One a day, plus iron

Charlie (Trys reluctantly agrees with me on this) is a neurotic soul. It's like his brain turns off and all he can do is fret. I don't have any patience for that sort of thing either.

The "length of upper leg" that you're talking about is ... from where the hind leg joins the body (the stifle joint thingie) down to the hock? Like, the gaskin muscle area? Analog in the front would be the forearm?

Referring to Tin:
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/which_chick/6000035777/)

To me, Tin looks kind of string-bean-y right now. Particularly, his cannons look too long for the rest of him. I'm hoping he grows into them. This picture definitely captures him at an awkward moment where he's butt-high. He's not like that all the time.

and to Nick:
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/which_chick/4573534124/)

Nick (as an adult) looks reasonably OK to me, nothing glaringly horrible. Her hocks are bad, yes, but the rest of the back leg doesn't bother me much. She's got nice, short cannons on front and back, which I was always taught was proper. I do think her legs in front are kind of stubby-looking (on the forearm part) but her stride is acceptable. (Distance from point-of-shoulder to elbow is good and probably compensates for the otherwise stubby front legs.)

Now, if we look at Whimsy:
(http://www.flickr.com/photos/which_chick/5879046278/)

She's built fairly well and tracks up beautifully (mechanically, she's a much better mover than Nick) and still Whimsy has longer upper leg than lower leg by a visible margin... with nice, short cannons for her size.

I'm not seeing the issue, here, and maybe my problem is that all my examples contain the issue. I need to see (by comparison to a more-ideal critter) what the issue is. Can you post a couple of pictures that do not have the problem so that I can see what "more correct" looks like?