So here are the two excerpts from the standard that I think are pertinent to the discussion.  The first is the one lauralee referred to.

"The dog is neither unduly small nor conspicuously large. It gives the impression of medium size, but is like the proper hunter, "with a short back, but standing over plenty of ground." Symmetry and field quality are most essential."

And the second talks about proportion:

"Proportion--measuring from the forechest to the rearmost projection of the rump and from the withers to the ground, the Shorthair is permissibly either square or slightly longer than he is tall."

The thing to keep in mind about Ringo is he is not a fully grown dog.  He is right at 9 months old and will not grow any more in height, but should put on considerable more muscle.  Think of a 16 year old teenage boy vs a 25 year old adult male. Right now he looks a little gangly, but proportionally he is right.  I think the standing over plenty of ground goes hand in hand with hunting ability.  I think the standard is trying to get to the idea of the dog having the appearance of a dog that can move and cover ground well in a field.  If his stance "covers allot of ground" he by extrapalation will also move well in the field. Hopefully this makes sense.  In my head I have a picture of a dog and hunter that look like they could hunt together all day covering allot of ground with ease and grace. A hunter and dog with just the right height and legs just long enough to do the job well.

lauralee -  You said it a bit better than I did.  But the point is that angulation lets the dog move well in the field.

Mine have always been done with height around 6 to 7 months.  After that it has just been filling out.

Thanks everyone for the nice complements on Ringo.  I am kind of partial to the boy.   He has turned out much nicer than I could have anticipated and is doing so well in the performance events too.

lauralee -  Thanks!  And he isn't too shabby in the field or with his obedience either. 

No offense taken.  This is a good discussion. 

So, I am going to now put a picture of Halo out for comment.  She does not have the angulation that Ringo has, and she is fully mature.  She moves like a gazzelle and never tires, which lends some credence to what bruns is saying.  That said Ringo does not tire either, but he is also not nearly as agile as Halo.

 What I meant here was that good rear angulation allows a dog when standing still to appear to be standing over plenty of ground. Not necessarily meaning that the angulation allows him to cover alot of ground in motion, although it is in my opnion that a dog does need a certain amount of angulation to move properly, Straight stifled dogs tend to move with a choppy gait, example,The Chow.

Like I said, I think this is a good discussion and very informative.  It also shows how open the standard can be to interpretation.  I love the comments though on my dogs as it helps me see them through someone else's eyes.  Mine tend to have a rosy hue when I look at my dogs.

Here two different photos of my older one Trego the field glider. I thought it only fair to put up mine for comment as well. You won't offend me, so comment away.

Helen Witt handling

Me handling