The apocryphal story of the three blind men feeling the different parts of an elephant (each of course describing an elephant in accordance with what he felt on that occasion) is too well known to need repeating, but it does serve to illustrate how very different (and how erroneous) the ideas of individuals can be if too much emphasis is given to any one feature of a breed. This article is intended to present a "different" point of view - at least a point of view which, it is hoped, will highlight directions which our breed seems to be taking in our show rings, and which may perhaps bear some reconsideration.
    Some favored and extremely fashionable phrases are "up on leg," "good reach," "fluidity of movement," and "great drive." These phrases are all more or less directed to the running gear of the Cocker and it is certainly nice to see a cocker going around the ring with good reach and drive. I would venture to suggest however, that desirable as all this is, breeders must not miss the wood for the trees, and that all the above must be looked at and aimed for within the parameters of the correct type of Cocker. To take the extreme case, a novice breeder of Pekes, seeing the number of times the words "absolute soundness essential" appear in the Peke standard, and giving perhaps an overemphasis to that phrase, may try to breed Pekes with longer and straighter legs in order to get more ground covering, fluid movement. The same could apply to Lhasa Apsos. In the case of the Cocker, it behooves one to consider how far one can "develop" the Cocker in order to get the freedom and reach, without sacrificing type.
    I do not intend to enter into the perennial argument of type versus movement, save to say that my view is that correct movement is one of the features of type in any event. The swagger of the Peke, the roll of the Bulldog, the gloating gait of the Saluki - all are features of movement - yet they are nonetheless trademarks of each of these breeds. In the case of the Cocker, the old time breeders all looked for a bustling, merry action. Certainly, the extreme reach and drive and "floating" action of the Saluki was not looked for in the breed, and whereas I am not saying that good drive and good reach and fluidity of movement are not desirable in our breed, I am saying that the amount of these features which we as breeders should aim for, should be restricted by the type which we should be aiming for, both as respects type of movement and type of dog.
    One must start somewhere, and as this article is concerned chiefly with the body and running gear of the Cocker (of course head features are extremely important, but they are probably not relevant to this discussion except in an inciden-al way) let me start with the impression which I feel the body of a Cocker should give. Very few people would quarrel with the description of the Cocker as a "short-backed, cobby dog." The words "short-backed" probably do not need much discussion. Their meaning is self-evident, and I would only venture to suggest that the "shortness" should come chiefly in the loin, and that in trying to breed to a short-backed dog, breeders should not sacrifice rib (which is necessary for heart and lung room) and length of croup (which is necessary in order to have a wide area to anchor the hindquarter muscles on to, and to provide a good broad base from which these hindquarter muscles can function.) This is not to say that I like an exaggeration in either of these features - I do not, but I merely want to emphasize that shortness of back should come primarily from shortness of loin.
    It is the second term, i.e. "cobbiness," which seems to cause the most difficulty. At the post-show dinner for our 1979 specialty I had a most interesting evening discussing our breed with the members of the table at which I was seated, including someone who claimed to be a specialist in Spaniels generally, who, to my great surprise, stated that he did not attach any importance to the word "cobby" because the meaning of the word was not known! Well, there may be some who do not know the meaning of that word, but I would venture to suggest that it is an extremely important word for all persons interested in our breed, as it epitomizes so much of the correct type which breeders should be aiming for. Perhaps the easiest way to explain the word is by reference to the old English word picture of the country parson who used to ride round and visit his parishioners on his "old cob" of a horse. This was a heavy boned, big-ribbed, reasonably short-backed type of horse, completely different from the race horse, which, by contrast, tended to be longer in leg and much more elegant in outline. It is also of interest to note the old standards for our breed, which required that leg should be "sufficiently short" for sustained power and action. Having said all this, it is certainly not my intention to suggest that the epitome of our breed should be a short-legged drudge of a dog. I am merely pointing the above out to emphasize - or perhaps over-emphasize in order to make an argument - the parameters within which I feel we can go in developing our breed for reach, drive and fluidity of movement.
    I am going to assume that you have followed my argument thus far (whether you agree with me or not is a different matter - but I certainly hope that you understand what I am trying to say) that the short-backed, cobby type of Cocker is what we should be aiming for. How then do we reconcile these type features, with trying to obtain good reach, good drive, and fluidity of movement, and how far do we go in trying to get a Cocker which is "up on leg." Let me take the last point first. In the context of the breed, I do not think that it has ever been lead down anywhere how "up on leg" the Cocker should be - certainly, I have not, in my reading, come across any particular reference on our breed suggesting the proper proportions for body to lower leg, i.e. leg below the elbow. Many indeed are the authorities which lay down that the chest should reach down to the elbow, but as to how much leg there should be below the elbow, there certainly seems to be a dearth of suggestion.
    On the question of ideal proportions for dogs, probably the most study has been made, and the most reading is available, on the German Shepherd. There are many German authors who have written tomes and tomes on the subject. All-breed judges generally look for approximately 50% below the elbow and 50% above the elbow to the withers. The German Shepherd specialist generally looks for slightly more length of leg below the elbow - proportion of 55% below the elbow and 45% above the elbow is considered the ideal. I would venture to suggest that for our breed, the 50/50 pro-portion is as far as we should go, as otherwise, one would tend to get a somewhat springery looking, leggy Cocker. By contrast, anything much less than this 50/50 distribution, would tend to give the appearance of a somewhat short-legged Cocker. On this question of length of leg, I would like to make one observation. To me, it stands to reason that the longer the legs of the Cocker, given all other features in proportion, the bigger the stride will be, and the more ground the Cocker will cover. In these days, when it seems that good movement is equated with fast movement (fast both in terms of the rate of paces on which the dog takes, as well as the length of stride) the longer legged Cocker oftentimes has the advantage in the show ring, particularly as so few judges seem to recognize what is the correct type, and perhaps more important, the proscription laid down by the requirements of correct type. How many times does one hear the words "he went as if he had been shot out of a gun!", meaning that the dog was moving at great pace around the ring, perhaps out-distancing all the others. How many times does one see the judge putting up the fast moving dog, in the belief that the speed of movement is a good indicator of correct structure, and completely forgetting about the proscriptions of type. I have sometimes sat by the Toy ring, and heard people about me exclaiming how wonderfully a certain toy exhibit was moving (once, it was a Peke!) because it was clearly outdistancing the other exhibits in the group. These people had clearly forgotten that that particular Peke was somewhat too long legged to be considered a good specimen of the breed, and that because of its long legs it was able to outrun everything else! Let me now discuss hindquarters. Our standard calls for a good bend of stifle, but how much bend of stifle is "good" bend of stifle? How long overall should the hind leg be? Again, I would venture to suggest that at least to a certain degree, the amount of bend of stifle, and the length of hindquarters, should be limited by the requirement that our breed should be short-backed, and cobby. Bend of stifle, (and over-all length of hindquarter) which is not consistent with the short, cobby back of a Cocker, amounts in my view to an exaggeration which should not be tolerated. True, a Cocker stacked up with good bend of stifle and long hindquarter, especially with all the pretty feathers which we in this coun-try tend to keep on the dog, presents a very pretty picture indeed. However, when it comes to moving, these long hindquarters lead to a rather sad result. Because the hindquar-ter is too long for the back, and consequently has no place to go, the dog must compensate by either "crabbing" sideways, or chopping its stride (by not using its hocks for instance), or rolling its body to the other side so that the rear end of the dog waggles as the dog moves along. Another form of compensation is "over reaching." where the dog, in an effort to accommodate its over-long hindquarters, quickly flips its front feet out with each forward stride, so that the front and back feet do not clash. All these are pointers to exaggeration of hindquarter, and should, in my view, be carefully looked at when assessing the Cocker overall.
    Let me now turn to the forequarters. Good reach is certainly much to be desired, but please, please, we are not aiming for a cocker which moves like an Afghan, or even like a Setter. Sufficient reach within the parameters of the short, cobby dog, is what we should be looking for, and, in my view, a reasonably good reach accompanied by the merry bustling movement which the old timers used to look for, is far more correct than the somewhat extended reach which one sometimes sees in the show ring today. The German Shepherd specialists generally look for a proportion of 50% of upperarm to 50% of scapula. Our standard does not suggest any particular proportion, and it is entirely possible that something approaching this 50/50 distribution is desirable for our breed. Reach, and facility of use of the pectoral girdle, are not, however, controlled just by length of upper arm - lay of shoulder, musculature, length of lower leg, etc. are all relevant factors, yet there are many cases where fanciers of our breed seem to look for a "long upper arm" without considering whether, within the parameters of that size and type of dog (e.g. length of back and length of hindquarters for instance) there is in fact sufficient reach. In other words, what I am saying is that I do not think that one particular feature - in this instance, length of upper arm - should be emphasized at the expense of overall balance.
    What does all this add up to? I suspect that all the above conflicting ideas can be tied up in two words, and they are "CORRECT BALANCE" . Look first for the short-backed cobby dog. Within those parameters, then look for sufficient turn and length of hindquarters, and sufficient reach of upper arm, consistent with the length of back and cobbiness. If the hindquarters and front assembly are in balance with each other and with the back , then there will be no wasted motion when the dog is moving, and the dog should move smoothly, with reasonable reach, and fluidity. Any tendency to crab, or to chop its stride, or to overreach, or to waggle its rear end, indicates an imbalance, either at one end or the other or with the back. I would venture to suggest that, given the short back, to look for an overly pretty picture (a dog standing over too much ground) would indicate too much hindquarter for the length of back, something which should be avoided. Of course, one way to get around the problem of compensation, is to lengthen the back. This will indeed allow the dog to use the full extension of its front and hind legs - but all at the sacrifice of the correct type. I feel that breeders should always remember that they are breeding an ENGLISH COCKER - not merely a "good moving" dog (a good moving mutt?) We should be trying to breed an English Cocker - not a Springer, not a Setter, and not an Afghan. Requirements of type necessarily restrict us as to how far we can go in order to achieve freedom, fluidity, and rapidity of movement. Balance, within the proscriptions of type, will give us these features at the optimum.
    In closing, let me say that I am not for one moment suggesting that a dog which has the extreme of reach, drive, and fluidity of movement, should be avoided at all costs. That type of dog certainly has its place, particularly as a stud, and particularly to overcome any shortcomings in these departments, which you may recognize in your breeding stock. What I am suggesting is that the features of reach, drive and fluidity of movement, should not be achieved at the expense of the short-backed cobby Cocker which, in my view, is the correct type.