Rottweileronline.net

In looking at some photos on this board today, I am compelled to wonder about proportion in the Rottweiler these days, in particular those of European breeding, altho it is a concern in the American rings as well.

The ARC breed standard asks for a dog that is nearly square. 9 parts height to 10 parts body length.

In reading the FCI breed standard, I notice that since 2000 ( I think that was the last revision?) dogs are allowed to be AT MOST, fifteen percent longer than tall.

Does anyone have any good illustrations of dogs who are 15% longer than tall?

According to my (UNRELIABLE!!) math, a 27" dog who is correctly proportioned will be about 3" longer than tall. A dog who is 15% longer would be 4.05 inches longer. So, longer than the ARC standard allows, but not much longer.

Discussion?

Are you using the 9 to 10 proportions specified in the ARC standard as both the ideal and the standard’s allowable limit?


Understanding the difference is dependent upon understanding the difference in the intent and in the wording of the 2 standards. In the FCI, the maximum 15% is referring to the acceptable limit of length to height ratio. Anything longer than that would fall out of the acceptable limit of the standard. The Ideal proportions isn’t mentioned in the FCI standard.

In the AKC standard, only the ideal proportions are given.


------------------------------------------------------

FCI Standard -The length of the body, measured from the sternum (breast-bone) to the ischiatic tuberosity, should not exceed the height at the withers by, at most, 15 %.

AKC Standard - the most desirable proportion of the height to length being 9 to 10
---------------------------------------------------------------

In other words 15% length to height isn’t the Ideal in either the FCI or AKC standards


JMHO

Steve

I'm sorry, Steve, I did not feel that my post was ambiguous.

Yes, I am using the ARC's 9 to 10 as the ideal. No, I am not using it as the standard's allowable limit because there is none described.

Yes, I understand that the FCI standard states that 15% longer than tall is the allowable limit, and not the ideal. Opposite of the ARC standard, no ideal is stated.

I am interested in examples of dogs who are around 15% longer than tall, and also dogs who are 9 to 10.

Well, at his BST my dog measured 65 cm tall and 75 cm long (but I think he's really 66 cm tall), which puts him within the 15% ratio, using 66 cm. I don't know what it'd work out on the 9 to 10 scale.

Here's a picture: http://marleneferguson.fotopic.net/p56549868.html

Maureen, your dog looks correctly proportioned to my eye. However, I see some dogs that are so long they look almost deformed.

Apparently this is not a topic of great concern to very many people, tho.

I had thought you were looking for examples of dogs that fell within that frame rather than outside. I think my previous male would have been outside the proportion, but he's dead and gone and I don't have a record of his dimensions, so can't say for sure. But, my instinct is that he was slightly long.

So, here's a question: We are looking for these great moving dogs, but is that going to be a result of dogs that are a bit too long? I know that my dog, that falls within the proportion, crabs a bit when he moves fast because he overreaches. He has very nice movement and can cover a lot of ground, but he does have to do that compensation. So, would his movement actually be better if it was more restricted because he wouldn't have to make compensations with his feet? That might make for an interesting conversation.

Yes, I will admit my experience is not advanced and these may be juvenile questions/observations.

I am not an expert...I love to learn though and hope this discussion gets going. I think the body is getting longer. My now deceased rottweiler was very compact and my rottweiler now is long in body. I would rather have the shorter body but understand it is harder to get nice movement. I will try to post pictures of my two. I also wonder about length of back legs as well, and perhaps it is only my untrained eye?

In the US, the breeders are having to breed longer backs, because they are also breeding for extreme angulation (thus resulting in sloping toplines).

If the dogs didn't have longer backs, they would have 2 choices while moving. Step on their front feet, or crab, so that they move sidewise so their back feet didn't step on their front feet.

I do see a LOT of the "shuffle" stepping in certain lines in the US. The dog has learned to take short rear steps (which makes them look high in the rear) while throwing their front legs way out (also another way to conpensate for extreme angulation).

There can be beautiful movement on a short backed (which is correct) dog, with moderate angulation (which is what the standard calls for) in order to still be in porportion (9 to 10), and still be able to move without tripping on itself.

Of course proper shoulder assembly is a MUST to take the pieces all fit together.

I think this is a great topic as well. I think most readers are a little apprehensive to post when they know their post will be scrutinized by someone who loves drama. The author of this topic insinuated we on this forum don't care about length when they posted "Apparently this is not a topic of great concern to very many people, tho." only 27 hours agter the post first appeared on the forum. I do care and would like to learn what others think, I would love to do so without the drama......