The Long and the Short of It

"Long backed!" (derogatory). "Short backed, up on leg!"(complimentary).  We just never hear it the other way round. Why is this? Who started it? The American Standard is fairly clear: "Body Shape: The length from the point of shoulders to point of buttocks is longer that height at withers, well ribbed up, strong loin, well developed quarters and thighs." When I read this, I get the clear impression that the standard is asking for a dog that looks longer than tall, not one on which you have to use a tape measure to gain that information. And yet we always hear "long" as the bad word, and "short" as the good word.

In 1901, Sir Lionel Jacobs described the Lhasa Apso with the following words: " Body. There is a tendency in England to look for a level top and a short back. All the best specimens have a slight arch at the loin and the back should not be too short; it should be considerably longer than the height at the withers. The dog should be well ribbed up, with a strong loin and well developed quarters and thighs."

Evidently, the same forces were at work in 1901 as now. And ever since Sir Lionel's observation in 1901, there has been a continuation of the trend to look for a shorter and shorter body. However, breeders also think that a long elegant neck is desirable. This is a bit of a problem. Since the number of vertebrae remains constant, the only way to shorten the back was to shorten each individual vertebra. But you can't shorten just some of them, - it's an all or none proposition. Sure enough, when breeders select for truly short bodies, they get short backs, but they also get short necks. . . . . What to do?

Well . . . there is a way to make the back look short and the neck look long . All you need is just the right combination of structural faults and a lot of hair.
 

Looking at the two photos above, If you are like most people, you would pick Dog B. as the dog with the shorter back and the longer neck.  But now, look again.
 

Dog A has a well angulated scapula. His front assembly is placed well back on the body, well supported by the large muscles of the neck and back which stabilize and activate the motion of the shoulderblade. This gives him a longer body, and a shorter real back, resulting in a greater mechanical advantage of the muscles of locomotion. His pelvis is normally angulated, allowing a full range of motion of the hind leg under the dog.

Dog B has an upright shoulder, and a tipped up pelvis. Because of these two structural faults, which cooperate to create the illusion of a long neck and short back, he actually has a longer back than Dog A. His upright scapula does not provide optimal mechanical advantage to the muscles of the neck and back, and limits the forward excursion of the foreleg. The tipped up pelvic angle limits the forward excursion of the hindleg as well, making it impossible for the dog to bring the hindleg well under the body during normal gait. In addition, the increased lordosis (sway back) puts unnecessary strain on the back muscles, and may predispose to disk herniation.  He does, however, have the (all important to the show circuit) cosmetic advantage of a "high tail set".

Dog A will tend to move with a smooth effortless gait, reaching well forward in front, and well under the body behind. He will not move with spectacular "action" either in front or behind. Because his balanced running gear is operating efficiently, he will translate almost all of his muscle power into horizontal (forward) movement.

Dog B may have trouble holding his head up while moving, because the angle of his shoulder blade does not permit the muscles of the neck to work efficiently. His front reach will be limited because the shoulder angle does not allow full excursion of the forearm. He will not be able to bring his rear foot well under the body, because of the posterior pelvic tilt. Consequently, most of the movement of his rear legs will be behind the body, wasting muscle power in the air, rather than keeping his rear foot in contact with the ground, pushing his body forward. His gait will consist of smaller strides, a hackney movement before, and a pronounced "kick" behind. Quite a bit of his muscle power is translated into vertical movements of various sorts.

The Tibetan Dog was and still should be a rugged mountain animal fit for travel at high altitude over rough ground. To survive in Tibet requires more than illusion. Which dog of these two is the Tibetan Type dog? Which of these two wins in the Show Ring?  Is our extreme "show" Lhasa Apso really a Lhasa Apso fit for life in the Himalayas?