Show dog VS field dog conformation

[APFII]

The thread didn't start out how I wanted.
I was hoping someone would post a picture of Uno and a typical running dog.
Then point to the differences between them and explain how come they are so much different between the two.
The discussion evolved into breeding about page 3 or 4.
Before it is over we will be discussing baseball, presidential candidates, and weather.

Baseball, presidential candidates, and the weather stink.

[thornie]

Ok I know these pictures are not the greatest, but give your views. These are both show and hunting beagles.

[SilverZuk]

The first picture the dog is not standing very well and looks a little weak in the hips, straight legged, and back bowed.
The second picture the dog looks good, though a bit overweight.

[TC]

silverzuk,
That is the typical dog you will run into at the field trials. Although the conformation is getting attention in the field circuit, I have seen more and more attention being paid to the conformation of the hounds. But typically this is the style you will see at the field trials.

[Gang]

Here is an AKC Field Champion, not very close to the show ring but I'm trying. Maybe some with an eye for show could give me some pointers of direction I need to be going.

[Bev]

I think he's very "beagley-looking", Gang. To me, whether they are show or field bred, they need to be beagley-looking - good long ears kinda low-set, not real whippy-built and roach-backed, an ample muzzle (not bottle-nosed), etc.

I realize that's an over-simplification, but when the dogs start looking not like beagles on either end of the scale, then we're going in the wrong direction.

[TC]

Gang there is not much I would change about your dog you have a very nice dog. Not that I am an expert, but what I might look for when breeding is a female that has a very strong rear. More balance to the rear, but man that is a nice hound congrats on that there hound.

[Black & Tan Teckels]

The thread didn't start out how I wanted.
I was hoping someone would post a picture of Uno and a typical running dog.
Then point to the differences between them and explain how come they are so much different between the two.
The discussion evolved into breeding about page 3 or 4.
Before it is over we will be discussing baseball, presidential candidates, and weather.

While I know this thread is somewhat old now, thought it might be a good place for me to jump in and say hi... hello! As for perceived differences in show beagles (AKC Conformation type anyway) and field bred lines here is my perspective:

AKC Conformation Show Style - blocky, square cut (both head and body). By square I mean a dog that appears equal in terms of both height and length. Pretty... definitely, but best conformation for field activities... possibly not.

Field Bred lines, on the other hand are generally definitely somewhat longer than tall and are less squared of in the muzzle.

Hope this is is a start in the direction you hoped the thread would go.

Before leaving this post completely I'd like to add the following (quoted verbatim from the AKC's offically accepted Beagle breed stand) under the heading General Appearance:

"A miniature Foxhound, solid and big for his inches, with the wear-and-tear look of the hound that can last in the chase and follow his quarry to the death."

From my point of view, I have yet to see any Foxhound that could be descibed as square in any way, shape or form, nor am I likely to ever do so.

Just my two cents worth from Tropical Southeastern Minnesota!

[Bev]

Welcome to the board, Black and Tan Teckles!

[Beagle Huntsman]

Does the Beagle Standard say "square"? No, it doesn't. I wouldn't want a square beagle, and actually prefer SOME length to my hounds.

As for foxhounds, if you are looking at field trial foxhounds, you won't see hounds that are supposed to look similar to beagles. You would need to look at the formal pack foxhounds (particularly English and Crossbreds) to see what was in mind when the Beagle Standard was written. The formal packs have some wonderfully made hounds that can and do hunt hard.

[Larry G]

Gang, if you really want to know what your dog lacks in the way of AKC show conformation, it would probably be best to PM one of the show breeder members such as Windkist or Honey Pot. People don't want to publicly criticize someone else's dog.

Here is the standard

http://www.akc.org/breeds/beagle/

You may be able to see some things on your own.

[Black & Tan Teckels]

Does the Beagle Standard say "square"? No, it doesn't. I wouldn't want a square beagle, and actually prefer SOME length to my hounds.

This is my point exactly!

Other aspects of AKC Conformation Show style beagles currently seem somewhat out-of step with the AKC's beagle standard as well (to my mind anyway). For example, a recent post on the "showability" of a particular blue-tick beagle (picture provided by owner) included the statement that one of the giveaways to the dog's field bred pedigree (and apparently also it's eligibility to successfully compete in an AKC show ring) was it's color. While that statement may in-and-of itself be true, the current AKC beagle standard plainly states that "any true hound color" is acceptable coloration of a beagle. Why then, with other aspects of conformation being comparable, shouldn't a blue-tick beagle (or any other color beagle for that matter) stand an equal chance of finishing as BOB? That such is definitely not the case is clearly apparent in the indisputable dominance of tri-colors in AKC show rings.

As for foxhounds, if you are looking at field trial foxhounds, you won't see hounds that are supposed to look similar to beagles. You would need to look at the formal pack foxhounds (particularly English and Crossbreds) to see what was in mind when the Beagle Standard was written. The formal packs have some wonderfully made hounds that can and do hunt hard.

As for Foxhounds, the AKC's standards for neither the American or English include any suggestion that these breeds should be sized-up beagles. In fact, neither standard even mentions the Beagle at all.

Factoring in the Harrier (the fourth breed of definite relevance to this discussion) should also prove of some interest, as it's currently accepted AKC standard includes the following.... "The Harrier should, in fact, be a smaller version of the English Foxhound" (again quoted verbatim). This, in tandem with the miniature foxhound statement of the beagle standard previously alluded to, would seem to indicate that early breeders were working toward producing dogs of similar overall conformation and abilities in three different sizes; small (Beagle), medium (Harrier), and large (Foxhound). Reasons for doing so should obviously need little additional discussion.

Nuff said… for now, and thanks Bev for the welcome.

[Beagled1]

Before leaving this post completely I'd like to add the following (quoted verbatim from the AKC's offically accepted Beagle breed stand) under the heading General Appearance:

"A miniature Foxhound, solid and big for his inches, with the wear-and-tear look of the hound that can last in the chase and follow his quarry to the death."

From my point of view, I have yet to see any Foxhound that could be descibed as square in any way, shape or form, nor am I likely to ever do so.

Glad to see someone bringing attention to this particular reference in the Standard. This is the look I prefer, and am trying to breed for. This is my foundation bitch who is not going to win any shows anytime soon, but typy, correct? Yeah, I think so.




And this is, I think, the main difference between the show/field "types". From what I've seen, personally, it seems though the show lines are beginning to lengthen out and are, to a small extent at least IMHO, are abandoning that cobby, square, overdone look. Ch. Scentini Million Dollar Baby, to me is a great example of this - tell me at least conformation wise, he does not embody the miniature foxhound aspect of the standard & that his conformation wouldn't allow him endurance, stamina, foot. http://www.dynomitebeagles.com/

[Nor' Easter]

Just something to add that I read on a UK. site, I can't remember if it was the Master of foxhound or Mater of Harrier site but they stated that the hounds with looser "flews" (lips) ran closer to the line, had better scent tracking ability and were slower than the ones with tighter "flews" that were faster but with less scenting ability.
Are "flews" in the confirmation issue, someone noted that UNO had loose looking flews.

[TC]

Beagle Standard from AKC web site

Head
The skull should be fairly long, slightly domed at occiput, with cranium broad and full. Ears--Ears set on moderately low, long, reaching when drawn out nearly, if not quite, to the end of the nose; fine in texture, fairly broad-with almost entire absence of erectile power-setting close to the head, with the forward edge slightly inturning to the cheek--rounded at tip. Eyes--Eyes large, set well apart-soft and houndlike--expression gentle and pleading; of a brown or hazel color. Muzzle--Muzzle of medium length-straight and square--cut--the stop moderately defined. Jaws--Level. Lips free from flews; nostrils large and open. Defects--A very flat skull, narrow across the top; excess of dome, eyes small, sharp and terrierlike, or prominent and protruding; muzzle long, snipy or cut away decidedly below the eyes, or very short. Roman-nosed, or upturned, giving a dish-face expression. Ears short, set on high or with a tendency to rise above the point of origin.

Body
Neck and Throat--Neck rising free and light from the shoulders strong in substance yet not loaded, of medium length. The throat clean and free from folds of skin; a slight wrinkle below the angle of the jaw, however, may be allowable. Defects--A thick, short, cloddy neck carried on a line with the top of the shoulders. Throat showing dewlap and folds of skin to a degree termed "throatiness."


Shoulders and Chest

Shoulders sloping--clean, muscular, not heavy or loaded--conveying the idea of freedom of action with activity and strength. Chest deep and broad, but not broad enough to interfere with the free play of the shoulders. Defects--Straight, upright shoulders. Chest disproportionately wide or with lack of depth.

Back, Loin and Ribs
Back short, muscular and strong. Loin broad and slightly arched, and the ribs well sprung, giving abundance of lung room. Defects--Very long or swayed or roached back. Flat, narrow loin. Flat ribs.

Forelegs and Feet

Forelegs--Straight, with plenty of bone in proportion to size of the hound. Pasterns short and straight. Feet--Close, round and firm. Pad full and hard. Defects--Out at elbows. Knees knuckled over forward, or bent backward. Forelegs crooked or Dachshundlike. Feet long, open or spreading.

Hips, Thighs, Hind Legs and Feet

Hips and thighs strong and well muscled, giving abundance of propelling power. Stifles strong and well let down. Hocks firm, symmetrical and moderately bent. Feet close and firm. Defects--Cowhocks, or straight hocks. Lack of muscle and propelling power. Open feet.

Tail

Set moderately high; carried gaily, but not turned forward over the back; with slight curve; short as compared with size of the hound; with brush. Defects--A long tail. Teapot curve or inclined forward from the root. Rat tail with absence of brush.

Coat

A close, hard, hound coat of medium length. Defects--A short, thin coat, or of a soft quality.

Color

Any true hound color.

General Appearance

A miniature Foxhound, solid and big for his inches, with the wear-and-tear look of the hound that can last in the chase and follow his quarry to the death.

The standard does say free from Flues, however when judging dogs in the ring the judge is responsible for placing the best dog in the ring that day. Say if a dog has a fault in one area but another dog has two faults, the dog with one fault gets placed period.