> The first three all have level top lines, good length of neck, good angulation without "hockiness", and very solid muscle development in the rear and shoulders. They also have a tendency to be slightly longer in the back than tall. This gives them the room to place their hind feet well under their body, giving good reach and drive. They are very efficient movers. Our other dogs also have good angulation and good muscle development but slightly shorter bodies and shorter through the neck area. Their movement is not nearly as efficient and the stride is shorter. They have to work harder to cover the same distance. Has anyone else seen this correlation?
With really good angulation, there is most definitely a correlation. However, many of the dogs today have the shorter back but only have moderate angulation front and rear. In this case they can track very well coming and going, and can move quite adequately going around the ring--smooth to some extent--but lack the really good reach and drive, fluid and efficient movement expected in a spaniel. They need to take quite a few extra steps to get around the ring. The look the adequate movers show is somewhere between a terrier and a typical spaniel. It seems that some believe adequate angulation, reach and drive is correct and some believe good angulation, reach and drive is correct. Is there room for both, or is one more correct than the other? Laura Lang Roycroft Cavaliers ========================================================= "Magic Commands": to stop receiving mail for awhile, click here and send the email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20NOMAIL to start it up gain click here: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?body=SET%20CKCS-L%20MAIL E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] for assistance. Search the Archives... http://apple.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ckcs-l.html All e-mail sent through CKCS-L is Copyright 2002 by its original author.
