The following is taken substantially from the text of an address given at the dog judges' seminar of The Dog Judges' Association of Canada, on Thursday, May 5, 1983. (Note: Although Retrievers and Setters were covered in the address, only the English Cocker portion appears here.)

    How often have you heard the phrase "I like to see a sporting dog that looks like it can do a day's work!" Often-times, that phrase has been used as justification for choosing a dog which is flashy and which charges around the ring, perhaps presenting, what is to some people, a pretty picture. I would, however, suggest to you that that phrase has little meaning.
    I would be the first to admit that a sporting dog must be able to move soundly - every standard of the sporting breeds has this requirement as one of the very basic requirements. Soundness does not mean only that the animal should demonstrate true movement both coming towards and going away from you. Soundness includes many other things, including shoulders that properly "fit" and are well laid back. A person who has worked dogs in the field knows the value of properly fitting and laid-back shoulders, which enable the dog to work for hours without breaking down in the field, and are demonstrated in the ring by the dog not having any tendency to be loose in front, or to "pound" the pavement.
    Quite often also - and this especially relates to the more inexperienced judges - the statement that the person "likes a sporting dog to look like it can do a day's work" is made in relation to movement around the ring only, with no regard for type. In other words, it is used as the justification for assessing sporting dogs only on the basis of sound and sometimes flashy movement. Thus the animals are judged against each other, solely on the basis of movement, completely forgetting that all dogs must be judged against their respective standards, that is, for Breed Type as well as soundness of movement.
    The requirement for soundness is the foundation for the sporting dog, but a foundation does not a house make. In addition to soundness of movement, it must be remembered that the "day's work" required to be done by the different dogs is different from subgroup of dogs to subgroup of dogs within the Sporting Group. For example, the work required to be done by the Spaniels is very different from the work which is required to be done by the Retrievers, which is again different from that required to be done by the Setters or Pointers. Because of their very different functions, the way these various sub-groups of sporting dogs should look is very different. I have found, unfortunately, that when a person says "I like a sporting dog that looks like it could do a day's work," he often forgets that that day's work, and accordingly, the way the sporting dog should look, varies quite fundamentally from subgroup to subgroup within the Sporting Group.
    In an address of this nature, it is clearly impossible for one to deal with the various breeds in the Sporting Group with much depth, and indeed, that is the reason why I will only be concentrating on one breed - the breed with which I am most familiar, namely, the English Cocker Spaniel. The development of the Spaniel has been rather different from that of the Retrievers and Setters and Pointers. Unlike the other two subgroups, in which the development of the breeds therein was left principally in the hands of a few fanciers who had the means to develop the individual breeds in accordance with certain particular requirements - people like Lorna, Countess Howe, for the Labrador Retriever and the Earls of Gordon for the Gordon Setter, and who were generally people of means who were able to use one set of dogs for setting or pointing and another set of dogs for retrieving - the Spaniels as a whole were developed by groups of people who wanted an all-purpose dog - one which would be equally at home on his master's lap by the fireside, on land, or in water, with lots of heart and a willingness to do anything required of him, be it flushing out game, retrieving of a bird which has been shot on land, or jumping into freezing water to retrieve a bird which perchance has fallen into the pond.
    The requirement that the dog live with a family made it necessary that he be a dog of very amiable disposition, and of fairly moderate size. The requirement that he be able to flush and retrieve called for the stockiness and strength of body of the Retriever. In the course of development, it was dictated that this group of dogs work with their noses to the ground, and not with their eyes, hence, the long drop ears and required scenting ability.
    As time passed, this general group of Spaniels developed into the different breeds which we find within this sub-group today, from the Clumber as the largest of the group, to the Cocker as the smallest. The two breeds of Cocker - the English and the American - are indeed the smallest of the sporting dogs, and intended to be so. They share many features in common, as one would expect from the fact that, in the recent past, they were one breed. In judging both these varieties, therefore, it is very important to remember this common heritage. They are far more similar than they are different. The differences are important, but if one compares the respective standards of the two Cocker breeds, one will find that the main differences relate to head type with body type being, strikingly, similar.
    Just in passing, I would like to pose one question: Why is it that so many judges seem able to find the correct short-backed, "cockery" type of animal when judging the American Cocker, and then seem to lose sight of these very same requirements when judging it's English cousin? Is it because of the tendency to try and distinguish and differentiate these two breeds? Is it because some people feel that it is important, because the American Cocker is short-backed, that the English Cocker must be different and, therefore, long? I do not know the answer to these questions, but I would suggest the following: Please remember that there are many more points of similarity than difference, between the two Cocker cousins. The word "cockery" applies to both. The short back applies to both. General body type applies to both. Let's not try to change the dogs so that those similarities become differences.
    Before I turn to the English Cocker in detail, allow me to make some observations on the question of solids as compared to parti-colors. Solids are, of course, dogs which are all of one color, a little white on the chest or throat area (but nowhere else) being permissible, and the tan markings of the black and tan being ignored for this purpose. I use the word "parti-colored" in the usual sense that the word is used on this continent, i.e., a "nonsolid," thereby including all the roans, ticks, color and white, tricolors, etc., though in some other jurisdictions, the word "parti-color" is not given quite as extensive a meaning.
    At the outset, let me emphasize that there is one standard applying to both solids and parti-colors, and, in my view, there is no justification for excusing any particular undesirable characteristic on the basis that the animal is a solid or (on the other hand) on the basis that the animal is parti-colored. For instance (as I will expand on later), the standard - be it American, Canadian, English or Australian - requires the Cocker to be a short-backed, compact dog. A long back is a long back, no matter what color the hairs are which cover that back, and there is no justification whatsoever for accepting a longer back in say, a parti-colored dog, as compared to a solid. The requirements of good type in a cocker are the same for all the colors in which the cocker comes. Later in the address, I refer to the word "settery" as representing an incorrect English cocker type, the long head, long slim neck, and general elegance of body type of the Setter being foreign to correct Cocker type. A settery Cocker is wrong, whether it be a settery solid or a settery parti-colored animal.
    From the point of view of assessing the breed, I again emphasize that, notwithstanding the slight tendency for some factors to be color-linked, correctness within the standard is a must for all colors.
    Having said all that, I should perhaps add a word of caution as to the tricks the eye tends to play on the mind when animals of different colors are set before one to be assessed. I am speaking about "optical illusions." As any artist will tell you, if one takes two squares of identical size, one of which is painted a solid black and the other painted half black and half white, the black square will appear to be smaller - and appreciably smaller. Thus, if one is assessing a line-up of parti-colors with one or two solids among them, it behooves one to question whether the solids are really as much smaller than the parti-colors as they appear to be. Conversely, if one sees a line-up of solids with one or two parti-colors among them, it behooves one to ask whether the parti-colors are really as much bigger than the solids as they appear to be. The question of optical illusion should also be considered in assessing things like reach of neck, lay of shoulder, etc., as a well-marked parti-colored animal will often give the optical illusion of being better in those departments than a solid will. And by the same token a poorly marked parti-colored animal will conversely be at a disadvantage. Please remember that you are to judge structure, not markings, be those markings on head or body.
    So much for assessing solids as compared with parti-colors. It has always been said that "a good Cocker cannot be a poor color." What, then is one to look for in a good English Cocker Spaniel? May I suggest that, as in the other sporting breeds, the intended function of the breed is of great assistance in determining a proper interpretation of the standard. This breed was intended to be the smallest of the sporting dogs, certainly before the advent of its American cousin. Indeed, at one stage not too long ago, a litter of Spaniels could be variously designated as either "cocking" on the one hand, or "springing" on the other, depending on whether, upon its reaching adulthood, it weighed less or more, respectively, than the dividing line of 25 pounds. This very division gives one a very good idea of the intent behind the designing of this breed - it was meant to be a small gun dog. At the same time, it was meant to be a gun dog, which meant that it had to have the necessary attributes of toughness, soundness of wind and limb, stoutness of body, and general freedom from any tendency towards "toyishness," all of which are required to enable the dog to work in the field.
    In other words, the dog was required to be encased in a small space, but within that small space, there was to be a lot of dog. That, indeed, is the meaning of the word "cockery." In the words of the late Mr. H.S. Lloyd, the owner of the famous "Of Ware" English Cockers, a Cocker is required to demonstrate "pounds for inches." The function and design of the dog eliminates, as being undesirable, any tendency towards a large dog, or a leggy dog. As one may presume from the division of the Spaniel above 25 pounds as the "Springing" Spaniel, those people that wanted a larger, leggier Spaniel had that dog in the one which was originally over 25 pounds and eventually developed into the Springer.
    Secondly, what is required for body type? Clearly, great strength - this in a small space, but nonetheless, great strength. The Canadian Standard, under the "General Appearance" section requires the English Cocker to have a "short body," and under the section headed "Body" uses the words "back short and strong." Under the heading "Faults" is listed a body which is "too long and lacking in depth" or one with "insufficient spring of rib."
    The American Standard, under "General Appearances," also calls for a dog with "short body and strong limbs." Under the heading "Body," it calls for one which is "close-coupled, compact and firmly knit, giving the impression of great strength without heaviness." Under the heading "Back and Loin," it calls for a "back short and strong." In other words, the American Standard calls for a short back at least three times.
    The English Standard, under "General Appearances," calls for the cocker to be "well-balanced and compact," and under the heading "Body" it states "body should be immensely strong and compact ... the loin short, wide and strong."
    It is accordingly my submission to you that not only should a Cocker demonstrate a lot of dog in a small package, but it is one of the requirements of the Cocker that he should have a short, strong back with ribs well sprung so as to give the impression of a very compact, strong body.
    The word "cobby" is used by English Cocker breeders to denote one of the requirements of the breed. What does the word "cobby" mean? As in many things relating to dogs, terms have been borrowed by the dog fraternity from horse breeders. The cob was the sturdy, reasonably short-backed all-purpose pony-type horse, not very tall, which was used by the old country person in making his rounds to visit his parishioners. He was a very study animal, not given to elegance, of great depth and width of chest and strength of limb, which used to take the parson on his back for miles at a given clip. He was, in fact, the very antithesis of the race horse.
    Many a Cocker breeder or breed specialist, in describing an animal which they like, will use the words "a cobby, cockery animal" to denote a dog which demonstrates those requirements of short- back well-ribbed up, good strong limbs with good bone (these two included in the word "cobby"), and a lot of dog in a small space (these words included in the description "cockery"). If any two words were to be chosen to symbolize true Cocker type, it would be those two words, "cobby" and "cockery." The word "cockery" of course includes the very root word "cocker." In these two words are the essence of the English cocker - and indeed, in the American Cocker as well, and these two words, in themselves, immediately mean, to my mind, that a Cocker which gives the impression of size, or of a long back, or of light bone or lack of spring of rib, is demonstrating a characteristic or characteristics which is or are atypical of the breed, and therefore, very wrong.
    Now let us turn to specifics. Head and Neck: As with all the gun dogs of British origin, the head of the English Cocker is required to be well chiseled. As indicated before, this means that the head must not demonstrate any tendency towards "cheekiness" but should, on the contrary, demonstrate "chiseling," or a slight scooping out, under the eyes. As is evident in the standards, the muzzle and the skull are to be of equal length; this is one place where the English Cocker differs from his American cousin, which is required to have a muzzle which is half the length of the skull.
    The fact that the muzzle and the skull are required to be of equal length, however, does not mean that the head, overall, is required to be a long head. Indeed, one of the words which is used by Cocker fanciers to describe an atypical head is the word "settery." Whereas the Setter head is a fairly long head, the Cocker head overall is not nearly as long, proportionately, as that of a Setter, and this despite the equal balance between muzzle and skull.
    I would, therefore, venture to suggest that when looking at the Cocker head in profile, you should ask yourself whether that head, particularly the relationship between its length to its depth, would be a passable Setter head. If it would, then that head is wrong.
    The requirements for the proper muzzle in the standards - English, Canadian and American - are often misconstrued. All the standards require the muzzle to be fairly square. Please note that this requirement relates to the muzzle as a whole, not the flews. In fact, all the standards require the cocker's flews to be dry and tight - absolutely free from any sign or tendency to be pendulous. In other words, the "square look" must come from the jaw development - particularly the underjaw, and not from the flews. A Cocker demonstrating a weak underjaw, hidden by squared off flews, is demonstrating two faults - a muzzle not properly squared off and too much flews.
    Pigmentation is important in the cocker, as with all sporting dogs of British origin. Please remember that the darkest eye required by the standard is dark brown, i.e. brown, not black. The qualifying words in the standard as to "the darker the better," do not refer to the requirement for brown eyes, but to the fact that in dogs with light-colored coats where a more hazel eye (in harmony with the coat) is permissible, the darker the hazel in those cases, the better. Whereas noses are required to be black (except in livers and reds where they may be dark brown), I would suggest to you that one must bear in mind climate conditions, as many dogs, particularly those not carrying a black gene - for instance reds and goldens - will have a lighter nose during the winter months and through Spring.
    The ears of the Cocker are required to be set low, with the leather reaching up to but not beyond the nose when held loosely to the side of the head. Cocker breeders generally do not consider length of ear to be an extremely important feature.
    One vexed point is that of the question of the planes of the head. Unlike the standard of the Doberman Pinscher, which specifically calls for the skull and the muzzle to be parallel to each other, there is no such requirement in any Cocker Standard. While it is true that Cocker folk do not like a dog to be what is termed "down-faced," that is to say, with the muzzle sloping down from the stop to the tip of the nose as compared with the plane of the skull, or, conversely, for the skull to appear to recede from the stop to the occiput as compared with the plane of the muzzle, I would suggest to you that unless the animal appears obviously down-faced, then the fact that the skull and muzzle planes are not exactly parallel, is of no great import.
    On this point, I should perhaps refer to the language used in the standards for the English Cocker, in the description of the proper skull. Very similar language is used in the American, Canadian and English Standards. The requirement is that the skull should be "arched and slightly flattened on top when viewed both from the stop to the end of the skull as well from ear to ear." In other words, it is not a flat skull which is called for, but an arched skull which is slightly flattened at the top. Due to the predilection of some judges to look for parallel planes, one has tended to see in the ring a flattish skull rather than the arched skull called for in the standard. In other words, in the proper arched skull which is only slightly flattened at the top, although one can get a general impression of whether the muzzle and the skull planes are roughly parallel to each other, it is almost impossible, in the proper arched skull with the slightly flattened top, to find definitive parallel planes.
    Joining skull and muzzle is, of course, the stop. The Canadian and American Standards call for a "definite" stop. To me, these words easily define what the stop of the English Cocker should not be. Firstly, the "ski-slope" type of stop - one which has no definite beginning and end, but is instead a continuous gradation from muzzle to skull, is wrong - it is not "distinct" or "definite." At the other extreme, the type of stop (rarely, but sometimes, seen and normally associated with an "apple-skull") which approximates that of his American cousin, and can perhaps be more correctly described as "prominent" rather than "definite," is also wrong.
    Finally, the Cocker head should demonstrate a proper scissors bite with sufficient strength and length of jaw to enable it to carry the type of game it was designed for, which is a bird like the woodcock, that is to say, a small bird, rather than something like a Canadian goose which should be left to its bigger cousin, the Springer.
    Let me now turn to the neck. The American and English Standards call for a neck which is "moderate in length." May I remind you again of the absolute requirement that a Cocker be short in back. Anatomically speaking, the spinal column of an animal is a series of bones forming a whole, so that, in terms of absolute anatomy, it is impossible to have a long neck with a short back. In other words, if the vertebrae forming the back are short, thereby giving a short back, so the vertebrae in the neck will be short, which militates against a "long neck" in the usual sense of the word "long."
    When the Canadian Standard was adopted, and indeed, when the American Standard was adopted in 1955, all three standards used the word "long" in describing the neck. Mrs. Geraldine Rockefeller Dodge was the person above all others who was responsible for the formulation of the American Standard on the English Cocker, and if one looks at pictures of her dogs, for instance Ch. Springbank Ace of Giralda, one gets a good idea of what Mrs. Dodge, in using the word "long" meant. Ch. Springbank Ace of Giralda would, in my view, be more properly described as having a moderate reach of neck rather than long. It is clear from that dog that what is meant as a moderate reach of neck - certainly not short or stuffy, but nothing approaching the long, slim neck of a Setter.
    In the middle Sixties, the English were going through a stage when they were breeding their dogs with longer and longer necks, and correspondingly, with longer and longer backs. Due, no doubt, to the recognition that a long neck goes with a long back, and due also to the fact that it was recognized that a truly long, slim neck akin to that of a Setter is foreign to the breed, the English changed their standard to read what is now current, that is: "moderate reach of neck," rather than the old language which read "long neck." (Ed.Note: The American Standard was changed in 1988.) What must be remembered is that when the word "long" was laid down in the standards in relation to the neck, there were many in the breed which would have, by our standards, a short, stuffy neck, so that the word "long" then used meant not so much a long, settery kind of neck but a neck of moderate reach free from any shortness or stuffiness.
    While I am on the subject of the neck, it must be mentioned that all three standards require the Cocker neck to be muscular, and this is, of course, consistent with the fact that the Cocker is required to be an all-round dog and, therefore, also required to do a degree of retrieving on both land and water. Whereas slimness of neck looks pretty, I would suggest to you that slimness of neck, to the extent that it denotes lack of muscular development of the neck, is also atypical of the breed. I am not suggesting that the Cocker should have a thick neck - far from it. I am suggesting that the Cocker is required to have a strong neck.
    Some time has already been spent in describing the general requirements of the body of the Cocker. The neck should, through its shoulders, fit smoothly into the body so that when one runs ones' hands down the side of the neck into the body, the "bump" where the shoulders are should not be prominent. The transition should be smooth, with that "bump" being discernible as little as possible. The shoulders should, of course, be well laid back. The body should be deep, well-sprung, with short loin, and with a short overall back. When I use the word "deep," I mean that the chest should reach to the elbow, and the sternum should be carried well back of the elbows to avoid the animal being "herring gutted." The chest should be well-spring; contrast the Setter's requirement for arched ribs with a Cocker's "barrel." This gives the Cocker the look of the wider, more rounded chest and front than the Setters and Pointers.
    Whereas the long settery head is a definite fault in the Cocker, the word "settery" is also used to describe what a Cocker's body should not look like. The elegance of the Setter, with its long, slim neck, its length of leg giving it that graceful look, its arched ribs, are foreign to the Cocker. It was put this way to me by a very famous and long-established breeder of English Cockers, a great dog man now gone, Mr. A.W. Collins of the famous "Colinwood" Cockers of Great Britain: "If you see a Cocker which would, if he had the required tail, make a passable miniature Setter, then he is wrong; he is atypical."
    Tail set is another point which is often misconstrued. Many, indeed, are the people who interpret the standard as meaning that the tail of the Cocker should be like that of a Terrier. I am not speaking of tail carriage, but set-on of tail. The carriage of tail should be as little above the line of the back as possible. But what of the set-on of the tail? In this context, I would ask you to remember that a Spaniel is a Spaniel, and the typical Spaniel tail set is for a slightly rounded croup, and for the set-on of the tail to come on after this slightly rounded croup. A Terrier set-on is wrong. The American Standard says that the tail is to be "set on to conform with the topline of the back." As the topline of the back ends where the tail starts, this does not take us very far. The Canadian Standard uses exactly the same words. The English Standard, by contrast, calls for the tail to be "set on slightly lower than the line of the back," but as the line of the back ends where the tail sets on, this leads to considerable difficulty if one is to interpret those words literally!
    This is one of the cases where, I feel, the words of the standard are not of particular assistance, and the only way to know what is correct is to ascertain the same from well-established breeders. There is no doubt in my mind, not only from my own experience but also from the history of the breed and from Spaniels as a whole, and from my questioning of breeders who have far more experience than I have, that the typical Spaniel tail set calls for a slightly rounded croup, and for the tail to be set on at the end of that slightly rounded croup. Again, I emphasize, a Terrier-type tail set is wrong. Of course, the tail can be set too low. On the other hand, I see too many of my brethren looking for a tail set like that of a Terrier which is completely wrong.
    Now let us turn to the limbs of the animal. First, let us look at the forelimbs. Again, I emphasize that the cocker, while it must not in any way incline towards "toyish-ness," was designed as the smallest of the original British gun dogs, so we cannot expect a great length of leg under the animal. At the same time, the Cocker is not a low-slung animal - we have the Sussex for that. The Cocker is required to have good front stationing. Another way of describing it, and this is what is used in both Canadian and American Standards, is that it should "stand well up at the withers." How does one reconcile the fact that the dog is required to have this good front stationing, and yet not be a tall dog? Add to this the requirement that the dog is required to have a lot of body, and that the chest should extend down to the elbow, and we do, indeed, have to spend some time reconciling all these features.
    In my view, a good Cocker should have approximately 50% of its height from the elbow to the ground and 50% from the elbow to the top of the withers. If the dog is much longer in leg, it will show a lot of daylight under it. That is undesirable. If the limb below the elbow is much less than 50% of its total height, then you have a somewhat low-slung, low front-stationed appearance which is also undesirable.
    The limb should be well-boned, with the bone carrying well into the pasterns, which should be straight, and onto strong, thick, cat-like feet. The bone should be round in cross section, not flattish or oval. The thin, weak feet that one so often sees in the ring, are again wrong for the breed. The importance of good thick, round feet in the cocker cannot be overemphasized. That type of foot is necessary for the work the dog is required to do.
    The front limb should be set well under the dog, something which can only be obtained if the dog has good length of upper arm. The length of the upper arm should be approximately equal to that of the shoulder blade.
    Let us now turn to the hind limb and those vexed words used in relation to the stifles, that is that they should be "well bent." These words are used in both the Canadian and American Standards, while the English Standard uses the words "good bend of stifle." What is meant by those words? Again, remembering Mrs. Dodge's pivotal position in the formulation of the American Standard for English Cockers, let me refer you to Ch. Springbank Ace of Giralda. His pictures clearly show that he did not have a long stifle. That is to say, the hindquarter is not a long hindquarter, but the stifle is definitely not straight. The words "well bent" in relation to the Cocker do not mean, as appears to be the case so often nowadays, a long hindquarter. So many of the animals that one sees winning nowadays have such long hindquarters that the animal, when moving forward, either overreaches or sidewinds or fails to extend his hock joints.
    I am not suggesting that overreaching or sidewinding or failure to use ones hocks are due only to the animal's hindquarters being too long, and accordingly, its hind stride being too big for its front reach. Sometimes, they are caused by the fact that the dog's front assembly is not correct, and although the dog's hindquarter may be a perfectly acceptable one, the dog has insufficient front reach for the normal, proper rear stride which it has. But so often nowadays, one sees an animal which has a reasonably good front assembly, including good lay and fit of shoulder, and yet the animal still demonstrates these "compensatory" movements. I have found that, quite often, the reason for this is that the hindquarter is far too long.
    I have found several tests very useful - tests which are, admittedly, not exhaustive, but which, to my mind, are certainly indicative of whether a hindquarter is or is not too long in a particular animal.

(a) First, look at the animal in the stacked position. Does it appear that, with his hocks vertical, his hocks are placed a long way behind the body of the dog? If they are, his hindquarters are too long. When posed correctly, the rear toes should be on a line dropped vertically from the point of the tailbone.

(b) Second, if one folds the hindleg up and finds that the hock extends beyond the point of the tailbone, then the lower stifle bone is too long. The upper and lower stifle bone should be in balance, so that when the hind leg is folded up, they should be of equal length. Although a long lower bone may present a prettier picture when the dog is stacked because the dog would appear to be "standing over more ground," it is incorrect.

(c) Third, a hindquarter which is too long is nearly always accompanied by a long tendon, in relation to the actual length of muscle in the second thigh. If, therefore, you run your hands down the hindquarter and find a long tendon between the end of the muscle of the second thigh and the point of the hock, it is a good indication that the hindquarter is overall too long for the animal.

(d) Fourth, when the animal is moving, overreaching, sidewinding, and fails to extend the hock joint, this can be indicative of an overlong hindquarter.

(e) Fifth, when the animal is moving, does the body move "in one piece" (as it should) or does it "wallow" from side to side? This wallowing is often caused by the dog being too long in the hindquarters and taking too big a stride for its front to absorb so that when the dog straightens the hind leg, the excess energy is directed upward, causing the body on that side to rotate towards the other side. The opposite movement then occurs when the other hind leg is straightened - hence, the "wallowing."

    Does the function of the cocker give us an idea of how long the hindquarter of the Cocker should be? Mrs. C. Bede Maxwell, in her book "The Truth About Sporting Dogs," has the following to say (page 64, published by Howell Book House Inc., 1972):

    "The ideal became, as A.W. Collins (Colinwood) has described it: 'Square little dogs without exaggerations, built on robust lines, of short cobby appearance, but lots of substance.'
    This, then, is a little dog of short, cobby appearance, lots of substance, with no exaggerations, whose work requires him to dive under, instead of through cover. If you want a Spaniel which is to go through cover, look to the Springer, not the Cocker. The Cocker's habit to go under the cover rather than through it has meant that the dog has been developed to be smaller rather than bigger, to work with its head low, with the primary thrust coming from its hind limbs which should, therefore, be reasonably short, extremely strong, and reasonably well bent, with absolutely no tendency towards length of hindquarter, or any sign of over-angulation. How does this translate into the cocker going round the ring? I would suggest to you that the picture which should be presented is that of an animal with a fairly busy action, with lots of thrust from its hindquarters rather than any tendency towards the flying trot with excessive moment of suspension that is more commonly equated with the long-legged coursing hounds.
    Last, but not least important, let me deal with coat on the English Cocker. Every standard which I have mentioned requires the Cocker to be "well-feathered but not profuse." The Canadian and American Standards go further. The Cocker's coat must not "hinder the true lines or interfere with his field work." Please remember these very definite requirements in the standards. Above all requirements these seem to be the most ignored. So many English Cockers are shown over-coated. The coat must not be profuse. Trimming, which can so change the outward appearance of the dog, must not be such as to hide the true lines of the animal. If you see a lot of coat - anything tending towards profusion of coat - fault it; the standard requires you to do so. Use your hands to know what the animal is really like under that trim; you will be surprised at what you sometimes find!
    It is sometimes argued that the fact that the North American Standards allow a maximum size of 17' at the withers, while the English Standard only allows 16,' means that in North America, a large "moosey" dog is called for. Not so! The difference is tantamount to only about 5% or one-twentieth - not a very great difference at all. Taking into account all the other similarities in the standards, there is, in general terms, only one correct type - that of a short-backed, compact, cockery animal. Please remember that color makes no difference. Be the cocker blue roan, black and white, solid red, black, or any other color, the requirements for correct type are exactly the same - a cobby, compact animal. On that there is no room for interpretation according to what the individual prefers. On this the standards are all uniformly clear: There is only one type.
    The English Cocker is very dear to my heart, and I can perhaps be accused of having a degree of tunnel vision with regard to what I consider to be the proper type. There are some people who would claim that there are two types of English Cocker - an English type and a North American type. I would challenge that claim. To characterize the big, long, over-coated and exaggerated animal as a "North American type," is to do us, in North America, a great disservice. All the standards that I am familiar with, i.e. that of the USA, Canada, England and Australia, militate against exactly the same things. All the standards call for a moderate animal, free from exaggerations, a short, compact body with sufficient feather but without profusion of coat. I would urge you to favor only the correct type.

Reprinted from ECSCA Review