Printable View
I'd like to here opinions and insights on "show dog"confirmation and validity compared to structure and general physical characteristics of the working game dog. Appears to me there is significantly moore more variation in the working dogs then in the "show". Build type, proportion, angulation both front and rear, head; mouth qualities. How do y'all think each specific characteristic precisely impacts the function of a dog while working.
Also how does all this relate two the differences between apbt of the past, all the way back to the earliest dogs that first came to the US.
You have to understand that Real Apbt "show" like the beauty contests. The standard is what a Game dog SHOULD look like. BUT now the Bully and red and blue breeders have told the LIE for so long they believe it and have the newbies thinking that's just Show dogs. Wrong!
They are Cur bred mutts nothing more! They made up their own registry and show standard.
But some of the best Game dogs I have seen could have been GR CH show ring bulldogs also. As a matter of a fact if you look and study the APBT standard and really think it is all working for the same goal. The perfect k9 !!
I actually wonder about these things too. I do understand what we used to say on the field, “looks like Tarzan plays like Jane.” I studied orthopedics for awhile and structure sometimes dictates function. It seems that most dogs that have won have some confirmation similarities. I just wonder how selective breeders would be in finding studs that performed well and had good confrontation. I feel like I have a picture how my perfect dog would perform and act now I want to collect the genes to create him.
Specifically it seems like a lot of the Hollingsworth bull dogs have strong back ends. Seems like they would get good drive out of it. One stud I have been looking at is a little more muscled than some like. As a ex linebacker I like things that can take a lick.
I like red boy dogs too. I’d want to mix waccamaw and cottingham dogs for that side.
I hope this gets replies. I have been wanting to talk about it awhile.
I almost get a hard on when I look at this dog.
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...059.jpg?906568
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=23387
His confirmation is perfect to me. He performed too.
To me, Chinaman is still has the perfect conformation and built for an APBT.
I think conformation (ADBA) standard plays a very important role in function. If you take two dogs that are even across the board in ability but one suffers from a minor conformation flaw and one is conformationaly sound I would give the advantage to the dog with the better conformation. I think both of these dogs are built well and know they both would receive ribbons at an ADBA show.
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=51029
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=42234
Creek Bottom
It does Creek .. its just a hard knock life And I guarantee This not just in bulldogs (take a Girl for example if she has her pick of two guys Both guys are exactly the same both nice booth good looking and treat her 100% but one has a Bigger Ahh say Wallet. You know whos WINNING that wisker bisket.Quote:
Originally Posted by creek_bottom
Same with dogs sometimes the difference between good and Great is only 1/2 "..
The more I see pics of ADBA Gr Chs and [] champions the more I see there's a pretty big difference between the 2. The ADBA standard is supposedly based on winning dogs and I would agree too (just look at Chinaman, Buck, and so on). But recently I've seen more and more box winners (basing this on pics I saw of winners and champions of the old days) and champions that doesn't look what a pit bull should look. I think the conformation people focused too much on conformation and never even check their dogs even just a little bit, while the working camp people seems like totally disregard structure and conformation which is kinda sad to be honest.
I 100% agree with creek_bottom 2 dogs that are equal across the board, the one with better conformation and structure will have the advantage.
I agree. I was talking to a guy that breeds cane corsos. I don’t know how you really breed without a performance standard. There are some confirmation champs that quit. Some dogs built like lukane that perform. Some with bad hips or shoulders that can’t drive etc. sometimes you think the winner looks a certain way. The winner looks like the winner. Ie Cormier is fat not great built. But he’d fuck up some mister Olympias. Back to the cane corso Breeder. We were talking dogs and breeding. He showed me his dogs. He had told me about how athletic his foundation female was. His foundation stud was bigger. Some like the bigger dogs. Me I liked the look of the female. She seemed balanced light on her feet and built different. It’s funny how you can go two different ways breeding. Let’s say he does foundation stud to the bitch. Back to the stud. You get bigger dogs that aren’t as athletic. Or. Maybe you go him to mom. Son back to her or find an outside stud and line breed. Whole point of that is. I’m going to show him a flirt pole. See how they move. I like bulldogs. a 50lb gamebred pit is a lot of dog. Hundred pound dogs don’t Impress me. I just think. Damn those are some big turds. I bet frank or clo would break his legs dive under and open his gut. Plus he can’t go more that a 5 min flurry.
Thing I found interesting is that I think carver or one of the old school guys would cross staff into his lines sometimes. Probably worked like a catalyst plus adding structure.
Back then, APBT and Staff is 1 and the same. The standard for the AmStaf is Colby's Primo.
This is true. They do look a bit cartoonish. People can’t understand why if a person isn’t active why you would want a dog from working bloodlines.
Because some can still appreciate the correct old type. Not everyone wants a blue bully mutt. There seems to be a place for those as I see them everywhere but that's not for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank43
Nope, I'd rather have that 30 to 45 pound lean looking game dog type. Yet a real deal bulldog is not for everyone. They take a lot of management and work. It's not a dog that can sit around and do nothing, you have to have an outlet for that drive. Whether it is physical work, or fetching a ball, or running a mill, these dogs need hard exercise and mental stimulation.
It's a different world now than it was back in the 1970s when I was introduced to the breed and it is not a better world for the gamebred dogs. From the animal rights assholes wanting to "save" them, yet put them down "for their own good", to the fools that feel a dog living on a chain is cruel, yet having a dog live 24/7 in a crate in a garage is ok (as is done by many "rescues"), it's a pretty screwed up world for the bulldogs.
I think it signals a change in society. That people can’t understand aggressive vs game says a lot about the human psyche. I’d call my grandad game. He went into a coal mine to feed his family. Raised crops and did odd jobs to feed them too. Never sold drugs robbed or stole. Game. In the sense that mayfield talks about in his article. Conquering yourself in that case for the good of others. A thief gets more respect than the person that gets their work done quietly. Carlos hatchcock. Game. Crawled through a field for days getting ate on by ants and pissing on himself to accomplish a mission. Never stole, or was disrespectful from what I have read. The world the humaniac liberal wants to create is a scary one to me. Like you said not everyone understands a gamedog. Most don’t need one. I feel better with them. They say they can’t make house dogs. All mine have been house dogs. These two are the best I have had.
This Male very nicely built young man.
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=66531
That’s awesome.