Hiya

Do you mean out of the show / working ESS ?

The same applies to rotts Phil, Re: length to height ratio, too many rotts don't conform to the 9/10 rule, they have nice heads and sleek bodies, look great in the ring, but that's about it IMO.

A diplomatic award is winging it's way to you my friend.

Yes, sorry. I've not looked into the breed so I couldnt say one way or the other, but yeah, which of the two types (showing/working) are closest to the standard ? I know what you said in your post, but just wondered, as I know the standard for them has been around a long time and I assume was formed by the working folk first ! (I could be wrong )

Hope that made sense that time

Look at a show Springer and then look a working Springer.

You will see an obvious difference.

I don't pay too much attention to the breed standard as I don't breed so...me not being a 'showy' guy I can only asume that those in the ring lean toward the breed standard as I see vast differences to the types selected by working breeders.

I've never seen a working springer, only show springers, so I've not had the opportunity to compare, and as I'm not familiar with the standard I wouldnt know what to look for I just thought I'd ask

What are you like LOL

You know fine well IMHO

I'm not going to spark another Springer debate.

All I can suggest is that you buy the Shooting Times then watch Crufts and hope a Springer makes the telly as a 'gundog' and compare. LOL

LOL, no seriously, I'm genuinely interested to know who formed the standard for them, and who follows it now ! If it was the working people that formed it, surely they would still be following it, and if the show people formed it, how did they get to those conclusions in the first place ? ie, why choose a standard that doesn't fit an already existing working dog ? or has the working dog in itself changed through not following the standard ?

Does that make sense ?

I would be interested, and at the next show I go to, I might just tag a few ESS people and ask

according to the wiki page they have had seperate gene pools (perhaps USA?) for at least 70 years.. so depending on when the standard was formed, it can't have been useful to working people for very long... oddly this is quoted directly from the KC website:

"If you want to own a dog capable of performing at a day’s shooting you are more likely to succeed if it comes from working stock. Some dogs which have been bred for the show scene, or simply as pets, may have lost much of their working and hunting instinct, which is vital in Working Gundogs."

That's interesting. So the KC admit that the standard is more geared toward the show type, as apposed to the working type !!

Surely the working people have followed some type of standard at the beginning though, or we wouldnt have a recognisable dog, it would still look like a mongrel of sorts ?!

Good luck