[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Understanding the GSD Standard
- From: "Carolyn Martello" <marhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'Evan Ginsburg'" <elg440@xxxxxxx>, <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:40:28 -0800
I pretty much agree with Evan on this. There is not one breeder I know of
that does not have
a dog or bitch they are hoping to improve on or correct something with...yet
still find the
animal worthy of showing to its Championship or to be used for breeding and
improving their
breeding program because of exceptional quality. They ALL have something we
would like
better.....therefore it is not something we "prefer" or consider "desirable"
according to our
interpretation of the Standard.
Actual faults....ESPECIALLY MOVEMENT.....or TEMPERAMENT ....we stay away from.
"Movement"... side gait, suspension, extension, rear drive, no excessive
action...smooth
elastic, rhythmic, outreaching...'well lubricated machine'....all these
considered the movement
or side gait is given the most consideration in the Standard as well as
temperament.
"Undesirable" mentioned once....not even listed as a fault.
Carolyn marhaven@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.marhaven.com
From: showgsd-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:showgsd-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Evan Ginsburg
Subject: Understanding the GSD Standard
I have always felt a "fault" was something to notice, an "undesirable fault"
was something to consider, and a
"disqualifying fault" was something to dismiss the entry with.
One of my major issues is those who do not consider faults in movement serious
faults. I think lack of proper
movement, should be criticized more than it is.
Our standard is such, that it leave a lot of room for the judge to decide how
to use it. It is more of a guideline than a fault sheet, to eliminate dogs.
Each judge can march to his/her own tune. We have a full band to work with.
Evan
-----Original Message-----
From: cudjoegsd <cudjoegsd@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: showgsd-l <showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, Jan 8, 2015 9:12 am
Subject: [ SHOWGSD-L ] Understanding the GSD Standard
Listers-A recent discussion with a knowledgeable lister got me to thinking.
This could be a dangerous thing but as a confirmation judge I need all the help
I can get. In the e-mail discussion, undesirable and fault were mentioned.
After thinking over the discussion, I looked up the definition of each and was
surprised to see that "undesirable" seemed to be more serious than" fault.
". Am I incorrect in my assumption that undesirable is more serious than a
fault? I am not talking about a serious fault but what the Standard lists a
just a fault. This is a serious discussion and we need to keep cool heads when
discussing this subject.
Another question would follow that if we are divided on this then should the
word
'undesirable" be removed. If so, what word or words should replace it. D.D.
Other related posts:
