly held and not paunchy. *The bottom line is only moderately tucked up in the loin.*"


-Extracted from the AKC standard


----------



## Xeph (Jun 19, 2005)

Hubba hubba Paris!


----------



## SummerwoodSoaps (Feb 3, 2011)

So is an extrem tuck shaped for example like a greyhound?


----------

