It's kind of contradictory and quite confusing because working people are arguing (and justly, at that) that many breeds ultimately bred for work and not appearance are being transformed into totally different builds, oftentimes not suitable for their original work. On the other hand, the ONLY objective for conformation is to retain the original build of the breed so that it *can* do its original work. Unfortunately, the two groups have severed and, thus, the extremities arose. I honestly feel that if working people have a problem with the standard, they should appeal to the breed club. After all, it is them who decide the standards and if the two groups work together, they can decide on a proper standard that rules out unfavorable physical attributes. Along the same lines, I feel that it MIGHT be favorable for most working, herding, sporting, and similar breed groups to have less detailed standards. In most breeds where this is true, the distinction between working and conformation dogs is less pronounced. For example, take my breed, the Greyhound. The Greyhound standard is incredibly vague, with each physical attribute covered in a mere two or so sentences. As a result, AKC Greys and NGA greys don't have as many differences as, say, GSDs. The primary differences are almost imperceptible to one who has not studied both types. Generally, this includes the fact that AKC greys having well bent hind legs whereas NGA greys have straighter hindquarters. There are minor differences in head and chest structure, but I figure that's all subjective.

As for conformation shows and appearance, I admit conformation is beginning to turn *more* based on appearance. However, as in Terriers, an over worked coat is going to get you excused from the ring. There are still many breeds in which a natural coat and texture is what the exhibitors aim to achieve. I'll have to get back to this later...Time for the pup's dinner.