The components of the forehand - bones, muscles, sinews, cartilage and joints - are designed to assist similar components in the rest of the body in providing the dog with forward movement. Specifically, to transfer rear power so that the dog can, ideally, be given swift, free, and extensive forward motion appropriate to its job as an enduring, tireless trotter.
The forehand must give the dog the freedom and flexibility needed in turning quickly; it must be springy to absorb shock as the feet hit the ground. The bones must be long to maximise the reach, but importantly also to sustain long muscles. Tendons and ligaments must be tight so that they may contract quickly and strongly after they are expanded. Joints must be able to move freely, but to maximise the efficiency of the movement, they must be tight within themselves and their relationship to other components. And the components must be in harmony with the rest, so that there is `harmony' in movement. Position, length, and angles must be correct for basic mechanical principles to be exercised. That is a very broad summary of the forehand. Clearly, it is a complex area - made all the more complex because it is affected by not only its own components, but components unrelated to itself.
Let us now look at the upperarm in detail.
We have heard - and no doubt will continue to hear - varying opinions on the length and lay of the upperarm. For example, the late Dr. Rummel told me that a dog who was steep in the upperarm was by definition short in the upperarm. I know many disagree with that view, and 1 feel we should begin by trying to put this problem of the short and steep upperarm into some sort of perspective. I believe that here in Australia some 70% of all GSDs have a short, steep upperarm. Compare this with Germany, where I suggest it is closer to 60% and improving. If we accept the latter, it would appear to me that we have an opportunity to better our upperarms via clear direction here and by careful selection of modern German lines. Having said this, one cannot ignore the fact that the problem still won't be easy to fix. We must identify corrector stud dogs and corrector lines in Australia and Germany. I say Germany, not the UK, because it is clear that Germany now greatly influences UK breeders, perhaps more than in the past. It is generally acknowledged that the upperarm is laid at approximately 45 deg. to the horizontal, or 90 deg. to the shoulder blade. As we know, extensive forereach can be achieved only by a correctly laid and long shoulder and upperarm. The ultimate angle and length is of course open to debate. For example, among the most important aspects of the skeleton are harmony and balance. This creates a situation whereby we can have varying lengths and lays that, under certain conditions, may all be desirable. To clarify this I give the following example: If a dog has a steep upperarm and a correct and powerful hindquarter assembly, he will drive his forehand into the ground. The forereach will not be able to provide an extension that complements the thrust from the rear. Should this same steep upperarm be associated with a less correct hind assembly - i.e., a short lower thigh - the movement will be more balanced and harmonious. The interesting irony here is that two faults are better than one. There are several such interesting situations, but we shall limit our analysis to the ideal situation, not a compensatory one. One cannot really discuss the upperarm without taking into account and understanding its relationship with the shoulder, the foreleg, the prosternum, the muscles and the tendons. Let us start with its relationship with the shoulder and foreleg and, by definition, the height of the dog (note: foreleg includes pasterns and feet). We can best do this by simple diagrammatic sketches. We must begin, however, by determining the angle of the upperarm. Popular view has it that it is 45 deg. to the horizontal. Others say 53 deg. to the horizontal. I suggest both are correct. This is an issue of definition. Where the views differ is in the way they are determined. If we look at the sketch by Dr. Gorrieri, we can see clearly that an angle of 45 deg. through the upperarm main bone is equivalent to 53 deg. when determined by going from the centre of the joints. This would seem to be a more correct way of establishing the angle, and as such I suggest 53 deg. is the angle we should adopt. This is a more accurate reflection of the true angle, and by inference the points on which to determine its length.
MODEL 1: In the scale model, I have drawn a dog 65 cm high. If we accept the ideal length of the foreleg (including feet and pasterns) is 55% of overall height, the ideal leg length on a 65 cm dog is 36 cm. If we next accept that Gorrieri was right - that the shoulder blade is set at 45 deg. to the horizontal and the upperarm at 53 deg. to the horizontal, and that each has its starting point at (A) the joint of the upperarm and foreleg and (B) the central point in the scapula that lines up with a perpendicular line drawn through the foreleg - we have a shoulder-blade that is 19 cm long and an upperarm that is 21 cm on a 65 cm dog. t have placed a dotted line below the upperarm. This represent the outline of the main bone of the upperarm. It represents what one tends to see outwardly. What we see is an upperarm angle that is 45 deg. to the horizontal and which, I believe, is most accurately described as being 53 deg. and about l0% longer than the shoulderblade. As an aside, this also demonstrates that an illusion is created which can lead to one believing the shoulder-blade is longer than it really is.
MODEL 2: In this model, I have attempted to demonstrate the degrees of restriction created by a long, steep upperarm and a short, steep upperarm. In the first case, we need to understand the correct upperarm and its relevance to forereach. This model represents an unadulterated upperarm; one that is not affected by any other forces - the shoulder, muscles, drive, etc. I have set it at the desired angle of 53 deg. and I have set the length at 21 em. In motion, the upperarm is close to parallel with the ground when the leg is in its fully extended backswing; and in its fully extended foreswing, it goes just beyond the vertical. When we plot this on to the model, we can calculate that in such a situation the upperarm has a forereach of 16 cm. This corresponds with its backreach. If we then give the model a steep upperarm that is still of the correct length, we can see some quite drastic changes. I have given the upperarm an angle which I believe is fairly typical of the Australian problem. I calculate this to be in the vicinity of 65 deg. If anything, I feel it could be a little steeper than this. We can measure the forereach and we find the distance the upperarm travels is only 12 cm - a reduction of 25%. In the second case, I have created a model that pretty well equates with our typical short, steep, upperarmed dog. Once again, I have set it at 65 deg. and reduced its length by 43%. Once again, I feel this is a fair comparison with our situation. We can see that in such a dog the amount of forereach is reduced markedly - by 56%. I have tried to keep this examination of the upperarm as simple as possible. I have outlined the fundamentals, and I have shown what a severe and restrictive handicap the steep, and particularly the steep and short, upperarm is to the movement of the GSD. We must always keep things in perspective, but we must be harder on this problem than we have been. We have unquestionably been too lenient in the past, and we must make a stand. We must tackle the problem head on, and see it controlled to acceptable numbers.
As a thought provoker, consider this: If we again use the 65 cm model and give it the desired leg length of 36 cm, give it the desired length and lay of upperarm and shoulderblade, and then increase the angle of the upperarm to make it steep - to, say, 60 deg. - we find that unless we shorten something, the dog becomes oversize. In fact, 2 cm oversize. Question: Does an increase in the angle of the upperarm, where the desired length remains, lead to oversize? Or does it lead to a shorter shoulderblade or shorter foreleg? Or, in fact, does the upperarm decrease in length as it becomes steeper? I leave the answer to you.
last modified: 11:36pm Sunday the 22nd of April, 2018