|
In a word ...
Click on the words at left to read recent columns by Denise in The Ridgeback Register magazine.
|
|
|
Regarding the Ridge: The fine line between the standard and ... obsession
AKC Gazette breed column - February 2007
|
New judges are always obsessed with one nook of the Ridgeback standard: the one describing the dorsal stripe of hair that gives the breed its name.
The standard asks for a clearly defined, tapering and symmetrical ridge that starts behind the shoulders and ends at a point between the prominence of the hips. It should have two crowns, or whorls of hair, directly opposite each other, and they should not extended further than one-third down the ridge.
A full 20 out of 100 points in the scale of points are devoted to this characteristic breed feature. And, of course, the lack of a ridge is the American standard’s only disqualification.
Compared to our European counterparts – for whom slightly asymmetrical crowns or a smidge short ridge are a one-way ticket to the “pet puppy” pile – many American breeders have a more relaxed attitude about the ridge. To be sure, dogs with serious ridge faults – single or multiple crowns – never see the inside of the show ring. Extremely short ridges (think overgrown commas) and severely offset crowns (by inches) are equally unacceptable.
But dogs with slightly offset crowns – perhaps an eighth or quarter inch apart – routinely finish and champion. Our elaboration of the standard underscores this point by listing a drawing of slightly offset crowns under “acceptable.”
Only a handful of judges incorrectly deduct 20 out of 100 points for such acceptably, if not ideally ridged dogs, essentially rendering them on par with ridgeless.
More problematic are those judges who affix additional criteria to the ridge that the standard does not address. The width of the ridge is immaterial: In the American show ring, a skinny ridge is just as acceptable as a thick one. The shape of the box, or “fan,” that runs from the top of the ridge to the crowns, is also a non-issue: It can be asymmetrical, and can have a parting of hair at the top (which is not the same as a crown).
Recently at a local show, I watched a judge who years ago I had heard favored great big, fat, “thumbprint” crowns – though the standard takes no position on the degree of “swirl” in a whorl.
A passing exhibitor paused to relay what the judge said had been a primary criterion: Great, big thumbprints. Sigh.
Reflecting on an overseas judging assignment where the exhibits had exceptional ridges, South Africa’s Maj. Tom Hawley, one of the seminal figures in the breed, reportedly chided: “They forget there is a dog underneath the ridge.”
It takes no great eye or depth of breed knowledge to find slightly offset crowns. Far rarer is the judge who can identify a poor front, weak rear, straight upper arm -- faults that are excused with all too great regularity in the ring.
Judges should make sure a dog has a ridge and the basics it requires: adequate length and two not terribly offset crowns no more than a third of the way down the ridge. Then, for the sake of the breed, they should turn their full attention to the dog under that odd little stripe of hair.
And erase the word “thumbprint” from their memory.
(c) 2007 Denise Flaim. This article originally appeared in the February 2007 issue of the AKC Gazette, and may not be copied or distributed without the express permission of the author.
|
Fair Enough?Semantics involving speed in the standard
AKC Gazette breed column - November 2007
|
Musty as they are, breed standards are dotted with words whose original meanings have been trapped in amber. For evidence of this time warp, watch the civilian’s widening eyes when you point out a gay tail.
In the Ridgeback standard, there is one word whose modern meaning has drifted from its intended one. “Fair” appears three times in our standard, mentioned first under general appearance: “capable of great endurance with a fair (good) amount of speed.” A revision to the Ridgeback standard helpfully added the parenthetical “good” to ensure that the modern American definition of “fair” – that is, “so-so” – would not be applied to the Ridgeback’s requirement for speed. Because for the long-ago dog men who penned our standard, "fair" meant "good" or "better than average" – not mediocre.
Drawing a distinction between a hound of “average” speed and one of “good” speed like the Ridgeback is more than a matter of semantics. It speaks directly to form and function.
Those who bridle at the idea of the Ridgeback being classified as a sighthound employ the narrowest of definitions: a sprinting hound bred to course hare in eyeshot of its handler. But those who know Ridgeback history know it was built on greyhound and deerhound blood. Linda Costa’s “Rhodesian Ridgeback Pioneers” (the AKC library has a copy) offers a photo of Cornelius van Rooyen with a lion dog that looks for all the world like a crossbred whippet.
The Ridgeback’s sighthound base was crossed to pointers, terriers, collies and bulldogs, among others, to give a better nose, pluck and biddability. For this versatility, the Ridgeback traded a bit of speed (which also could be said of another, less standardized sighthound hybrid, the lurcher).
But certainly not all of it. The Ridgeback standard asks for shoulders that are “sloping, clean and muscular, denoting speed.” The elaboration of the standard complements this when discussing hindquarters, noting “the muscling should be clean and well defined, denoting speed and agility.” (Emphases mine.) The ribs should never be rounded, “which would indicate want of speed.” And the back must have “strong,” “muscular” and “slightly arched” loins to help in propulsion at the gallop.
Since the larger the game, the heavier-boned the hound, a Ridgeback is not as fast – nor as aerodynamic -- as a traditional sighthound. There is a big difference between a hartebeest and a hare, and the Ridgeback’s need for strength to bring down such powerful game at chase’s end ensures he will never be as fast as his sprinting forebearers. But conversely, the standard’s requirement for good speed also checks any tendency to massiveness, coarseness or guttiness.
As for the standard’s two other references to fair (that is to say, “good”), they are for a head of “fair length” (the trick with such a correctly long head is to breed the underjaw to match!) and a “fairly strong” neck. The elaboration adds that the neck should be “fairly long”; that relatively long length provides the "pumping action" necessary in a running dog.
In short, the Ridgeback is built for both great endurance and good speed. The two are not mutually exclusive, and our hounds should be capable of both. Fair enough?
(c) 2007 Denise Flaim. This article originally appeared in the November 2007 issue of the AKC Gazette, and may not be copied or distributed without the express permission of the author.
|
|
