Pure speed

[matteo1]

Anyone know where ridgebacks fit in speedwise with other breeds? Our girl often seems to have an extra gear available when being chased by other dogs on the beach. She'll slow down a little for the chaser to almost catch up and then widen her stride and glide away. She hasn't been chased by any true speed hounds, but she seems pretty quick.

So.....Are ridgebacks in the top thirty fastest breeds? Top twenty? Any thoughts?

thanks

[machem]

Hey there, right now I happen to be reading "Gazehounds and Coursing" by Salmon.  While he doesn't rank our RRs with the best dogs for coursing, nor spend as much time on the detailed description with respect to coursing (one paragraph versus approximately three pages per other breed), he does mention RRs as a possible coursing hound.  "Does the straight ridgeback have enough speed for hares, fox or coyote in the open field?  I'd certainly like to see a good one at work."

This may or may not help, but for pure speed he seems to think the whippet is the fastest (500 yards or less), with the greyhound the next fastest over that distance (up to one mile, but better at  1 mile), the saluki the fastest over one mile, i.e., it has almost the same speed, but better endurance than the greyhound.

He also mentions the fastest dogs have double-suspension gallop (greyhounds, whippets, salukis, cheetahs, jackrabbits).  I thinks our RRs run this way also (though I could be wrong, this is simply from analyzing the photos that I have taken, or seen of RRs in full flight).  From what I can gather about the physiology of RRs, the deep, but not too broad chest is great for endurance, and the strong hindquarters should put them up there for speed.

It's my feeling that because of what they were bred for, and how they run, they would be great at doing what a saluki can do, but not as quickly.

JC ran with a whippet today, that was fun.

Cheers,

Mike

[melissap]

Hi Mike and Mateo,

JC is lucky to have a whippet to run and play with! RR's are meant for speed based upon the physicacl attributes that you have explained. There are of course dogs that also have similar structure and move as fast if not faster; of course there is some room for individual variance based upon any particular dog in a breed & I am sure based upon every dogs individual level of exercise and physical condition.

There are probably some dogs that have a longer history is coursing specifically - but I think that a fit and well put together RR could have many of them beat!!

I LOVE watching a Rodgeback open up their stride and getting a full run on, beautiful to watch!!!

Enjoy!

Melissa

[Rosebud]

RR's are meant for speed based upon the physicacl attributes that you have explained.
Melissa

I have to disagree with this statement. A greyhound is built for speed and an RR should not have the same structure as a greyhound.

A RR is built for endurance not speed. It is Endurance and Quick reflexes that is what was necessary to avoid the reach of the dangerous African predators claws. Speed would have only been needed to take down non-predatory game, like gazelles.

I believe that the RR's ability to be 'cat-like' in stalking behavour would have made it possible to approach and take down game that in a full-out chase would have left a RR in the dust pouting. I have witnessed this 'cat like' stalking with my own pack, it is truly amazing to watch such disciplined behavour.

The AKC standard states: "......capable of great endurance with a fair (good) amount of speed."

In no way can this be interpreted that a RR should have the speed of a greyhound, which IS built for speed.

The whole RR standard, original and other interpretations ALL place emphasis on ENDURANCE as the most important aspect of the RR with only casual reference to speed.

Just something to think about.

[oscarsmom]

The whole RR standard, original and other interpretations ALL place emphasis on ENDURANCE as the most important aspect of the RR with only casual reference to speed.

I tend to agree with this as well. I think many RRs have a pretty powerful sprint, but the serious speeds don't last long, and then they're back to a trot - which they are much more efficient in. I doubt even the good ones could beat a greyhound or saluki at the game of flat out speed, though I'd like to see a greyhound do the type of switchbacks and mid-air 180s that our RRs do without even thinking about it!

If we could compare dogs to horses, with the true sighthounds like greyhounds being thoroughbreds, I'd liken the RR to a quarter horse - plenty of drive in a sprint, but able to slam on the brakes, turn on a dime and reverse direction another half dozen times in a heartbeat - just look at the muscle development (same applies from horses to dogs). Greyhounds are built like birds with a massive V8 engine at the back to propell them FORWARD. On top of overall heavier bone structure, Ridgebacks have a much more balanced distribution of muscle from front to back, to accomodate lots of strong twists, turns and acrobatics. As was mentioned, these dogs are all about movement, but actual speed is not the primary emphasis.

*On a side note, Oscar is my running partner and after a good season of training, we did 13 MILES last winter on the back roads - he maintained a smooth trot off leash nearly the entire way (broke into a zoomie at about mile 8, to be expected) and I was amazed at how effortless he looked - never panted, never looked fatigued, just motored away around me consistantly and beautifully. AND, after I thought SURELY that would have tired him out for DAYS, he got up the next morning and bounced out into the yard like he was on pogo sticks - this while I tried to get my stiff and tired knees to bend correctly again!! Without a doubt, the RR is an endurance dog - and a mighty fine one at that.

~Natalya

[caro]

I don't know about structure and speed, but last fall Hintza practiced with a Borzoi and left the Borzoi standing, and he didn't let up after he got the Borzoi beaten either.  When he got back to the start, he was ready to go again until he realized that the lure had stopped.  This is a dog that is well boned, right at the standard and well muscled.  I don't think he would have been able to match the speed of the Whippets though.  My guess is they are probably the fastest, probably even faster than the Greyhound.

Caroline

[machem]

Well, remember there is comparing breeds, and there is comparing specific dogs.  I'd have to see many of each (every?) breed doing similar things to be able to make comparisons.  That is why Salmon's book is so valuable (apart from his stated ignorance of RRs):  he has been coursing for thirty years, with hot blood and cold blood greyhounds, borzois, wolfhounds, etc etc.  Thus he is allowed to make generalities.

The woman who owned the whippet said she had followed her in her truck for something less than 1 km and her truck read above 40 MPH the whole time (she lives on acreage with lots of jackrabbits about).  I wouldn't doubt that one bit!  Anyone who courses with their RR would carry a lot of weight in this discussion.  Natayla mentioned how athletic/acrobatic RRs are, which I agree with, but I have seen plenty of whippets and greyhounds do some amazing 360 or 540 degree moves without losing much, if any of their forward speed.   These things can turn on a dime, feet on the ground, like nothing out there.

There are some lure coursing videos on YouTube which are interesting, but I kind of feel that real prey might change things a bit.

Interesting discussion, in any case!

Cheers,

Mike

[kitoyogi]

Natayla mentioned how athletic/acrobatic RRs are, which I agree with, but I have seen plenty of whippets and greyhounds do some amazing 360 or 540 degree moves without losing much, if any of their forward speed.   These things can turn on a dime, feet on the ground, like nothing out there.

I'm no expert but I will share my experiences with lure coursing, straight racing and oval track racing.  I field clerk for our lure coursing club and often sit with the judges so I often have a great view of all the sighthounds running.  We have some great Greyhounds and whippets that course with our club and fast but simply because how fast both of these breeds can move they do have more diifficult taking tighter turns than other breeds, and are more likely than other breeds to injure themselves because of it.  Where greyhounds and whippets truly do have every advantage is in straight racing and oval track racing.   The turns in oval racing are so gradual that it doesn't affect their speed much.   It is amazing to watch both of these breeds run.

He also mentions the fastest dogs have double-suspension gallop (greyhounds, whippets, salukis, cheetahs, jackrabbits).  I thinks our RRs run this way also (though I could be wrong, this is simply from analyzing the photos that I have taken, or seen of RRs in full flight).  From what I can gather about the physiology of RRs, the deep, but not too broad chest is great for endurance, and the strong hindquarters should put them up there for speed.

RR's also have the double-suspension gallop.

A RR can still beat a whippet or Greyhound but it is going to take talents other than speed, and a judge that recognizes those talents.  There are a number of RR's with BIFs.

Beyond the dog's build is also the dog's drive which is as important, if not more important. 

Another thing about RR's and coursing is that they are thinkers which generally leads to them to being cheaters, something that tends to less of a problem with greyhounds and whippets. 

I've clocked Trek at 30 mph but I have heard of others who've clocked their RR's at higher.  I didn't try to push him beyond that.  He does love to chase the truck.

[melissap]

I assume that endurance is some what related to speed, and vice versa. Now clearly they are also built for agility and thier ability to reason may enhance thier stalking habbits as to not waste energy; but those bursts of speed are just as much survival based even if in shorter spirts than a saluki - that does not mean that  the ability for speed is not there in the RR - and I DO think some are built differently and have a different capacity for speed in the RR lines than others.

RR's are difinety NOT A grey hound ~ but they are faster than many other dogs by design! When comparing to a GH or a saluki who are bred for speed and are much lighter boned; yet our RR's still incorporate the reach and build that is much more effective for both speed & agility making it a well rounded "athletic" dog that can easily out run and or out manouver even the fittest lab, shepard, ect.

I have seen them out run by a grey hound, but I would be happy to put him side by side many other hounds and especially other working or other groups knowing he will most likely take the lead and then some!

This being said, I have not coursed specifically - so I am making my comparison based in a more casual free run setting.

I would still bet by comparison that the RR is at least in the top 20 or so. 



Melissa

[caro]

I watched an IW course last fall.  She is I believe one of the top IW coursing hounds.  If that is the way an IW runs, then it is amazing that they were ever able to bring down and kill a wolf.  The prey drive was there, but her speed was definitely lacking.

Caroline

[Rosebud]

I assume that endurance is some what related to speed, and vice versa. Now clearly they are also built for agility and their ability to reason may enhance their stalking habbits as to not waste energy; .........
.......yet our RR's still incorporate the reach and build that is much more effective for both speed & agility making it a well rounded "athletic" dog that can easily out run and or out manouver even the fittest lab, shepard, ect.

Melissa

From what I understand the relationship of endurance and speed is one of sacrifice. Endurance is sacrificed for Speed and Speed is sacrificed for Endurance.

Just look at the Cheetah, an amazingly fast animal, built entirely for speed, but has very little endurance. Every time the Cheetah hunts it runs the risk of not only injury but also wasting precious energy in failed attempts. The survival of the Cheetah is crucial to successful hunts since it does not have the endurance to attempt another hunt before a significant period of rest. Too many failed attempts in a row and the Cheetah can starve to death. So while the Cheetah is considered the fastest animal, it has come at a price, and that price is the loss of Endurance.

There is a fine balance between Speed and Endurance and I believe that fine balance IS the RR. I also believe that our breed's founders understood that balance. They needed a dog that could work ALL DAY and not tire, that is Endurance. Now, they did had a need and access to Speed as well, the Greyhound. But what they ended up using was a compromise and they chose to compromise Speed for Endurance. This is evident by what was written in the 1922 original breed standard.

IN GENERAL APPEARANCE the Ridgeback should represent a strong, muscular and active dog, symmetrical in outline and capable of great endurance with a fair amount of speed.

[melissap]

Hi Caro,

I have only seen friend IW's in thier homes ~ beautiful and lovely tempermented dogs! I have not seen them course, but I assume that they are not as speed oriented as the saluki or GH ~ ? ~

Hard to say as this friend no longer lives near us but I would love to see them in action in an event like coursing!

You have most likely seen more of them then me; how would you say they stack up to the RR from a speed perspective?

Melissa

[melissap]

 

I suppose we should also remember that the Lion hunts entirely differenty than a Cheetah. Clearly the lion has less speed as the cheetah especially over any long haul the lion would be left in the dust. The lion relies more on the whole pride taking a role in thier hunting; as the RR's do when keeping the lion at bay. My assumption is the endurance to travel many miles tracking lion through the rough terrain and maintaining enough energy for the chase and then the bob and weave to bay is why the RR needs both Speed and endurance & agility to do their jobs as intended.

This to me is where the balance lies. I like the term "athletic" as it pertains to both speed and endurance. I love to watch them open up into a full on run -

No doubt that there are dog breeds that may be faster over the long  haul & in a straight shot, but the oval bone & angulations & chest should give the RR a good deal of speed & they should have enough reach to make long strides that many dogs do not have.

Melissa

[Kapani]

Melissa if you get a chance if you haven't already go to some coursing events up in MI.  You will see for the most part an RR is not as fast as the other sight hounds.  Michelle C is right the ridgeback should be built for endurance with a fair amount of speed.

[matteo1]

I spent a year and a half (off and on) in the Serengeti working on a documentary and was lucky enough to spend alot of time there watching and photographing lions, cheetahs, and leopards stalk and run down prey. Without going on and on about the cats (hyena vs. lion battle royales, cheetahs at full blaze), I saw some amazing displays of speed by all three. Although I spent many hours with a particularly successful mother cheetah -- she showed true arrogance, walking, then jogging toward her prey, before cranking it up to take  down Thompson gazelles -- probably even more impressive was watching Floppy Ear, a 400 lb. female lion open up to catch a wildebeest (which can also hit 50 mph) as it fled across the crater floor. That sized animal, moving that fast.....Wow.

The leopards I saw hunt were soloists that used invisibility cloaks to get themselves close to their prey. I saw one female slip through tall grass until she was almost next to a large gazelle. With an electric burst she fired out of the vegetation and caught the 150 lb. animal before it even knew she was there. Later, we watched as she dragged it up a tree. 150 lbs. of dead meat. She was maybe the same weight or a little less. Another time I waited for almost an hour as a leopard went after a bird. It didn't catch it, but once it got going, its speed was not negligible.

All three are fast (lions top out at 50 MPH; cheetahs at 70; leopards at 40 or so) and all have great cornering abilitity. But the leopard is the one that most reminds me of the ridgeback, not the lion that they are so closely tied to. Both leopards and ridgebacks are incredibly strong with great leaping ability (which any ridgeback owner can testify to); they are similarly shaped, full-chested with a medium sized body (especially when, to quote another forum member, they're in "bush trim" -- I love that phrase); they are both one of the most athletic breeds of their species, animals that can do so many different things so well and yet survive without being specialists. Of course, the cooperative hunting done by lions (which in its complexity can be truly boggling) is probably mirrored by the ridgebacks when they hunted them, yet in form and in athletic abilities I think they are more like the leopard.

We can't wait to take our 10 month old lure coursing -- she tried it out at about 5 months at a ridgeback club meeting and loved it (the lure course was set up for beginners, just straight ahead for 80 yards or so, no turns).

 
 

[melissap]

Well thanks Kapani, but the question was not if it was the fastest of the sight hounds; but one that would be in the top 20 or so. As stated in my post, that compared to most other breeds...ect. which you may not have read all the way through.

Great hear from you though Michelle A.

Mateo: sounds like a wonderful experience you had. I am sure it was wonderful to see all of that 1st hand!

Melissa

[oscarsmom]

I spent a year and a half (off and on) in the Serengeti working on a documentary and was lucky enough to spend alot of time there watching and photographing lions, cheetahs, and leopards stalk and run down prey.

WOW!! That sounds AMAZING!! Your study must have been a real pleasure (as a natural illustrator, that kind of thing has always been a dream of mine... one day...). And I love your comparrisons with the big cats - it's surprising what a seemingly infinite array of diversity there is in nature - and EVERYTHING has a purpose and a place. Just like our RRs - they may be similar to other breeds in this way or that, but as a package, they were very carefully bred for a very specific niche - and they reflect their unique purpose beautifully in temperment, conformation and energy. I think one of the things that makes this breed so wonderful is the very fact that they are a total "package", skillfully combining a variety of traits and abilites - not a one trick pony - and it's always nice in conversations like this to step back and take a good look at the BIG picture...

~Natalya

[Lekana]

You have to take into account, if one if quoting the standard, about what words actually MEANT at the time they ended up in our standard.  In today's world..."fair" means average or mediocre.  But in the day and age in which the word "fair" was put in our standard, it meant something very different.  Just as an example..the VERY old play/movie of "My Fair Lady."  the word "fair certainly didn't mean average or plain.  The word "fair"meant highly regarded.  I believe the word "fair" in our standard, based on not the ego-centric world of today in which we simply take words for words, and not delve into history, to mean our dogs had a GREAT DEAL of speed, based on the meaning of the word "fair"in that day and age.  But that was speed called upon when needed...despite "slow travellling" the majority of the day.

So let's not discount "fair" as our dogs aren't supposed to be fast.  As always...if you understand our breed, in a lot of respects, its a BALANCE...that balance between speed and endurance, that balance between power and elegance.  Let's not lose perspective!

Shara

[melissap]

Well thanks Kapani, but the question was not if it was the fastest of the sight hounds; but one that would be in the top 20 or so. As stated in my post, that compared to most other breeds...ect. which you may not have read all the way through.

Great hear from you though Michelle A.

Mateo: sounds like a wonderful experience you had. I am sure it was wonderful to see all of that 1st hand!

Hi Shara I think you have a great point! again while our rr's may not be the fastest "sight hound" they surley are one of the dogs that is designed for a good deal of speed, and this is the design of both form and function.

Thanks for your input!!

Natalya, as an illustrator ~ I would imagine that you could probably be a great resource for rr portraits. I would also be interested in other mediums & maybe you would be interested in working in that capacity?

Melissa

Melissa

[Kapani]

Well thanks Kapani, but the question was not if it was the fastest of the sight hounds; but one that would be in the top 20 or so. As stated in my post, that compared to most other breeds...ect. which you may not have read all the way through.

Great hear from you though Michelle A.

Mateo: sounds like a wonderful experience you had. I am sure it was wonderful to see all of that 1st hand!

Melissa

always great to hear from you..

[Kapani]

I spent a year and a half (off and on) in the Serengeti working on a documentary and was lucky enough to spend alot of time there watching and photographing lions, cheetahs, and leopards stalk and run down prey. Without going on and on about the cats (hyena vs. lion battle royales, cheetahs at full blaze), I saw some amazing displays of speed by all three. Although I spent many hours with a particularly successful mother cheetah -- she showed true arrogance, walking, then jogging toward her prey, before cranking it up to take  down Thompson gazelles -- probably even more impressive was watching Floppy Ear, a 400 lb. female lion open up to catch a wildebeest (which can also hit 50 mph) as it fled across the crater floor. That sized animal, moving that fast.....Wow.

The leopards I saw hunt were soloists that used invisibility cloaks to get themselves close to their prey. I saw one female slip through tall grass until she was almost next to a large gazelle. With an electric burst she fired out of the vegetation and caught the 150 lb. animal before it even knew she was there. Later, we watched as she dragged it up a tree. 150 lbs. of dead meat. She was maybe the same weight or a little less. Another time I waited for almost an hour as a leopard went after a bird. It didn't catch it, but once it got going, its speed was not negligible.

All three are fast (lions top out at 50 MPH; cheetahs at 70; leopards at 40 or so) and all have great cornering abilitity. But the leopard is the one that most reminds me of the ridgeback, not the lion that they are so closely tied to. Both leopards and ridgebacks are incredibly strong with great leaping ability (which any ridgeback owner can testify to); they are similarly shaped, full-chested with a medium sized body (especially when, to quote another forum member, they're in "bush trim" -- I love that phrase); they are both one of the most athletic breeds of their species, animals that can do so many different things so well and yet survive without being specialists. Of course, the cooperative hunting done by lions (which in its complexity can be truly boggling) is probably mirrored by the ridgebacks when they hunted them, yet in form and in athletic abilities I think they are more like the leopard.

We can't wait to take our 10 month old lure coursing -- she tried it out at about 5 months at a ridgeback club meeting and loved it (the lure course was set up for beginners, just straight ahead for 80 yards or so, no turns).

 
 

WOW envy is what I'm feeling right now...Do you have a slide show of pictures or anything you can share I know I'm not the only one that would love to see them?  thanks

[caro]

True sight hounds have a very different hunting style to the multipurpose hounds.  We used to have Greyhounds and Whippets.  Remember taking the Whippets out on the downs to hunt rabbits and they just had that one speed--FAST.  We would walk along with them on leash and when a rabbit was sighted, off would come the leash and off they would go (have seen one hit a dip in the ground, do a complete sumersault and never miss a stride!). 

I wonder if any of you ever saw the Russian version of War and Peace.  There is a wonderful hunt scene in it where horsemen would search for the wolf with their Borzoi on leash, then when the wolf was sighted, the leash was removed and  the Borzoi was of and running, one speed really.  But they did hunt as a group and it was an amazing sight to watch them work as a team.  I believe the Saluki mostly hunts by itself rather than in a pack as do the Greyhound and the Whippet.  The Slughi is I am told probably the fastest dog of all the sighthounds.  I have only met them once and found them really interesting dogs.  There is an RR lady who is now living on the West Coast who had one of the fastest.  Am not sure if AKC accepts them now at coursing events.

In the case of the multipurpose hound, e.g., the Ridgeback, they are expected to range ahead of the human to search out the game or warn of the presence of leopard or other predator ahead; this is done at a lope or energy efficient stride; then when it is necessary the afterburners are fired and off they go.  They have a number of different speeds. 

I don't think lure coursing is really a good way to gauge the running ability of a breed.  It is a fun sport which many of our dogs are able to participate in, but that is all.

Taking the fastest of each breed and pitting them against each other on a straight or oval track would be the only way to find out which is the fastest because a really fast RR could quite easily beat a slow Greyhound or Borzoi and certainly could leave an IW way behind.

I never thought of the Basenji as a sighthound and I have to say watching them course is very strange.  I am not sure where they fit in the general scheme of things.  Strange dogs!

Caroline

[melissap]

I had not even thought of the Basenji & I have only met one for any length of time. His owner was fairly knowlegable though & mentioned they have a very pack oriented nature & really enjoy the company of a Ridgeback! I had also heard they enjoy singing ~ they are an interesting breed though.

[Kapani]

<<<I don't think lure coursing is really a good way to gauge the running ability of a breed.  It is a fun sport which many of our dogs are able to participate in, but that is all.

Taking the fastest of each breed and pitting them against each other on a straight or oval track would be the only way to find out which is the fastest because a really fast RR could quite easily beat a slow Greyhound or Borzoi and certainly could leave an IW way behind.>>

Caroline we know Greyhounds are faster then RR"s they are the race horse of the dog world.  Sure there are exceptions to the rule but I didn't think we were talking about that.

[oscarsmom]

Caroline, I just learned of the Sloughi recently and BOY are they cool!! Very elegant dogs, but still with that "houndy" charm about their faces , and such a range of coat colors - just beautiful. I'd love to meet one in person. Your experience rabbit hunting with your whippets sounds truly awesome as well - a very "English" pastime...

Basenjis... I've only met a few but they are funny little dogs. I've always heard of them described as having almost "cat-like" independance, making obedience a bit of a bear (had one in an obedience class with Oscar at one point and I'd agree with that!). I'd never thought of them as being sight-hounds, but apparently they are!

And Melissa, I'll PM you as well, but I would be more than happy to consider doing portraits again - horses & dogs were always my favorite subjects.

~Natalya

[melissap]

Hi Caro & Natalya,
Caro, you guys have a great bit of property for all those fun romps with your dogs! I have a great visual of lots and lots of hounds pouncing around with their paws and ears flying.

Natalya, maybe we should start a post - RR art and sculpture!!! I currently have a great portrait of Brado that my Nana has done in pastels; I will have to send a pic of it. As she is getting older, and I am running out of wall space, it may be nice to have a little something of Zola even a statue in bronze would be lovely.

MP

[caro]

Hi Melissa.  We do have lots of space for the dogs to run, but unfortunately, they can't be as free as I would like here, particularly as we have horse fencing and while Cat will come back when she goes through the wire, Hintza takes his own sweet time and could well get into trouble on one of the neighboring farms! 

Where I lived in England was close to the downs and we used to take the dogs up over the fields where there were loads of rabbits.  The view was absolutely fantastic as we were just a few miles from the sea.  One of our Whippets was really popular with the village kids who used to borrow him to go rabbitting--Mom used to complain that he would come back covered in blood and then she would have to bathe him.  I never encouraged him to hunt when I took him out because I didn't want to deal with the results!!  He was an amazing little dog.  We had another Whippet bitch and she was absolutely hopeless--would run around in circles and hadn't a clue what to do! 

Now, sadly, things have changed.  If somebody sees  your dog killing a rabbit even, they may well report you to the police and you will get a visit from the local Sergeant.  It is not politically correct these days to hunt rabbits!!  It doesn't matter that rabbits dig holes in fields where horses and other animals can easily break a leg.  I am not sure what solution the AR people have for the burgeoning rabbit population.  You can bet they would be extremely upset to see a horse with a broken leg having stepped in a rabbit hole but they would never ask how the hole came to be in the middle of the horse's field.

Caroline

[melissap]

Hi Caro,

Yes ~ times have changed! I frequently think I should have lived a generation or two before my time. We grew up in a neighborhood here in the states that backed up to a forrest preserve and our dogs had lots and lots of fun and room to romp! The urban sprawl goes on and on. There are a few places like that - but it will cost a pretty penny for the land these days.

What a great time that boy had I am sure! washing them has to be done nightly any way - at least with my boy it does. I'll bet he remembers his days with your whippet and those racally rabbits 

I have pretty much always been a mid western gal, but I long for retirement so I can get closer to either coast for those views though!

Melissa

[Rosebud]

You have to take into account, if one if quoting the standard, about what words actually MEANT at the time they ended up in our standard.  In today's world..."fair" means average or mediocre.  But in the day and age in which the word "fair" was put in our standard, it meant something very different.  Just as an example..the VERY old play/movie of "My Fair Lady."  the word "fair certainly didn't mean average or plain.  The word "fair"meant highly regarded.  I believe the word "fair" in our standard, based on not the ego-centric world of today in which we simply take words for words, and not delve into history, to mean our dogs had a GREAT DEAL of speed, based on the meaning of the word "fair"in that day and age.  But that was speed called upon when needed...despite "slow travellling" the majority of the day.

So let's not discount "fair" as our dogs aren't supposed to be fast. 

Shara

While your analysis is wonderfully worded, I have to disagree.

With the word 'fair' having a history of multiple meanings we need to look at the context in which the word is used to understand the true meaning and/or intent. Now, in the research I have done on the use of the word 'fair' I have found no references to it ever meaning and/or insinuating it to mean 'great' in any other context other than in referencing the physical appearance of a woman. That use of the word actually goes back to the original meaning of the word as being 'beautiful, pleasant', 'morally pure, unblemished'.
see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=fair.

It should be noted that the use of a variant of the word 'fair' (fairly) to mean 'somewhat' began around 1805. This additional meaning of the word pre-dated the 1922 reference in the standard.

Now, the proper context of the use of the word in the standard is not in 'appearance' but in 'ability'. So, to extract the word 'great' based on the original definition is taking the use of the word, in the breed standard, out of context. When you look at the meaning of the word in it's proper context, it simply means a 'decent amount of speed', not exceptionally fast like a greyhound, but respectable for the breed's structure without compromising endurance.

proper context synonyms:
acceptable, adequate, all right, average, common, decent, fairish, goodish, moderate, passable, respectable, satisfactory, sufficient, tolerable, middling, mediocre, ordinary. It can however also mean: promising, likely

see: http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/f/f0013200.html
http://www.meriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fair

......As always...if you understand our breed, in a lot of respects, its a BALANCE...that balance between speed and endurance, that balance between power and elegance.  Let's not lose perspective!

Shara

Absolutely!

What IS of importance is BALANCE. And NO, that does not equate to the dogs not being fast. Yes, they should be reasonably fast for 'their' structure and should not be expected to be as fast as a breed that is designed for speed, such as the greyhound.

 

[oscarsmom]

Go Michelle!!

I was thinking the exact same thing but I wanted to be sure before I spoke, and I just didn't have time to drop what I was doing and go on an etymological expedition this afternoon Great info though, words and their meanings can be so trixy sometimes...

~Natalya

[Lekana]

Oxford Dictionary

fair1
  • adjective 1 just or appropriate in the circumstances. 2 treating people equally. 3 considerable in size or amount. 4 moderately good. 5 (of hair or complexion) light; blonde. 6 (of weather) fine and dry. 7 Austral./NZ informal complete. 8 archaic beautiful.

I believe the Oxford dictionary is more appropriate for the history of our breed than the American Dictionary you to which you provided the link.  I found this within minutes of the appropriate search, which DOES support my posting on this matter.  Yes, the word “fair” has had many meanings throughout history, and I was merely pointing out that the word “fair” DID exist as a term for CONSIDERABLE as noted above from the OXFORD dictionary…the other meaning quoted by the Oxford dictionary is #1 “just or appropriate in the circumstances” also has bearing on our standard.  Considering the speed of the wide variety of quarry our ridgebacks hunted OR COURSED in its history, meaning #1 and meaning #3 most certainly supports what I posted.

I don’t understand why you brought up context to refute what I posted, because it most certainly does have to do with context, which is why I am referring to a British Dictionary. 

I never said ridgebacks needed to be as fast as a greyhound or any other of the “classic” sighthounds.  But they certainly needed more than just a “fair” amount of speed for their quarry, if people only think of “fair” in the current or American definitions, because, as I proved above, that was NOT the only definition of the word.

I should also be noted that the majority of RRCUS agrees with me since IN OUR STANDARD they clarify “fair” as meaning GOOD…which certainly is better than average.  It also states “GREAT coursing ability” which is a far cry from what you deem the word “fair” to mean.  It further describes the shoulder assembly to be constructed to denote SPEED.  Why even mention speed if it is NOT an important aspect of the standard?

I stand behind what I wrote.

Shara

[caro]

Once again, we have a case of American English vs. English English.  I actually understood the word "fair" like Shara, but then I am English.  We do have slightly different meanings for words and particularly when you are reading and quoting things written almost 100 years ago.

Example, if I told somebody the service in a particular restaurant was fairly good, I would actually mean that the service was reasonably fast, so if I were to say a particular dog had "fair" speed, I would actually be saying the dog was quite fast. 

So let's not split hairs here.  I think we all know that an RR needs to have speed to get the job done though it doesn't need the flat out speed of a Greyhound or Saluki.  There are fast RRs and there are slow RRs just as there are fast Greyhounds and slow greyhounds.  Each has a different running style and if you put a fast RR up against a slow Greyhound, it might well outrun it, but then the RR would be exhibiting more than "fair" speed.

I really feel for those of you whose native language is not English.  I would absolutely hate to have to learn the nuances of the English language.

Caroline

[somesuchlike]

Interisting, TC Hawley said: 'The standard under this heading (talking about General appearance) is so concise that it needs no ellaboration.... The emphasis is on utility combined with handsomenesss, aboundant substance stripped of all ballast'.

P.Nicholson said in his book (The Complete Rhodesian Ridgeback): The Ridgeback is first and foremost a hunting dog, who should be strong and muscular, but at the same time it should be lithe and active, and capable of achiving a fast gallop and a swift change of directions. When you are judging the breed, you should look at each dog and recall that these were the animals that were used to hunt and bay lions. The questions you should ask yourself is: Is this dog capable of carrying out the job is was breed for?'

Maybe this quotations would help a bit to clarify question of speed.

[melissap]

I am pretty sure that the word fair in the standard is used to depict a fair meaning good deal of speed!

There is no doubt in my mind that this denotes a higher capacity for speed than SEVERAL other breeds, not inclusive of those that are "TRUE COURSING" dogs that are bred such as the Salughi & the Borzoi who are narrower, lankier and more aero-dynamic who's standards denote great or exceptional speed.

MP

[Revodana]

Interesting thread!
 
I like to think of the Ridgeback as a well-evolved lurcher: Lurchers have sighthound as their base, crossed with oftentimes herding dogs and terriers to give the dog a nose and some more biddability. What is sacrificed in the bargain is some speed, but certainly not all of it.
 
The Ridgeback is not a true sighthound as the purist defines the term -- a sprinting hound whose sole raison d'etre is to course hare in eyeshot of its owner. (Then again, neither are Ibizans or Pharaohs -- hunting for rabbits in lamplight, they use their noses as much as their eyes, and are better classified as scenthounds.) But thanks to the greyhound and deerhound blood on which our breed was built, the Ridgeback is part of the sighthound family, and as such, he retains a good amount of speed. He will never be as fast as the specialist sprinters such as greyhounds because the straight shoulder that gives them great speed over short distances impairs his endurance, which requires the angled blade. (This is also why so many straight-shouldered RRs do so well at coursing, though they would arguably break down in the field over time.)
 
Regarding the word "fair," there are some words in the standards that we may interpret a particular way now, but for dogmen in the 19th and early 20th century, they were understood to have a specific meaning. "Fair" does indeed mean "good" or "better than average" in this context. Our standard also asks for a head of "fair" length. That means good length, not foreshortened.
 
The examples in other standards are endless: The Bullmastiff must have a loin with "fair depth of flank," and his head show a "fair amount of wrinkle when alert." The neck on an Irish terrier must be of "fair length." The chest of the boxer must be of "fair width."
 
The standards are not calling for mediocrity in these areas. They are calling for a good, or more than adequate, amount.
 
Because of the confusion created by overlaying modern meanings over the word "fair," many standards have been reworded to eliminate it (the Dalmatian standard used to call for a tail of "fair length" -- now it just says the tail should reach the hock -- a good length indeed). RRCUS chose to retain the original wording of the standard as it pertains to speed, and added the parenthetical "good" so its meaning would not be misinterpreted.
 
Denise

[Rosebud]

Oxford Dictionary

fair1
  • adjective 1 just or appropriate in the circumstances. 2 treating people equally. 3 considerable in size or amount. 4 moderately good. 5 (of hair or complexion) light; blonde. 6 (of weather) fine and dry. 7 Austral./NZ informal complete. 8 archaic beautiful.

I guess the Oxford definition would be more appropriate.

And I am not disputing that the RR should not have ANY speed, but I disagree with the RR having a "GREAT DEAL" of speed. Even the above definition does not indicate that 'fair' should be interpreted as "a great deal", in other words exceptional. The 1st, 3rd & 4th definitions can ALL be used to define fair in the standard, with each having a different interpretation.  However, I believe my previous statement actually incorporated all three of those definitions.

When you look at the meaning of the word in it's proper context, it simply means a 'decent amount of speed' (4), not exceptionally fast like a greyhound, (3) but respectable for the breed's structure without compromising endurance (1).

I dont understand why you brought up context to refute what I posted, because it most certainly does have to do with context, which is why I am referring to a British Dictionary. 

Because you extracted the interpretation "A great deal of speed" for an archaic and obsolete definition that ONLY pertained to physical appearance and not to ability. I did not find it a 'fair' analysis. And as shown above in the Oxford definition, fair does not mean 'a great deal of', it is tempered with 'moderation' and what one would deem to be 'just or appropriate for the situation', in otherwords it's what the whole standard is all about to begin with MODERATION & BALANCE.

......the Ridgeback is part of the sighthound family, and as such, he retains a good amount of speed. He will never be as fast as the specialist sprinters such as greyhounds because the straight shoulder that gives them great speed over short distances impairs his endurance, which requires the angled blade. (This is also why so many straight-shouldered RRs do so well at coursing, though they would arguably break down in the field over time.)

............
Denise

It had previously been mentioned that the RR was built for speed and this is simply not so. The RR is built for endurance. And as you have pointed out, thus the reason for the angled shoulder blade.

That statement that the RR is built for speed has me deeply concerned. If people are allowed to believe that the RR is supposed to be as fast as speed breeds, like the Whippet and Greyhound, then that is what they will breed for. This is dangerous to the future of the breed, since it will equate to MORE straight fronts.

So I will agree that Yes, the RR should be fast, but 'just and appropriate' for it's structure WITHOUT compromising endurance. The standard places greater emphasis on endurance than it does on speed simply with the way it is worded.

".........capable of GREAT endurance with a FAIR (GOOD) amount of speed."

[Rosebud]

...........It also states “GREAT coursing ability” which is a far cry from what you deem the word “fair” to mean. 

Shara

Huh!

How does "great coursing ability" equate to the dog having a "great deal of speed". 'Great coursing ability' would indicate that the dog SHOULD have the Natural INSTINCT to course game. ie, High Prey Drive along with quick decision making abilities to not lose sight/scent of the prey. In coursing the biggest problem with RR's seems to be their NATURAL ability to cheat. That natural ability to cheat actually reinforces that the RR has better coursing abilities than breeds that just chase the prey as fast as they can and never attempt to cut it off and actually capture it.

[Revodana]

It had previously been mentioned that the RR was built for speed and this is simply not so. The RR is built for endurance. And as you have pointed out, thus the reason for the angled shoulder blade.

That statement that the RR is built for speed has me deeply concerned. If people are allowed to believe that the RR is supposed to be as fast as speed breeds, like the Whippet and Greyhound, then that is what they will breed for. This is dangerous to the future of the breed, since it will equate to MORE straight fronts.

Just as dangerous to me is the judge who said to me recently after judging Ridgebacks (and putting up exhibits who more closely resembled Bullmastiffs): "Your breed should not have a tuckup!"

The Ridgeback is a breed built for BOTH endurance AND relative speed at the gallop (this is the reason for the arch of the loin and the tuckup). The two are not mutually exclusive: see the saluki standard.

Since the larger the game, the heavier the bone required, a Ridgeback is not as fast as a greyhound because its game isn't, and it needs to have the bone and strength to bring down something far larger than a little bunny.

No one is saying Ridgebacks should be as slight, weedy or steeply angulated as a classic sighthound like a greyhound. No danger of that in the ring these days -- if anything, there is a tendency to massiveness, coarseness and guttiness that is just as incorrect breed type.

People are not breeding straight shoulders because they want a more greyhoundy running look. People are breeding straight shoulders because it is hard to breed an angled one. There are tons of cloddy dogs out there with straight shoulders.

For one of the AKC Gazette breed columns a while back I did an excerpt of a 1950s magazine article describing a pack of Ridgebacks coursing a herd of hartebeest. If there was any doubt that this breed needed a good amount of speed (but not great -- the hartebeest eventually outpaced them), that dispelled it.

Again, great endurance and good speed are not mutually exclusive. Our hounds should be capable of both.

Denise

[Revodana]

'Great coursing ability' would indicate that the dog SHOULD have the Natural INSTINCT to course game. ie, High Prey Drive along with quick decision making abilities to not lose sight/scent of the prey.

To me, coursing ability means all those things that, when taken together, culminate in the dogs' ability to follow and eventually bring down game.

They include speed, endurance, agility, and follow and enthusiasm (what you're calling prey drive).

Sound familiar to any lure coursers?

Denise

[oscarsmom]

Denise, I'm really enjoying your input here. I find it completely bizarre that a judge would say that about tuckup in the RR, and a little unnerving that there can be THAT degree of discrepancy in the way the standard is interpreted by various judges - those who *should* arguably know exactly what constitutes an exemplar of the breed (of course there is variance and subjectivity, and some judges are not RR experts, but that in particular seems like a rather black and white issue - is it not?).

In coursing the biggest problem with RR's seems to be their NATURAL ability to cheat. That natural ability to cheat actually reinforces that the RR has better coursing abilities than breeds that just chase the prey as fast as they can and never attempt to cut it off and actually capture it.

Not to get way off topic, but this mention of RRs "cheating" at lure coursing has come up more than once recently and, having never been to a coursing event, I'm not sure what this means. Can someone explain? I know the gist of how lure coursing is done, but I don't understand how a dog could "cheat" (though I know plenty about how smart RRs are and I've seen Oscar "cheat" at OTHER things...).

Thanks,
~Natalya

[Rosebud]

Not to get way off topic, but this mention of RRs "cheating" at lure coursing has come up more than once recently and, having never been to a coursing event, I'm not sure what this means. Can someone explain? I know the gist of how lure coursing is done, but I don't understand how a dog could "cheat" (though I know plenty about how smart RRs are and I've seen Oscar "cheat" at OTHER things...).

Thanks,
~Natalya

Since this will take the current topic into a new direction please click the following link to comment on How RR's Cheat in Lure-Coursing.

http://rr-forum.com/forum/index.php?topic=2813.new#new

Thanks

[Rosebud]

To me, coursing ability means all those things that, when taken together, culminate in the dogs' ability to follow and eventually bring down game.

They include speed, endurance, agility, and follow and enthusiasm (what you're calling prey drive).

Sound familiar to any lure coursers?

Denise

Yes, I agree.

I guess in my initial question I should have made myself clear that the statement I was referring to insinuated that a 'great amount of speed' was what 'great coursing ability' meant. My point was that speed is not necessarily a top priority in coursing game. It's all of the components combined.

[Lekana]

Thank you, Denise, for AGAIN clarifying what I was obviously not adept at making clear.  When it was mentioned that the word "fair" meant average (or whatever the verbiage used), this is WHY I tried to explain that "fair" written by people in a country at a certain time certainly did NOT mean average...it meant CONSIDERABLE. 

Those of us that have been around a lot in BOTH the show ring and lure coursing understand that the sport of lure coursing has NOT been the degradation of our breed.  Weedy dogs were being bred BEFORE coursing, and they are being bred now.  Just as, conversely as is Denise's fear of people mis-interpreting the word "fair" we are getting overly "cloddy" dogs looking more like mastiffs. 

We have a standard...not the greatest in my opinion, but if you understand purpose, and understand context and time and language, and study pictures of the early hunting dogs, we SHOULD be able to come up with that elusive balance between power and elegance AND that balance between speed and endurance.  All those components truly make our breed unique, because as Denise pointed out...our dogs are not "specialists" but attaining that fine balance of structure for BOTH speed, endurance, AND strength, WILL make them capable of doing all of those things when required.

For sure, it is not easy, but there are those of us that DO strive for that perfect balance.  But whoever said our breed was "easy!"  ;-)

Again, thank you Denise for the support, and to Caroline...as a Brit who DOES know simply by her heritage that even today the word "fair" in that country means FAR more than average. 

Shara

[caro]

Denise wrote: 
Just as dangerous to me is the judge who said to me recently after judging Ridgebacks (and putting up exhibits who more closely resembled Bullmastiffs): "Your breed should not have a tuckup!"

A perfect example as to why it is of  utmost importance for our Club to offer some sort of forced continuing education for judges!!  Perhaps they should have to renew their licences every few years!!

I think a lot of the problem is that somebody says a tuckup is not correct thinking of a tuckup like that of a Whippet or Greyhound, so they go to the other extreme and require no tuck at all.  There is no middle of the road.  Perhaps there should be some wording like "a fair amount of tuck up is required"   A dog like an RR is expected to have a good deep chest; if there is no tuck, then of course it is going to look like a Mastiff because of the depth of the chest, but the rib cage will normally rise toward the shortest rib and then the loin which should give it just the corect amount of tuck. 

I must say, Denise, while you seem to have seen a lot of mastiffy  type dogs, I have seen one or two that I have had to do a double take to make sure they are actually Ridgebacks and not a Viszla or some new breed.  I do think it is the breeders' responsibility to stop these trends and to stop breeding for the judges and start breeding for the standard.  Just as with size which is my current major complaint.  We have an upper limit for size and it seems to me that nobody is paying the slightest bit of attention to it.  However, if somebody were to show up with a 23-3/4" bitch everybody would be screaming despite the fact that she might be perfect in every other way.  Having had a small bitch and watched her work in the fields, she could certainly get the job done and in record time.  I have serious doubts about  some of the  28-1/2 dogs I have seen.

Caroline

[Rosebud]

When it was mentioned that the word "fair" meant average (or whatever the verbiage used), this is WHY I tried to explain that "fair" written by people in a country at a certain time certainly did NOT mean average...it meant CONSIDERABLE. 

Shara

The problem I had with the interpretation meaning 'a great deal'/'considerable' is with other uses of the word in standards. To define fair to mean considerable would also mean that the RR should have considerable length to the head and the neck should be considerably long.

Quotes from the original 1922 standard

"THE HEAD should be of fair length"
"THE NECK AND SHOULDERS. The neck should be fairly long"

So do we have a good length of neck, or a neck that is considerably long.

Which one is it, does Fair mean good/reasonable or does it mean considerable/a good deal of.

The answer is actually both.

After more in-depth research I found that the word fair when used by itself to describe something has it's own meaning, of course taking into consideration the context in which it is used.

ie, A fair day means a clear day. A fair lad would mean a handsome man, yet could also mean a just or reasonable man. A fair book would mean a reasonably good book or it could mean an o.k. nothing spectacular book.

And a fair length would mean a pretty good or respectful length while fairly long would mean respectfully, proportionately, moderately and tolerably long.

       
Now where is gets very interesting and clarifies, without any doubt, that considerable IS the correct interpretation, in reference to the amount of speed the RR should have is in the addition of the phrase 'amount of'. It's the whole phrase 'a Fair Amount of' that is the key to the correct interpretation.
 
From the OED (Oxford English Dictionary), the internationally accepted experts on words, their definitions and their etymology.

considerable, a. (and n.)

  2. a. A fair amount, quantity, etc., of something. (Cf. 6b above.) U.S.  from 1745 - 1943 
           
(Here is the definition that is referenced above.)
 6. U.S. colloq.    a. Used of things material: A large quantity of, as ‘considerable liquor’; also absol. much, a good deal.  from 1839 - 1890   

    b. Freq. absol. followed by of. (Cf. B. 2 below.) U.S.  from 1685 - 1904

     
So yes, 'a fair amount of speed' literally, without any doubt, does indeed mean a CONSIDERABLE amount of speed.


So Denise, that would also mean that if the standard was changed to require 'a fair amount of tuck up' then it would mean a considerable amount of tuck-up, yet a 'fair tuck-up' would mean a reasonably good tuck-up.

Definately a tricky little word and it seems that our standard is not giving RR's enough credit when it comes to how much speed they should have, since considerable is definately much better than good.

[Kapani]

Wow this is like when Clinton said it depends what the definition of is is.  I hope we can all agree and go on to more fun topics..hee hee What does considerable mean?  Just kidding

[shodyL]

I don't know what all the verbage and definitions mean, but after going to my first lure coursing event this is what I think.

While the ridgebacks did not have the lightening speed of the whippets and some of the other breeds, or the gracefulness of the greyhounds, afghans & lighter breeds, or the ungainliness of the wolfhound/deer hounds they were absolutely beautiful to watch! 
They were amazingly fast, yet still graceful while at the same time looked immensely powerful and intimidating at full speed!  Perfect in every aspect!  But I may be biased....

[caro]

I think you have analyzed it perfectly shodyL (can you sign your posts though, I don't think your name is shodyL).  Of all the breeds, I believe the Ridgeback is without doubt the most "powerful" runner.

Regarding ""THE HEAD should be of fair length" from the 1922 standard, I think that means that we should try to avoid the "blocky" type of head common to the bull terriers.  (I believe that there are some RRs still with this type of blocky head and it is not very attractive)  They were looking for a slightly longer muzzle which would equal the width of the head.  If they had said long head, you would be looking at something resembling a greyhound or Deerhound, but they didn't want that so they inserted the word fair to moderate the word.

I think the word is used as a moderator  more often than not.  E.g.,

"THE NECK AND SHOULDERS. The neck should be fairly long"

They were not looking for something with a giraffe type neck, but equally they were not looking for something with no neck at all, hence the moderator "fairly".

Caroline

[shodyL]

Sorry, my name is Shody, Last name Lytle, hence the L.  I will try to remember to sign!

[matteo1]

...Do you have a slide show of pictures or anything you can share I know I'm not the only one that would love to see them?  thanks

Yes, I have a few slides......More than a few. I also have some film footage. I find out tomorrow whether I'm going back to Tanzania in Sept. for another project. I'm keeping my fingers crossed. If it does happen, I'll post some photos and maybe some video when I get back. If not, I'll try to find the time to upload at least a few slides next week. (if I don't go back to Africa, I may be heading into the mountains to film some wild fires, so it may be a while.)

As far as our ridgeback's shape and speed goes.......I'm quite new to owning a ridgeback, so I'll let the rest of you define the terms of what the standard should be. To state it simply, I've grown to love the way our girl moves. She seems to be a happy medium between weedy and cloddy with a deep chest and nice tuckup (I'm learning). She's silky on the sand and trails, and I love watching her open up full stride at Huntington Beach where the dogs can run free. She's almost feline in her smoothness, yet somehow our 6 pound burmese has yet to understand that a 75 lb. ridgeback play bows are actually an invitation to fun.

Thanks for all your responses.......It seems like most would rank ridgebacks in the top twenty for overall speed. And probably in the top five for overall athletic ability. More like decathletes than sprinters. But like everyone else here, I'm fairly biased.

[Lekana]

<<Huh!

How does "great coursing ability" equate to the dog having a "great deal of speed". 'Great coursing ability' would indicate that the dog SHOULD have the Natural INSTINCT to course game. ie, High Prey Drive along with quick decision making abilities to not lose sight/scent of the prey. In coursing the biggest problem with RR's seems to be their NATURAL ability to cheat. That natural ability to cheat actually reinforces that the RR has better coursing abilities than breeds that just chase the prey as fast as they can and never attempt to cut it off and actually capture it. <<

So I guess I am wondering why you think SPEED doesn't equate to COURSING ability.  Why have a dog, if I am understanding you correctly, that has "prey drive" but doesn't have the speed to actually course?  Sorry, but the two go hand-in-hand.  ANY breed can have the desire to "course" game, as have been evidenced by my thrust in my coursing club to have a "fun run" for "non-eligible" dogs after our trials....an event my long-lost GSD excelled in...she was a COURSING FOOL, yet she certainly didn't possess the SPEED to back up her coursing ambitions...and of course...she shouldn't...she was a GSD!!!  Not a breed whose history REQUIRED coursing. 

History dictates our breed not only needed the DESIRE to course, but they certainly needed the SPEED to accomplish the goal of whatever they were coursing...and THAT means having the SPEED available in their reserves after trotting all day (our endurance component) to serve that purpose.  THAT is what makes the ridgeback unique.  And you CAN'T have that characteristic in the ridgeback if they are "cloddy" and don't have a good front and a strong rear to do THAT job.  That GOOD FRONT allows them to be able to trot all day and THEN course well (the after-burners if you will) for the various game they were required to hunt. 

You have to look at the big picture if you want to get a true sense of what this breed is all about, and not just get stuck on one word in our standard, and be obstinate about what it means.

Shara

[Revodana]

I think when you are looking at dog standards, ultimately no dictionary matters. What matters is the understanding among dog people of the time as to what the terms meant.

"Fair" and "fairly" in our standard mean better than average, or good. It doesn't mean the exteme (the fastest speed or the longest neck), but it means a "goodly amount."

When the standards ask for extremity in any area, they use the words "very" or "extremely."

Regarding heads, our standard asks for a head of good length. No "cupcake" muzzles, no wedges. The trick with such a correctly long head is to breed the underjaw to match!

It makes sense that the standard asks for a neck of good length, as the neck provides the "pumping action" necessary in a dog that needs to achieve a good amount of speed.

Interestingly, when the American standard was adopted in 1955, the wording asking for a "fairly long neck" was dropped, probably a transcription error. However, it is still retained in the FCI standard.

Without adequate length of neck (which derives from the well-built front), you don't get the arch of the neck that is such an important finishing touch to the breed.

Mrs. Stenmark had a lot to say on this in her interview with me in the current issue of The Ridgeback Register.

Denise

[Lekana]

To expound on what Denise wrote...and I think which ultimately started this discussion, was that mis-interpretation of the word "fair."  Such a small word, but of huge importance when taken in the correct context, AND taken in the original job of our ridgebacks.

Denise is very correct that the neck (a proper neck) plays huge importance in how our dogs move, and why they move as they do.  The correct neck set upon correct shoulders provides the fulcrum for propulsion (the pumping action that she said).  The "finishing touch" factor IS, what I think,  that all important arch, or crest which denotes not only strength of the neck, but in most cases denotes correct shoulder assembly. 

The most important thing, I hope, this discussion achieves is the knowledge and THINKING about how all the body parts should work with each other to achieve the unique physique of our dogs...and correlate that with the words of the standard in which words have been retained that aren't commonly used today to mean something that WERE meant in that manner 100 years ago.

I also hope this discussion opens the eyes of people to try not to fit failings of their own dogs into the standard simply because they don't uderstand the context of words.  I tried to do this with my first ridgeback...she had a "pretty head" but not a correct head.  Her muzzle was too short.  The standard states "fairly long" and I NOW know (I didn't then) what "fair" or "fairly" meant.  The American Elaboration of the Standard spelled out what the actual dimensions of the head should be, and I had to humble myself to admit my dog was lacking in that area...that is NOT a bad thing.  No dog is perfect.

But that one particular area HAS made me campaign to combine our elaboration and our official standard because I can't understand WHY we have a standard that fails to clarify things that are clarified in the elaboration.  But I'm sure that is going off in a different area of discussion  ;-)

Shara

[WAARHEID]

.
There has been a lot of discussion about the word "fair" as it relates to our dog's speed, and meaning of the word relative to the historical timeline. The concept of "coursing ability" as it relates to our breed has been examined as well - with some conclusions drawn that I am inclined to differ a bit with.

In that vein, some rhetorical (but revealing) historical questions:

When did the phrase "fair amount of speed" first appear in the Rhodesian Ridgeback standard? Was it in the original standard? If not, when (and where) did it first appear? If so, why would it have any other meaning than that commonly accepted by first-generation descendants of English colonialists and the more 'recent' English immigrants of that time?

When did the phrase "demonstrates great coursing ability" first appear in the Rhodesian Ridgeback standard, and in what countries' registries does that phrase appear vs. not appear?
.

[Lekana]

Matthew, I think  I know what you are getting at, but I am, at this point, going to be as vague as you are concerning “coursing ability” and whatever concerns you have regarding the “timeline” of certain phrases in the American standard.  I do know why certain phrases were added, because I was there and fighting for certain things when that standard was revised. 

I do stand by mine and other’s interpretation of the word “fair” but I also know certain “speed” aspects are more current, but that still doesn’t sway me from MY PERSONAL interpretation of not only original purpose, but of true conformational aspects to meet original purpose.

The reason I am not going to enter into a debate with you at this point, because I’m not sure you and I will actually disagree, is that I want (hope) other people will chime in this subject…I am truly interested in what other people think and imagine the conformational aspects of the ridgeback as it relates to original function (which of course…is a wide open discussion, considering the diverse original functions our ridgebacks had).

So yes…I am being vague, as Matthew is being, because I am HOPING any of this will spark some thought, and perhaps interest, from other people. 

Shara

[Rosebud]

Interestingly, when the American standard was adopted in 1955, the wording asking for a "fairly long neck" was dropped, probably a transcription error. However, it is still retained in the FCI standard.

Without adequate length of neck (which derives from the well-built front), you don't get the arch of the neck that is such an important finishing touch to the breed.

Mrs. Stenmark had a lot to say on this in her interview with me in the current issue of The Ridgeback Register.

Denise

Caroline responded to this portion of Denise's post which has turned into a very interesting and educational topic. I have split the two threads so that the new thread can concentrate on the conformation aspect of the arch of the RR's neck.

Please follow the link below to participate in that discussion.

http://rr-forum.com/forum/index.php?topic=2829.0