Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
New Developments at Crufts
Comments
-
be it KC or reg'd breeders, someone is to blame for the state of some dogs in the arena. if vets are disqualifying dogs its not for the craic.
ignoring conformation, you tell me which you think is the healthier looking example of the breed. keeping in mind the first one is a multiple times ch.
this
or this
0 -
I cant see anything wrong with the first dog, apart from that its slightly smaller in height than the second.
The second one to me doesnt even look like a staffie if im honest....
You just changed the pic of the second one since i started writing...
0 -
nothing wrong with the first one at all. just a typical staffie bred to standard. im just asking which getz thinks is the better example of breed to prove my point that we're coming from opposite ends of the spectrum and probably not gonna agree no matter what
i'd go for the second dog personally.
i changed the pic because the first one was a bitch and a fair bit taller and i meant to compare dog to dog/size to size0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
i think he is getting mixed up, vets do not disqualify dogs from the show ring[not in the UK]they only pass on their findings to a committee,the staffy STD is quite wide in the fact the head can be terrier or bulldog type ,the ideal head would be that the width of the head should be twice as wide as the muzzle ,the hight of the dog use to be up to 16 inc and the bitch only 14 inc,but when i showed it was that the dog could be up 17 inc,the first dog in the pic looks a beauty with power and stance,on looks it would fit the original purpose it was designed for ,fighting in a pit [a small area,]I cant see anything wrong with the first dog, apart from that its slightly smaller in height than the second.
The second one to me doesnt even look like a staffie if im honest....
You just changed the pic of the second one since i started writing...0 -
-
the second dog may only be a young one,staffies grow two ways,ie tall first then fill out[my champion did that when young he looked more like a whippit],or the other way short and fat then grow tallerDamagedTrax wrote: »nothing wrong with the first one at all. just a typical staffie bred to standard. im just asking which getz thinks is the better example of breed to prove my point that we're coming from opposite ends of the spectrum and probably not gonna agree no matter what
i'd go for the second dog personally.
i changed the pic because the first one was a bitch and a fair bit taller and i meant to compare dog to dog/size to size0 -
i think he is getting mixed up, vets do not disqualify dogs from the show ring[not in the UK]they only pass on their findings to a committee,the staffy STD is quite wide in the fact the head can be terrier or bulldog type ,the ideal head would be that the width of the head should be twice as wide as the muzzle ,the hight of the dog use to be up to 16 inc and the bitch only 14 inc,but when i showed it was that the dog could be up 17 inc,the first dog in the pic looks a beauty with power and stance,on looks it would fit the original purpose it was designed for ,fighting in a pit [a small area,]
actually if you do your research you'd find that the smaller more slender dogs were favoured in the pit. same as with pibbles, a big bulky dog wasnt much use if it couldnt get a turn on the opponent.
just look at all the champion fighting staffs from history
and before i get jumped on by anyone :eek: dog fighting is disgusting. but it is part of the breed's history and what they were bred for so surely those champions from the bad old days are the perfect examples? otherwise they wouldnt have been champions, no?0 -
Advertisement
-
-
DamagedTrax wrote: »too small for my tastes but a very nice structure and head size. if she was a few inches taller i'd be into it.
but thats a well bred staffy. when i talk about the fat stumpy ones that you see in the ring you know exactly the type im talking about dont you?
Thats actually a he, lol. Hes a nice dog and has sired some very nice pups, my friends dog being one of them.
Yeah i dont like the fat stumpy one either but to be honest there arent a lot of them in the ring and im involved in watching the staffies quite a bit and sometimes handling them for my friend when she needs help. 0 -
-
Thats actually a he, lol. Hes a nice dog and has sired some very nice pups, my friends dog being one of them.
Yeah i dont like the fat stumpy one either but to be honest there arent a lot of them in the ring and im involved in watching the staffies quite a bit and sometimes handling them for my friend when she needs help.
quite soft featured for a male! is he out of crossguns? has that look to him.
it is changing a bit ill agree, and it was great to see that big staff in best of group the other week, irish owned aswell want he? 0 -
-
-
-
this may help you understand why the staffie looks different to day than those dogs, in 1935 making the std was one of the first duties that fell to the SBTC ,it was gone into thoroughly by a body of experts men with years of experience and ownership of the breed,two dogs were set up as examples of the breed [fearless joe] and[ jim the dandy ] one a fawn and one a brindle,a wide range of types and sizes existed in staffies in those days, it was natural that those who owned big bullie types claimed theirs was the right type,while those with long-muzzled lightweights supported theirs,for some time arguments was rife in staffordshire towns like walsall, darllston, and cradleheath,eventualy all agreed on the exhibition staffie you see today.DamagedTrax wrote: »actually if you do your research you'd find that the smaller more slender dogs were favoured in the pit. same as with pibbles, a big bulky dog wasnt much use if it couldnt get a turn on the opponent.
just look at all the champion fighting staffs from history
and before i get jumped on by anyone :eek: dog fighting is disgusting. but it is part of the breed's history and what they were bred for so surely those champions from the bad old days are the perfect examples? otherwise they wouldnt have been champions, no?0 -
this may help you understand why the staffie looks different to day than those dogs, in 1935 making the std was one of the first duties that fell to the SBTC ,it was gone into thoroughly by a body of experts men with years of experience and ownership of the breed,two dogs were set up as examples of the breed [fearless joe] and[ jim the dandy ] one a fawn and one a brindle,a wide range of types and sizes existed in staffies in those days, it was natural that those who owned big bullie types claimed theirs was the right type,while those with long-muzzled lightweights supported theirs,for some time arguments was rife in staffordshire towns like walsall, darllston, and cradleheath,eventualy all agreed on the exhibition staffie you see today.
2 of those dogs are champions from the last 30 years, have been 100% proven to be fit for purpose (as disgusting as it is) and yet dont resemble the current breed standard. they are also 2 of the strongest and most sought after bloodlines.
staffies are still bred to original standards all over the place and in my opinion are a better all round dog.
breeds dont change because of time, they change because someone decides that their own ideas on the breed are better than the last persons ideas. for some breeds it has worked out fine, for others its a disaster.
m8, i know the history of the staffy but that isnt an explanation for the current standard. the exhibition staffy you see today is nowhere near the agreed upon original standard.
original breed standard
The Staffordshire Bull Terrier is a smooth-coated dog, standing about 16 to 18 inches high at the shoulder and although muscular should be active and agile.
so the current breed standard goes down to 2 inches smaller but up to 2lbs heavier.
this is my whole argument, why did they feel the need to make the dog smaller yet heavier thru the years? are the 'experts' that agreed on the original standard only experts when it suits?
and by the way, the first picture in the fighting dogs 'gentleman jim', was the first staffordshire crufts champion in '38, yet he would be looked on as a mutant if he walked into the ring today
so who's right? the legit breeders the follow the KC's current breed standards that have already made a mockery of the bulldog, cavalier, GSD? or the legit breeders that decide to pay no attention to the current standard and rely on the original standards as guidlines. i know which i'd pick.0 -
i did tell you that the STD of 14 bitch and 16 dog was being changed in the 80s ,it was bound to happen ,as dogs [like people] are getting better food and treatment than their ancestors,and you have to adapt accordingly, you will find the same thing in many of the breeds,and wellfed humansDamagedTrax wrote: »2 of those dogs are from the last 30 years. staffies are still bred to original standards all over the place and in my opinion are a better all round dog.
breeds dont change because of time, they change because someone decides that their own ideas on the breed are better than the last persons ideas. for some breeds it has worked out fine, for others its a disaster.
m8, i know the history of the staffy but that isnt an explanation for the current standard. the exhibition staffy you see today is nowhere near the agreed upon original standard.
original breed standard
so the current breed standard goes down to 2 inches smaller but up to 2lbs heavier.
this is my whole argument, why did they feel the need to make the dog smaller yet heavier thru the years? are the 'experts' that agreed on the original standard only experts when it suits?
and by the way, the first picture in the fighting dogs 'gentleman jim', was the first staffordshire crufts champion in '38, yet he be looked on as a mutant if he walked into the ring today0 -
Advertisement
-
-
what ever happens more and more dog breeds are going to come under the microscope ,it will be of interest when the next birmingham chap show is on to see just what changes are madeDamagedTrax wrote: »i dont agree. i think its very much human desire based solely to change the look of a dog to whats preferential.
maybe they could be mini staffs? we already have a mini EBT, pincher and god knows what else
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement