Westminster 2007- update pg 8 post112*REPLAY 2/13

[3GSDMom]

Yes, Im not fond of the American lines at all. I dont find them very appealing. That Geneva (The one that won out of the GSDs- Bred by James Moses, Kaleef dogs) is not a very pretty dog at all. A lot of people find her "stunning" but I find her quite the opposite. However, the GSD that placed second, Ch Rowland's Cezanne Of Imp-Cen, was gorgeous!. I had the pleasure of meeting him and I'm in love!

[borzoimom]

Jimmy Moses is a wonderful man!!! I know him well..

[3GSDMom]

He does seem like a good man. From what I've read. Lol. I was actually hoping to meet him, but didn't see him when I was hanging around the GSD ring.

[.sarah]

A friend of mine's sister won BOB with her Bouviers des Flandres as well as 1st place in the group ring.



Ch Ace's Indelible Mark HT

[borzoimom]

He does seem like a good man. From what I've read. Lol. I was actually hoping to meet him, but didn't see him when I was hanging around the GSD ring.

Travis- you were seeing a show quality shepherd. They are different than your dog- sloping lay back ( the shoulder) flat muzzle like a wedge- deeper angulation with powerful hips, sloping top line for agiile back etc. Your baby is beautiful - but not show quality.. The shepherd should have the ability to just run or easily with powerful hind quarters and fluid back to clear a 6 foot or more obstacle...
I know its a different look than what you look at daily- but look at what is supposed to be in the breed- including the length of the back as a almost fluid working machine of motion.. I am sure you were quite surprised- but what you criticized is more what the breed is.. The breed has a serious form to function...

[3GSDMom]

I am fully aware of the differences between the different lines.
I still do not care for the American Showlines. I'm more into the working dogs, the ones that stay true or as close as possible to Von Stephanitz original plan for the Ultimate working dog. These showline dogs purely breed for Looks...which makes sense because they are Show dogs. They are perfect for what they were bred for...Showing. I wasn't questioning that, I was stating facts that I have learned from numerous breeders and others who work with the breed. As well as the countless hours of research I have put into the breed.
I also know that Travis isn't show quality. Nor do I want him to be. He resembles the working lines more (though I'm not sure of his exact lines, but Im pretty sure it is a mix of different lines).
I was simply answering the question about the angulation. American lines (and sometimes German Show lines) have extreme angulation. (Though that is not the case with all Showlines ofcourse). Working lines have very little angulation.
Don't mean to start an argument or debate, just trying to clear up my post.

ETA- Reread your post, The breed wasn't meant to have that extreme angulation though. No where in the original standard or any standard do I see that they were meant to be bred with that exagerated, over the top angulation.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are trying to say?

[borzoimom]

I am fully aware of the differences between the different lines.
I still do not care for the American Showlines. I'm more into the working dogs, the ones that stay true or as close as possible to Von Stephanitz original plan for the Ultimate working dog. These showline dogs purely breed for Looks...which makes sense because they are Show dogs. They are perfect for what they were bred for...Showing. I wasn't questioning that, I was stating facts that I have learned from numerous breeders and others who work with the breed. As well as the countless hours of research I have put into the breed.
I also know that Travis isn't show quality. Nor do I want him to be. He resembles the working lines more (though I'm not sure of his exact lines, but Im pretty sure it is a mix of different lines).
I was simply answering the question about the angulation. American lines (and sometimes German Show lines) have extreme angulation. (Though that is not the case with all Showlines ofcourse). Working lines have very little angulation.
Don't mean to start an argument or debate, just trying to clear up my post.

ETA- Reread your post, The breed wasn't meant to have that extreme angulation though. No where in the original standard or any standard do I see that they were meant to be bred with that exagerated, over the top angulation.

Mine were the top working lines in the US as well... Here is midas. one of the photos I have I use the most but as Dr.goodnow can tell you- tops he may be- there were many after and before him out of my lines. I had some of the top SCh111 etc and working shepherds in the country... And all looked the same...

[DrKym]

Whoa thats Midi my BOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!

hehe I can call him that! he loved me! I am not going to weigh in on this thread much as
A) My only 2 shepherds were Michelles, and that was my choice as I knew and still do know many excellent breeders trainers and Handlers, (yes Jimmy Moses is one of em so are several others )
B) I still feel that a shepherd that cannot perform their function by gaining titles at both ends of their name are not worthy of breeding or showing. Both of mine did that. In spades.

Now understand this is my opinion, it isn't meant to upset or harrass anyone, because my rotties were held to the same standard. With several am/can/jap champs in my kennel, I think I did alright in that part of my life.

That being said, we all love our dogs for what ever reasons, coat colors eyes, what ever I dont care as long as they are loved, and I can say without a doubt....evey single dog here on PT is a champ in their own way to all of us.

Boy I miss the Midi boy though..............................Shell I want a copy of that pic.

Michelle years ago we won some and lost some against each other but we did have some FUN!