DEFINING DEPTH OF CHEST TO LENGTH OF LEG PROPORTIONS

Table of Contents

Background
Definitions
Importance of Accurate Measurements
Relationship Between Length of Leg and Front Structure
Front Angulation
Cliff Boggs, The Vizsla (2nd edition)
Purpose of the Vizsla
Taking a look at a GSP with a LR Nearly 1:1 and a Vizsla that has a 1:1 ratio
A possible health concern...
Summary and Suggested Wording
References

Background

In 2001, a number of Vizsla breeders and fanciers signed a Submission to the Officers and Board of Directors of the Vizsla Club of America Concerning Proposed  Breed Standard Changes  ("the Submission") to oppose a proposed change in the breed standard that would describe the distance from the elbow to the ground as "approximately equal to the distance from the elbow to the top of the withers."  It was the view of the signatories that a Vizsla is functionally required to have a length of leg that is greater than the distance from the elbow to the top of the withers and that under no circumstance could a Vizsla with a length of leg equal to that  distance be described as an "ideal" specimen of the breed. The full text of the Submission can be accessed by clicking on any of the highlighted links to it throughout this page.

It should be noted that the change originally proposed by the VCA's Board of Directors has been amended by the addition of the following proposed sentence: "Under no circumstance should the distance from the elbow to the ground be less than the distance from the elbow to the top of the withers."  While this eliminates one of the concerns raised with respect to the original proposal, the essential objection remains that this proposal would allow a functionally incorrect dog, that is too low on leg, to be described as ideal.

I have seen nothing since that would cause me to question the validity of the conclusions set out in the Submission and for the reasons set out in that document, I continue to believe that taking into account the purpose of the Vizsla, a functionally correct dog should have a length of leg that is greater than half its height at withers.

This page is not meant to replace the Submission and should be read in addition to it. It is also evolving and may be changed from time to time as areas are reworked or in answer to comments received. To facilitate navigation, the table of contents above has been linked to the main headings.

DOC:  Depth of Chest. Refers to the distance from the top of the withers to the elbow, the chest being understood to come down to the elbow as called for in the breed standard.
Height: Unless stated otherwise, height refers to the distance from the top of the withers to the ground
Legginess Ratio (LR): The legginess ratio is determined by measuring the length of leg below the chest and dividing it by the depth of chest. Assuming the keel of the chest to be level with the elbow, this ratio can also be expressed as a measure of the distance from elbow to ground divided by the distance from top of withers to elbow. The greater the legginess ratio, the longer the length of leg in relation to the overall height of the dog. For example, a ratio of 1:1 denotes a dog whose leg length is equal to half the height, while a ration of 1:1.2 denotes a dog with a length  length that is 55% of height.
LOL:  Length of Leg. Refers to the distance from the elbow to the ground

Something  needs to be said about measurements and the use of illustrations.  Whether because one does not have the ability to visualize small changes in proportions or in order to confirm one’s visual assessment, measurements should be used where feasible. Where illustrations of dogs or actual photographs are measured, they first of all must be of sufficient size to yield useful information.  Second, a good quality compass is used to take the distance to be measured and the compass may then be used against a ruler to yield a result in millimeters.

The importance of confirming one’s visual assessment with actual measurements can be shown by reference to the following silhouettes of Vizslas (Figure 1).  These illustrations were distributed with a statement that five of the silhouettes (A, B, C, I and M) represent dogs that “are equidistant withers to elbow and elbow to ground”.  As they appear below, the silhouettes were too small to allow for a measurement to be made so each silhouette was enlarged 200%. Using the method just described, each silhouette was measured and these measurements confirm that every  one of the dogs illustrated in Fig.1 has a length of leg greater than half its height at withers. This can be verified with a  good quality compass and a ruler.  By way of example, the enlarged silhouette A is shown below as Figure 1a.

A similar problem can be noted with respect to Figure 2. This illustration is accompanied by this caption: “This dog is equidistant withers to elbow and elbow to ground”. Measurements, however, show this is not the case. The illustrated dog has a length of leg that is greater than half its height at withers. I illustrated this with the blue and red lines I superimposed on the illustration. These are not as precise as I wanted but they are sufficient to show that the LOL is greater than the DOC.  Measured on the hard copy I had, this dog has a height at withers of 71 mm. DOC is 34 mm or 47.8% of height and LOL is 52.2% of height at withers. The DOC/LOL ratio on this dog is 1:1.09.  

It has been suggested that increasing the length of leg on a dog necessarily and invariably results in a poorly angulated front.   Two  illustrations have been circulated to illustrate this  hypothesis.  I will discuss each in turn.

Anyone believing that these drawings demonstrate that increased length of leg inevitably results in incorrect front angulation is forgetting that these are DRAWINGS.  It is true that IN THESE DRAWINGS "it can be seen that as the length from elbow to ground increases, the length of the upper arm decreases" and "the front angulation increases". But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not that shorter upper arm is part of a correct front angulation. The error is not in suggesting that greater length of leg results in a shorter upper arm, it lies in suggesting that the length of the shoulder blade never changes even when the upper arm is shortened. This is what is occurring  in these particular drawings. All the dogs pictured have DIFFERENT lengths of leg, they all have DIFFERENT lengths of upper arm,  but they all have the SAME length of shoulder blade and the last three have roughly the same shoulder layback. Is it realistic to expect that ALL Vizslas that measure 24" always have a shoulder blade of the same length? Now, I am not saying that real life examples resembling the illustrations could not be found but at the same time I am confident that real life examples could also be found of dogs having legs of the indicated length AND good fronts. Again, IN THESE DRAWINGS, the reason the upper arm must be both shortened and straightened as the leg length increases (to maintain the same 24" height) is because the artist chose to artificially 1) maintain the shoulder blade at the same length irrespective of changes in other bones and 2) maintain roughly the same degree of  shoulder layback on the last three dogs. Where the shoulder layback (off the horizontal) is 45° for the first dog, it is between 60° and 65° on the last three dogs. 

Using a red line, I have shown what the front angulation on the last three dogs could be if the artist had chosen to maintain the proportions between shoulder blade and upper arm that are called for in one of the proposed changes to the standard and to correct the shoulder layback.  As can be seen, there is nothing incompatible between a LR greater than 1:1 and a good front. The problem with the last three dogs in Figure 4 is not their length of leg or that their upper arm is shorter than that of the first dog. The problem  is that their shoulder blade is too long and out of proportion with the upper arm and that they have poor shoulder layback.   It should be kept in mind that the "re-drawn" front angulation  on the last three dogs does not prove that longer legged dogs always have good fronts any more than the original drawings prove the contrary. The "re-drawn" illustrations only show that a longer legged dog with a properly angulated front is not the anatomical  impossibility which some would like to suggest. In other words, the problem with the fourth dog to the right for example, is not so much that this dog's upper arm is shorter than that of the first dog, it is that the upper arm is "less than 50% of the length of the scapula". Re-establish the correct proportions between scapula and upper arm and you have re-established a good front even with a  shorter upper arm. 

In short,  it is correct that  in certain conditions, as the leg lengthens, the humerus will become shorter but SO SHOULD THE SHOULDER BLADE.  Assuming this takes place and that there is a proper layback of the scapula, the dog with a length of leg greater than half its height at withers will have a front assembly that is every bit as good and useful as that of the dog with a leg length that is half the height at withers. The quality of the front assembly, including sufficient angulation, is dependent on correct proportions being maintained between shoulder blade and upper arm, not by the absolute length of these bones.

Some of the illustrations discussed above contain statements that endorse a 90° angle of the shoulder blade and upper arm (or shoulder layback of 45°). In this regard, it should be mentioned in passing  that a number of studies, notably the work done by Rachel Page Elliott, have cast doubts on whether or not this is optimal for most dog breeds. In this regard, it is worth noting that in her analysis of the breed standard, Marion Coffman states as her opinion that the most desirable angulation is 105°.  The increased angulation thought desirable by Mrs. Coffman lies between that of the second and third dogs in Figure 4. (Versatile Vizsla (1991), p. 31)

This brings me to another point. Great insistence seems to have been placed on the importance of good front angulation in Vizslas. In this regard, a series of six articles written by Pat Trotter was referenced.  That good fronts are important (and pretty rare) is  not in question.  Having read those articles when they first appeared in the AKC Gazette, I agree with most of what is in them. Yet, after reading them again, I fail to see what the connection to the proposed breed standard change is supposed to be. Nowhere in these articles is there any statement to be found that is incompatible with asking that a Vizsla have a LR  greater than 1:1. The subject is not even mentioned.

If it were correct that a legginess ratio greater than 1:1 invariably results in poor fronts (which seems to be the point that is sought to be made in the illustrations discussed above), one would have to conclude that no 24" Pointer or German Shorthaired Pointer can ever have a good front. In both these breeds, it is accepted that the length of leg will be slightly greater than half the height.   Yet, if one is to accept the hypothesis that has been put forward, this should result in poorly angulated fronts with short and straight upper arms. I don't think there is any question that it is entirely possible to have a Vizsla with a length of leg that is greater than half its height AND that has a good front just as it is possible to have a Pointer or a GSP with a length of leg slightly greater than half their height that also have good fronts.  As stated earlier, a properly angulated front depends  on properly proportioned shoulder blade and upper arm being placed correctly. 

In support for the proposal describing the  distance from the elbow to the ground as "approximately equal to the distance from the elbow to the top of the withers", reference has been made to a statement by the author of The Vizsla to the effect that "the length of the front legs from the elbow should be about equal to the depth of the body (chest) at that point."  The  author did not state that LOL and DOC should be equal but that they should be about  equal. What does the author mean by "about equal"? It was noted in the Submission  that the actual measurements made by the same author and reported on page 53 of The Vizsla  gave legginess ratios ranging from 1.23 to 1.04 with an average 1.14.  Again, not  a single one of the dogs measured by the book's author had 50/50 proportions or a LR of 1:1. In a letter dated October 9, 2001  to Kathy Rust, Cliff Boggs clarified the statement that appears in his book and noted that:  "Perhaps you are the first to notice the legs were longer than the depth of the chest, which represents better proportioned Vizslas. If I had to choose a ratio it would probably be 1:1.14 with deviations of plus or minus 0.01. I would not do it without adequate statistics."  The  qualifying statement about "adequate statistics" relates to the choice of a 1:1.14 (±.01) ratio as representing the ideal.  The view that a length of leg greater than half the height "represents better proportioned Vizslas" had not been qualified in any way by Mr. Boggs.  To answer the question above, the Vizsla described by Cliff Boggs as having a length of leg  "about equal" to its depth of chest is a dog that has a LOL greater than half its height and probably has  a legginess ratio of approximately 1.14. The point is that "about equal"  EXCLUDES  a Vizsla with a DOC/LOL of 1:1.

Attention has  been drawn to the fact that Mr. Boggs continues in the same letter with a statement that "chest depth that measures less than half of the height" should be faulted.  It was pointed out that this  statement  is inconsistent with the earlier statement about a length of leg greater than half the height being desirable (assuming the chest reaches the elbow).  I have asked Cliff Boggs to clarify this point and in a letter dated December 29, 2002, he has confirmed that the statement about the chest being half the height at withers was an editing mistake  on his part when writing his letter of October 9, 2001: "I did make a typo in my earlier response to Kathy Rust, and that statement is incorrect. Had I proofed that "off the cuff" response, it would have been deleted." The author add: "I stand by my statement of the 1:1.14 chest to leg measurement, but I cannot justify that figure without adequate data. It is just my opinion from my forty plus years of breeding, training and competing with the breed."

Any discussion of the desirable proportions of a Vizsla must take into account the purpose of the Vizsla as a utility hunting  dog.  The gold standard of conformation is that which will allow the Vizsla to fulfill this purpose the most efficiently. The purpose of the Vizsla is NOT to go down and back and around in a show ring at the trot.  All available expert opinions  concur that the optimum conformation for a dog whose primary working gait is the gallop involves a length of leg greater than half the height.  Those references have been discussed in the Submission. I have yet to see those who wish to argue that a LR of 1:1 is optimal for a hunting dog reference any  expert evidence in support of their view.  As mentioned above, the articles by Pat Trotter that appeared in the AKC Gazette simply do not deal with this point.

A LR ratio of 1:1 is typical of endurance trotters  and a great many of the herding breed standards call for those proportions (see Appendix A to the Submission).  The primary working gait of the Vizsla, on the other hand, is the gallop and it stands to reason that the structure required to promote excellence at the trot will differ from the structure required of a dog expected to "hunt with endurance at moderate galloping speeds".
As stated by Curtis Brown, "Although these breeds [longer-legged sporting dogs] should be able to trot well for their build, in the field they are designed more for sustained galloping than for trotting." (p.134)

Speed equals length of stride times rate of stride. The longer the legs, the longer the stride. Rate of stride being equal, a dog with longer legs will be faster than a dog with shorter legs. To contribute to speed, it is necessary to make the legs relatively long in relation to other parts of the body. All other things being equal, for Vizsla A with a LR of 1:1 to maintain the same speed (and cover the same amount of ground in the same time) as Vizsla B with a LR of 1:1.2, Vizsla A will  be required to increase its rate of stride. Increased rate of stride means a greater expenditure of energy.  At the same time, the greater DOC of Vizsla A means that its volume  will be greater than the volume of Vizsla B, leading to additional  increased expenditure of energy for Vizsla A. In all, Vizsla B will be the more efficient performer. 

Just for the fun of it, I reproduce below (Figure 5) a picture of a GSP I have used to produce my two GSP litters.  This GSP is a superb dog that was a Top Ten GSP for three years running,  has won numerous breed specialties, was awarded two BISs,  and has produced over 60 champions to date. His one outstanding fault: he lacks a little leg under him. This  dog almost has --but not quite--  a legginess ration of 1:1 (something that is made worse in his case because the chest practically drops below the elbow).  Immediately below is a doctored picture showing what a Vizsla (Figure 6)  with a length of leg equal to half its height at withers might look like. Is this hypothetical Vizsla a breed ideal? Or even close to it? The 50/50 proportions, besides the fact they are functionally incorrect,  result in a dog that has  a cloddy appearance and is completely devoid of elegance. 

Figure 6

Summary and suggested wording

1. Available reference works , breed experts  and measurements of top winning Vizslas indicate that a functionally correct Vizsla, as opposed to what may be sought for the generic show dog,  will have a length of leg that is greater than half its height. A Vizsla with a leg length that is half its height at withers can never be described as ideal. The primary working gait of the Vizsla is the gallop and a DOC/LOL ratio that is typical of endurance trotters is not appropriate for this breed.

2. In cursorial animals, increase in speed, which for a hunting dog means covering more ground in less time, is achieved by lengthening of the legs. This applies equally in dogs where increase of leg length  across various breeds  is commensurate with those breeds'  specialization for galloping. 

3. Only the British Vizsla standard and the breed standards of the Weimaraner and Brittany support the view that LOL is half the height. The current FCI/Hungarian standard explicitly confirms that LOL is superior to half the height at withers.

4. Unless someone is prepared to categorically state, for example, that a Pointer or a GSP with a good front is an impossibility, the idea that a leg length greater than half the height at withers inevitably causes a poorly angulated does not hold water.    No references  have been provided to support this idiosyncratic opinion except in the form of a series of drawings, which of course only prove that they were drawn to show this.  What causes poorly angulated fronts is people breeding dogs with poorly angulated fronts.

5. The various dog silhouettes/drawings that have been claimed to represent Vizslas with a LOL equal to DOC, actually show dogs with a LOL that is  greater than half their height.  This indicates a need for the use of actual measurements instead of visual estimates by those using those illustrations. It would also seem to show that there is de facto agreement that a Vizsla should have a LOL greater than half its height even if there is no agreement on the extent by which the LOL exceeds half the height.

6. A statement appearing in The Vizsla (2nd edition) has been used to justify the current proposal. However, the author of that work has since corrected that statement  and in a letter dated October 9, 2001, to Kathy Rust acknowledges that the "better proportioned Vizsla" will have a LOL greater than half its height.  

The current proposal reads as follows:

"The distance from the elbow to the ground is approximately equal to the distance from the elbow to the top of the withers. Under no circumstance should the distance from the elbow to the ground be less than the distance from the elbow to the top of the withers."

Depending on the wording chosen for proposed amendment No. 1, this could read:

"The distance from the elbow to the ground is slightly greater than the distance from the elbow to the top of the withers."

This wording is acceptable if proposed amendment No.1 uses a qualifier for "slightly" such as "very slightly" or "only slightly". If "slightly" alone is used in proposed amendment No. 1, then the same word cannot be used in this amendment because the distance referred to here is greater than the distance referred to in proposed amendment No. 1. The extent to which a Vizsla is longer than tall is about 4% to 6% of its height. Vizslas that significantly exceed this range may appear low on leg, even with a proper DOC/LOL ratio.  The extent to which the leg is greater than the height may range from 6% to 10%.  The wording used in these two proposals should reflect the difference.

One way around this difficulty would be to refer to

"The distance from the elbow to the ground is slightly greater than half the height at the withers."

If the height of the leg is measured relative to half the height of the dog rather than relative to the depth of chest, the difference between the two represents a percentage that is more comparable to that of the length/height difference.  For example, on a 24" dog that has a legginess ration of 1:1.17, leg length will exceed depth of chest by 2" but will only exceed half the height at withers by 1". The difference between length of leg and half the height at withers would range from 3% to 5% approximately.  This would justify using the same word "slightly" in both portions of the standard. See the table summarizing this information at page 7 of the Submission.

HOME