Pure speed

[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