# Cut down champion - structure



## Purple Poodle

I'll give it a go 

Nice head shape from this angle but could use a little more chin.
Ears look a little small, and set to far back.
Neck is a little short and loose.
Looks a little to upright in the shoulder.
Nice depth of chest.
Long in body but nice topline.
Nice hips and rear angulation.
Good tail set but looks a little curved.

I will assume he was short in stride, with moderate reach and nice drive. Would have nice head and tail carriage in motion.


----------



## JE-UK

I'm very interested in this thread, but only have an eye for conformation in horses, not dogs. And particularly not poodles. 

Although I have to say, if he were a horse, it would be bloody awful conformation .


----------



## Feralpudel

Cynthadia said:


> Hi everyone:
> 
> So, based on the above criteria (or anything else you can think of), how do you think this dog moved?
> 
> Cynthia


OK, I'll play. In no particular order:

The chest looks a little shallow but not much
Decent prosternum, especially relative to other spoos
Decent length of upper arm--looks like it might be a bit short, but I've seen shorter
Shoulder/upper arm a little steep
Nice level topline
Correct angle of croup; length of pelvis hard to tell for me
Good tailset and carriage
Nice length of neck, but set of neck looks steep to me (not sure that's the correct term)
Good rear angulation--stylish picture, but also very functional, not overdone
OK bend of stifle...this is a bit of an obession at the moment...stifles are the new feet, LOL
Not down-faced; could use a little more underjaw
Nice amount of bone

Movement--I'm guessing very nice drive, but maybe could use more reach. This is really where I need to learn. Given that he is square and not super short-backed, I would guess he would have nice movement, i.e., no need to crab or otherwise make room for his legs. He also looks like he could get under himself with his rear--no "flutter kicking." Good head carriage while moving. 

I am trying not to use what I already know about this dog, as I think I have seen the movement picture years ago.


----------



## Cynthadia

JE-UK said:


> I'm very interested in this thread, but only have an eye for conformation in horses, not dogs. And particularly not poodles.
> 
> Although I have to say, if he were a horse, it would be bloody awful conformation .


"Bloody awful conformation" is a legitimate response, but *only* if the conclusion is preceded by an explanation/dissection of the parts that might lead you to that conclusion. That's how it works for me at least.

And speaking of horse conformation, last night I had the pleasure of going to see the horse show Cavalia. I know zip about horse conformation, and spent the entire time trying not to blink so that I could absorb everything possible. 
Cavalia was magical.

So, give it a shot. It's not about right or wrong observations, but how one perceives how structure translates to movement.


----------



## NOLA Standards

I'll play, too. My Mentor tells me I've a good eye, but sometimes she still has to explain to me exactly what I'm seeing/questioning.

I'd guess lovely head carriage not a lot of reach as the arm looks shorter and the shoulder a bit steep.

At first I thought he was long but he balances - so that impression is likely coming from shoulder angle and neck. He seems larger (remember my bitch is 21 inches and I like a lot of refinement - probably because reds as a rule do not have any) than my preference. Certainly not coarse, but not as refined as I prefer.)

Underjaw/chin is lacking

"He was handstacked but position is natural" so I'd say well trained  with decent chest and ribspring. I'd like to see his front legs more under him.

I also prefer a higher angle on the point of rump -but good tail set and tail carriage. 

He's not fancy, but in show coat he was probably lovely.

Thanks!


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

I am willing to give it a go.

Great length of neck.
Lack of underjaw.
Long in body.
Lovely rear angulation and rear
Ears set well, but too far back
Decent chest.
Good tail set.

I suspect this dog has drive when moving because of its rear and the little extra length in body. Not certain about reach.


----------



## CharismaticMillie

Cynthadia said:


> "Bloody awful conformation" is a legitimate response, but *only* if the conclusion is preceded by an explanation/dissection of the parts that might lead you to that conclusion. That's how it works for me at least.
> 
> And speaking of horse conformation, last night I had the pleasure of going to see the horse show Cavalia. I know zip about horse conformation, and spent the entire time trying not to blink so that I could absorb everything possible.
> Cavalia was magical.
> 
> So, give it a shot. It's not about right or wrong observations, but how one perceives how structure translates to movement.


I think JE-UK was joking and implying that if a horse looked like your dog, it would be the wrong conformation because the horse would look like a dog!


----------



## Raena

I'm with JE-UK in that i only know horses but this is what i saw (in horse language so some may not translate )

Neck ties into the shoulder/chest oddly (poss slightly ewe necked)
steep in the sholder and lacks lenght there
ok length of the forearm
good depth of girth but lacks chest
long back
unbalanced front and rear angulation
rear angulation is ok
i have a hard time with heads and it has no play in movement so im leaving it out 

As far as movement i would expect to see a deep hock, driving rear assembaly but more knee in front due to the short/sharp angle resulting in a short stride in front and a more "hackney" ish apperence


----------



## HOTW

Ok I'll bite

He's long bodied, longer than tall, straight topline. Decent chest, a little straight in the blade, upper arm is a touch short due to the upright shoulder blade. I assume he has retained a decent breadth of chest despite the upright shoulder. He is tall on legs prob about 60% in proportion to his height. Nice head carriage but lack of neck muscle, neck is moderate would be better with proper layback of shoulder blade.. Head could use a bit more lower jar, nice length of muzzle, suspect a lack of chiseling,muzzle on the fine side. Tail carriage is good for length of back not high but not low, prob carries about 11 when trotting. Moderate loin, pelvis a little steep but femur is good length. Hocks a little turned out(not sure term to say this)not so obvious to be cow hocked. I suspect he rmoved forward with good length of stride not fancy but covered distance. Good rear extention,drive from the rear but moderate extention in the front.


----------



## neVar

yes s a horse person (who ws on inspection teams for warmbloods for several years) my issue comes when dogs are not built like horses *L* and poodles are not


----------



## JE-UK

Indeed, the horse comment was joking. Different form, different function.

I wouldn't want to sit on a horse with that shoulder. Luckily, I rarely sit on dogs.


----------



## JE-UK

Cynthadia said:


> "Bloody awful conformation" is a legitimate response, but *only* if the conclusion is preceded by an explanation/dissection of the parts that might lead you to that conclusion. That's how it works for me at least.
> 
> And speaking of horse conformation, last night I had the pleasure of going to see the horse show Cavalia. I know zip about horse conformation, and spent the entire time trying not to blink so that I could absorb everything possible.
> Cavalia was magical.
> 
> So, give it a shot. It's not about right or wrong observations, but how one perceives how structure translates to movement.


Ok, just for fun, if he were a horse, the biggest flaws would be:

- By horse standards, that's a terrible shoulder, far too straight. Horses with a very straight shoulder are horrid to ride, with a gait that's like sitting on a jackhammer.

- Neck ties into the shoulder too high, no wither

- Upright pasterns (see above for 'jackhammer')

- Short back

- Tail set too high into the rump

- Can't really tell with the leg pompoms, but looks like he could be back at the knee.


----------



## fjm

JE-UK said:


> - By horse standards, that's a terrible shoulder, far too straight. Horses with a very straight shoulder are horrid to ride, with a gait that's like sitting on a jackhammer.


I was once loaned a pony with a straight shoulder. Rode him bareback the first time out, while waiting for a saddle ... BIG mistake!


----------



## cbrand

I'm late to this party and it may not be fair that I play because I think I know who this dog is and I have had my hands on him. I try to just address the picture as shown.


*Depth of chest* Just a touch short. Still better than 90% of Poodles out there.

*Prosternum* WOW! Can I have this please! 

*Shoulder blade and upper arm* I think his upper arm is straighter than ideal. As far as layback, this is hard for me to judge without feeling. I can't really tell if the shoulders go all the way back to where the topline starts to rise or if they are sitting up closer under his ear. But based on how the neck ties in I think he is more upright in the shoulder.

*Topline* Beautiful

*Angle and length of pelvis* Lovely long pelvis. Correct angle, but I have to admit to liking a bit flatter croup. Call me a slave to style. Still, powerful and athletic.

*Tail Set* Tad low but good carriage

*Angle of rear* Matches front. Slightly straight through the stifle.

*Length and set on of neck* Lovely length of neck. It is not ewe necked, but I don't care for the way it sets in. I'm sure that he had excellent carriage.

*Length of loin* Short short short. Very strong

*Squareness* Not square as measured on this photo. He is longer than he is tall.

*Hocks* Well let down

*Head carriage* Very upright. 

*So, based on the above criteria (or anything else you can think of), how do you think this dog moved?* I swear that I've given up understanding what makes a dog move well. I feel like some dogs use themselves beyond their structure and some fall short of their potential. Looking is not always doing. I would think based on the front angles that he would not have a big reach. He looks like the front and rear match, though so I bet his movement was even. 

Is this Patton? I ask because I know something about his movement (having walked him and gaited him) that I'd like to ask about.


----------



## Cynthadia

cbrand said:


> I'm late to this party and it may not be fair that I play because I think I know who this dog is and I have had my hands on him. I try to just address the picture as shown.
> 
> 
> *Depth of chest* Just a touch short. Still better than 90% of Poodles out there.
> 
> *Prosternum* WOW! Can I have this please!
> 
> *Shoulder blade and upper arm* I think his upper arm is straighter than ideal. As far as layback, this is hard for me to judge without feeling. I can't really tell if the shoulders go all the way back to where the topline starts to rise or if they are sitting up closer under his ear. But based on how the neck ties in I think he is more upright in the shoulder.
> 
> *Topline* Beautiful
> 
> *Angle and length of pelvis* Lovely long pelvis. Correct angle, but I have to admit to liking a bit flatter croup. Call me a slave to style. Still, powerful and athletic.
> 
> *Tail Set* Tad low but good carriage
> 
> *Angle of rear* Matches front. Slightly straight through the stifle.
> 
> *Length and set on of neck* Lovely length of neck. It is not ewe necked, but I don't care for the way it sets in. I'm sure that he had excellent carriage.
> 
> *Length of loin* Short short short. Very strong
> 
> *Squareness* Not square as measured on this photo. He is longer than he is tall.
> 
> *Hocks* Well let down
> 
> *Head carriage* Very upright.
> 
> *So, based on the above criteria (or anything else you can think of), how do you think this dog moved?* I swear that I've given up understanding what makes a dog move well. I feel like some dogs use themselves beyond their structure and some fall short of their potential. Looking is not always doing. I would think based on the front angles that he would not have a big reach. He looks like the front and rear match, though so I bet his movement was even.
> 
> Is this Patton? I ask because I know something about his movement (having walked him and gaited him) that I'd like to ask about.


Yes, this is Patton (a/k/a Ch. Jubilant General Patton).

I really appreciate everyone's structural observations about the dog. Because I haven't bred a litter in over a decade, I only have old pictures to offer.

I have some observations about the dog's structure.

FRONT

1. I never liked the way his shoulder tied in, and always suspected that he was too upright in the shoulder blade. When stripped down, I see that was the case.
2. His chest reached exactly to his elbows.
3. His prosternum was 2+ inches.
4. His upper arm was fairly decent, which allowed him to move with some (albeit not perfect) reach.
5. Although his neck gives the appearance of being exceptionally long, it only looks long because the shoulder blade is too far forward.
6. His front didn't fall away. What I mean is that he had depth right below his prosternum that carried through behind his elbows.


REAR

1. He was a tad straighter in the rear than I liked, or so I thought at the time when I compared him to other dogs in the ring.
2. He had a long pelvic bone that angled properly (not the flat angle that today passes as correct). Note: I've since found out that the pelvic bone does not move when the dog moves. Think about the mechanics of that when you observe dogs with flat or steep pelvic angles.

BODY

1. He had a nice length of ribcage that was well-sprung (and not barrel shaped)
2. Loin - it was broad, however I'm still undecided as to length
3. I loved his bone and muscling, although some would disagree.

MOVEMENT

1. Pretty much from the moment he was up on his feet, he moved as he did at adulthood.
2. When left to his own devices, he naturally defaulted to a trotting gait.
3. He never had uphill or downhill-type movement.
4. He never dropped his topline when he moved
5. He didn't need any time in the ring to reach his proper gait.

CONCLUSION RE HOW STRUCTURE TRANSLATES INTO MOVEMENT

Patton was angled sufficiently in the front to accommodate his moderate rear and properly angled pelvis. His length of rib and loin, furthermore, also allowed him to move with collection, cover ground easily, and move with very little effort. (I know this because I've watched a tape of him move in the ring - frame-by-frame.)

I used to think that Patton was a great mover. In comparison to the other dogs in the ring, he might very well have been a great mover. However, comparing Patton's movement to other dogs only tells me how he compares, but nothing about correctness for the breed.

Therefore, I've concluded that Patton was a good mover, but not a great mover.

MISCELLANEOUS

To those of you who had comments about his head (lack of chin, etc.), I would say that Patton didn't lack chin so much as being lippy. It was only recently that I started to notice the difference between lippy and snipey. I considered his head to be coarse (zero back skull, but lacking chiseling), only salvaged by his expression (which was masculine, benevolent, and kind).

Unlike many out there in the show ring, I'm not a head hunter. What I can't abide is a sharp or stupid expression, or a toilet paper roll head.

Here is a picture of Patton in his pet trim as well as a headshot. I'm also including a picture of his litter sister (Gayla) and his aunt (Zephyr). Once again, I'm sorry for throwing out old pictures of dogs I've bred, but it's all I have. I think you'll notice some similarities in the three dogs.

Regards,

Cynthia


----------



## CharismaticMillie

This is fun to read! I am learning so much even though I don't have much to offer!


----------



## Ms Stella

ChocolateMillie said:


> This is fun to read! I am learning so much even though I don't have much to offer!


Me too..I cant wait for the 2nd photo and the info on this dogs gait  Thanks to all of you for letting me "lurk"


----------



## HOTW

"a toilet paper roll head."

I absolutly love this expression, must file it away!!


----------



## Feralpudel

HOTW said:


> "a toilet paper roll head."
> 
> I absolutly love this expression, must file it away!!


This definitely caught my eye, too, because this is an expression I have used to describe a head I *like*--i.e., a muzzle that is reasonably long but not snipey or weak. I wold be interested in Cynthia's thoughts about what she doesn't like about a toilet paper roll head.


----------



## Cynthadia

Feralpudel said:


> This definitely caught my eye, too, because this is an expression I have used to describe a head I *like*--i.e., a muzzle that is reasonably long but not snipey or weak. I wold be interested in Cynthia's thoughts about what she doesn't like about a toilet paper roll head.


I had to laugh when I read this. Who knows how certain expressions get started and what they mean to the user.

To me, a toilet paper roll head is one that is exagerated in length, and lacks strength, chiseling, and breed character. Frequently, this type of head looks gender neutral to me and the owner of such head has a harsh expression.

Although pictures oftentimes are deceiving, there was a black standard puppy headshot on PF that I thought was just lovely. Just looking at the head, I knew I it was a boy without having to check the plumbing.

On a boy, I want a head that fills my hand, with an expression that surveys the landscape for usurpers, yet exudes intelligence, fire, and quiet confidence. I should not have to go below deck to verify gender.

On a bitch head, I still want strength, fire, and intelligence, but a more subdued expression. 

Someone recently conveyed a conversation to me she had with a Doberman judge while sitting ringside watching Standard Poodles. The judge commented that proper expression in the Standard Poodle was a thing of the past. "Staring at bait," the judge commented, is not a substitute for expression.

What i think this judge meant is that the dogs all look the same - standing there like robots, staring at bait, showing fixation, but no intelligence.

Hmm, but made me rethink how I evaluate heads and expression.

By the way, my opinion about heads is not my own. I read it in a book, which i think was the Book of the Poodle. The author conducted an interview with a long-time SP breeder. I have the book in storage and, once I feel like taking my life in my hands by climbing a ladder and carrying down a big box, I'll get the book and quote parts of the interview.

Even though I don't have an original idea about Poodles (as far greater minds have preceded mine), I do however have a knack for coming up with words and phrases that I think are funny.

_Fish on a Platter_ - what i refer to as stacking a dog so that the head is pulled forward and the tail is at a flacid half-mast.

_Flea-bite-us_ (you might spell it Phlibtis) a dog that is infested with flea bites.

_Illegal dumping_ - letting your dog crap in places where excrement is not allowed and then compounding your faux pax by failing to pick up.

_Tubular_ - a dog whose body looks like PVC pipe, with no defined muscle.

_Kick ass movement_ - a dog whose hocks appear to touch his pinbone when gaiting.

I've also heard some heads referred to as "Big Bird" - picture a beak popping out of a nest.

Cynthia

p.s. I just saw the way to spell check on this website. that's where I'm going next!


----------



## Feralpudel

I try not to obsess about heads, as I think it is a newbie trap. But that still doesn't stop me from keying in on them when I'm lying on the couch looking at the eye candy in PV. Snipey is my big pet peeve about heads. The other terms I have heard to describe the trend is heads/expressions is sinister and shark-like. 

To me, toilet paper roll implies a finish of muzzle that precludes lippy, snipey, and down-faced. I've pasted three heads I particularly like. One is Bam Bam, one is Lake Cove Kiss the Girls and Make 'em Sigh (how did they get that name past the AKC?), and the third is Dexter's sire (sorry for the bad shot).


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

This is my favourite head of all time. Bibelot's Tall Dark and Handsome circa 1968. This is the head that I compare all others to.


----------



## Feralpudel

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> This is my favourite head of all time. Bibelot's Tall Dark and Handsome circa 1968. This is the head that I compare all others to.


Yes! I also finally found a photo of Tramp cut down, and there is a lot to like about that dog. If you have Anna Nicholas' Book of the Poodle, that photo is on p.311.


----------



## Sutton Bend

The education I am getting on this thread is wonderful! I only hope I can absorb it to it's fullest! Maybe I will save it and come back: one bite at a time. Thanks.


----------



## Cynthadia

Feralpudel said:


> I try not to obsess about heads, as I think it is a newbie trap. But that still doesn't stop me from keying in on them when I'm lying on the couch looking at the eye candy in PV. Snipey is my big pet peeve about heads. The other terms I have heard to describe the trend is heads/expressions is sinister and shark-like.
> 
> To me, toilet paper roll implies a finish of muzzle that precludes lippy, snipey, and down-faced. I've pasted three heads I particularly like. One is Bam Bam, one is Lake Cove Kiss the Girls and Make 'em Sigh (how did they get that name past the AKC?), and the third is Dexter's sire (sorry for the bad shot).


All three of these heads look just wonderful to me. They certainly aren't cookie cutter heads (they don't look identical to each other), which in my opinion is a strong argument in favor of diversity of head style as well as diversity of - nah, I'm not going down that road today.

When I look at Bam Bam's head, it makes me think of the old style Pinafore heads. 

Now, when you compare these three heads to Patton's head, I think it becomes much more clear what I mean when i say that I find Patton's head to be coarse. 

Cynthia


----------



## Cynthadia

Feralpudel said:


> Yes! I also finally found a photo of Tramp cut down, and there is a lot to like about that dog. If you have Anna Nicholas' Book of the Poodle, that photo is on p.311.


That's the book i was talking about. The book has been out of print for a long time, but I managed to pick up a used copy some years ago at a dog show. I just love how breed type, etc. is discussed. 

The picture of Tramp is just too small for me to see the details of the head. can you send an enlarged pix?

Cynthia


----------



## Feralpudel

Cynthia, I had one follow-up question to the Patton photo. I thought he was square, but just barely; others thought he was long in the body. How does he measure?


----------



## Feralpudel

Cynthadia said:


> Now, when you compare these three heads to Patton's head, I think it becomes much more clear what I mean when i say that I find Patton's head to be coarse.
> 
> Cynthia


I think white is so much more unforgiving than black with heads. A coarse head on a black can sort of recede into the shadows. But on a white...ooof. I see a lot of snipey whites here on the east coast. It may be the lines, but it may also be that a coarse head is so hard to hide on a white.


----------



## Cynthadia

Feralpudel said:


> Cynthia, I had one follow-up question to the Patton photo. I thought he was square, but just barely; others thought he was long in the body. How does he measure?


I'm so glad you asked that question. 

I saw for the first time the other night that when I looked at the picture of Patton on a wide-screen monitor, he looked as long as a truck - quite different from when I looked at the picture on my square monitor.

As far as I remember, he was square. 

Had Patton's shoulder been set further back on his ribcage, his squareness would have been obvious. But, alas, it wasn't.

Cynthia


----------



## roxy25

Feralpudel said:


> I try not to obsess about heads, as I think it is a newbie trap. But that still doesn't stop me from keying in on them when I'm lying on the couch looking at the eye candy in PV. Snipey is my big pet peeve about heads. The other terms I have heard to describe the trend is heads/expressions is sinister and shark-like.
> 
> To me, toilet paper roll implies a finish of muzzle that precludes lippy, snipey, and down-faced. I've pasted three heads I particularly like. One is Bam Bam, one is Lake Cove Kiss the Girls and Make 'em Sigh (how did they get that name past the AKC?), and the third is Dexter's sire (sorry for the bad shot).


It is funny how you say "not to be obsess about heads" I am telling you now if you own a dog with a broad skull you will be come a head hunter LOL

I like a nice clean head nothing so narrow that it looks fragile or just to extreme ( I know one dog that has a really narrow extreme chisled head). My goal is to bring in better heads for the reds since 98% of the have broad skulls  . I personally rather have a nice body than a nice head so it will be a slow process. 

I love the dogs heads you posted. I think Leila has an excellent head, My handler/mentor said her head was not that great but I think he likes very extreme heads.


----------



## roxy25

Cynthadia said:


> Yes, this is Patton (a/k/a Ch. Jubilant General Patton).
> 
> I really appreciate everyone's structural observations about the dog. Because I haven't bred a litter in over a decade, I only have old pictures to offer.
> 
> I have some observations about the dog's structure.
> 
> FRONT
> 
> 1. I never liked the way his shoulder tied in, and always suspected that he was too upright in the shoulder blade. When stripped down, I see that was the case.
> 2. His chest reached exactly to his elbows.
> 3. His prosternum was 2+ inches.
> 4. His upper arm was fairly decent, which allowed him to move with some (albeit not perfect) reach.
> 5. Although his neck gives the appearance of being exceptionally long, it only looks long because the shoulder blade is too far forward.
> 6. His front didn't fall away. What I mean is that he had depth right below his prosternum that carried through behind his elbows.
> 
> 
> REAR
> 
> 1. He was a tad straighter in the rear than I liked, or so I thought at the time when I compared him to other dogs in the ring.
> 2. He had a long pelvic bone that angled properly (not the flat angle that today passes as correct). Note: I've since found out that the pelvic bone does not move when the dog moves. Think about the mechanics of that when you observe dogs with flat or steep pelvic angles.
> 
> BODY
> 
> 1. He had a nice length of ribcage that was well-sprung (and not barrel shaped)
> 2. Loin - it was broad, however I'm still undecided as to length
> 3. I loved his bone and muscling, although some would disagree.
> 
> MOVEMENT
> 
> 1. Pretty much from the moment he was up on his feet, he moved as he did at adulthood.
> 2. When left to his own devices, he naturally defaulted to a trotting gait.
> 3. He never had uphill or downhill-type movement.
> 4. He never dropped his topline when he moved
> 5. He didn't need any time in the ring to reach his proper gait.
> 
> CONCLUSION RE HOW STRUCTURE TRANSLATES INTO MOVEMENT
> 
> Patton was angled sufficiently in the front to accommodate his moderate rear and properly angled pelvis. His length of rib and loin, furthermore, also allowed him to move with collection, cover ground easily, and move with very little effort. (I know this because I've watched a tape of him move in the ring - frame-by-frame.)
> 
> I used to think that Patton was a great mover. In comparison to the other dogs in the ring, he might very well have been a great mover. However, comparing Patton's movement to other dogs only tells me how he compares, but nothing about correctness for the breed.
> 
> Therefore, I've concluded that Patton was a good mover, but not a great mover.
> 
> MISCELLANEOUS
> 
> To those of you who had comments about his head (lack of chin, etc.), I would say that Patton didn't lack chin so much as being lippy. It was only recently that I started to notice the difference between lippy and snipey. I considered his head to be coarse (zero back skull, but lacking chiseling), only salvaged by his expression (which was masculine, benevolent, and kind).
> 
> Unlike many out there in the show ring, I'm not a head hunter. What I can't abide is a sharp or stupid expression, or a toilet paper roll head.
> 
> Here is a picture of Patton in his pet trim as well as a headshot. I'm also including a picture of his litter sister (Gayla) and his aunt (Zephyr). Once again, I'm sorry for throwing out old pictures of dogs I've bred, but it's all I have. I think you'll notice some similarities in the three dogs.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Cynthia


Here is what I think

Depth of chest : Very good

Prosternum : like cbrand said he has a very nice prosternum , I have seen a lot of poodles with nothing there just straight up and down and they are finished Champions. 

Shoulder blade and upper arm : His shoulders are steep and this is what makes his neck look too short to me. It makes it look like his neck is not placed right but if he had correct shoulders his neck would look longer and more upright.

Topline: A+ for topline 

Angle and length of pelvis : I think his angle in his pelvis is fine, I do not like seeing dogs that have pelvic bones parallel to the ground … IMO these dogs are not so functional I would consider these dogs extreme. 

Tail set: It’s a tad low but the tail carriage is awesome!

Angle of rear: I think his rear is nice he is not over angulated he has good angulation IMO His stifle could have more curve to it.
Length and set on of neck: Like I said his neck seems short and not set right but its actually his shoulders giving this illusion 

Length of loin: I am still learning about this area so I am no help here lol

Squareness: I think he is squaure because in the first picture he is at a slight angle and not a true profile giving him a longer look.

Hocks: Still learning about this also lol

Head carriage: Nice when standing still and in motion , while in motion I wish his tail was more erect

His head: I think his head is broad like my boy’s he is also lippy like you said same like my boy’s. Its more acceptable with males than females. Most of the white and black poodles pretty much have heads in the ring nothing extreme a lot lack under jaw and are lot are lippy. 

I have been noticing professional pictures that are taken on some dogs I have seen in person are being Photoshop because when I see them in person dog has no underjaw or “clean” head but in these pictures all of the sudden good chins and underjaw and nicer looking heads…..


----------



## HOTW

ArreauStandardPoodle said:


> This is my favourite head of all time. Bibelot's Tall Dark and Handsome circa 1968. This is the head that I compare all others to.


I agree very nice dog, he's in Jokers pedigree only qbout 9 generatns backI think, I'll ha t remember to come back and save this pic. Unless you have a larger one? I'd really appreciateit


----------



## ArreauStandardPoodle

HOTW said:


> I agree very nice dog, he's in Jokers pedigree only qbout 9 generatns backI think, I'll ha t remember to come back and save this pic. Unless you have a larger one? I'd really appreciateit


I am sorry, I do not have a larger one that I can put my hands on quickly. I know I have a dozen incredible photos of him in the house and will come across them eventually. If you go to the Bibelot web site BIBELOT Standard Poodles - Silver standard poodles this same photo is there. Maybe you could make it larger from their site? If you look at her Stud Dog, you will see photos of old Thinker, who lives with me.

Tramp got his Canadian, American and Bermudian championships rather quickly, then was sent to England and was in the care of Marilyn Willis at Springett Poodles, who faithfully went in to the quarantine kennel, grooming him, and working with him. He came out of the quarantine six months later, got reserve best in show at Crufts and was England's dog of the year. That is a testament to the beauty of that dog, and the dedication of his care giver.

Anyway...sorry for highjacking this thread, but that boy is/was my dream Poodle in looks and conformation.


----------

