I consider we are quite lucky in my breed...although we breed for the show ring a dog should also be able to do the work it was originally bred for.
Nikki

I couldnt really tell you the collie standard, but I think they tend to like simetrical markings on show dogs is that true? so with that in mind I can see why a farmer rolls with laughter at show collies, but my point is, show breeders should really keep in mind what the dog was intended for rather than evenly marked dogs x

I would also say i noticed the show collies to be a tad short in the body, runs,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.,.

THE STANDARD SAYS....Colour
Variety of colours permissible. White should never predominate

Sometime symetrical colour is preferable as assymetrical can give optical illusions and make a dogs construction 'look' wrong

Reading through this thread it seems we all agree that dogs bred for the show ring are usless at doing the jobs they were originally intended to do.

Oof

The Springer debate hit this point and it all got a bit ugly

There's differences

What are the differences then Phil, are Springers bred for the ring no good at gun work ?

Except for sled dogs (of the many sledding breeds) they seem to be unaffected, except for the few that just cant be bothered

I'm not biting LOL

All I'll say is...............

If you go on a 'shoot' you'll find most Springers are shorter in the leg and lighter in the body.

It's all about length X height.

Show Springers are bigger on the whole but tend to have a taller height against length ratio.

It's not that a 'show' springer is no good at working but the physical attributes that 'working folk' value, tend not to be the attributes that the breed standard 'encourages'

I can only go back to your original point and say the breed standard fits show dogs but isn't the 'proven choice' frame for most working spaniels.

What do you think about the 'new' diplomatic Phil eh !

With that said Phil, just out of interest, which of the two closest matches the Breed Standard ?