British And American Whippets

[UKUSA]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

The standard is THE blueprint for the breed, for any breed. There can be no ifs ands or buts. Colour is a personal thing, a matter of choice but certain things are NOT up for debate, i.e eye shape, front construction, movement etc. If they were we would not need a breed standard and would have Any Variety W hippet .

 

[petrezselyem]

The standard is THE blueprint for the breed, for any breed. There can be no ifs ands or buts. Colour is a personal thing, a matter of choice but certain things are NOT up for debate, i.e eye shape, front construction, movement etc. If they were we would not need a breed standard and would have Any Variety W hippet .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

And I still claim that there are individual dogs and there is a type what is international and universal. :b :b LOTS of examples verify this theorie!

Yes, the standard is the blue print, but show me only one Whippet that totally fits the standard! Impossible!

And finally again: all of us have the right to make our own interpretation, and try to approximate the standard from our own bases or starting points! The same standard! Everyone has the own impression about the perfect Whippet and I don't think there were anybody who bred directly against the standard! :b o

 

[jayp]

Blimey, all this interpretation of the standard is the reason we have

German Shephards unsound in mind and body, many breeds now so heavy and with so much bone they do not resemble their own breed, Bassets with no legs at all, breeds with so much coat they can hardly move, breeds are changing more rapidly than ever before please lets not let whippets go the same way !!!!!!

 

[petrezselyem]

Blimey, all this interpretation of the standard is the reason we have German Shephards unsound in mind and body, many breeds now so heavy and with so much bone they do not resemble their own breed, Bassets with no legs at all, breeds with so much coat they can hardly move, breeds are changing more rapidly than ever before please lets not let whippets go the same way !!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

OK, let's tell me how to interpret and why!

Those who did that wrong things to the mentioned breeds were breeders, breeder-judges, etc. They thought that they are doing well, didn't?

All what we have is the hope that the breeders feel the essence of the breed and do not want to do wrong....

WHO has the right to tell the others how to interpret? WHO has the right to say "what I think is good, and what you all think about the breed is bad"?

We all have the standard (have to know it and understand it, especially the utilization of the breed), all have the goals and all can say little prayers that what we are doing is right. :unsure:

 

[UKUSA]

Blimey, all this interpretation of the standard is the reason we have German Shephards unsound in mind and body, many breeds now so heavy and with so much bone they do not resemble their own breed, Bassets with no legs at all, breeds with so much coat they can hardly move, breeds are changing more rapidly than ever before please lets not let whippets go the same way !!!!!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Well done Janice, finally somebody gets it,

nicky

 

[Juley]

As a comparative newcomer to the breed ( 10 years) and a fairly novice breeder ( 2 litters ( 5 being shown, 1CC 2RCC 3 BPIB, Champ, 3 BPIS (open). All multi Crufts qualified) I have always understood that the Standard was the ideal that we all strive to breed? There will probably never be the "perfect dog" ( although some come closer than others) but surely this carefully discussed and thought out "blueprint" of a Whippet should be what we aim for. Just my thoughts.

 

[dawn]

well said Juley.

We all strive to breed as near to the breed standard as we can although we all interprate the standard slightly differently but never the less we have the good of the breed at heart.

Many of us have American / Swedish /Australian etc.. bloodstock in our lines but these dogs were selected to compliment the stock we have and to improve the British Whippet.

 

[petrezselyem]

We all strive to breed as near to the breed standard as we can although we all interprate the standard slightly differently but never the less we have the good of the breed at heart.

And this is what I was talking about, thank You. :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

[dolly]

At the end of the day, the dogs shown in the UK are being shown under the UK standard, so i fell we MUST Breed and judge as closely as possible to this standard. To insure out lovely breed does not get LOST

 

[UKUSA]

couldnt agree more,

nicky

 

[ROSIE MEADOWS]

Looking at this from the point of view of a non breeder and indeed a non exhibitor, it appears that some involved are patting themselves on the back for producing winning stock and therefore their interpretation must be right. Just looking at the results from the UK champ shows it is obvious that there is not just one "winning" interpretation. Shouldn't people just agree to differ on some points?

 

[Seraphina]

OK, here I traced as well as I could one USA dog one UK dog.

 

[seaspot_run]

OK, here I traced as well as I could one USA dog one UK dog.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Is this a trick question?

They could both be USA Whippets. We have everything here, and the horse it rode in on.

 

[~JO~]

What gets me not just from the showing fraternity but from others as well - is the emphasis the breeders put on their preferences OVER the breed standard. I LIKE them bigger so what? I LIKE them with lots of hind angulation.....etc etc

Everyone has personal preferences but trying to breed to the standard should come first and of course there can be lots of whippet of different 'type' but still fit into the standard, there is no need to breed outside the standard on purpose.

The standard is in place to ensure in decades to come the whippet is still a WHIPPET!! If the breeder thinks their ideal of a perfect whippet is one which is outside of the standard, they obviously think they are more important than breed.

 

[UKUSA]

well said Jo.

Nicky

 

[ROSIE MEADOWS]

I don't think I saw anybody on this thread say that they were trying to breed ouside the standard. As far as I can see the argument is that some think that others breeding programmes don't fit with their interpretation of the standard. So we have the question of type. That is a personal preference. It is a shame that everybody cannot appreciate a good example of every type.

I know I am not a showing buddy but I am not unfamiliar with the show scene in a different sphere. Being impartial I do not feel the need to rush to anybodys defence or attack any haples person that falls outside the circle.

I'm jusy saying it as I see it.

 

[Juley]

Surely the whole point of having a carefully thought out "standard" of any breed, is so that, that particular breed, whatever it may be is instantly recognisable. We can all have our preference but surely for the continuation of our lovely breed, we shouldn't let our preference overide what is set down in black and white.

 

[ROSIE MEADOWS]

Surely the whole point of having a carefully thought out "standard" of any breed, is so that, that particular breed, whatever it may be is instantly recognisable.  We can all have our preference but surely for the continuation of our lovely breed, we shouldn't let our preference overide what is set down in black and white.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The whole point is that everybody thinks that they are conforming to the standard.

There are those classic drawings where for instance one person would see two black faces and another person may see a white candlestick.

We don't all look at things with the same eye.

 

[ace]

The whole point is that everybody thinks that they are conforming to the standard.There are those classic drawings where for instance one person would see two black faces and another person may see a white candlestick.

We don't all look at things with the same eye.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

:thumbsup:

 

[seaspot_run]

Surely the whole point of having a carefully thought out "standard" of any breed, is so that, that particular breed, whatever it may be is instantly recognisable.  We can all have our preference but surely for the continuation of our lovely breed, we shouldn't let our preference overide what is set down in black and white.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

But it's not set down in black and white, not really. In some cases, it is. Such as, the US standard says that the nose should be entirely black. So, a nose which is not entirely black is therefore not correct.

A blue eye is a disqualification here. Also--not a matter of opinion.

But what about this?

"Front not too wide."

:- "

What's too wide? Too wide to fit in a standard starting box for racing without greasing the sides down with soap? Bull terrier wide? Boxer wide? Too wide to fit under the fence if the dog lays on its side and really pushes?

You can see how one person's "too wide" might be another person's "good substance and sturdy".

Hindquarters:

"Stifles well bent without exaggeration with hocks well let down. Able to stand naturally over a lot of ground."

Wow, breeders everywhere argue over this one. Does well mean "very", "extremely", "somewhat", "well enough so the dog looks balanced", or "more than, say, a Doberman Pinscher, you know, a really good one"? No exaggeration, surely, but WELL bent, WELL let down, and standing naturally over a LOT of ground (which can be gotten by having more rear out behind the dog, and indeed, this is implied because it's in the section on rear, not the section on body length.

And this is where the seeds of people who breed for very moderate-looking rear angles and length of rear bones stake their ground, while those who prefer more angulated hindquarters which set out behind the dog hang their hats on the same wording.

The standard could have absolutely avoided this controversy by simply stating in plain language that a line drawn from the point of the hip to the ground should hit the front toes of the dog when it is in a balanced stance, as do other standards. But it did not, so I assume there is interpretation possible here and those who like a bit more rear on their Whippets have an argument, and so do those who prefer a more moderate rear also have their case. The one kind of rear which is clearly incorrect is a straight, stilted, underangulated rear, but this rear can be found on a lot of good sprint Whippets, so there you have the seeds of another controversy.

I think such differences of opinion are not only legitimate, they are vital to keeping our sport so interesting and allowing breeders to put their personal stamp on dogs that nonetheless fit the standard well enough to be competitive.