Something I notice with racing line dogs is that the angle behind the butt with the back leg is very straight, staighter than the heavier, thicker coated show dog's coats. This results in less butt at the base of the tail. Stark (whose face and eyes are just stunning) shows this.

Is this an accurate assessment? What's that area. or angle called?

n/t n/t

I'd agree with much of Jen's assessment of Stark- He is very leggy. To a fault, though Siberians are not supposed to be 'square' but they should be slightly longer than tall. This facilitates area for the legs to move to generate powerful forward momentum. What I'll add- He's very straight in the front, no chest, shoulders appear steep, and stifles are straight.

As far as the 'conformation' of racing lines- I'll say this as not a 'dig' on anyone's dog that is posted- there is a wide variety between lines of running dogs based on musher's preference of what they are trying to achieve with their dogs...but most commonly what I have seen, any poorly bred/poor conformation Siberian is automatically lumped into 'racing' lines.

That's interesting. Do you think its because of a similar lankyness when compared to what is seen in the show world?

No I truly feel it's an excuse as to why they don't look like Siberians 'should' look- Honestly some of the best Siberian sled dogs are still very identifiable as Siberians and can walk into the show ring without looking sorely out of place.

This is a great example of a true proven harness dog that has retained breed type- Karen Ramstead's Tie


Another wonderful example from Karen Ramstead's lines this dog is at Kelim Siberians (Kim Berg)- Paxton is a SDX (Sled Dog Excellent degree)


Kelim Siberians Merlin also an SDX

Same dog in the show ring


Harvest, once her weight drops off is also a very nice typie girl IMO, though I'd never show her-

Oh and before Megan kills me (LOL) the sire of her puppy Teddy and my (future) puppy

Jack- Jack has his SD degree and is a BISS (Best In Specialty Show) GCH

Thanks, the pics help foor sure. Jack to me looks more in the same boat as Denali: a proven sled dog in conformation and capable of winning shows.

The others look slimmer and taller and lanky compared to say Denali, but while in conformation perhaps, aren't gonna win any shows.

That's my newbie take.

Those dogs are in running weight, not the same as show weight, you can see the difference in Merlin the best- the overall conformation is very correct and very capable of both in the ring and on the trail-

That's where the type comes in. Jack's breeder is looking for something different than the other breeder. Preferences have a lot to do with type and Jack is a representation of her lines. That being said, she's a hell of judge and one of the most straight forward people I've ever met.

I think that's what I was getting at Megan. There are ways to accentuate certain characteristics that can result in pretty different types of look, even while all being in conformation. I'm starting to realize more and more from this thread and generally that there is a much larger versatility to conformation than I , and I suspect most people, realized. It's not difficult to see why people think of the Husky at Westminster as the narrow version of what they should look like.

I love learning more about the possibilities in the breed though and seeing more examples of what a functioning Husky can look like in conformation.

"If there is anything that will confuse someone trying to get a handle on correct type in a dog breed, it is to hear about all the "different types" there are in the breed — the mountain type, the jungle type, the living room type, the boudoir type. When we look to the breed standard, we find not a word about any of these "types." What the breed standard says is what makes a good individual dog of the breed and the things that make a not-so-good dog of the breed.

To listen to some of these exponents of "types," I wonder how in the world they ever get to create a picture of the ideal dog in their mind's eye.

Correct type is the ideal. Dog perfection, if you will. We all know that perfection rarely if ever occurs in purebred dogs. Even our best dogs will fall either slightly to the left or a bit to the right of it. In this respect, some flexibility in interpreting the breed standard must be allowed. A word of caution here, however: This does not mean that an individual's interpretation of the ideal dog described in the breed standard can flow as far and wide as some might like to see it go. There can be observable differences within dogs of the same breed without straying from the original concept of the dog breed (the breed standard). These dogs remain within the parameters of correct breed type but are of different styles.

Common sense tells us every person who reads the breed standard will interpret it in a slightly different manner. It is critical to understand that these interpretations do not change the breed standard or the origin and purpose of the dog breed. The latter are facts that remain constant no matter who reads the standard, studies the breed's history or becomes a breeder. These facts stand firm regardless of how well or how poorly they are understood. If we allow interpretations to create correct type, the variations could and would extend beyond recognition. Correct type is what puts the reins on this happening.

No one should breed or judge show dogs without knowing all the implications of the preceding paragraph!


Styles Within the Breed Standard

Interpretations of the breed standard do create the styles that will always exist within correct type, but they do not and cannot create type itself. A good part of the reluctance to abandon the belief that there are many types within a dog breed stems from the fear that if there is only one type, an individual dog breeder or exhibitor may not have it. It may not align with their particular interpretation of the breed standard.

Accepting the interpretations or variations as styles rather than types can help immeasurably in reassuring a dog breeder or dog show judge that the breed variations do exist, and they can, within limits, be considered under the umbrella of correct type.

This can be in a single characteristic or in the manner that a whole series of characteristics combine to create a different look. For instance, a single characteristic like length of neck can change the style of a purebred dog significantly. The opposite end of the style spectrum would be adding size, bone and coat to a breed.

One dog breeder may believe just a little less neck creates a picture of greater stability. Another may see more length as helping portray the breed more accurately. Neither of the two styles is taken to extremes, yet each produces a different look, both within the realm of correctness.

Each of the two breeders becomes known for their style of dog.

A conformation dog show judge comes along and selects the dog he feels characterizes the breed best. It could come from either the style of dog Breeder "A" produces or Breeder "B." However, the judge must keep in mind what the ideal is and when given the choice opt for the ideal or as close to it as he can get on the day — in this case the neck being neither too long for the standard, nor too short for it. This is a simplification, of course, but it's presented simply in order to get the point across.

Understand, the allowance for style doesn't permit Breeder "A" to make his breed look like a giraffe nor does it give Breeder "B" the right to breed a neck that is far more fitting for a hippopotamus. There are common-sense limits that keep us from going too far in either direction.

Acknowledging deviations from perfection as different types somehow implies that the deviations are just as good as the ideal, and therefore there is no need to be concerned with achieving the ideal nor, because ideal is not the operative word, does one need to worry about extremes. It becomes a breed-as-you-may, judge-as-you-may situation. Perfection may not be achievable, but that doesn't eliminate our responsibility to constantly work toward getting as close to it as possible. It is the very purpose for having written breed standards. An analogy I have used many times is: The great difficulty in climbing to the top of the mountain does not eliminate the mountaintop!"

LOL I like that- well miss Rogue is certainly the boudoir type- lazy beast never wants to get out of bed!

Niraya wrote:

Acknowledging deviations from perfection as different types somehow implies that the deviations are just as good as the ideal, and therefore there is no need to be concerned with achieving the ideal nor, because ideal is not the operative word, does one need to worry about extremes. It becomes a breed-as-you-may, judge-as-you-may situation. Perfection may not be achievable, but that doesn't eliminate our responsibility to constantly work toward getting as close to it as possible. It is the very purpose for having written breed standards. An analogy I have used many times is: The great difficulty in climbing to the top of the mountain does not eliminate the mountaintop!"

This is amazing! So true.

Yeah, that was an amazing post.  To treat it for "good advice" would an understatement.

Thanks Caera

simplify wrote:

Not sure if these are any better! He's standing more in line than the other pictures. He just won't stand still!  The best two out of like 30 pictures.

So here is an updated fail!stack picture of Mishka. All he kept wanting to do is sit down. -_- He is now 11 months old. And he's out of coat in these pictures.

Well here it goes. This is my gorgeous girl, Sophie. She is 2 years old and I am having trouble objectively judging her conformation. I see things I like and then there are things that seem off so IDK. I think I need a more experienced eye to have a look at her!

She was NOT cooperating stacking at all. She just wanted to chase the birds and dig up moles. But I will post the best ones.







Thanks in advance!!

I can't really evaluate based on these shots

At the very least could you get a ce shot of the front of her face and the side of her face?

Hello!

Gus is in no way a show dog haha. Nor do I plan on showing him. But i did have a question about standards that i can't seem to find on the internet anywhere. Everyone always comments on how long he is, but I don't think there is a standard for their length, is there?

They might just think he appears long because he is very thin right now. His height is 23inches-ish. I'm not very accurate with my measuring. But anyways, just thought i'd ask to see if anyone knows anything about this.

Here is the Siberian Illustrated Standard from 1999, on page 10, it describes differences in body length.

http://www.shca.org/pdfs-docs/1999_IS.pdf

I know Mishka is not show quality or anything but I realized I've never measured his height. I need to try to do that. he's pretty tall though. It wouldn't surprise me if he was over 23 1/2 inches.

Thanks Jen!! I LOVE this book! Reminds me of those old library books back when I used to still use a library haha. I feel like I can smell the library book glue smell haha

Gus is definitely excessive length then haha. But i guess he is still a growing boy. Interesting how there are no measurements though. I guess it's just all through observation.

I think they are redoing the illustrated standard and I'm wondering if it may be more in depth in terms of measurements, angles, etc.

After looking into it a little more, I think I must have measured Dizzy incorrectly. I think he is probably actually closer to 23". I'm going to remeasure tonight.

I am so happy to have found this group and this particular topic in general. Thank you for starting it. It was invaluable to go through all the posts from the beginning to see various examples of type and structure, as well as the diagrams posted.

Here are a couple pictures of one of our show puppies "Ti". I would love some confirmation of his strengths and weaknesses. Thanks so much! Sory the movement pic is so blurry. It was a camera phone.

You know, I posted a thread in general discussions as to why my dog was so big, and I wasn't really satisfied with the answers, so hopefully someone that shows dogs can give me their opinion. Ice is 100lb on the dot as of now, but I'm perplexed as to how he's so big. He is a little over weight but if got down to 95, he'd still be giant in terms of Sibe standard. Can anyone see Mal in him at all? Subtle or or apparent? I know bad breeding is a possibility, but if he is pure Sibe and being bred poorly, how many generations would it take of breeding over sized Sibes to get to his size?

What are his showing faults (besides his size)?

Anything that conforms to the standard?

Pictures:




























__________________________________________

Thanks in advance!