Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 2 of 8      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   Next   »


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #26 
I love dogs that look like they have just stepped out of a time capsule from some magical mystical heyday. Just one example of my perception of this is: Groppetti's Smoked Hickory


0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #27 
Bergtroll has a dome head - I don't find his head typey but bullmastiffey.
0
vandmastiffs

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,023
Reply with quote  #28 

I hope the pictures will show up.  If so, here are 2 brothers, I am wondering what folks think of their heads.  Would you say that they are typey for todays standards? 

 

Thanks for you input,

Shannon



__________________
Shannon
http://www.vandmastiffs.com
0
HollyJ

Registered:
Posts: 221
Reply with quote  #29 
This was a great topic! thanks for posting all those old pictures, it's amazing to see some of those awesome mastiffs from way back when!
I was just having this discussion the other day with a friend, and in my personal opinion, I like a mastiffs, that is at least 30 + at the shoulder, I like a lot of size, and Im a sucker for a gorgeous head. I think with some of the big boys, it takes them a while to get to there full potential. Anyway, thanks again for posting the awesome photos!!


__________________
Holly James
stjamesmastiffs.com
0
goldleaf

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 8,058
Reply with quote  #30 
Bump
__________________
0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #31 

Note the longer distance from ground to elbow in the dane 60/40 compared to the 50/50 distance in the mastiff!

Height comes from the front assembly, not from depth of chest! Depth of chest creates the illustion of great height, but in reality it's not so!


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
giselle

Registered:
Posts: 759
Reply with quote  #32 
Height comes from the front assembly, not from depth of chest!

Height in this dane comes from length of leg and for mastiffs, it's suppose to come from depth of body. What do you mean when you say height comes from front assembly? When you say front assembly, are you talking about the front angulation? The dane has less front angulation but there are tall mastiffs as well that have good front angles.  Can you clarify what you mean ?

Depth of chest creates the illustion of great height, but in reality it's not so!


I think I feel the opposite, the more depth of chest/body a dog has, the shorter it looks to me.



__________________
Giselle
http://www.everaftermastiffs.com

0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #33 

Giselle,

 

You can't get height from depth of body! You just get depth of body! It's the legs (i.e. front assembly, legs, shoulder, etc. )

 

Daschunds also have depth of body!


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
giselle

Registered:
Posts: 759
Reply with quote  #34 
ok, when you said front assembly, i figured you meant the front angulation mostly because of the difference in that photo. I do agree it's the length of leg, shoulder, scapula, and how they are assembled etc etc. that deterimines height.

What determines depth of body then?


__________________
Giselle
http://www.everaftermastiffs.com

0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #35 
The OEMC standard to me seems quite clear about this..
Under; General Appearance
'body massive, broad, deep, long, powerfully built, on legs wide apart and squarley set. Muscles sharply defined. Size a great desideratum, if combined with quality. Height and substance important if both points are proportionately combined.'
Under; Body
Chest wide, deep and well let down between the forelegs...and further ...Girth should be one third more than height at the shoulder..

If you look at the pic Tamara posted further back (Gertie) ..this to me is an example of a correctly proportioned mastiff...body MASSIVE, BROAD, DEEP, LONG ...if it were to be a taller mastiff.....then it needs to keep the same PROPORTIONS i.e Massive, broad, deep, long

The chest should be wide, deep and well let down between the forlegs which  Tamaras girl in the pic ..in my opinion is .... .I imagine she would be more like 65/35 girl myself.. body to foreleg ratio..(I have seen a profile body shot of her). The pic Steve has used as an example dosn't seem to have as good overall proportion and I don't know what the 50/50 is about...
In a properly proportioned mastiff, it is easy to see in appearance that overall height is made up from depth of body, rather than length of leg...
I have always thought of Greiner Hall Falcon as having good proportion..he did not look tall in pics, because he was massive, broad, deep, long..but I have heard from those who had seen him hands on that he was around 34''? 32"? ( correct me if I am wrong on that point)....

regards Karen


0
Nicci

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 3,909
Reply with quote  #36 

I was under the impression that GH Falcon was 32'.  But I could be wrong too.


__________________
Nicci
0
LazarusMastiffs

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,172
Reply with quote  #37 

yes, Falcon was 32 inches and certainly did not have 50% of his height from the leg!  LOL  The dog above has less than half of his height from the elbow down as well.  A simple string held to the computer screen will prove that.  I do understand what Steve is trying to say.  He is trying to show that in many dogs the chest falls well below the elbow and that the elbow should be in the same place for a deep or shallow chested dog.  It is just not the case though.  That is the difference between the front assembly of a dane, mastiff or bulldog.



__________________
Chris Murphy
Lazarus and Surazal Mastiffs
Helping preserve Old English type in the U.S. http://www.lazarusmastiffs.com
0
Monica

Registered:
Posts: 4,089
Reply with quote  #38 

The body depth vs. leg for height makes so much sense to me.  For awhile I was looking at some of the more OEM looking dogs, such as the GH lines and thinking - they are so short.  I would write to Jann and she'd write me back and say oh, no that dog has got to be at least 30-31"...  I know the GH line is not known for great height (33 +") but surely at or above standard which was not what appeared to me in photos because I was looking at the legs for height and forgetting about how much the depth of body could add.....

 

Good thread!


__________________
Monica
http://www.harmonymastiffs.com
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to Everyone~
0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #39 

Falcon has the 50-50 proper proportions!

A 30" dog should have 15" legs ( ground to elbow ) A 34" dog should have 17" legs.

 

Optical illusions ( feet buried in grass, angle of shot etc.  can give a different impression, but the dog always gets height from front assembly constructs and NOT depth of chest!

 

The wording in the standard is misleading and is meant to imply that substance and depth should be creating the massive look and not height alone, without those other qualities mentioned. Instead, some interpret depth of body and not length of leg to mean shorter legs!

 

The OEM standard does not state height not coming from length of leg! That was an American invention!


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
LazarusMastiffs

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,172
Reply with quote  #40 

Steve, we are not going to agree.  Even the dog that you placed as an example is a 3 to 7 ratio in comparison to overall height and not a 1 to 2.  There are many good dogs that are 1 to 2 but their leg ratio is not their strong suit!!!  Falcon did not have half his height from his elbow down.  Would you like to ask his owner?  He is a good friend of mine.  As far as what is looked for overseas in England etc, I have sat with and personally know several breeders there.  I know what type they are looking for and I have seen them judging.  We always seem to pick the same dogs, so we cannot be too far off.  It is not what you are describing.  It is not a trick of the eye.  It might fly with some people, but not me.  There are some of my dogs that have too long of a leg and they are still nice, but that is not what makes them nice and it is what I fault them for.  Seeing several nice examples of mastiffs with a 1 to 2 ratio does not make it correct.  It is still something for them to work towards.  I have seen too many mastiffs in person with correct proportions.  That is something that most people cannot say here in the U.S. because we have lost sight of what it is.  It has become less common instead of more because we are settling.  The longer the shoulder blade is, the more muscle and mass there is because muscle is attached to and around it.  The mass in the chest is necessary too, but completely different.


__________________
Chris Murphy
Lazarus and Surazal Mastiffs
Helping preserve Old English type in the U.S. http://www.lazarusmastiffs.com
0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #41 

Chris,

 

You are rambling!

 

1:2????

 

What does that mean?

 

Look, here's another dog posted today on this thread!

 

50-50!

 


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
LazarusMastiffs

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,172
Reply with quote  #42 

I am sorry if you are now confused.  A 1 to 2 ratio is 50%.  That is what you are stating is correct for the length of the leg from elbow to ground.  Point blank honest, I do not feel that is correct.  You are now attempting to prove your point is valid by placing pictures of other peoples dogs up here.  No standard at any time ever tried to put that criteria on the dogs, just as no standard, other than ours when it was changed, ever required so little chest.  This is something that you are attempting to change the standard to because you see it in most mastiffs.  I am glad that you have found a new interest in the breed, but you do not have the experience to make these type of statements or assessments of the breed.  I think there is no doubt in anyones mind that what you used to breed is not the same type of mastiff that I breed.  They are completely different.  I will ask again for you to not place pictures of others dogs up here as a way of silencing me.  I do not wish to single out anyones dog and I will not comment on another.  It should be hard to find a mastiff that fits the standards close to perfectly.  That is what makes them special and not the average dog.  You are attempting to make averages the accepted goal for our standard.  You are not breeding, so it probably doesn't bother you to see people "fixing" the standard.  It does me.  I never asked you to change your oppinion Steve.  As I tend to ramble, you tend to be come off very arrogant and refuse to make it clear when things are your oppinion instead of fact.  That is the only reason that I cannot let it go.  Everything I have written has been my my oppinion and I told you what it was based on.  Why can you not admit that?  I am tired of bouncing from one board to the other.  LOL  I am staying here.


__________________
Chris Murphy
Lazarus and Surazal Mastiffs
Helping preserve Old English type in the U.S. http://www.lazarusmastiffs.com
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #43 

I believe it was the Spice Girls that put it so well... but I may be wrong anyhow... "where is the love, the love, the love" 

0
LazarusMastiffs

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,172
Reply with quote  #44 

LOL  I really do like Steve as a person.  We just get into heated debates over different ideals in mastiffs.   


__________________
Chris Murphy
Lazarus and Surazal Mastiffs
Helping preserve Old English type in the U.S. http://www.lazarusmastiffs.com
0
Crossroads

Registered:
Posts: 2,598
Reply with quote  #45 

Wasn't that the Black Eyed Peas?  I love that song!!!


__________________
Jennifer Patterson
Crossroads Mastiffs
http://www.crossroadsmastiffs.com

"Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American GI....one died for your soul, the other died for your freedom"
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #46 

HAHAHAHAHA... that was the Black Eyed Peas... damn "spice girls" someone smack me... not my music genre persay I'm more of a metal girl so I don't get the poppy names right!!!!

0
LEXIMSTF

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,001
Reply with quote  #47 

 

FWIW, I find the current standard very good and specific enough to carry on with, as is.

 

It takes time, experience and study to become comfortable with the standard and what it is actually describing. It has taken me quite some time to feel at ease with the intracacies present and I am still learning, always will be a student. 

 

Hence when it comes to depth and ratio, I find the current standard adequate.

 

Let's look at the AKC standard:

 

Chest - wide, deep, rounded, and well let down between the forelegs, extending at least to the elbow. Forechest should be deep and well defined with the breastbone extending in front of the foremost point of the shoulders. Ribs well rounded. False ribs deep and well set back.

 

Body to leg at 50/50 does in fact go against the current standard as written. Along with this, a Mastiff should not be faulted for a chest that drops below the elbow either. At least to the elbow is what is requested!  It does not state length from elbow to withers, not elbows to ground, just the proportions.

 

Here is a picture of my 15 month old bitch whose chest drops below her elbow. While her length of leg and length of shoulder are balanced, her chest falls below the elbow.


 



__________________
Drool is cool!

Erica Tortorella
Lexington Mastiffs
http://www.lexingtonmastiffs.com
0


Registered:
Posts: N/A
Reply with quote  #48 

well I don't know too much detail about proper mastiff "layout" but she looks gorgeous to me!!!!

0
giselle

Registered:
Posts: 759
Reply with quote  #49 

I completely agree with you, Erica, as to the standard being adequate with regards to depth of body/chest.  It's not 50/50 they are asking for, it's at least that much.  And the UK standard is also clear about the chest being well let down between the forelegs.

 

Steve, which parts of the standard leads you to believe that 50/50 is the correct proportion? 

 

 

ps-- congrats again on miss vivien's championship.  it was very well deserved. 


__________________
Giselle
http://www.everaftermastiffs.com

0
steveoifer

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 9,230
Reply with quote  #50 

Giselle,

 

You must first fully understand what I'm saying!

 

The front assembly ( legs, shoulders etc. ) has nothing to do with depth of chest!

 

The depth of chest is a matter of body, girth, rib assembly and is a separate form and structure!

 

Think of a car body, before the suspension and wheels go on!

 

Jeep's have higher carriage and Ferrari's have lower carriage!

 

It's all due to the suspension, not the body!

 

Ever see those "monster trucks"?

 


__________________
For the betterment of the breed

"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well." Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.


THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR BOARD!!