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

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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!!!!

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

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"?