A long time ago, in what seemed to be a different world from that of today's purebred dog conformation sport, conversations used to take place regarding type and soundness. Back then, we read magazine interviews with well-known judges and one paraphrased question often put to them was "Which would you choose, type or soundness?" As was usually the case, many all-breed judges replied, "You cannot have one without the other."
In these earlier times, there was some fluidity of type in a sundry, but not many, of the breeds. As we fast forward to today, this archetypal question should be reexamined. In general, many dogs have experienced vital losses in "characteristic qualities that distinguish their breed" (The Complete Dog Book) and particularly, the sport now comprises an unusual audience with the majority of participants having varying skill-sets.
Unfortunately, countless hobbyists are unschooled and therefore, define soundness in miscellaneous ways. They do not understand the science behind the function of the parts as do educated breeders long familiar with the academics of soundness. The concept, state or being sound is fittingly described by Edward Gilbert & Thelma Brown as "Soundness is fitness to function" in their famous book K-9 Structure & Terminology. They expand on the definition of soundness by adding that it is a dog who is fit to perform whatever function it is designed to carry out, and that unsoundness can be due to poor conformation, lack of coordination or condition.
An antithesis to this dictum, "soundness is fitness to function" would be, for example, a wolfhound specimen who, in the judges opinion, has a typical outline and gaits cleanly, coming and going. However, the dog has 'stuck-on' forequarters. This is a structural condition of inadequate shoulder angulation with the legs forwardly placed on the skeleton accompanied by a flat, or shallow prosternum indicating there is insufficient muscling. Thus, this dog is both unsound and atypical; he lacks breed type and the qualities essential to the breed standard.
The reasons are that a wolfhound’s chest is part of the dog's mass developed for impact and is a tool for wounding fierce game. Above all, a properly developed chest is necessary to prevent injury to the frontal portion of the dog's skeletal structure. When the wolfhound hunts and launches itself on the prey (typically on the backside of the neck) a lack of fill and forechest, along with incorrect forequarters (set too far forward), can maim the wolfhound as it hits the prey. If the impact is too jarring the Wolfhound may suffer disorientation, depending on the game, this may provide an opportunity for the hunted to turn on the hunter. This is an affirmed doctrine applicable to Sighthounds that hunt large game and is as old as time. It is a familiar requirement to the ancient Afghan Hound breed as well as the Northern Scenthound breed, the Norwegian Elkhound, that requires ‘fill’ to protect the dog from the harmful impact of hooves.
In former decades, unsound or bad forequarters had always been a leading issue throughout the breeds, but today this is not the case. Now, there are even more 'bad front ends', but interestingly the magnitude of so many has seemed to lessen their objectionability while increasing their permissibility. Go ahead and stand outside a conformation show ring and behold the number of poorly structured exhibits. Presently, many hobbyists wrongly conclude that the term 'soundness' only pertains to the gait action while coming and going; single or double tracking towards the observer, driving off while going away and the absence of lameness. Any variations while traveling, such as moving wide, padding, weaving in the front, and narrow or hockiness in the rear are faulty. Remarkably, to many a fancier, the term 'soundness' is subjective with many believing that a dog is sound as long as it moves cleanly. In reality, the true definition of soundness, as applied to canines, has been hijacked or in a sense has devolved.
Just a small percentage of exhibitors and judges understand that soundness relates to the whole construction of the dog, meaning correctly constructed forequarters and hindquarters. Faulty or otherwise unsound examples would be steep shoulders, stuck-on forequarters, straight upper arms, over-angulation of the stifle and or length of the tibia, steep or flat croups, etcetera.
However, we are faced with yet another dilemma: the era of generic show dogs. I am fond of challenging people to take photographs of selected breeds, then crop out the heads and show them to hobbyists. I believe numerous people would be unable to identify the breeds because a large number of dogs have become plain, they lack type. Just plain ole' vanilla. Breed type is a principal component in judging. Phenotype and the quintessence of a breed are what characterizes a dog from not just an average specimen, but from other breeds as well. Breeding programs and dogs who are lacking type, in my opinion, is a sobering misdeed. Judging and awarding those deficient in type is as well since judges can cause great harm to a breed. Adjudicating is a responsibility that should never be taken lightly as losing breed essence is not trivial. Moreover, it can be very hard to recover.
By and large, all-breed dog show judges will fault a dog for less than ideal 'down and back' movement. To illustrate, Dog A embodies breed essence, therefore, is 'typey' but may move slightly wider while traveling towards a judge. Shamefully, this dog most probably will be undervalued as compared to Dog B, which is ordinary or not distinctive in appearance, yet single tracks cleanly. Or, if Dog A moved somewhat close behind as compared to Dog B whose hocks were parallel. In my year's of observation, there is a significantly greater tendency for all-breed judges to award generic Dog B over 'typey' Dog A.
This is why, in my opinion, the original question needs to be reexamined. If we are forced to identify with the limited and widespread interpretation of soundness today, then let it be said that even a mixed breed dog can move soundly. It is important to mention that I do not refer to, include nor forgive locomotive faults and failings such as sickle-hocked, padding, and hackney action, to name just a few. These are the obvious effects of unsound engineering.
Specialty breed judges are often guilty of the same type of adjudication as many all-breed judges. It is referred to as 'fault judging' as both sets of judges cannot see the forest for the trees. Often, we see these judges 'paint themselves into a corner,' having limited their choices to such an extent that they ended up with an apparent mishmash of specimens. Consequently, they have done a disservice to the breed. For instance, one time a specialty breed judge informed me that my bitch had "beautiful type, and was a gorgeous mover" but commented that she was moving slightly close behind and excused her from further competition. A situation like this is disheartening when a judge recognizes distinguishing characteristics that embody the breed's structure, gait, and shape but is unconcerned with awarding them.
I wholly subscribe to the dictum 'soundness is fitness to function.' Nevertheless, I also believe that mediocrity is not a goal nor is ordinariness the level of the bar that determines success. Despite what is happening regularly at our dog show competitions.
I agree with Samuel Evans Ewing III, when in 1978, he stated the following:
“…if I had to choose between the two. I would go first to type and then to soundness. I think the soundness is determined somewhat by the type of the animal and its purpose in life.”