D&B, Jon didn't you tell me Ken Vospet had a roach back? I guess I took it the wrong way, you were actually complementing his conformation:)
Bill
No, Bill, I never said such a thing ... wouldn't because I never saw the dog in person. I've seen a few of his get and have never see any topline issues...nice dogs, more giddy-yap than I would have expected but the ones i have seen had some FT in the pedigrees too. I think Ken was a very positive contributor.
What hicntry calls roach backed is not what I would call it...a dog that is slightly high over the loin with a descending croup is going to have a powerful thrust...as long as it can extend to the rear....it can also fully "coil" or gather under the body before the explosion. I've always felt short backed, squarer dogs are built more for endurance...stride is more compact, speed is not as great but the large muscle groups are not as "loaded" during work. I think you can see this in horses....racing TBs are totally different to long distance Arabians....a fox hound is different than a Greyhound. It would appear to me that hicntry has found a happy medium...dogs that combine speed with endurance. The only sacrifice may have been athleticism and nimbleness in close quarters. A taller narrower animal is not going to turn as efficiently ... but we are probably discussing theory here more than any functional difference.
IMO, a square dog usually presents problems...because unless the shoulder and rear croup are perfect, the dog will have problems with foot placement underway....front and rear feet cross over (over reach) under the dog forcing the dog to offset the rear (crabbing). This costs energy. If the dog is more upright to avoid the crabbing, the stride is shorter. Better to have a dog that is a little longer than it is tall....better for brood bitches anyway.