Towards a Broader and more inclusive judging paradigm
By Abhai Kaul, consulted with Mr. Albert Spreu (FCI Judge)
Abstract:
In the sport of IGP, breed-specific differences in anatomy and movement mechanics play a significant role in the execution of obedience exercises, particularly heeling. The dominance of certain visual interpretations of obedience performance has led to the perpetuation of training techniques that align more with specific breed characteristics, notably the Belgian Malinois (which is highlighted by the disproportionate number of Malinois on the podium finishes over the years). This paper critiques the current evaluation paradigms and proposes a more inclusive approach that accommodates the anatomical and biomechanical differences between working breeds, such as German Shepherds, Belgian Malinois, and others, through a refined judging system that considers drive, technique, and coordination. A broader understanding of breed-specific characteristics is essential to fair competition and to preventing biomechanical strain and injury in dogs trained to conform to non-native physical expectations.
Introduction:
The International Gebrauchshund Prufung (IGP) is a sport designed to assess the versatility and drive of working breeds through tracking, obedience, and protection work. Heeling, a fundamental obedience exercise, is evaluated based on the technical precision and presentation of the dog. However, the visual expectations for ideal heeling —particularly upright neck carriage with an over exaggerated animated style—have been largely shaped by the Belgian Malinois, whose forehand anatomy, topline, and neck structure naturally lend themselves to this visual style. This has resulted in German Shepherd Dog handlers, among others, adapting their training methods to fit this picture, often at the cost of biomechanical soundness.
Literature Review:
Breed-specific standards clearly define the anatomical structure of different working breeds. For instance, the German Shepherd Dog’s breed standard calls for a 45-degree angle of the neck relative to the torso, a well-angulated forehand, and a powerful, ground-covering gait. In contrast, the Belgian Shepherd is described as having a more upright neck and a forehand that places less strain on the front limbs during movement. Despite these differences, the visual “picture” of ideal obedience has become largely homogenized, favoring traits seen in the Malinois, which may be biomechanically unsuitable for other breeds.
Moreover, other breeds such as Rottweilers, Dobermans, and Airedale Terriers bring additional complexities to the competition arena. Each has a unique anatomical configuration that impacts its ability to execute movements like heeling. For example, the Rottweiler’s strong, muscular neck and broader forehand create a different visual aesthetic and movement style compared to the leaner, more upright Malinois.
The Malinois Breed Standard states the following:
“The neck should be well standing out, slightly elongated, rather upright, well-muscled, broadening gradually towards the shoulders, and without a dewlap, with the nape slightly arched.” This unique neck conformation enables the Malinois to exhibit precise control and fluid movement, crucial for tasks like heeling.
Conversely, German Shepherd Dog Breed Standard describes a slightly different neck structure.
“The neck should be strong, well-muscled, without loose neck skin (dewlap), and forming an approximate 45-degree angle towards the trunk.” This robust neck conformation allows the GSD to maintain balance and execute precise movements during heeling exercises and actual real world applications like tending sheep
Unintended Consequences:
In the pursuit of achieving a flashy appearance akin to the Malinois, some handlers of German Shepherds have begun training their dogs in a manner that exaggerates their necks and arches their backs, deviating from the correct breed standard. Unfortunately, this incorrect posture is sometimes rewarded by judges seeking a more striking presentation. Consequently, performance breeders may inadvertently select for dogs that exhibit these unnatural and exaggerated forehand assemblies, compromising the breed’s integrity and functionality.
Current Judging Challenges:
A significant critique of modern performance judging in IGP is that it has moved away from considering breed-specific characteristics. Instead, judges tend to evaluate performance based on a standardized interpretation of ideal obedience that prioritizes technical execution and visual appeal. This homogenized view, propagated through judge conferences and multimedia platforms, neglects the principles of canine biomechanics and results in dogs being trained to meet a subjective “picture” rather than to perform in a way that aligns with their anatomical strengths.
For German Shepherd Dogs, this has meant training for an exaggerated upright heeling position, despite the breed’s more natural forward-leaning posture and lower neck carriage. As a result, dogs that conform to this Malinois-like style have gained higher placements in international competitions, influencing breeding trends and further perpetuating this misalignment between form and function.
A New Approach to Judging:
In response to these challenges, a more nuanced judging system is proposed. The Obedience exercises must be evaluated using three distinct categories: drive, technique, and coordination. This system allows for a more balanced assessment that mitigates the influence of personal preferences and standardizes performance evaluation across judges. This method ensures that the dog’s natural breed characteristics are not penalized, offering a fairer competition landscape.
By dividing performance into these three subcategories, judges can assess how anatomical differences influence each dog’s movement and execution. Drive evaluates the dog’s motivation and energy, technique assesses the precision of the exercise, and coordination focuses on the synchronization of the dog’s body with the task at hand. This multi-dimensional approach to judging offers a more comprehensive view of performance and reduces the reliance on a singular visual ideal.
Biomechanical Considerations:
The anatomical differences between breeds play a crucial role in the execution of heeling and other obedience exercises. The German Shepherd, with its longer body and well-angulated forehand, with a laid back shoulder is designed for fluid, ground-covering movement. Conversely, the Malinois, with its more upright forehand and neck carriage, excels in a tighter, more upright heeling position and is a more natural jumper.
The mechanics of the German Shepherd Dog’s gait are heavily influenced by the alignment of the forehand and hindquarters. Ideally, the forehand should be aligned so that the lines drawn from the shoulder joint and elbow joint to the ground support a balanced gait. Misalignment in these support lines can place undue strain on the pasterns, shoulders, and ligaments, leading to long-term health issues such as cruciate ligament tears. Training a German Shepherd to adopt the upright neck and exaggerated heeling style of the Malinois increases this strain, compromising the dog’s natural movement and exposing it to injury.
Proposed Solution:
To address these issues, the education of performance judges must be expanded to include a more detailed understanding of breed-specific anatomy. Judges should be trained to recognize how anatomical differences manifest in the execution of obedience exercises, and how these differences should be accounted for in their evaluations.
Moreover, a broader range of scores within the “Excellent” category should be introduced to acknowledge both typical and over-typified heeling styles. By rewarding dogs that perform in accordance with their natural anatomical abilities, judges can incentivize trainers to respect breed-specific movement patterns rather than forcing their dogs into unnatural positions.
Discussion:
The perpetuation of a single, standardized image of ideal heeling is not only unfair to certain breeds, but it also risks the long-term health and well-being of the dogs. Trainers who have invested years in developing exaggerated heeling styles may feel resistant to change, but a shift towards a more inclusive and anatomically informed judging system will ultimately benefit the sport as a whole.
This paradigm shift aligns with the principles of negative punishment in behavioral research—trainers who over-typify their dogs’ movements to match a certain “look” will no longer be rewarded with higher placements, which will gradually reduce the incentive for such training practices. By broadening the scope of what constitutes “Excellent” performance, IGP can become a more diverse and fair competition, allowing all breeds to showcase their strengths without compromising their health.
Conclusion:
The evolution of IGP judging must move towards a more inclusive and anatomically informed approach that acknowledges the diverse physical structures of the breeds involved. Expanding judge education and incorporating a broader range of scoring for excellent performances will help mitigate the dominance of a single visual ideal. By respecting each breed’s unique biomechanics, the sport can promote healthier training practices and foster fairer competition for all working breeds and not force conforming to a certain picture that might be more more normal for one, but deeply exaggerated for another.