Dog show judges evaluate their entries at the trot; for some breeds (namely the sight-hounds) this gait is improper for movement evaluation since their Original Function precludes them from being trotting animals. However, for the Siberian and for the wolf, the trot IS the proper gait to use when evaluating natural movement. The true perfectionists at using minimum effort at the trot are the wolf and the jackal; a wolf in nature which is efficient in movement is balanced first and foremost; his reach and extension are both moderate and balanced, as he is built for endurance not for speed per se. Regrettably, all too often the choice of gait of the Siberian in the ring depends upon the unreasoned whim of the fancy rather than upon the historical function of the breed.    Where is the moderate, correct Siberian with the level, taut topline, sound elbows and moderate, balanced, side movement? He still can be seen placing in the classes, but all too seldom winning, especially if there is a “flyer” with a showy coat and pretty expression in the ring. Increasingly, these winners appear to be getting away with soft toplines, loose elbows and pounding fronts. The group placing dogs seem to be those who move at the “flying trot” (suspended trot). Why is this? Is the need to compete with the Afghan, and the German Shepherd Dog really more important than being correct in the breed ring?    Exaggerated extension at both ends is not what this author believes the Standard means by “effortless” and “smooth.” Substitute, if you will, in your mind the words “EASY” and “QUIET” for the word “EFFORTLESS”. When an animal “flies” instead of “floats,” he impacts the ground harder (what goes up further must come down harder), and it takes a really super front assembly to absorb this additional shock. In general, rears surpass fronts in soundness in our breed, and have for a long time. Note the crabbing, pounding, padding, weaving and paddling in the ring. Balance, on the other hand, implies “EASE”. Moderate, balanced stride is more sound and efficient, demanding less effort and energy than does exaggerated gait, which frequently is not balanced; just as excessive speed implies waste, exaggeration implies effort, waste and (for a dog with naturally sound movement) something anomalous (theatrical). Even balanced, exaggerated movement is more wasteful than what the Standard has in mind. “Medium-sized…moderately compact…,moderate speed…balance…. Males are masculine but never coarse; bitches are feminine but without weakness…. Gaited at a moderately fast trot, exhibiting ‘good reach’ (not extreme) and ‘good drive’ (not extreme)…. Coat is medium in length…back of medium length…the legs are moderately spaced…paws are medium in size…moderate bone…well balanced proportions…neck medium in length.” The Quality Siberian described in the Standard clearly is “medium, moderate and balanced”. As described above, correct movement is clearly part of correct breed Type!    In three breeds which have dominated their Groups, namely the German Shepherd, the Norwegian Elkhound and the Irish Setter, the obsessive sprint toward exaggerated gait has, in the eyes of many, clearly degraded these breeds, as well as increased the rates of such crippling defects as patellar luxation, sloping or incorrect toplines and exaggerated, slinky rear angulation at the expense of balance. More to the point, in the Norwegian Elkhound specifically, there are the extensively seen and accepted wide, unsound fronts. In contrast, some of the marvelously sound giant breeds consistently placing in the Groups clearly demonstrate sound, balanced, moderate and easy movement as opposed to exaggerated, labored “flying.” This irony may exist partially because the Giants cannot afford exaggeration of any kind, since they are already magnified in bulk.    “Floating” implies a level, smooth quality at the topline and shoulder - a “quietness,” without jarring, pitching or rolling - an easiness. The words “LIGHT” and “QUICK” appear in the Standard as descriptions of correct movement, in combination with “effortless, free and graceful” - could it be that “lightness” and “quickness” are being misunderstood or misinterpreted to mean something more “forceful” than “easy, graceful and enduring”? Could unsound fronts, imbalance, and sagging toplines be increasing in our breed on the coattails of “flying” side gait? To some, the “flyer” might look impressive in the show ring, but is it correct for the working Siberian bred for endurance? The Standard seems to think not, and, among other things, it uses the description of “moderately fast trot” to voice its dissenting opinion. But one needs to consider not just the Standard, but the ancient history and the Original Purpose of the breed as well.    The “flyer” has exaggerated reach in the trot, and this dog is airborne when changing diagonals; the gait of such a dog is faster than the “moderately fast trot “ mandated by the Standard, and consumes a greater amount of energy to execute. No counterpart can be observed in the wild, because it is a man-made gait, but some believe that this manufactured, stylized gait is “showy” to view in profile, and they actually breed for this characteristic in the Siberian. But is this the movement intended for a dog bred for endurance? As mentioned in earlier articles, this author views the NATIVE Siberian as an animal bred for endurance and economy of energy, and not for speed per se. “Dogs with superior speed have muscle and bone structure that inhibits endurance.” (Curtis M. Brown, KENNEL REVIEW, Dec., 1976)    In this early writing, Mr. Brown continues by saying, “The Greyhound trot can be characterized as a ‘lazy’ motion, rather effortless. Drive in the rear quarters is not apparent. Although the hock joint is used, it does not completely straighten and gives the appearance of being semi-sickle hocked. At the double suspension gallop the hock joint (is) always straightened; at the trot it (is) semi-sickle hocked. Thus at the trot, the failure of the hock joint to straighten is normal.” While the Siberian is certainly not a Greyhound, the proper use of the hock lies somewhere between that of the Greyhound and the “flyer”; ergo, the Standard describes “a moderately fast trot, exhibiting good (not extreme or excessive) drive.    Mr. Brown, in his subsequent comprehensive and unrefuted research on the subject of canine movement, spends considerable time discussing the differences, and the necessity for opposing conformation, between the dogs bred for speed and those bred for endurance and stamina. He states, “Gaits that require the least energy have several paws on the ground at all times.” (DOG LOCOMOTION AND GAIT ANALYSIS, Hoflin Publishing, Ltd., 1986, p.78) Common sense also brings one to the understanding that the “flying trot” is inefficient because, like an automobile tire hydroplaning on a wet surface, there is no control of the body when it is not in firm contact with the surface upon which it is moving.    Canines built for endurance also have proportions that are “approximately square”. Mr. Brown explains: “…shortening the back to a square build (arctic sled dogs) increases endurance, but because of the less flexible back [caused by the shorter back], a small decrease in maximum speed occurs.” (ibid. pp.79-80) Short backs facilitate endurance, while long backs are better for the greater flexibility required for faster speed. The structure for speed and that for endurance are inherently structurally incompatible one with the other.    The lengthened stride of the “flying trot” works to both reduce the speed of the animal, and to inhibit its endurance and forward momentum. Brown states, “Speed is dependent on two factors: the length of the stride and the frequency of the stride. If lengthening the stride by increasing forward set down reach causes a decrease in frequency of stride, speed will be decreased and energy consumption increased.” (ibid. p. 83)    Mechanically speaking, for optimal efficiency, the distance from the foot’s set down point to the fulcrum point (reach) should be kept to a minimum because in this distance the body is moving forward only because of the inertia of its mass (from past expended energy), not from the current actions of working muscles, and the current expenditure of energy. Brown explains that the body is propelled forward by working muscles (specifically, the latissimus dorsi) only in the distance from the fulcrum point to the lift off point (drive). For dogs of harness, it is this “drive” that needs to be especially emphasized, and it makes the working sled dogs a class unique from all others. “When a dog is ‘pulling’ a load in harness, the dog is actually ‘pushing’ on (against) the ground, not pulling on the ground. In order to give maximum pushing on the ground, the dog’s step must be shortened so as to use only that portion of the step that gives maximum forward push (drive).” (ibid. pp.86-87) So, unlike the above mentioned Greyhound, what is important to the Siberian is not his reach, per se, but his “drive” in his FRONT quarters, as well as in his rear. Furthermore, logically, for this propulsion to occur at all, the driving foot, whether this foot be front or rear, must be in firm contact with the surface upon which that foot is working, and not be in suspension (as it is in the “flying trot”).    Mr. Brown’s extensive scientific methodology, using pressure plates, combined with still, and slow motion photography, clearly documents that maximum push occurs when “the rear paw is behind the hip joint” and when “the front paw is behind the shoulder blade”. (ibid.) These findings clearly confirm that, in working sled dogs, the rear foot is brought forward only a very short distance, and that the front foot has a similar short action, and that these dogs lean into their harnesses and “push” with their front paws well behind their shoulder blades. Since balance dictates that the front can not “reach” a further distance than the rear, and since “the rear foot is brought forward only a very short distance”, it follows logically that front “reach” would also be brought forward only a “very short distance”. There is nothing excessive, exaggerated, or wasteful that can be observed in this “pushing” gait. Obviously, this “drive” with the front legs can not occur unless its corresponding foot is in firm contact with the surface under it, and this contact is not physically possible if the dog is “flying” (suspended).    Importantly, Mr. Brown’s carefully documented research notes errors in popular opinion regarding “reach”. “If the front leg’s upper are does not extend forward beyond the vertical and if the front paw does not attain a height higher than the pastern joint in the posed position, then the maximum forward reach of the paw is determined by the length of the leg below the elbow. Those who illustrate the upper arm as extending straight out from the shoulder blade at the time the paw is on its maximum forward reach (Lyon, myself at one time, and others) are quite incorrect.” (ibid. p.87)    For years, the fancy has heard the mantra that the “reach” is of supreme importance to the Siberian’s lateral movement. It is, however, more central to the point in our breed to consider the “drive” of all four feet. “Good reach” is only necessary to get the foot to the front of its pendulum motion, to provide balance by preventing the dog from falling on its nose, and, when the pad contacts the surface, it is the entire front assembly which absorbs the shock of whatever impact is present as a result of the downward motion and forward breaking action. This is no small order, by any means, but the degree of “reach” has no positive bearing, whatsoever, on the degree to which the front assembly is able to perform these services, and, as far as propulsion is concerned, “reach” is achieved only by expended energy – expended energy which has absolutely no contributing effect to the forward propulsion of the sled dog. In fact, as discussed here (and previously) the greater the “reach”, the greater is the deleterious up and down motion of the withers each time the foot passes beneath its fulcrum, and the greater the breaking action to forward momentum.    Throughout the presentation of his research, Brown states many times, and in many ways, that suspension, i.e., the “flying trot”, is diametrically opposed to economy of energy. “To obtain a period of free flight, the body must be propelled upward, and this takes energy.” (ibid. p,89) Virtually all energy used to accomplish free flight is wasted energy. All too often, the choice of gait in the ring depends upon the unreasoned whim of the fancy rather than upon the historical function of the breed. Historically, one of the reasons the Siberian was so prized is because of his superior economy. Yet, people who loudly acclaim the “flying trot” do so because they want a “working Siberian true to his heritage”?    In reality, (as this author stated previously) “A dog with exaggerated reach is wasteful and works with excessive effort, i.e., he works against his own forward momentum. Observe the animal with exaggerated reach (with slow motion, if possible) and you will observe that the distance from where the front pad first contacts the surface to the point where that pad is directly under the withers (the fulcrum point) is breaking-action to forward motion. It is also when the pad is between these two points that the forward motion of the dog requires the withers to go up as the pad passes under the withers, and this [upward] forward movement, though unavoidable to some degree, is wasteful and contrary to forward movement. The greater the distance, then, between that point where the pad first encounters the ground (the forward set down point) and where it passes under the withers (the fulcrum point), the greater is the effort, waste and loss of economy. Some will contend that this animal will cover more ground, and IF he does (and this is open to argument), he does so at great cost. He will wear himself out more quickly, require more frequent and lengthy rests, and perhaps medical attention as well. This animal is NOT a natural animal; his side movement is, indeed, man-made. But, seemingly, to many breeders and judges, this incorrectly moving dog looks ‘impressive’ when viewed from the side. But, nonetheless, he IS unnatural, and he IS wasteful.” (Fredric R. Cornell, THE SIBERIAN QUARTERLY, Winter 1981-82, pp.37-38) It seems unlikely that this is the ancient sled dog known for endurance and economy.    The choice of gait in the ring all too frequently has depended upon the unreasoned whim of the fancy rather than upon the historical function of the breed. THIS dog, in 1981, was NOT true to his ancient heritage, and now Brown has presented the necessary clear corroborating scientific evidence, but fourteen years later, this dog appears to have moved no closer to his legacy. Whether a Siberian does, or does not (can, or can not) “do the flying trot” is spurious when one understands that the gait is unnatural, contrived, and inappropriate for the breed.    Twenty years ago, it was thought, and reflected in the 1980 Siberian Standard, that a 45 degree layback of the Scapula was desirable. It was learned, through the research of Curtis Brown and Robert Conyers (Ibid.), by the writings of concerned members of the fancy, and by common sense observation, that, in reality, this amount was excessive, and the subsequent Standard of 1990 amended this erroneous thinking. In more recent times, the choice of gait in the ring has depended upon the unreasoned whim of the fancy rather than upon the historical function of the breed. Hopefully, a studied reflection by the fancy will shortly produce sufficient conviction to preserve our breed’s ancient heritage. Consider this: Is the Siberian a dog bred from nature for free, effortless, “quiet” and economical endurance work, or is he a man-made exhibition?    ### -- The above article is published in The Siberian Quarterly: Hoflin Publishing, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, Summer 2001 Issue, pp. 8, 10.

---

Back to
Artyk Siberians


All Web Pages and Images ©Copyright 1997-2005 Fredric R. Cornell, MIS
All Rights Reserved

Maintained By HarborNet