# Why is conformation important?



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

This is *NOT *a thread about bashing any of the lines. I'm asking a legitimate question to help me understand breeding. 

I'm going to ask my question using a story. I was talking with a breeder friend of mine about a particular dog. I said that IMO that dog is the type of dog one would want to breed. He has a very nice pedigree, great work ethic, nice pack drive, good temperament, clear headed, dog( I could go on forever but you get the point). She replied that he's not a dog she would use because his tail is high, thinner bone structure, too leggy and just overall the bad conformation. This dog is not ugly by any means just not "perfect" in conformation I guess. So my question is, what does conformation have to do with breeding working dogs? Or at least what is the real relevance of it? I hope this is making sense. 

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

This is a neat question, I hope it gets responses from some knowledgeable people because I'd like to learn too. 

Here is a post that I found helpful on the subject (with diagrams and pictures and everything!): What is a “sound” dog? | Ruffly Speaking

Pat Hastings has a book called "The Puppy Puzzle" that talks about these things too. I'll admit that I still don't fully understand it (and I've read the thing TWICE) but I'm a very poor visual learner so it takes me a while.


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

I'd think it all depends on the goals of the breeder and breeding program. An AKC breeder probably doesn't care as much about working ability and pack drive as they do with conformation. A working line breeder probably can care less if a dog's tail is too high when you've got a dog with everything else you described.

Different strokes for different fokes.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Lucy Dog said:


> I'd think it all depends on the goals of the breeder and breeding program. An AKC breeder probably doesn't care as much about working ability and pack drive as they do with conformation. A working line breeder probably can care less if a dog's tail is too high when you've got a dog with everything else you described.
> 
> Different strokes for different fokes.


 
This is really my train if thought as of now. Maybe this thread will change that as I gather knowledge. I have heard from some the experienced on this board about wanting working line breeders to focus more on conformation than they do though. So that's really my question. Why? Is it to create the "whole package". Looks and brains? I'm really just wondering the reasoning behind it. 

Thanks for the replies.


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

In cattle/sheep/ I guess livestock in general confirmation is very important.
If I am buying a ram for example, all his figures (EBV's) may be outstanding but if he has poor confirmation I will keep walking. If his legs won't carry him and his shoulders are too big so as to cause difficulties with lambing then he is a dud. Good confirmation goes along way towards soundness and longevity.
*Dunno if it is the same in dogs though.......*


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

mycobraracr said:


> This is really my train if thought as of now. Maybe this thread will change that as I gather knowledge. I have heard from some the experienced on this board about wanting working line breeders to focus more on conformation than they do though. So that's really my question. Why? Is it to create the "whole package". Looks and brains? I'm really just wondering the reasoning behind it.
> 
> Thanks for the replies.


What do you define as "good conformation"? The AKC breeders have a different definition as the WGSL breeders. The working line breeders have different definitions as the show lines. What about the "old fashioned straight back" american shepherds that some are breeding for? Then you've got the definitions within the working lines. Do you prefer the giant heads of the DDR dogs? The heavy bone of the Czech lines? How would you define good conformation? Ask someone else and they'll probably give you a completely different answer.


----------



## VTGirlT (May 23, 2013)

I know when i showed some calves and heifers at a fair, we walked them around in the ring and stopped them to have them stand in a particular position, and the judge would judge their conformation. Basically a conformation that is the most desirable for a milking cow.
So using what i know about cows.. for working lines they have a much different desirable conformation than that of show line, and than every breeder probably has particular physical traits that they find to be the most desirable and breed for those physical traits. :blush: This is just my best logical answer. However, i really do not know very much about conformation in dogs!


----------



## Merciel (Apr 25, 2013)

Lucy Dog said:


> How would you define good conformation?


Yeah, I think pinning down some definitions will go a long way toward encouraging a fruitful discussion. 

Functional conformation matters a lot. You want a dog who can keep up with the physical demands of the work and continue working well into his golden years without breaking down. I'm not real good at actually spotting that in practice, but the concept is straightforward enough.

I see a fair number of older dogs whose bodies just can't keep up with their wish to work anymore (because World Cynosport Rally allows you to modify exercises for disabled dogs, it's a popular venue for dogs who have retired or been injured out of other sports/venues that don't allow modifications) and it's pretty sad, because some of them aren't even that old -- they're only 6 or 7 years old and they have to lower their jumps to 4" because they cannot do full-height jumps anymore. A substantial number of these dogs come from "working breeders" who aim for solid work ethic and trainability, but have let functional conformation fall by the wayside.

Show conformation, IMO, is often (not always!) a different thing. That subject has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere and I don't really want to get into it again (plus I don't know diddly about it so the best I'd be doing is regurgitating secondhand info anyway), but one point I do want to make is that the underlying _idea_ of rating sound conformation, separated from the beauty contest that it's often become in actual practice, is a very good idea.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

Actually conformation is very important...

When body parts are in correct positions, and the angulation of the dog is correct, it makes the work more efficient. So a dog could have all the drive/energy in the world and if it has the wrong conformation it will be burning more energy moving than a dog with correct conformation. Correct conformation also makes a dog less likely to get injured.

What you have to remember about conformation is that you should look at what is actually written and not how people interpret it depending on the lines they're breeding or their preferred venue. And yes...I understand that statement is contradictory because I'm telling people to have their own opinion on the standard rather than concentrate on how others interpret it.

So in the OP's opinion...a leggy, thin boned dog, has been proven to be more fragile when it comes to work (jumping and things of that nature). There are of course levels of leggyness and thin bones but in general that's why breeders do consider conformation.


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

The purpose of a confirmation ring in any type of animal being shown is to detremine if the animal has the structure needed to perform the tasks it was created for......so for a bull.....to walk around carrying a huge amount of weight while serving cows......for a ram the same thing.....for a cow to carry and be able to deliver a live calf without assistance......all very important.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

martemchik said:


> Actually conformation is very important...
> 
> When body parts are in correct positions, and the angulation of the dog is correct, it makes the work more efficient. So a dog could have all the drive/energy in the world and if it has the wrong conformation it will be burning more energy moving than a dog with correct conformation. Correct conformation also makes a dog less likely to get injured.


 
I understand why it's important in this case, but I'm more looking at things like the "high tail" comment, or "finer boned"(leggy). Why would something like this really matter other than going for a certain look or something along those lines. Which matters I guess but does it really have anything to do with the workability of a dog? 

I'm trying to figure out how to rephrase my question or describe it better.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

sparra said:


> The purpose of a confirmation ring in any type of animal being shown is to detremine if the animal has the structure needed to perform the tasks it was created for......so for a bull.....to walk around carrying a huge amount of weight while serving cows......for a ram the same thing.....for a cow to carry and be able to deliver a live calf without assistance......all very important.


 
Yes I get this, but if the cow is actually in the field every day, working every day, then isn't it showing it's capable of doing so without being in a ring? If the bulls tail was too short would that really affect how well it could work?


----------



## Lucy Dog (Aug 10, 2008)

mycobraracr said:


> Yes I get this, but if the cow is actually in the field every day, working every day, then isn't it showing it's capable of doing so without being in a ring? If the bulls tail was too short would that really affect how well it could work?


Conformation is about beauty and perfection when being judged in the ring. All of the bulls might be able to work the same, it's about which one closest mirrors what the animal should be in the eyes of the judges and according to a very subjective standard. It's a competition. If your main goal as a breeder is to win in the ring, you're going to breed animals that will give you the best chance to win.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Most of the corellation between conformation of today and work is mostly myth! If you don't believe me all you have to do is see 100 real working dogs and less than 10 % would have what is considered excellent conformation, and more than half would have what is considered bad conformation( shoulder, upper arms, size,angulation,back,lengths of stifle, shape/size of head,etc) and they perform very well. It's a myth that the impact is as great as people make it out, usually pushed by conformation people and people who hang with them. Cause real working trainers know different.


----------



## Blitzkrieg1 (Jul 31, 2012)

JMO if the dog can work and is not inhibited by his structure his conformation is perfect. Look at some of the Mals and Dutchies that are taking over from the GSD in work and sport. Form follows function not the other way around.


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

mycobraracr said:


> Yes I get this, but if the cow is actually in the field every day, working every day, then isn't it showing it's capable of doing so without being in a ring? If the bulls tail was too short would that really affect how well it could work?


Dogs and bulls are not the same  I guess in livestock confirmation is more about functionality than it is cosmetics. A bull/ram who is poorly put together will not be able to work well.....full stop. A dog on the other hand probably can.
In the dog world it is probably myth as cliff says but in the livestock world it is very important.


----------



## sparra (Jun 27, 2011)

Lucy Dog said:


> Conformation is about beauty and perfection when being judged in the ring. All of the bulls might be able to work the same, it's about which one closest mirrors what the animal should be in the eyes of the judges and according to a very subjective standard. It's a competition. If your main goal as a breeder is to win in the ring, you're going to breed animals that will give you the best chance to win.


Don't know how it works in the US but over here showing is how the studs get seen. They take it very seriously. It is not just about that particular bull in the ring but about his progeny.....what he is going to pass on to other bulls which in turn are purchased by producers. If their bulls break down they don't get any business......most people showing cattle are doing so as a business....not a hobby.....they are breeding livestock to sell not win.

Anyway....not the same in dogs so I will bow out.....


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

So I guess maybe my question is, why would you eliminate a dog as a breeding prospect just because of things like a "high tail" or "fine bone". If that's so important to you, couldn't you pair it with a female who could possibly make up what you don't like in the male?


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Blitzkrieg1 said:


> JMO if the dog can work and is not inhibited by his structure his conformation is perfect. Look at some of the Mals and Dutchies that are taking over from the GSD in work and sport. Form follows function not the other way around.


 
You're two for two today. I was going to use this example as well. Actually I typed it up a couple times and kept deleting it.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

I think we should make a distinction between sound working canine structure, and what actually wins in the conformation ring.

I'm not an expert in conformation by any means, but there is a reason that dogs should have their toes pointing forward, their elbows pointing backward, and their jaws in a scissors bite. Wolves and other wild canids probably have perfect "working" canine structure, yet few of our domestic dogs look like wolves. Our GSD's have more angulation, smaller feet, and a lower tailset than wolves, but they still look basically like dogs, and most have decent working canine structure, with the exception of the extreme show dogs.

Some breeds, unfortunately, have horrible canine structure and yet are considered to have good conformation for the breed.... like English Bulldogs for example. Everything about their conformation from their nose to their tail guarantees health problems. Even for the #1 Bulldog in the world.

So, the way I look at it is this: Form follows function. What type of structure allows the best performance, holds up the longest, without issues of lameness, pain or unsoundness? What type of structure is still working well into old age? I have seen old show-line dogs, and they are just a mess. I have seen old working-line dogs that were still in great shape. Yet, the showline dog is the one that's going to win a conformation show.

So, unfortunately, the conformation that wins conformation shows, is not always the physical conformation that benefits the dog, his working ability, and his longevity. This is NOT the fault of the written standard, IMO, but in someone's interpretation of the standard and taking it to extremes far beyond what is actually correct. Judges reward these extremes, so breeders produce more extremes, until the breed is a sad caricature of what it was meant to be.


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

How did showing in conformation ever became known in some circles as a stand alone method used to determine breed worthiness?


----------



## MadLab (Jan 7, 2013)

Unfortunately It is pretty easy to see a GSD with bad movement these days and I think it is due to conformation. 

Here's some articles from terrierman about conformation in breeds. 

- Terrierman's Daily Dose -

MYCO said


> He has a very nice pedigree, great work ethic, nice pack drive, good temperament, clear headed, dog..... She replied... t_hat he's not a dog she would use because his tail is high, thinner bone structure, too leggy and just overall the bad conformation_.


That shows how a good dog is over looked due to a theory as to how it should look rather than how it should act and work. If you breed for specific looks, then you will trigger recessive genes which will hinder the actual work the dog is supposed to preform.


----------



## hunterisgreat (Jan 30, 2011)

mycobraracr said:


> So I guess maybe my question is, why would you eliminate a dog as a breeding prospect just because of things like a "high tail" or "fine bone". If that's so important to you, couldn't you pair it with a female who could possibly make up what you don't like in the male?


If I'm breeding to produce KNPV or police dogs, I'd breed the best workers. If I'm breeding for show, the best conformers, if I'm breeding for something in between... say, IPO capable dogs that still look like GSDs so I can sell them, then both ends must be factored into the breeding


----------



## Chip Blasiole (May 3, 2013)

Strong drives and temperament will override any conformation "faults" and so called faults will not interfere with working ability. Faults in drives and temperament will interfere with working ability, even if conformation is ideal.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

I guess it depends on one's definition of "work". Is IPO "work"? I don't know, I won't say, I think in some ways it is and some ways it's not. Today's IPO I do not believe really challenges the GSD (or any breed) as far as putting a functional conformation to the test. I know that dogs can do IPO with many various conformation faults and even genetic disorders, but likely would break down or not be competitive at all at other areas of sport that I participate in. I own, train, compete with, and am on teams with many breeds aside from GSD so I tend to look at this on the whole. In some avenues of work and sport, correct, functional conformation is absolutely critical.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Chip Blasiole said:


> Strong drives and temperament will override any conformation "faults" and so called faults will not interfere with working ability. Faults in drives and temperament will interfere with working ability, even if conformation is ideal.


If the structural fault or weakness causes the dog to break down over time that too will interfere with working ability. Strong drives and temperament can only take a dog in pain so far. When I used to judge meat animals we learned we had to look at more than just the muscle and fat coverage. We also had to pay attention to functional structure. As our instructor once told us, the animal still needs to be able to stand, walk, eat and then make it to slaughter. An animal in pain does not function at their best. 

I am, of course, not talking about show ring fads or their misguided ideals of correct. 

Very true on the latter.


----------



## Freestep (May 1, 2011)

Chip Blasiole said:


> Strong drives and temperament will override any conformation "faults" and so called faults will not interfere with working ability. Faults in drives and temperament will interfere with working ability, even if conformation is ideal.


That is true to a point. A dog with structural faults will break down over time. A dog with good drive AND good working structure will be able to work well into his later years, while a dog with structural faults may suffer lameness or injury.

But I must say, I'd rather have an ugly dog with good temperament than a beautiful dog with faulty temperament.

Again, I think there's a difference between good working structure, and the type of conformation that is winning in the show ring. Because of show ring fashion in both Germany and the US, the highest-rated conformation isn't necessarily going to be the best *working* structure IMO. There are a lot of people who will disagree with me on this, but I've seen some show dogs that couldn't even get out of their own way, let alone work all day long.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Yes it depends on what we are talking about....when I say "correct conformation" I mean to the standard and correct *functional* (working) conformation...not any extreme interpretation of said standard. I've seen dogs doing sports like IPO - show and working line - that had problems like moderate to severe HD, dead tail, missing multiple teeth (genetic, not due to accidental knock out), etc. To me this is all part of a dog's "conformation" and IMO not acceptable for a "working" dog to be bred even if the temperament is stellar and even if the dog can achieve SchH3. Of course no dog is perfect, all dogs are going to have conformational and structural flaws but then you have to look at the entire pedigree going back and sideways (siblings and other relatives) and what the other half brings to the equation. For me it is never as simple as WL = temperament and SL = conformation. I think many SL could be improved on by some WL and I don't mean the WL that now look like type-y SL.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

What Liesje said above (it should be about balance, not extremes either way....)

I come at this from more experience in the horse world but similar things have happened (see Quarterhorses, racing, halter and ranch/working types for example).

Here's another way to frame the question for a hypothetical thought experiment. If form following function is all that should matter why not just ditch all the breeds that fall into the GSD/Mali(maybe Dobies too) protection dog spectrum? 

No more breeds, just thoroughly work tested 'protection' type dogs that are objectively tested with scientific measuring equipment for speed, reflex, bite strength, ability to jump and scale obstacles and such. They will all eventually be very, very similar in body and mind and no need for specific breeds within the category. Someone asked my trainer the other day if his Czech line bi-color dog was a black mali, he is a smallish lean, fast and lighter framed dog......

So the conundrum is the existence of the breeds to even begin with, a process that started a long time ago.

The next hypothetical question would be, if this is not a type of dog that is needed by most of society/pet owners will that then put the breed(s) in danger of extinction? So it could be said that in animal for whom we *usually* do not depend on for utility as most dogs are not really used for work (whereas livestock producing milk/meat/wool really is the key for selection), if aesthetics are part of what keeps a breed going then conformation becomes more important from that aspect.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (May 3, 2013)

I don't think it is structural/conformation faults that cause breakdown, but rather, genetics that are present in the dog for problems with the spine, elbows and hips for example. 
Again, look at the gold standard for the German GSD, which is schH titles. I don't think there are nearly as many orthopedic problems in the Malinois, which often compete in protection sports that require extreme jumping and potential trauma to bones and ligaments. The Malinois can do the extreme jumps and have fewer problems and the GSDs can't do the extreme jumps and have greater problems. 
You don't see anything about conformation in the working Malinois. You see male dogs that weigh 45-95 pounds. And you see GSDs with odeal conformation with hip, elbow and spine problems.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Malinois outnumber GSDs in many of the other sports I do so I won't disagree with you. Just proves that structure and conformation ARE important.


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The next hypothetical question would be, if this is not a type of dog that is needed by most of society/pet owners will that then put the breed(s) in danger of extinction? So it could be said that in animal for whom we *usually* do not depend on for utility as most dogs are not really used for work (whereas livestock producing milk/meat/wool really is the key for selection), if aesthetics are part of what keeps a breed going then conformation becomes more important from that aspect.


 

My friend, I think you nailed it!


----------



## marbury (Apr 3, 2012)

mycobraracr said:


> So I guess maybe my question is, why would you eliminate a dog as a breeding prospect just because of things like a "high tail" or "fine bone". If that's so important to you, couldn't you pair it with a female who could possibly make up what you don't like in the male?


It's just a piece of the puzzle, like everything else. If you're active in a sport, a dog or bitch without qualities that enhance their performance in THAT sport are not desirable to you. A working breeder would not breed a soft dog, I'd imagine. If someone is super into agility and lure coursing they won't want a dog that is tired after walking a block.
When your 'sport' is conformation then it is important to breed from stock that adhere to whomever is judging your breed, be it AKC, UKC or whathaveyou. Is it correct to the breed? That depends on who you ask! Plenty of dogs in the conformation ring these days have horrible temperaments, of all breeds. They cower in fear from the judge, refuse to move, freak out when handled by someone other than their owner, or just shut down and quiver on the table. But they look gorgeous! And plenty of really exceptional working dogs look like bricks with legs. Is THAT correct to the breed? That depends on who you ask!

Ideally, the dogs bred have good conformation AND ability. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as a perfect dog. There are dogs with appropriate conformation and good temperament/work ability, of course. I'd hope that's what the ultimate goal is for most folks in their breeding.

For me personally, I believe things like weak ears, long feet, odd tail, croup angle and length, bone, ear set, self-correcting bite issues during growth periods, eye set, eye color, pigment depth and marking etc are traits that are 'forgiving' in breeding. You can alter their expression in a single generation and thus aren't necessarily 'deal breakers' if the dog is otherwise healthy, sound, moves properly, and has appropriate breed characteristics (temperament, drive, etc). Issues like improper number of teeth, improper color expression, heritable issues such as HD or demodectic mange, critical structural issues (incorrect shoulder, downed pasterns, cryptorchidism, missing or improperly formed organs etc) and the like would be a much more significant concern.

I LIKE good conformation because I show in conformation. I could have the best working dog on the planet, but if he doesn't move or look like the breed standard I will never walk away with a placement. That's the reality, and because I'm involved in it I have to keep it in mind.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

cliffson1 said:


> Most of the corellation between conformation of today and work is mostly myth! If you don't believe me all you have to do is see 100 real working dogs and less than 10 % would have what is considered excellent conformation, and more than half would have what is considered bad conformation( shoulder, upper arms, size,angulation,back,lengths of stifle, shape/size of head,etc) and they perform very well. It's a myth that the impact is as great as people make it out, usually pushed by conformation people and people who hang with them. Cause real working trainers know different.



That's why there are almost no bull shows today, and those that are organized are done in a more "those romantic old days" than anything else. Today you have catalogs with every productive data of said bulls measured objectively and pictures are only added to made them more visually attractive, but no sane rancher chooses semen based on the picture...
Bull catalogue: http://sierradesertbreeders.com/wp-content/uploads/SDB-BIG-Bull-Book-2012_web.pdf


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Whiteshepherds said:


> How did showing in conformation ever became known in some circles as a stand alone method used to determine breed worthiness?


This blog will answer your question:
- Terrierman's Daily Dose -



> In short, the attraction of dog shows was that people who themselves were as common as a turnip top could now fancy that they were among the social elite. They did not have to have real knowledge of animals, or have an important job or title or large estate -- they just had to purchase a dog from a "reputable" show breeder and put on airs.


I also encourage anyone to see this great documental. The best I've seen about dogs and their history:
Dogs That Changed the World - Introduction - Dog Breeds | Nature | PBS


----------



## Rbeckett (Jun 19, 2013)

Obtaining a dog that conforms to the breed standard carries some certain guarantees that a dog of lesser quality may not have. For instance a well bred animal will be less likely to have bad hips or develop heart issues. Large breed deep chested dogs do have issues with weak hearts and that is one of the biggest reasons to get an animal that conforms if you can. However with that said I have an animal that is certainly less than perfect. Her ears do not stand and even though she is a Czech working line decendant she has issues with new situations and doesn't adapt very well quickly. I will never allow her to be a brood bitch but she is also the love of my life and my go to dog when times are tough for me personally. So in the interest of quality and high standards we got her spayed and will keep her as a well loved and pampered pet until she gets old and dies. She is an excellent pet and will be for many years to come, but she will never add anything to the gene pool to help prevent her shortcomings from getting introduced and further expanded within the breed. SO conformation is a two sided sword that must be wielded carefully to insure that we do not cause harm in the name of purity. Hope this helps you see the purpose of the standard and that some dogs may be less than perfect but still worth loving and training non the less, they are just not suitable for breeding.

Wheelchair Bob


----------

