This Site Chosen By Microsoft As THE Afghan Web Link for Encarta
Afghan Hound Database and Breed Information Exchange
(Views on the breed 1941 and 1998)Views on the breed
1941 and 1998
The following articles, published in the Fall 1998 issue of The Afghan Hound Club Of America's newsletter "Topknot News" are re-printed here with the kind permission of the editor.
By Karen Armistead, AHCA Librarian;
Judges, remember these are "swift hunting dogs". A great many of us will soon attend the 1998 AHCA National Specialty and see a large number of Afghan Hounds. Recently I happened to read the following article printed in the first AHCA Bulletin in August 1941:
1941 SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR AFGHAN JUDGING
By Q.A. Shaw McKean, April 23, 1941
I was asked the other day by a prospective judge and an active breeder of Afghans what, in my opinion, are the chief faults of some of the winning Afghans that are being shown. First, and foremost, I feel that many judges overlook the primary purpose of the Afghan. They are “swift hunting dogs.” Obviously, therefore, soundness is of primary importance, and condition next. Many of the dogs now being shown, in my opinion, usually lack condition. Proper exercise is very important.
To go into more detail, it would seem to me that many of the hounds are lacking in head and neck qualities. The Standard (as given in the A. K. C. Book of Dogs) reads: “Head - narrow, conforming to that of a greyhound but more powerful; skull oval, with prominent occiput; jaws long and punishing.” (Editor’s note: Remember that the current version of the Afghan Hound Standard was adopted in 1948, seven years after this article was written.)
"We do not want...
common-headed ...
short-necked ...
kind-eyed Afghans ...
We are seeing some very common headed dogs winning - short and thick in head, and lacking in keen expression. In connection with expression, the eye, of course, is important. We do not want “kind eyed” Afghans. The breed is extremely keen sighted of necessity, as they are primarily a “gaze hound’ and depend on eyesight alone in following their quarry.
Second, again referring to the Standard, we read: “Neck - long, strong, arched, and running in a curve to shoulder, which should be long and sloping, and well laid back.’~ Here again judges seem from time to time to err in putting up short necked Afghans, and not insisting that in this very important point the Standard is lived up to.
Third, coat. Some exhibitors are actually trimming Afghans. I saw one lovely hound shown, with neck and feet obviously clipped. Imagine attempting to clip an Afghan’s feet when the Standard so definitely states, “feet covered with long, thick hair, fine in texture.’
It would seem to me that judges should review the Standard, always bearing in mind the primary purpose of the Afghan Hound. Otherwise, exaggerations are bound to creep into the breed, such as over-emphasis on heavy coat, etc.
Karen’s concluding remarks: Written in 1941 and extremely relevant in 1998! I wish that exhibitors, breeders, judges, and anyone who owns an Afghan hound, would heed the warning “... Otherwise, exaggerations are bound to creep into the breed ...“ and take to heart the words: “always bearing in mind the primary pulpose of the Afghan Hound.”
1998 Is it "flash and dash" over form and substance?
By Betty Stites, November 1998
Q. A. Shaw McKean, 1941: “. . .judges should review the Standard, always bearing in mind the purpose of the Afghan Hound.”
Betty Stites, 1998: “Have you read the Standard lately? ... think about the history of the Afghan Hound and why they evolved as they did... and the reasons behind our Standard’s requirements.”
Have you looked at the dogs in the ring with you? Not your dog, of course, but the others? Have you read the standard lately? Do these “other” dogs in the ring today really look like the dog called for in the standard?
Think about it. Our standard calls for a square dog: “Height at shoulders equals the distance from chest to buttocks.” It calls for a level back: “Back appearing practically level from the shoulders to the loin.” Then it adds: “Strong, powerful, loin, slightly arched “ And as a point of reference, the arched loin on a level back is a MUSCULAR ARCH, not a structural arch. How many of these square, level backed dogs are you seeing in the ring with you? None? One? If it’s more than one you’re really lucky.
These are the very basic requirements of our breed: Square, level back arched (muscularly) over the loin. This is our absolute basic building block. We place the rest of our standard’s requirements on this basic form. If we lose the basic, we lose the dog.
Well, folks, we have lost our basic, and we are losing our dog. It’s up to those of you still breeding to try and save it, and it won’t be an easy job.
We have sold our soul to “flying!” Nowhere in the standard does it say an Afghan Hound should fly! It says, in the description of the gallop, “ a smooth, powerful stride”, and that he “...can trot at a fast pace” . Flying isn’t a smooth, powerful stride, nor is flying required for a “fast pace”. Flying is an exercise in wasted motion, with legs ineffectively flailing the air at both ends of the dog. The Afghan Hound should be an agile, maneuverable dog, not a speed merchant. He needs a short, powerful loin so that he can turn on a dime. He needs strong, powerful, movement to “How many square, level-backed dogs are you seeing in the ring? We now have a generic dog, put together by a very bad committee.” traverse uneven, rocky, mountainous ground.
Admittedly we see little of that terrain in the showring, but is that a good reason to change the entire structure of our breed? Instead of our lovely, powerful, square dog, we are producing caricatures. How long do you think it would take today’s flying, long bodied, slack dogs to collect themselves, wheel about and change direction? Can you say forever?
To make these dogs fly, we have lengthened their bodies, moved the shoulders waaaaay too far forward, flattened the croup, raised the tail set. In doing this, we have shortened the legs, destroyed the balance, the topline and the purpose. We now have a generic dog put together by a very bad committee. It is unsound, and has lost breed type, but it flies. It now has what constitutes a V -shaped hinge behind its withers, with a hole in its back you could march any army through. It has a long, slack, topline. It has a flat croup so the rear feet can kick out ineffectually behind in massive wasted motion. It has a high tailset.
With this high tailset, we have gained another stated fault: tails that come over the back. And some of us have been able to produce tails that actually bounce on the back. With the forward set and totally incorrect shoulders, we have also gained ugly, faulty, weak ewe necks, losing the strong, arched curved neck called for in our standard.
Sadly, it’s not just the breeders. It’s also breeder-judges who reward this sort of lunacy. I am fortunate in that I have been able to see Afghan Hounds in all parts of the country very recently, and there are still, thank God, some beauties out there. But I have also been able to watch a great deal of judging. I have not only been appalled at the quality of the dogs, but at the quality of the judging. Possibly I can excuse multi-breed judges for rewarding incorrect flash.
Breeder-judges, I can not. If there is only one powerful, sound, square, balanced, correctly proportioned, dog in the ring in a huge open class, a breeder judge should be able to find that dog. In too many cases, this is not happening. Is it an education problem? Is it flash and dash over form and substance? Is it a lack of understanding of our standard? I wish I knew!
The Afghan Hound is in your hands, both as breeders and as judges. I hope you will think about the history of the Afghan Hound and why they evolved as they did. I hope you will re-read and re- think the reasons behind our standard’s requirements. I hope you will care enough to try to save our dogs while there is still time.
Copyright Afghan Hound Club Of America 1941/1998
Click to go to AHCA MAIN PAGE