Hey folks!
What is the general opinion of people regarding front and rear angulation of the majority of dogs in this country?
And what reason do you think that is?
Cam

I assume you mean Sibes? 

Angulation is quite a sticky subject and subjective too........

The Siberian standard (sort of) asks for 90% at the point of shoulder, but there aren't vast numbers of dogs who actually have that, although a lot tend towards it. Less than 90% in the rear is even more rare - especially in certain lines.

I always believed that 90% angulation front and rear was the best conformation for the long distance sled dog, mostly because that is what our standard says. However the people I know with Alaskans look for a somewhat less angulated shoulder, saying that it gives extra reach and is less likely to break down over rough terrain as well as giving more leverage to pull.

It is also often stated that the rear angulation should match the front, which would mean the standard distance bred Alaskan would break down when running fast down hills, given that they tend to have 90% angulation (or sometimes more) in the rear and 70% ish angulation in the front. Since they obviously don't there must be something else going on.

Having said all that, when looking at Siberians I still prefer to see a dog whose shoulder tends to a right angle at the point of shoulder, with long, equal bone lengths and whose rear end has the same angle at the stifle with a long fibia and tibia. Having run dogs whose rear angulation is lacking I really do not like to see a dog with an underangulated rear - while this might give them more leverage when pulling weight slowly, a straight stifle will make their gait stilted and will slow them down. They tire more easily in a fast team than a dog with more rear angulation.

I know that there are others, equally experienced, who put more emphasis on the 90% angle at the shoulder and will forgive a little less in the rear, but that's my opnion. I should also add that for the dog who is well angulated at the stifle to be able to use that to work at speed they must also have a 90% (or as near as possible) angle at the point of buttock - meaning the croup must be both long and sloping.

There are dogs who excel in all these features and you can see them in the show ring and on the trail. There are a lot of dogs with short upper arms - mostly (but not exclusively) from lines which go back to what you might term "show" blood. The effect of this is often to either straighten the shoulder or for the dog to highstep to close the angle. There are also a lot of dogs with a fairly straight stifle - often the same ones, but there is also an interesting tendency in some of our working lines (the Sepp-based ones spring to mind) to a straighter stifle than you would expect to see. Why this is I have wondered for a long time - because these dogs are so extensively work tested there must be an advantage to it, but the physics of it escapes me - logically this would make them more powerful, but slower, and this isn't generally what happens, is it?

Excellent topic, Cameron! I hope lots of people add their thoughts.

Hi,

Angulation should be balanced front and rear.

The purpose of the angulation is suspension. Too little and the effect will be jarring and concusive injuries, too much and there is a greater risk of tendon/ligament injuries.

As Catherine says you must look at the whole picture though.

Catherine,
You've hit the nail on the head. My understanding is as you have described but as you touch on in your last paragraph, in practice, it isn't always true.
Mushing magazine is full of pictures of dogs (on winning teams!) that I would describe as one or more of the following: under angulated, over angulated or imbalanced. But.... they are on well known winning (or consistently good performing) teams.
Having been lucky enough to run a few Sep's I can say I think they have a slightly different movement in harness. At first I thought it was messy, but after a few runs and watching closely I saw that it was probably more efficient. There seemed to be a lot more rotation of the joints, using each to their fullest rather than relying more heavily on the main shoulder and hip joints. I may be talking out of turn as someone without a lot of experience running dogs and I may be picking it up wrong. Once we get out running again after the summer I am really going to look closely. As you say, there must be something in it...
Cameron

That actually fits with my suspicion about why this seems to work, Cam.

Basically, if a dog whose construction is just a little bit short of optimal has that all-consuming will to work, he or she will do it with every bit of their being, and that means using the limbs and joints to their best effect, even if that results in a slighly odd gait.

If a strain has been bred for generations for performance only and not structure ( ) then it is entirely possible that the breeder ends up not selecting for optimum construction, but optimum mental attitude and toughness. If the genes for this desirable attitude are linked on the chromosomes with those for straighter angulation than physics might say is best, then of course anyone looking for a good sled dog is going to choose the hard driving one with the slightly straighter angles!

Have you had a chance to see how those Sepps you've stood behind compare in their way of going to hounds or pointers? Both of these non-husky types are routinely less angulated than Sibes, so it would be interesting to see if the way they move their legs is the same as the Sepps.

Hi Catherine & Cameron

I dont really know very much about this subject so am finding it interesting so thanks for starting the thread Cameron.

Am not sure how to phrase this but will give it a go.  Would a dog with good angulation have less wear and tear than one with less good angulation if they both worked equally well?

From what you have said I think it seems that this may be true as the dog with less good angulation is putting more stress on their joints.  If I am right then the working life of the less good angulated dog may be shorter.  Would this seem correct. Does genetics fit in here more for wear and tear or is this another thread.

Hope that this is not waffle.  I have one of each here and the better one seems to put less effort in to keep with the other.  The one with poor overall construction is more focussed and seems to have more motivation so they are at the same speed but having put in different amounts of effort.

Emma

Emma, in my opinion and in general I think that is true. But my opinion has changed slightly from what it used to be, I now don't think it is as black and white as that any more. The best folk to get involved in this would be the mushers with large kennels of well worked dogs. Large kennels with experience at running a range of distance classifications. These people would hopefully be able to see a pattern emerging out of a review of a large number of dogs. We only have a small number to review here and as such cannot define any pattern as it is difficult to discern between an annomaly and a general trend. The larger the sample the better the reuslt.

Catherine, I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it. It works and the dogs don't have shortened running careers. I'm mearly making an observation with my untrained eyes. Surely it must be more eficient? I mean, after the initial puzzlement I experienced and after much closer inspection I think the movement produced is awesome. Can't speak for the hounds...

One of the things I was trying to find out by starting this debate was what people thought the difference in angulation produced? ie/ comparison of long distance running to flat out sprinting. Is there a difference? Yes there are some dogs that are angulated like dining room furniture and would clearly not run but there are others that are borderline on what some might say poorly angulated but run very very well and for their full life. Attitude can take you so far, but the construction has to be the end all when considering a great dog...
Cam

I'm not saying that any particular angle is "bad" or "good". If we are not comparing the dogs to our breed standard then what is best is what works. It is entirely possible that the standard is not actually correct in requiring the sort of angulation it does.....

There is definitely at least one error in our standard, in the clause where it states that the dog must "not be so light and fragile as to suggest a sprint-racing dog" - a good sprinter is neither light or fragile, as the sturdy, muscular, compact pointers and Eurohounds putting in blistering times in sprint races ably demonstrate! 

The only way to tell if a particular form of movement is to analyse it in both directions - a video taken at double speed from the side and behind, then slowed down, points placed on the joints and an analysis made. It's a complex subject (ask Jinxed, who makes her living at it!) but it is possible.

Over the distances we run here a dog just isn't going to be worked enough to show the effects of small differences in construction on lifespan or staying power, so we would have to ask these questions of the distance mushers from places where they have longer trails.

Logically a dog with a little less than 90% rear angulation is going to be much more able to pull hard than one with more angulation. More flexion at the stifle will mean more spring and rearward reach and therefore more speed, but less leverage when hauling - it's horses for courses really. The distinct advantages of a straighter stifle in a pulling dog are easy to see in the Malamutes whose rear angulation is ideal (when coupled with a slightly sloping topline and a flatter croup than is ideal in a Siberian) for moving weights and doing so for mile upon mile.....

Basically those Sibes who have less angulation than we are routinely used to seeing may not actually have a disadvantage if they have a different way of moving - that's why I wondered if they moved in a similar way to other dogs who usually have less angulation and produce a lot of speed.

My experience with my own dogs is that those who are more angulated in the rear are faster and have more endurance and scope than those who have somewhat straighter stifles. Those whose shoulders are a bit straighter than the Sibe ideal have to work harder to keep up but manage well with distance, and those whose angulation is both 90% and balanced excel in both speed and endurance. I've never had a dog who was straight in both front and rear so I can't comment on the effect of that, but I would expect them to be strong and powerful but able to cover less ground than normal.

I like the idea of videoing and analyzing gaits - we should try and do that next time we are all together!

this link may interest you if you haven't seen it before
http://www.el-minjas.com/Movements.htm

  mick

that should of read may interest you all  (cant edit posts on here)
 mick
 

Thanks Mick, will print off and get a read of it.
Cam

There is more to speed than good angulation.

Cam, you say the dogs you watched in motion exhibited excessive rotation at all their joint yet were  fast, good angulation will improve efficiency but correct training, feeding and metabolism all have a profound effect on power.

You could have the best angulated beast on the planet but its leg length could be so short it couldn't run for five minutes.

Long legs with their extended level reduce effort, you get improved efficiency and speed, think how fast a Saluki shifts.
 
You cant look at angulation in isolation yes it looks good and its a good start but not the whole story.

IMHO, Seps had a genetic advantage in their metabolism which improves their aerobic capacity leading to a more effective machine and given the right food and training this gives them the edge no matter what their construction.

No matter how often I use that spell check I always end up with a typo!!
 
"Long leg withtheir extended LEVER"

Linda,
I didn't say excessive. Excessive implies wrong. I just expressed that they appeared to have a lot of rotation of the joints compared to other lines. I was also referring to elbow and wrist joints rather than the hip and shoulder.
I was wanting to consider all other things remaining equal and only looking at angulation. I didn't want to muddy the waters. I really only wanted to talk about angulation and how different angulation produced different movements. Not all of them good.
And I wasn't wanting to specificall talk about Sep's. I just used them as an example as I have a tiny piece of experience with them.
Cam

OK Cam what do you mean when you say rotation?
 
Different angulation produces a different moment or force around a joint.

If one knee is angulated at 90 degrees and another is angulated at 85 and we assume the leg lengths or levers are equal on both then the knee which has less angulation is easier to extend there is less effort involved but it is limited in pace length ie dog will cover less ground with each stride

The angulation of a joint basically determines how much range of movement a joint has, this directly is related to how much reach a dog will have how much ground it will cover in a single stride BUT will have NO direct relationship to overall speed without the other things factored in.