I have always believed that a dog is a dog and should be able to 'move' according to it's type. I have recently (about 18months) started to show a different breed. Actually a KIng Charles Spaniel  (not a Cav)and there seems to be an obsession on heads as opposed to other things. While I agree the Charlie has a very distinctive shape of head, surely it should not precede over the ability to move properly. Now, I would like to have other peoples opinion on this- maybe Ive got it wrong

different judges like different things and i suppose it depends on what group your breed is in as to whether movement is a major factor or not.  having gundogs, movement is very important otherwise they wouldnt be able to do their job, but might not be as important in the toy group

I was going to reply along the same vein Archiebongo. Hounds, gundogs and working breeds have to move well to do their job, but a toy breed only has to look pretty. Then I changed my mind, a toy breed should be sound too - if only to ensure it has a happy and pain free life to look pretty as long as possible :D

>different judges like different things and i suppose it depends on what group your breed is in as to whether movement is a major factor or not.  having gundogs, movement is very important otherwise they wouldnt be able to do their job, but might not be as important in the toy group

As a toy dog owner I would expect all toy breeds to be sound & if they aren't then they shouldn't be placed. The Cavalier is more like the dogs of the 1500s/1600s when they were a dual purpose dog, used to hunt Woodcock as well as killing vermin inside the Royal circle's homes, whilst also being companion dogs for the members of the Court. The King Charles themselves were "redesigned"during the 19th century when the fashion was for small dogs for ladies that resembled babies, ie they had short muzzles & large eyes placed as they would be in a human face as well as being bred down in size. Obviously the modern King Charles would not be able to retrieve a Woodcock due to the lack of muzzle length & I doubt that they could jump on & off horses being smaller that the Cavalier & much smaller than the dogs of the 1500s/1600s

Oh, its a minefield. I've always thought a dog should be able to move well and have never put a dog up that can't.  Ideally of course you'll have a dog with a wonderful head that can move, problem solved :) If faced with a dog with a great head that toes in, lacks drive, is cow hocked whatever versus a dog with a mediocre head that really moves well I'd probably go for the latter, unless it completely lacked breed type, thats the difficult thing to pin down - when does a poor head no longer represent the breed?

Before rambling further I went to the kc site and had a quick look at the KCS breed standard and it says Movement - 'Free, active and elegant, driving from behind. Sound movement highly desirable.' Thats answers the question doesn't it :D

There is an argument that says you can have a sound moving mongrel, so you cannot have soundness without type in a pedigree dog, but you should never reward a typical dog that is UNSOUND.

So if I had to choose between a fabulous mover that was untypical or had glaring faults re it's breed type, and a superbly typical outstanding  animal whose movement was not super but totally within functional healthy parameters, then the second would win. 

Now you are talking of a toy breed that by it's shear shape and size isn't going to have the conformation that a hunting dog or herding dog would have, and it doesn't need to have.  So a dog that is a little out at elbows or close behind is not going to suffer ill effects in it's life as a companion.

On the other hand the lack of a sweet disposition would not make it a good companion.

Mind you the movement and conformation I have seen on some working spaniels looks horrendous yet they do their job of work fine.

Working Terriers may not always be the sweetest creatures alive, but they sure do kill vermin well.

What most judges hope for is that there are sufficient animals in the class that they can disregard the totally unsound ones and then find a really typical one that is sound, maybe having to decide if the slightly better moving one is good enough type wise to go over it.

Barbara,

I'm with  you on this.

I have seen sound moving X-breeds too but they resemble no breed at all.    To me a dog has to ooze breed type and I have said it before, a typy animal that moves ok will win above one that could have all the flash & dash in this world but doesn't display correct type.   Type is what makes each breed individual. 

Oh absolutely, theres no denying that type is what we're looking for, as I meant in my post. It's great if when we're judging we have something that oozes breed type and moves ok...the difficulty arises when thats not the case. Say in a small post grad class (lets stick with KCS) you only have 2 dogs. One with a great head but that can't move, or one with a mediocre head that can move, which would you choose? For me it would be the 2nd one, but some will choose the 1st.

I would never chose the 1st & if the 2nd were not anywhere near typical I would withhold. I've seen lots of awful Cavaliers & Charlies that are a million miles away from being sound. One dog in a Limit class in Cavaliers in the words of the judge"won his place on his movement"presumably it was the three legs he was using that were sound as he never put one paw to the ground at all !

And that is why I am glad I will never judge :D

Thank you all for your comments. I think the majotity of you concur with me . I know Charlies are a toy breed but I feel they should be sound, after all, dogs don't walk on their heads.

Hi there. Moonmaiden. I wanted PM you but your email is 'hidden' Would you email me please

You don't need a e mail to PM just click on my user name & sent a PM ;-)

A lady call Kaz emailed me. I have tried to reply twice but the messages came back. If 'Kaz' would like me to respond contact me again either email or PM.