In doing an analysis of the phenotype of any animal, many factors must be taken into consideration - not the least of which is the ground upon which they are standing. Is this bull standing on level ground? No. Is the ground free from rocks and clumps of hard soil? No. Is he standing on his legs evenly because his weight is distributed evenly? No. This does not mean that he is not posty, or that he is not cow-hocked, or that he is not "soft" (whatever that means) behind the shoulders. But body position of an animal when one is observing a "picture" is of extreme importance, as are the images, or scenery, in the background. Most photographers do not see what the picture will ultimately 'show' as they take the picture. Take a close look at the pictures of this bull and observe what he is standing on, what is behind him that influences your sight, and whether he is standing facing uphill, or downhill.
Those things being said, I do not think that he is excessively post legged, if at all. He is NOT cow-hocked. He may be sickle-hocked to a degree, but it is important that one knows the difference between an animal being cow-hocked, and being sickle-hocked. Looking at the view taken directly from the rear proves that he is NOT cow hocked, for if he were, his hocks would be close to each other, and his feet would be angling outward from the 'midline'. If he were sickle-hocked, his lower legs from the hocks down would angle forward under his belly. A perpendicular line 'dropped' from his pin bones would appear in FRONT of his cannon bones and pasterns and hooves. The rear view picture is a fine example of straight legs, NOT cow-hocked, but also NOT a wide enough stance, therefore demonstrating a lack of thickness (from side-to-side) of his general hind-quarter development and phenotype.
As a general commentary on this bull, I would say that he was a reasonable beginning for a small number of cows to "breed up" your genetics, but the black grandson seems to be amore desirable potential sire than the "old man".
DOC HARRIS
