![]() |
| Four Definitions by Hayes Blake Hoyt "TYPE, SOUNDNESS, STYLE and QUALITY" TYPE In order to define this word, one should go back to the origin of the Standard for any breed of purebred dog. The forerunner of a written Standard for each breed was undoubtedly a contest between similar kinds of dogs: Those which could run were raced against each other; those which could herd were given tasks in individual herding, etc. Naturally, the sort of dog which won most consistently was considered the best kind of animal to own for that particular purpose. He was the right "type" of dog. Division
by Breed Of course there were written descriptions
of different kinds of dogs, first to help owners and breeders, and, later, to
assist the judges, for in time owners allowed their dogs to be judged by men not
necessarily owners, breeders, or even participants in dog duties, but simply familiar
with the requirements of a breed. This judge had to decide which dog most conformed
to its breed description or Standard, which was the correct type. Today, the dog which most closely resembles its standard both in disposition and appearance is the most typical of a certain kind of dog developed for a particular purpose; it has type. From this point of view, the Bulldog's roll is as sound as the Shepherd's driving walk; the bent forelegs of the Pekingese are also as sound as the straight forelegs of the Fox Terrier. For without these various physical and mental conformations, each breed would not fulfill its varied services for mankind. Unsoundness
and Extremes But
sound dogs do not necessarily possess type. One can love and admire a short-backed,
glossy, thin-coated, muscled-up mongrel with a good disposition and a fine, true
way of moving on long, straight legs; nevertheless, such a dog could not herd
sheep through long months of bitter weather, or go to ground after a badger, or
win a race chasing a real or mechanical bunny. This beautifully sound dog is unsuited
for any particular job and so it lacks type, as we define it here. The
opposite of no type is often called "excessive type" or "overdone,"
and means that some or several attributed of the breed Standard have been first
overemphasized, then later overdeveloped by breeders. This usually occurs when
the breed is no longer used for its particular purpose - like the Bulldog today,
whose massive head and jaw, completely capable of pinning a Bull, are too often
set upon so light a body and such infirm legs that the animal could not survive
one instant in its terrific task. It calls to mind the famous Cheshire
Cat in Alice in Wonderland which vanished leaving only its grin behind. "I've
seen cats without a grin," said Alice, "but never a grin without a cat
- it's puzzling." Well, one sees dogs without type but type without a dog
is more than puzzling: it is grotesque and is, in fact, a caricature. This
quality the public abhors. The ignorant breeder may rejoice but once his breed's
ability to be useful has been sacrificed to mere appearance, that breed is on
the decline for the public will not buy. "What good is that dog, except to
show?" is the reaction of the average would-be owner, and he shows more intelligence
than he or we may realize. Caricature is a form of mockery, and when a breed's history has been tossed aside as unimportant, there is no longer that impersonal criterion toward which to breed, namely, that a dog must look and act as if it could do whatever it was developed by man to accomplish. Perhaps, unconsciously, the public feels this and loses faith in the breed. Too, such dogs will no longer act a certain way because they are no longer bred for a certain purpose - even their appearance is a travesty on dogdom! This is the reason for preserving
a Standard, built upon the PURPOSE of the breed. Therefore, a dog most typical of its breed is not exaggerated; he is so much in perfect balance that at first glance he appears far from extraordinary. The others around him in the show ring are more noticeable. Their faults and virtues hit one like a blow; yet the eye keeps returning to that smooth, functional creature whose every part seems proper to him. Even the novice observer is drawn to him and exclaims, "I cannot help liking that dog; he just seems satisfactory." He is indeed a satisfaction. He is an ideal come true and, therefore, he is perfectly balanced. True type, because it is functional, is always completely balanced. Poodle
Origin His hindquarters were unusually well developed and
strong for the purpose of climbing and swimming; for a similar reason, his feet,
though well-padded, had long, flexible toes with considerable thin membrane between
them - "webbed feet," the ancients called them. In thick mud and in
water these strong feet spread out most effectively, and on dry land the muscular
toes arched well-up; it was a strong and useful foot, not in the least like that
of a Terrier. Today, when one hears someone say that his Poodle has "feet
just like a Terrier," one knows that owner is either ignorant of Poodle type
or else he hopes to impress an equally ignorant judge! The head was oval-shaped
with a moderate though definite occiput - the "bird bump" - a moderate
though definite stop, and extremely flat cheeks; a head streamlined for sharp,
marsh grass and actual water diving, yet roomy enough for a calm, unexcitable
brain. The muzzle was long, strong and tight-lipped as, of course, pendulous lips
and open flews could choke or drown a dog delivering a struggling bird through
the water. Also, unlike Spaniels, the eyes were not at all prominent, they were
almond-shaped and set far apart. A large, prominent or protruding eye could be
severely damaged in sharp marsh grasses and in rough water. A Practical "Trim" The disposition of our original Poodle was cooperative and loyal, yet courageous
enough to work in trying conditions, unaided in his worst moments by his master.
This produced a most intelligent and spirited, yet totally obliging creature whose
disposition has kept him a favorite long after his practical usefulness has gone. Then there is the other extreme: The Poodle so delicate in bone, so elegant and fragile that is has no strength at all; the work "sporting" could not possibly be attributed to its kind. Such a dog may be "pretty as a picture" but it certainly lacks "type." It is not a real Poodle. It seems to me that more of our Poodle judges should emphasize the construction of our dog rather than its general appearance, until they learn what the general appearance should really be. They could also well afford to observe the quality of the coat rather than its length, and the way a Poodle moves, rather than its showmanship, because a dog with spirit can move well - but it also can move very badly indeed! Color is, or course, important, but not as important as the above. Color alone does not make the dog so "Poodley," as one great breeder described an excellent specimen of our breed. Color and Size Can
it be that Standard breeders have had too little competition in their own size?
Or have they forgotten our breed Standard and are unaware of type? Certainly the
breeders of Miniatures in their efforts to equal the Standard Poodle have studied
type so thoroughly that the average Miniature type is now superior to that of
the big dogs. The same soon may be true of the Toys where breeders are struggling
to achieve equal status with the Miniatures. But - and it is a big
but - most Toy and Miniature breeders are not interested in the original history
of the Poodle. Their point of view is limited to their own variety, and its show
and companionship values. The big Poodle is the truest representative of our breed
because he still can do what he was bred to do - and we need breeders who appreciate
this fact. Only this point of view will properly preserve our Standards and therefore
all three varieties. TYPE is what makes a Poodle "Poodley," type is what makes all competitors agree that, even if the dog is not one of theirs, it is, nevertheless, a satisfaction. TYPE IS THE STANDARD, the description of a breed based entirely on the purpose that particular kind of dog had to fulfill. SOUNDNESS Now
this is a common confusion among dog people where there should be none. For "type"
and "soundness" are never opposed, nor are they equal in importance
to the judge. The breeder will, and should, have a different value concerning
them as we shall see at the end of this article; nevertheless, to both breeder
and judge, type and soundness are separately important to a purebred dog. They are not equal in importance to the judge, because a breed to be distinctive
from other breeds MUST have type; it a dog lacks type one may not even know what
kind of dog it is! For example, know what particular breed it represents; we may
not be able to evaluate its soundness! Therefore, in a purebred dog, TYPE IS OF
PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE. However, no matter how typical it may be, if it IS unsound,
it should not win in the show ring. In dog parlance, what, exactly,
does the word, "Sound," mean? It means an animal with all its proper
physical parts in place and functioning as nature intended. It means that a dog
can move properly and vigorously; can see, hear and scent; can breed; a dog which
WANTS to do all these things, whose disposition is alert, poised and cooperative. A dog with one leg deformed or gone, with an eye blind or even with entropia,
with a testicle missing, is Unsound. On the other hand, a dog may be only "temporarily"
unsound. For instance, a dog could be lame and recover, a dog could have a fit,
be uncontrollable during this period, yet be normal in every respect after this
temporary unsoundness was over. To further illustrate the difference
between "soundness" and "type" in our breed: A Poodle could
have very short, narrow, high-set ears, definitely wrong in "type,"
but because both ears are there, it is a "sound" Poodle. On the other
hand, should there be only one ear, due to some accident, the dog is unsound,
because a dog should have two ears. A blind dog is unsound, but a dog
with round light eyes is not, in fact, light eyes often possess keener vision.
In our breed, however, they are not typical, and are, therefore, scored against
in the show ring. "Soundness" is often considered to mean
sound movement only, but this work is not that limited. It does refer to proper
movement but it also refers to the ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION, as well as the physical
and mental WELLBEING, of a dog. When, however, a judge says a dog "moves
soundly," he means that the dog moves correctly for its breed and that within
the confines if its breed structure, it is able to move freely and vigorously.
A Bulldog does not gait like a Poodle, but within the confines of its breed structure,
it can move with perfect soundness. Our breed, being developed for
retrieving under difficult weather and water conditions, must not only move freely
and vigorously, it must be "nimble," light on its feet, and strong.
Therefore, toeing out, sometimes indicative of weak pasterns, is unsound in a
Poodle; crossing over in front indicates lack of chest of loose shoulders and
unsoundness. A high-stepping gait that does not cover much ground indicates a
steep shoulder, unsound in a Poodle. For the dogs with weak pasterns, lack of
chest, loose or steep shoulders could not have lasted long in his retrieving days,
nor could he on a cross country hike today. SUCH a dog is built incorrectly for
his kind of work. He is unsound. There is, however, a more subtle but
equally important interpretation of the adjective "sound." For instance,
a dog with one testicle (a monorchid) can sire; yet in our breed it is ruled unsound.
The answer lies in two facts: One, as we have stated above, all parts of such
an animal are not there; two, although what is there can function normally, it
is abnormal in that this lack can be inherited and eventually produce a line of
poor breeders, dogs with insufficient spermatozoa. Therefore, the rule of soundness,
namely that all parts can function, must be there and able to function, is broken
right in the beginning; the first dog is partially unsound. This same
truth applies to temperament - but alas! No rule has been made concerning it.
The breeder alone for his own and for the breed's protection must truly consider
"soundness" in temperament! Disregarding the ultra nervous animal in
a breeding line is very dangerous; overemphasis on narrow, fine skulls is another
grave mistake. Leave room for brain tissue. Remember, a sane dog is not only more
beautiful, he is SOUND; and he can possess perfect "type!" Again
"soundness" in its more subtle form applies to hip dysplasia: The animal
can gait at times - almost normally, so normally that the judge may not be able
to catch the deformity - yet as we all know, at other times, the poor creature
is in great discomfort and is unable to stand. This horrible malformation can
be inherited resulting in a line of weak hindquarters, often cripples. I,
for one, would like to see our Standard disqualify such dogs for life, because
the animal itself is in pain. Hip dysplasia is a far WORSE unsoundness than monorchidism. To return to judging: How does one evaluate "soundness?" I recall
a very great judge telling me that in the ring he first selected the most "typical,"
and FROM THESE, the most "sound." A good answer from the judge's point
of view! If one wished to go further, one could detail what soundness mattered
most: I believe it would be, first, the gait, although body conformation and temperament
are very important. Still the general answer is the best: First, the most "typical,"
and from these, the most "sound." The breeder, however, MUST score differently: Knowing full well the importance of "type," he must still pursue "soundness" as though it was of EQUAL importance; for to him it is. Without soundness his type will degenerate. In fact, he must occasionally sacrifice type for soundness, for only in this way will he, in the end, produce perfection. But never, NEVER, must he sacrifice "soundness" for "type," for in so doing he will turn against nature; and in all our efforts to produce an individual TYPE of dog, we must have nature working with us. Only nature's rules can make a creature's beauty both useful and secure. STYLE The dictionary defines style as "a manner of conduct or
action;" it further uses the work "elegant" and defines it elsewhere
as, "choice, superior, tasteful." In a dog, "style" might
be called conduct or action that emphasizes in a superior manner certain "qualities
of type." For instance, our breed is supposed to move with a "light,
springy" gait, carrying himself "proudly." Therefore, the gait
of the stylish Poodle is unusually light and springy, and his carriage the very
essence of pride. Furthermore, he appears to act this way with intent as well
as pleasure, as if is purpose was completely enjoyable. Yet the same dog can be
shelly, or not move soundly; or he may have a wide head and heavy muzzle. He may
present himself and act as a Poodle should, emphasizing this presentation with
happy assurance. Such a dog has "style," and because of this will be
quite hard to defeat in the show ring. He is noticeable, he has distinction, he
will impress spectators who exclaim, "What flash, high class!" Even
a judge will be forced to give him added attention. This quality pertains
to all breeds. A Bulldog or a Chow can be equally stylish - but not in the same
manner of a Poodle. Their style will emphasize what is peculiar and proper for
a Bulldog or a Chow; the former, a decided roll in its gait plus an added willingness,
a definite pleasure in rolling along; the latter, an aloof, proud dignity either
still or when moving; the stilted gait very decided, full of vigor, yet indifferent
to the crowd. Even with people, a stylish man does not resemble a stylish
woman though both possess the same quality. They conform to what is appropriate
to each, with especial grace and assurance. QUALITY
| ||
|
| ||
What's
New |