I have watched Dingo's video many times. Look how LONG Dingo's upper arm is. Yes, he was pretty darn correct (a bit loose overall, but correct in movement).

The dog Jackie shows also has excellent reach, but she lacks balance overall.

 

Is Nikon's OK? I know he's not that great and am told he lacks drive in the rear. There is some slow-motion so it's easier to see (better towards the end).

 

Nikon is very balanced. No extremes. He could have a hair bit more reach and more drive through the rear, but his gait is balanced, IMO. Nice thing is that the video shows him moving freely next to the bike.

 

Nikon's movement is nicely balanced....you can especially see that in the slow motion video. He moves in a perfect 2 beat gait. A LOT of dogs do not!

 

The dog Jackie shows also has excellent reach, but she lacks balance overall.

I find this interesting First time I've heard such about this particular dog

 

I can't view all of these photos on my handheld, but the second dog down displays a lot of front elevation, but very little reach IMO.
Thoughts?
Male for sale: Large Sales Of FOUR Great Ddog - Best Offer Gets (id: 160893) - German Shepherd Dog

 

Wow thanks guys! I guess I never thought of him as a real mover. What I do like about him is that he's not extreme (or extremely bad!) and that he's always been tight or dry or however you say it. He was never a gangly, loose dog even when he was growing at wonky stages. It's also interesting that he moves so well in a gait considering his problems (he actually walks with a limp and drags his right rear foot). In the video I was trying to bike as fast as I could before he would break into a run and didn't quite get it since the parking lot there is really uneven and full of holes (I think he stutter-steps one in the video).

 

but very little reach IMO.

No reach. He's moving from the elbow

 

What is preventing the reach in the dogs from the pdb link? Such sorry movement.

 

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but what do you mean by dry?

 

To me, it is firm, tight, not fleshy/squishy, defined.

 

I agree with DianaM....a 'wet' dog is one that is loose with no muscle tone and the difference in the two is very evident.
But a tight 'dry' dog is also agile and can be a noodle bodywise.
Onyx is tight, but not agile, she is overtight!(In her brain too, very tight wired!)
A loose dog isn't so athletic or agile, long reach or not.

 

So we're talking about muscle tone? As in dry/tight equals good muscle tone?

 

I have to admit that I learned dry/wet in a similar manner, but not QUITE the same. I learned that a wet dog is a wet dog, regardless of condition. Wet dogs can be loose in the skin, not just in musculature.

I have a bitch here that is beautifully ligamented, but is wet in her skin. Her topline rolls a bit in motion for example(and no, she's not one bit fat).

 

Zenzy had lose skin. She had beautiful confirmation but her skin was lose. She was very agile, just like Nala. Fast as whip but her skin was moving.

Indra has no lose skin but she doesn't have that muscle tone.

 

Structure plays into it. My female is very tight, not agile w/jumping though a great herder, yet muscled and can turn/stop easily. My male is the same structure essentially, yet he is graceful, collects himself over jumps and can turn and his brakes are firm. I think both are very good as far as structure, yet the difference is very evident. And neither one would probably go far in the show ring due to their structure....judges wouldn't like their height or weight even though they carry it well.
A loose "wet" dog may show the same, but when you see the gaiting or agililty the looseness shows clearly. They just don't seemed toned, IMO. Karlo carries some extra coat/skin in his chest but may fill in eventually. So the dry/wet could be age related or not.

 

A person can be in good condition and still lack good muscle tone, as contradictory as that may seem. I would assume a dog can be the same way. As for skin, I don't think I have experience with enough dogs to be able to judge whether or not a dog is loose in the skin, even though I believe I could distinguish good or poor muscle tone.

 

I agree! I have tone, but am not in good shape! And now my skin looks crepe(creepy!) and not one thing I can do to turn back time. Fur covers the flaws, yet we still can see thru the coat? How is that???

 

Yet another fascinating discussion.

 

Nala

On the smaller side, dry and toned, light footed, agile, very fast, can jump, fast turns, good conformation, graceful and tons of drive in every aspect. The full package.

Indra is longer, heavier, larger. She's not graceful. She's got more the brute force, larger, powerful strides, she can jump but she is not as agile and of a quick mover as Nala. Not as much fooddrive, not very good confirmation but overall she's not badly angulated at all. She's not having a good pigment. She's got tons of Hunt and Prey Drive though. Good herder.

This picture shows the difference. Nala is very fast and Indra takes twice as long to get around.

It also shows in the rear-end awareness. She's just a longer and heavier dog, so she's not build to be as agile as Nala. However, she's a very good worker.

 

I was told to think of wet/dry like a noodle. A dry noodle is stiff, a wet noodle is floppy. It wasn't explained whether this is muscle condition or joints or ligaments....whatever it is, when a dog is really loose it looks bad. When Nikon was praised as being "dry" it was in the context of his movement, not his condition. He was doing an AKC show against American show lines and those dogs were really floppy and the movement was all over the place. Nikon didn't have the same angulation and reach but was tight and balanced, his back was steady and firm. He didn't give the impression that you could blow him over. These were 4 month old puppies so muscle condition was not really a factor.

 

And there is also a difference between larger, heavier, longer (yet firm) dogs that are just not as agile because of their body and dogs that are simply lose. Those larger dogs are still very athletic, just not as agile but lose dogs... they just look off.

If I had to describe both of my girls... Indra is a Track&Field Athlete, whereas Nala is the Acrobat. Does that make sense?

 

Okay, because I read through this whole thread (what a TERRIFIC THREAD!) and I keep thinking... is Zefra "dry"?

And *I* would consider Stark "wet"... right? I find him to be very loose in movement, but maybe I am just not grasping this?

 

And *I* would consider Stark "wet"... right? I find him to be very loose in movement, but maybe I am just not grasping this?

I would consider him to be "normal" while Zefra is "dry".

A dog who I'd describe as "wet" just looks loosey-goosey and there is extra flesh on the neck and throat and around the jowls.

 

I'd say that is a great example...
I make my dogs JUMP(and do other parlor games) for their food reward...Onyx jumps tight, Karlo leaps gracefully! that is the difference of tight/dry...neither are wet~ though Karlo is a wet noodle, he can turn to touch his back w/ his nose much easier than Onyx. It is one of our stretch exercises before he works. If any of my dogs were described as wet, it would be Kacie, as she has a barrel shaped ribcage and a big butt, big paws and not as toned as the others.

 

I'm not good enough to see dry/wet from a photo. I'd have to see the dog actually moving to see how the back is carried, do the rear legs to the egg-beater thing, are the feet really flat and floppy, etc.

 

If you go to about 4:30 you may be able to see it?

 

I think it might just be the poor quality of pictures that the muscle tone doesn't come out very well. I think in the second one you can see it a bit better. She actually does have a bit of muscle tone. I do have to admit that I need to build it up too. Especially through the long downtime, she's lost muscles.