 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: Leg length |
  |
|
Opinions on leg length..
I have been told two different ways. The legs should be half the height of the do from the elbow to the ground..
Depth of the of chest should be the same as the length of leg from elbow to ground.. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jennie
Omega Dog
Joined: 13 Jul 2008
Posts: 241
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Depth of the of chest should be the same as the length of leg from elbow to ground..
Sounds like it. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I think so too.. I think I will get a few dogs out because I think either way you do it, it is close to the same. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amanda Reichelt
Shamans
Joined: 12 May 2008
Posts: 609
Location: Colville, WA (USA)
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have always determined length of leg by depth of chest. They should be of the same length. I have never measured leg length any other way - would be interesting to hear if they "measure up" the same, done either way you mentioned. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I have been told depth of chest but I have read that it is half the height from the elbow to ground.. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I always thought that you want length to the elbow that is about half of the total height so that dog gets two things: optimum land coverage (decent reach) but isnt too leggy to prevent agility... I dont measure it always from/to chest (usually elbow and chest depth are at the same spot) as some dogs have chest that is too deep or too shallow. IMO its not leg length in relation to the chest that is important, but rather to dog's height that determines reach. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| I always thought that you want length to the elbow that is about half of the total height so that dog gets two things: optimum land coverage (decent reach) but isnt too leggy to prevent agility... I dont measure it always from/to chest (usually elbow and chest depth are at the same spot) as some dogs have chest that is too deep or too shallow. IMO its not leg length in relation to the chest that is important, but rather to dog's height that determines reach. |
That is how I judge as well. But some people are so into leg these days that they say the correct leg is lacking leg now. It kills me when people try to convice you that the standard is this way or that way to fit there beliefs.
I am not sure if I agree with that height and reach.. A shorter dog with the correct leg will have just as good reach as a taller dog with correct leg. IMO The length of the back has some to do with reach as well. IMO |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shadyblueamstaffs
Alpha Dog
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 1214
Location: Missouri USA
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
| Lea wrote: |
| I always thought that you want length to the elbow that is about half of the total height so that dog gets two things: optimum land coverage (decent reach) but isnt too leggy to prevent agility... I dont measure it always from/to chest (usually elbow and chest depth are at the same spot) as some dogs have chest that is too deep or too shallow. IMO its not leg length in relation to the chest that is important, but rather to dog's height that determines reach. |
That is how I judge as well. But some people are so into leg these days that they say the correct leg is lacking leg now. It kills me when people try to convice you that the standard is this way or that way to fit there beliefs.
I am not sure if I agree with that height and reach.. A shorter dog with the correct leg will have just as good reach as a taller dog with correct leg. IMO The length of the back has some to do with reach as well. IMO |
When looking at movement you have to take everything into consideration, length of leg, length of back,hock length, front and rear angulation, all of this has to be taken into consideration when talking about movement and proper reach and drive. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree 100%..
What I don't hearing is a taller dog will move better.. If the dog is built correctly it should move correctly no matter what the height.. I think people come up with more excuses to fit their beliefs then ever. I won't go on.lol But I think I taller dog can hide things easier then a smaller one and maybe that is the reason for the excuses. No directing that at anyone. Just a opinion. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Of course other things come into consideration, but we were discussing only leg length.... You cant have good movement without everything *beep* into place, but when talking about length of leg, as far as I understand movement, length comes into play because of importance of reach... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Of course other things come into consideration, but we were discussing only leg length.... You cant have good movement without everything *beep* into place, but when talking about length of leg, as far as I understand movement, length comes into play because of importance of reach... |
I agree.. But a 17 in dog with correct leg will move as good if not better then a 21 inch dog with correct leg. The Height of the dog should not matter.. I here it a lot but it is funny I hear from only the people that have TALL dogs.lol But anyway Good posts!! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| No the leg length does matter in relation to height. Dogs with different heights should not have same leg length. Leggier dogs may move OK (depending on everything else) but their agility will suffer. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| No the leg length does matter in relation to height. Dogs with different heights should not have same leg length. Leggier dogs may move OK (depending on everything else) but their agility will suffer. |
That is why I don't be there should be people out there breeding for those TALL dogs.. Then don't fit the standard IMO. Stocky is in the standard and when you get those tall dogs how can you have stock..The dog would have to be pretty darn wide to fit that part of the standard. IMO |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 94
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well it all depends how stocky. Its all give and take in dog structure. Moderation!!! If they are too stocky, you are losing on agility, indurence. If they are too leggy again, you are losing on the agility... If they are too tall, they are too massive, cant move well, too bulky.... There is a reason AST standard calls for preferred height. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1680
Location: va
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2008 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Well it all depends how stocky. Its all give and take in dog structure. Moderation!!! If they are too stocky, you are losing on agility, indurence. If they are too leggy again, you are losing on the agility... If they are too tall, they are too massive, cant move well, too bulky.... There is a reason AST standard calls for preferred height. |
I mean STOCKY.LOL Not to stocky but stocky.. When you have 22 in dogs, does people understand how wide that dog has to be to be Stocky.lol
But I understand what you are saying. I think when you get real tall then you will have massive if you are close to standard. It is not correct.
ROFLMAO.. That is funny.. Preferred Height.. Throw that out the window.. I personal think the about 18 to 19 in is just that but it kills me that people say that part of the standard is open..lol Yes, again from people with dogs over 21 inches.IMO. I have had them and I don't see any problem when them in a breeding program for certain reasons.. But to breed for dogs over 20 inches to me is incorrect. But I am meaning in my yard and that is the only yard I worry about. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
