shortening hock

[Ossian]

Several shows this weekend and numerous pictures from various parts of the world. Some nice dogs some honest dogs and some dogs once again showing this shortened hock. In each case the stifle seems unnecessarily exagerrated. The back end has been stretched out (further than is necessary) and the dog is standing on a very short hock. We seem toi be making a preferential selection in defintiely English, Irish and Gordon in order to get this look. US and Europe have it and I notice it making an appearance with certain handlers in UK.

Its not nice and to be honest it isnt very comfortable looking for the dog. Has anyomne else thought about this?

[Margaret Sierakowski]

Well,a very short hock is not functional or desirable on a working setter.
It seems to be just a fad in show setters that doesnt have any good reason behind it

[Ossian]

I posed the question on another setter list and someone kindly brought the US standard on hindquarers to the discussion.

"The hind legs from hip to hock are long, flat and muscular; from hock to heel, short and strong. The stifle and hock joints are well bent and not turned either in or out. When the dog is standing with the rear pastern perpendicular to the ground, the thighbone hangs downward parallel to an imaginary line drawn upward from the hock."


I can certainly see ho that might be interpreted to mean a long stifle and an ever shortening "strong" hock. It seems to me we are changing the look of the setter completely

[Carmel Stringfellow]

I agree with you Ossian. The look of all setters is changing. It seems as if it is all about the show ring and not the dogs ability to work. But some might argue that the dog doesn't need to work in this day and age ...so is the show ring just a beauty show? With dogs becoming more and more exaggerated in the quest for that Best In Show?
All dogs should be balanced and sound in my opinion. The very long stifle and very short hock doesn't look balanced at all to me.

[Carmel Murphy]

I hate very short hocks too, too much bend of stifle joint and the resulting over angulation!! It makes the dog look very weak and almost as if it cannot support itself properly behind and in some cases I have seen dogs almost sinking down on the ground as a result!!

[Margaret Sierakowski]

The problem with this is the way "short" has been interpreted. Exaggerated and taken to extreme, one sees ridiculous examples in some American setters with a short hock which certainly isnt strong, but so weak the dog is actually unsteady in gait. Even worse if the dog has flat feet below the short hock! Look at the some of the Gordons in the Westminster videos

[eva ciechonska]

I agree with Margaret.......there is a point beyond which a short hock becomes too short and it is a matter of interpretation. However I would think a hock that is too long is as bad. It is cumbersome and very often produces an inefficient and weak rear action. I think the proportion of the hindquarters from hip to hock is just as important. If the upper thigh down to the stifle joint is too short the dog has no extension. If the second thigh is too long there is no control and no propulsion. Dogs with long 2nd thighs (in my experience) do not carry the muscle.
Non of the Standards (UK, FCI or US) give the proportions but all state:
"Hindquarters......wide and powerful. Hindlegs from hip to hock, LONG AND MUSCULAR, from hock to heel, SHORT AND STRONG. Stifle and hock joints well bent and not inclined either in or out"
Maybe we should blame the Standards!!!!!!!

[Ossian]

You are not wrong Eva!
The Standard by its nature is somehow open to interpretation. I have heard that we should "teach" judges how to interprete the standard but then it depends who teaches the judges and what their interpretation is.
I was prompted to ask the question by a recent image of rwo setters one in very hinest coat and style and the other rather more overdone with the exagerated stifle and very short hock. The hind quarters were pulled out quite far to accentuate this hind angulation and it just looks unnatural