A
One's Cocker Spaniels
"MOVEMENT MUST NOT
BLIND ONE TO TYPE"
"COCKER SPANIEL MOVEMENT: A SURVEY
(1981)
By John H Irwin
Introduction:
'Superb mover' ... 'A little untidy in front, with great drive from the rear, and completely balanced in profile' ... 'Excellent movement' .. .'Sound' ... 'Close Behind'.
These five comments, but especially the last one, were typical judge's comments on the movement on one of my cocker bitches throughout the 1980 show season. In conversation discussing the comment 'close behind' with judges, various opinions on the reasons for 'close' movement were expressed. For example:
'Lack of second thigh development' ... 'It has something to do with the ribs' ... 'I don't know; I just would prefer more width'.
Naively I had expected that all judges would offer one definitive reason for the so-called 'close' movement; that unlike, say, the cocker standard's requirement for skull which states 'neither too fine nor too course' and leaves room for opinion, correct movement would be easily recognised by all judges, who would also be aware of faults, the reason for them, and their relative seriousness. From my initial questionings then I began a serious interest in movement, closely watching movement in all breeds at shows, reading the books of the acknowledged experts McDowell Lyon and Rachel Page Elliott, and leading finally to this present survey, which involved a questionnaire being sent to most championship show judges of cocker spaniels.
The principal aim of the survey was to discover the extent of judges' agreement with the principles underlying correct movement as expounded by McDowell Lyon and Page Elliott. Opportunity was also taken however to ask the cocker judges other questions about movement relating to the breed. Thus for example questions about changes in the quality of movement in the breed over the years, whether there is an acknowledged difference in movement between parti-colour cockers compared with solids, and whether there are qualities of cocker movement not to be found in other breeds, were asked in the survey.
There are about one hundred and fifty judges currently ( 1981) listed as eligible to award cocker challenge certificates. (They are listed in the year books of the Cocker Club and the London Cocker Spaniel Society.) Questionnaires were distributed to about 130 judges, to all those whose addresses were fairly readily available, along with a covering letter outlining the purpose of te survey and requesting assistance, accompanied by a stamped addressed envelope for the return of the questionnaire. Thirty-three fully completed questionnaires were received back -- a return rate of over 25%. Many of these questionnaires were immensely detailed evidencing deep thought and knowledge coupled with wide experience, and were accompanied in several cases by long letters developing themes from the survey, and giving much good advice on cockers, and judging in general. About twenty questionnaires were returned uncompleted. One reason given for non-completion was lack of time - completely understandable. Dog people are usually busy people. (One judge, secretary of a large general championship show was preparing the 1981 schedule.) Other reasons for nil returns given are interesting. Some queried the survey's 'officialness' - did it have the backing of the Kennel Club, Breed Council etc, and why didn't I get my information from these bodies. Another stated that as she was judging cockers in the near future, filling in the questionnaire was 'not in the general interest'. (?) Another suggested that if I could put together such a questionnaire then the probability was that I knew all the answers already, therefore why should she bother?
I feel however that the respondents who fully completed the questionnaire were representative enough of cocker judges. Of the all-rounder judges contacted the majority were most helpful. There was an excellent cross-section of cocker breed judges - one had first awarded challenge certificates in 1922, and another for the first time in 1980. Most of those who I affectionately term the 'godmothers' of the breed were represented and returned a completed questionnaire. To all of those who gave time and thought to the survey. I am most grateful. (Interestingly, although it was intended that the respondents should be anonymous, and no identification was asked for on the questionnaire, most signed it or initialled it, or identified themselves in some way; e g 'in my recently published book').
THE RESULTS OF THE SURVEY
Here I intend to reproduce the questions asked of the judges as they appear on the questionnaire, and give a fairly general overview of the responses.
Question 1
The cocker spaniel standard
referring to movement mentions 'Merriness', 'true through action fore and aft
with great drive covering the ground well', and, as a fault, 'unsound movement'.
Are these references adequate? If not how would you clarify them?
Most judges answered this question with a short affirmative: - 'Yes these references are adequate'. Others gave a list of faults or descriptions of unsound movement. A few judges wrote a sentence or two of which the following is a typical, concise example.
"Yes this is adequate if taken in the context of the breed standard as a whole, noting in particular the requirements of forequarters and hindquarters. Perfection in movement depends on the ideal in conformation combined with true cocker character in a dog which is fit and well muscled up."
Only three judges attempted a definition of 'true action'; they used the words 'straight', 'parallel' and 'four-square' to describe the action and position of the legs.
Question 2
Has cocker movement changed during the time you have been involved with the
breed? Is it better, worse or about the same as formerly? Do you find any fault
very prevalent today?
There was no question in the survey asking how long the judges had been
involved with the breed - it was felt that this may have given offence to some -
and therefore there must be some imprecision in reporting the answers to
question 2. Obviously for a true assessment a time scale is important. Eight
judges recognised this and the time that they had been involved with the breed
was stated in their response. However there was not the overall general
agreement on this question as occurred in the responses to question 1. About one
third of the judges were of the opinion that movement is much the same as
formerly. The following reply is typical of this group: 'I do not think it has
changed . There has always been good and not so good, some judges making more of
some particular faults than others.' Slightly less than one third of the judges
think that movement today is better than formerly. These judges see the
improvement mostly in the solid colours, especially black, whose 'pinning' is
not as prevalent as formerly. Completely contrary to this last opinion, more
than one third of the judges think that movement has deteriorated, and that
pinning in blacks, wide and narrow fronts, and narrow hindquarters are more
prevalent than formerly. A typical response of this group of judges is as
follows: 'Movement has changed in my experience of cockers, but in the best is
as good as at any time. Lack of width, turn and power in the hindquarters is to
my view the main cause of the untypical movement seen today particularly in the
solids.' Poorer muscular condition due to less exercising, is seen as the reason
for poorer movement today, in addition to the constructional deficiencies.
From the responses to this question I think that a tentative hypothesis could be made that pre-war cockers were harder muscled and constructed to move well; that a post-war boom in the popularity of cockers resulting in indiscriminate breeding and constructional faults caused a decline in soundness; and that there has been a steady improvement over the last twenty years in construction but not in hardness of condition. More detailed information would be needed to confirm this hypothesis.
Question 3
In your opinion are there any characteristics of good cocker movement peculiar
to the breed - i e not found in other breeds?
Although a minority of judges denied anything unique about cocker movement, maintaining that all sporting dogs should move soundly and with drive, they were heavily outnumbered by judges who waxed lyrical about 'merriness', 'bustling hindquarters' and 'very quickly wagging tails'. One judge though regretted the over-emphasis on the cocker bustle, as he found that the movement of cockers possessing this characteristic in abundance was very hard to assess! Opinion was summed up nicely however by a well-known personality very active in another spaniel breed. 'The cocker spaniel that moves in the correct manner, i e going forward with great thrust from the rear and covering a great deal of ground on the move for such a small animal, with the merry action of the tail, is a thing of beauty and quite typical of this breed and no other'.
Question 4
In general is there a difference in the quality of movement between
parti-colours and solids? If yes would you describe the difference and the
reason for it?
There are almost as many different opinions on this as returned questionnaires, with little consensus. A few judges gave a normative response - that there ought to be no difference because solids and parti-colour cockers are of the same breed judged according to the same standard. That there is a difference in movement between partis and solids is generally agreed. Differences are stated as solid colours having more drive because of greater rear angulation and shorter rear pasterns than the parti-colours. The parti-colours are thought by some to be more merry on the move than solids whose tail-carriage is often too high. Parti-colours are said to have thinner - more open feet and finer bone which detracts from their movement; blacks are criticised for inadequate width in hindquarters and for pinning, whereas reds are credited by several judges with better fronts than other colours. Several judges criticise the fashion of leaving excessive feathering on hindquarters and forelegs, as it interferes with their assessment of movement.
Question 5
Would your interpretation of 'true through action fore and aft' penalise a
cocker showing a tendency to 'single-track' fore and aft?
There was an almost unanimous 'yes' to this question with just one exception.
Most judges just used the one word affirmative and left it at that. Three judges
evaded a direct answer to this question. Here are their responses:
I 'Anything but soundness is a fault.'
II 'Any departure from correct movement should be considered of course, but in
my opinion lack of drive and good hind action is most important.'
III 'When looking at a cocker from the front and rear I expect it to move
absolutely true, the hind feet following in the steps of the forefeet. Any
deviation from the line is in my opinion incorrect.'
Reference to 'the line' in this last response (III) may mean that single-tracking is not considered a fault. The word 'true' appears again but this time defined as 'the hind feet following in the steps of the forefeet.'
Below are reproduced the full responses to this question of judges who indicated 'yes', then went on to expand their view.
a) 'Yes. The two movements are entirely different. The correct "true through action fore and aft" enables the dog to maintain perfect rhythm and balance (balance is most important) with good thrust and drive to cover the ground well. I cannot see that a dog which single-tracks is in good balance, and to me it seems impossible for it to produce any semblance of great drive.'
b) 'Yes. I have a leaning to correct movement and abhor close hind action which you describe as single-tracking. Perhaps as an engineer who has been involved all my life with things that must move correctly and with accuracy I can be forgiven for relating this aspect to dogs also.'
c) 'I don't understand the expression "single-track". True action denotes only such forehand action that is free from pinning (which incorporates a paddling movement) and freedom from 'close' hind movement or alternatively a 'straddling' movement (too wide).
d) 'Yes. I would certainly penalise a dog whose legs were following each other in the single track, it would be most unnatural and mean that the dog is not constructed correctly.'
e) 'Here you show my answer to question 1 is incorrect. Single-tracking would be entirely wrong in this breed and "true through action fore and aft" is not really adequate unless one takes in conjunction with this the cocker's big ribs and short-coupled body. I don't think a cocker with the correct body shape and hindquarters (the standard says "wide, well-rounded and very muscular") would be able to single-track.'
Answer (e), by an all-rounder who shows in a later response that she is aware of the work of McDowell Lyon and Page Elliott, is in striking contrast to the response of the only judge who gives a 'no' answer to this single-tracking question. A well-known gundog judge describing herself as neither an all-rounder nor a breed specialist, but as 'a working cocker person, and who in the survey questions 2 and 4 regrets the prevalence of narrow hind-quarters, yet states: 'No (I would not penalise a cocker showing a tendency to single track), because single-track is not the same thing as narrowness behind. A dog with good hindquarters may single-track. This is usually very sound movement.'
Question 6
I would like to bring together your understanding of common movement faults and
their seriousness, in an attempt to reach generally agreed definitions. If you
have time would you give your definition of each of the following faults, why
they occur, and how serious you consider them?
a) Crabbing
Most of the cocker judges would agree with Page Elliott's definition of
crabbing, (or 'sidewinding' as many of them alternatively term it,) as a dog
moving 'with his body to the line of travel'. They agree that it is awkward and
inefficient. The causes of crabbing include bad handling (the most common reason
given), but mental faults, poor shoulders and wrong pasterns are also blamed,
along with 'wrong construction'. One judge pinpoints pain or deformity in the
spine. Page Elliott thinks the fault is 'due to more angulation in the rear than
in the front, in combination with a short stiff back'. On the whole judges do
not think that crabbing is very prevalent, or a very serious fault in cockers.
b) Moving Close
'When the hocks turn in, and the pasterns drop straight to the ground and
move parallel to one another, the dog is "moving close" in the rear
(Page Elliott). The cocker judges agree, but return again to the standard's
requirement for 'wide, well-rounded and very muscular quarters'. They also add
that long hind pasterns, and lack of strength in first and second thighs perhaps
caused by lack of exercise may contribute to 'moving close'. Close-moving
bitches in season or in whelp are not to be penalised; one judge suggested
removing hair on the rear pasterns so that movement would not appear too close,
and another suggested that dogs which lacked sparkle and were reluctant to show
may sometimes move close. McDowell Lyon considers that 'moving close' is serious
when hind pasterns brush or interfere with one another, or when the feet
actually cross. He says, 'Single tracking and moving close are often confused.
The close mover going away will show the hocks converged often as much or more
than the pads. The support by a straight column of bones is broken and the joint
may give way either inward or outward; this also offers interference to the
opposite leg causing it to swing wide.'
c) Pacing
One judge was unsure to what 'pacing' referred, but all others agree with
Page Elliiott's definition of it as 'a two beat lateral gait in which the legs
on each side move back and forth exactly as a pair causing a rolling or rocking
motion of the dog's body'. Page Elliott gives the following reasons for this
gait:
I 'Mature dogs that are squarely built, but tend to stand lower at the withers
than at the croup, often deelop a natural tendency to avoid leg interference by
pacing rather than trotting.'
II Pacing as a fatigue gait - to rest weary muscles.
III 'A dog that is too short usually lacks angulation in one end or the other and often in both. Sometimes if rear angulation is better he may become a habitual pacer to keep the hind feet from stepping on the front.'
The cocker judges give habit and poor handling as the main reasons for this gait. Moving the dog at a different speed is recommended. One judge points out that this gait is common in Springers, and indeed that it is a permitted gait at slow speeds in the Springer standard. Another judge suggests that slight hip dysplasia is the cause, another, steep shoulders without lay back, and another agrees with Page Elliott that old, tired or obese dogs pace. Some judges suggest lack of exercise or free running is a contributory factor, and that well-conditioned dogs never use a pacing gait. All agree that pacing is not a gait for the show ring and if left uncorrect should be penalised. (My own observations on dogs outside the show ring, in the field or on the street lead me to think that pacing is a very natural gait, and not only for dogs, but for all four-legged animals.)
d) Paddling (or 'tied at the
elbows')
'The opposite sort of action from elbows moving out. Pinching in at the
elbows, as well as at the shoulder joints, causes the legs to swing outward on a
stiff outward arc.' (Page Elliott).
Although some judges agree with Page Elliott's definition that this term applies to shoulders and elbows, there was no general consensus in the questionnaire responses about the definition of paddling or its causes. Some judges blame poor feet, weak pasterns and narrow front for this fault, and another referred to it as a form of pinning. Two others use the term in reference to hind movement. One judge thinks that the fault is uncommon in cockers, but is more a fault of longer-legged breeds.
e) Pinning
Neither McDowell Lyan nor Page Elliott use this term in discussing unsound
movement, yet it is in common use around cocker rings when referring to
untypical front movement. The cocker judges are divided almost equally in their
definitions of pinning. About half refer to the forefeet turning inwards
due to weak or faulty pasterns, and the other half refer to the forelegs turning
inwards due to poor shoulder placement. Judges mention that injudicious trimming
with flapping feathering on the outside of the legs may give the impression of
pinning.
There is agreement then that pinning is a front leg fault which brings the foot inward. Page Elliott describes several instances in movement when front feet or legs converge inward on the move.
I "'Weaving' or 'knitting and purling'. Unsound action which starts with twisting elbows, and ends with criss-crossing pasterns and toeing-out."
II 'Toeing-in' - weak pastern joints bending outwards causing the feet to turn in. (Is 'toeing-in' an equivalent term for 'pinning' or 'pintoes'?)
III 'Elbows moving out' bringing the foot in.
She also attributes some front movement faults, including 'crossing', to too tight a lead. She does insist, with McDowell Lyon however that 'to achieve balance, the dog's legs angle inward towards a centre line beneath his body, and the greater the speed, the closer they come to tracking on a straight line, much as a human runs with one foot in front of the other to keep his body from swaying. All dogs make this effort - regardless of breed or type. This natural law of balance is one of the most important factors in understanding gait as dogs come and go from the viewer, and it should never be confused with the fault of "moving close".' McDowell Lyon in 'The Dog in Action' says: 'It is not unusual in any field for ideas to become as fixed as sacred truths, passed on as traditions, without having a thorough analysis for soundness.' For him 'moving close' has become one of these sacred truths often without having a full basis of understanding.
Question 7
Are there any books or publications which have helped your understanding of
movement which you would recommend to a novice judge?
The following list of books
were mentioned:
'Dogsteps' - Page Ellioitt; 'The Dog in Action - McDowell Lyon; Also
articles in 'Dog World' by Tom Horner, and in the 'Kennel Review of Americca' by
Curtis Brown. R H Smythe's books were mentioned by two judges. books on the
cocker spaniel, not specifically on movement, but quoted as being helpful are
those by H S Lloyd (this was mentioned most often), V A H Matthews, J Casembroot,
K Doxford and V Lucas-Lucas.
A substantial minority said they knew of no books, and several of these indicated that books could not provide the knowledge and insight to be gained from ringside observation and conversation.
Question 8
Have you any other comments to make on cocker movement or a general comment on
this survey?
Several judges commented that they found the survey interesting and thought-provoking. Two made the important point that the survey does not mention feet - that firm, hard, well-knit together feet without superfluous hair, especially beneath the foot, were essential to good movement. Three judges mention the importance of temperament to movement; that 'movement portrays a cocker's personality'. Two great cockers were given as examplars of good, typical movement: CH Ouaine Chieftain and CH Bournehouse Starshine. And Finally several judges warned against judging exclusively or predominantly on movement -
' MOVEMENT MUST NOT BLIND ONE TO TYPE.'
DISCUSSION OF THE SURVEY - WHAT IS TRUE ACTION?
For me the main issue arising from the survey is the meaning of 'true' in 'true through action'. On the interpretation of this, which tended not to be problematical for the majority of the cocker judges, hangs the related but controversial questions of single-tracking and close movement, and whether cocker spaniel movement is so special that it has to be judged on different principles to those applying to other breeds.
The prescription 'with great drive covering the ground well' presupposes a well-balanced, efficient mover. As one judge repeated parenthetically, 'balance is most important'. Balance is achieved in two ways. Approximately equal angulation fore and aft will give balance in profile, without a tendency to crabbing or pacing caused by too much drive from the rear for a steep set front to cope with. A well laid back shoulder will give the reach necessary for 'covering the ground well'. (A graphic example of ground covering can be seen in the AKC film 'Gait', with two small dogs of the same breed moving together down a path, each taking the same number of steps. Due to better shoulder placement however, one dog was covering much more ground, and leaving its partner behind.)
As well as balance in profile, balance is necessary to combat lateral forces (rolling), when movement is viewed with dogs moving toward or away from one. For this legs tend to angle inward toward a central line beneath the body. (This concept has already been introduced in the quotation from Page Elliott in the discussion of pinning.) McDowell Lyon confirms this. His method was closely to study slow motion film. He insists that dog breeders and judges have often evaluated movement on the principles relation to static balance - that is on those factors which balance the dog when it is still, for example with parallel legs and forefeet placed directly beneath the shoulder blades through which the dog's weight is transmitted. When the dog begins to move however, other, kinetic forces come into play. 'Animals moving at a slow walk or trot will not single-track but start the movement with the same position as when standing still. As the speed increases the legs gradually angle inward until the pads are finally falling in a line directly under the longitudinal centre of the body. Some breeds or individuals may be more inclined than others to move the pad marks toward the single track.' He adds that as the lateral forces cannot be eliminated, efficient, driving dogs can only reduce these forces by forming a narrow base of support, 'as narrow as possible for the breed involved', and by applying power along the line of progress. He maintains that this is not theory but fact, verified by mathematical calculations, and all laws of dynamics and relative physics, and confirmed on film. McDowell Lyon admits that in some shorter-legged or exaggerated breeds, complete single-tracking cannot be obtained without forcing the elbows out. Yet still he maintains that the most efficient movers, even in a short-legged breed will move the pads inward as far toward the centre line as possible, without breaking the straight line of bones from shoulder to pad. How far inwards this will be, is governed by the roundness of rib, by the height on the body at which the shoulder assembly is set, and particularly by the shape of the brisket.
The all-rounder judge answering question 5 on single-tracking recognised this. She is aware of McDowell Lyon's work but rejects complete single-tracking for cockers because of the requirement for big ribs. (Question 5 purposely asked about a tendency to single track). The original 1902 cocker standard is to some extent helpful here. On 'forequarters' it states: 'deep chest, well developed but not too round and wide to interfere with the free action of the forelegs.' The 1969 amended cocker standard omits this underlined phrase, but perhaps compensates for the omission by an addition to the 'body' paragraph of the modern standrard from which can possibly be inferred a need for freedom of leg and shoulder action. It states: 'The ribs should be well sprung behind the shoulder blades.' Therefore cockers as a breed ought to be able to bring their forelegs inward toward the centre of gravity and close to the line of direction.
Rear movement ought to be less problematical, as the possibility of rib interference with shoulder or elbow action is absent from this end of the dog. As the only judge who would not penalise a cocker with a tendency to single-track confirmed, single-tracking is not moving close, and is possible even with 'wide, well rounded and very muscular' quarters. A straight line of bones from the pelvis through the stifle and hock joints to the foot can be maintained, even with the inward angling of a tendency to single-track. The propulsion would be more nearly along the line of motion and thus be driving and efficient, without energy being wasted to the side producing a stilted rolling gait, as in wide movement at the rear.
The cocker is not an exaggerated breed (unless you count its ears!), nor is it particularly short-legged. For the reasons outlined above, its conformation ought to at least allow a tendency towards the efficient, balanced single-track.
Handlers move their cockers at different speeds. From my observations it seems that each dog has its own preferred optimum trotting speed. Some cockers, especially blacks, move down the ring collectedly, merrily and with drive, but at great speed, and in so doing may be forced to angle their legs inward toward their centre of gravity, to combat the lateral forces. According to McDowell Lyon and Page Elliott, if the straight line of bones from shoulder or pelvis to foot is maintained, this tendency is neither pinning nor moving close, but in their terms is correct, sound movement. Is it conceivable that this soundness could be the 'true action' demanded by the cocker spaniel standard?"
From: The London Cocker Spaniel Society - Year Book 1981
Epilogue: A Swedish cocker
spaniel judge, Stockholm 2003, explained his placing of the champion bitches
as follows:
"The longer the better movement!" thereby completely ignoring type and
balance.
Scandinavian judges with few exceptions ARE blinded by movement, which has
proved to be a disaster to the development of the Swedish cocker.
UK judges (with only one exception, as far as I have noticed!) NEVER
commit this serious blunder!