How important is structure to you?

[Officially Retired]

I prefer dogs with good physical structure, if possible.

However, of the 6 best dogs I have ever owned, only 2 had perfect structure.

Stormbringer was small for his weight, but THICK and POWERFUL. He had a strength all out of proportion to his size, incredible intelligence, and his build worked perfectly for him ... yet he would never have placed in a show. I've never seen a dog his weight I could imagine beating him.

Icon was undershot and had straight stifles. He whipped many dogs with better conformation, pushing weight, and with no teeth.

Missy was undershot and a little long-bodied. None of the bitches her size could make it to the :12 mark, without their owner's picking up their bitches with fractured muzzles/eyesockets, etc. ... except one guy who picked up in :21 and his bitch didn't make it to the next morning.

Jezebel was perfection Style + conformation.
Silverback had great conformation, and was a helluva dog.

Ultimately, I breed for a style, and "something exceptional" (be that speed, strength, finish, whatever). I place a lot of stock in conformation ... but not so much that I am blind to what I am watching.

Jack

[State Bull]

Structure should be important, but it isn't to many.. It's the normal to see splay feet, cow hocked long backs curly tails that almost touch the back.currently. Dam near every dog we had had a roach back good feet and bone.. Today you see bat ears horrible structure... Unfortunately it takes generations to fix. If it is a scatter bred dog off such breedings... That makes it harder!!

[Frank43]

Im not a fan of scatter breeding or random best to best. there are only certain lines I am interested in. Being structurally sound is important. I think of average if you aren't you lose over time. Bad backends you get pushed into the wall. Bad bites can't handle the stress and trauma on the jaw the same. Basically over the course of years you end up culling back to he fitest. the question to me is how rigid you remain when you consider incorporating new studs and pups into your program. luckily I was sold some solid stock to begin with. I feel during the breedings I made I kept the strongest best specimens. There are relatives around me. I would consider a breeding or two in the future with some of them. I am about to drive three states in two directions looking for broomstock pups in two lines. one known for being a balance of smart and athletic, Titere. and yellow cottingham from crews. those are smart redboy dogs from my experience. I have bred what I have towards with Hollingsworth side with enough redboy to keep them working hard. I have one little bat eared pup. I don't remember them being like that when he was younger. he's structurally sound. he's built on the smaller terrier frame with decent muscle. I like his attitude the older he gets. Anyway looking for conversation. would you add a dog that had structurally faults to your line or pass?

[S_B]

Jack I pretty much agree with your selection process but I would to say that in my opinion, undershot, long bodied or straight stifled dogs aren't necessarily what I would consider defects.

Let me explain further dogs I would define as physically challenged or lacking in structure. Dogs who are extremely out at the elbows, dogs who are severely slip hocked or dogs who are severely undershot. A slightly undershot dog is perfectly fine. A long bodied dog is fine too, but to long is not good either. When these things become a hindrance during physical activity and put the dog at a handicap to me this is undesirable.

S_B

[No Quarter Kennel]

Jack I pretty much agree with your selection process but I would to say that in my opinion, undershot, long bodied or straight stifled dogs aren't necessarily what I would consider defects.

Let me explain further dogs I would define as physically challenged or lacking in structure. Dogs who are extremely out at the elbows, dogs who are severely slip hocked or dogs who are severely undershot. A slightly undershot dog is perfectly fine. A long bodied dog is fine too, but to long is not good either. When these things become a hindrance during physical activity and put the dog at a handicap to me this is undesirable.

S_B

I second

[bulldoghistorian]

I actually prefer undershot with chest dogs

[Frank43]

http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...p?dog_id=38153

What about these little slightly roach backed dogs. they seem faster and more athletic. Is this just the dog or the structure makes them that way.

[EWO]

Hard to say.

Bulldogs seem to be a lot different than other breeds. In the other breeds things are a little more structured in their job description has more structure. Therefore the dogs structure play a big part of what they dog.

The bulldog may be built one way but on show night he may have to perform in a different way.

Over time you will see one with all the structure and no athleticism at all. Then his litter mate brother will be short, squatty, flat faced, and a block of a dog. He will be able to breathe underwater and go for days on end.

It is a tough call.

I like to see them when they look good but I never let that factor into their final grade.

EWO

[Osagedogman2015]

What does structure mean to you?

How do you define it?

Structure for what exactly?

Richard Stratton wrote long ago about the varying styles that many dog men appreciated. Would every style require the same structure?

Ralph Greenwood based the confirmation standard based upon winning dogs of the day. That was his universal structural standard for judging dogs without actual performance testing. Do you agree with it? Do you understand it? Is it relative to actual performance?

So many variables to compute. Or is it?

Is it just a function of what many call the will to win, regardless of the advantages or shortcomings?

[Frank43]

What does structure mean to you?

How do you define it?

Structure for what exactly?

Richard Stratton wrote long ago about the varying styles that many dog men appreciated. Would every style require the same structure?

Ralph Greenwood based the confirmation standard based upon winning dogs of the day. That was his universal structural standard for judging dogs without actual performance testing. Do you agree with it? Do you understand it? Is it relative to actual performance?

So many variables to compute. Or is it?

Is it just a function of what many call the will to win, regardless of the advantages or shortcomings?

which stratton book?