i am extremely fussy about the mouth!

and his turn up of jaw is over pronouced JMHO His head is certainly his best quality because the rest is rubbish IMO where the heck is the brisket???

No that I am bias LOL but this is what I consider to be a correct

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

I will have to get some more close up pics!

"I think I understand what you mean whan you say "two planed" - I now see that fault on my dog. I accentuated it though when holding his jaw in that picture (thanks for the dog show pointer!). My original assessment was based on the picture you provided from the illustrated standard and its explanation, which said that the straight edge should "tip of the lower lip, tip of the nose, and top of the head" and it even show another picture pointing to those locations. I thought that my dog met that criteria. But I do see where there is a "break". Does the standard or illustrated standard use the word "break" or is this an interpretation. I tried to find a similar picture of my dog to compare all three - the one below is the best I have for now. I see where my dog has "break", but we are talking millimeters, when I actually slowly lower a ruler in on his face as shown in the illustrated guide. But, nonetheless, certainly not as flat a layback as the picture of the dog you provided".

Ok, lets discard the illustrated guides.
The standard says (and this is the only things that matters);

skull- "...viewed at the front, it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull....."

The apex (apex=top)of the skull is the highest point. The apex of the skull should not be right between the dogs eyes, which it is in these two-planed headed dogs (no official term, but always seemed descriptive enough for me).
Go look at the side shot you sent of your dog. The head comes to a point right as his brow. In the two pics I sent,t he high point comes right between the ears or the APEX of the skull.
Your dogs ears are lower than his brow in those pictures. Yes, handling lesson there! Keep his head low.. will make the fact that his neck need arch less apparent too.
I hate doing this.. makes me feel so mean! GRRRRRRRRRRRR
The wrinkles don't help. He has no furrow. There is no traceable furrow in dogs with skulls that are contructred this way. The wrinkles tend to bunch up in the middle there.
Back to the standard;
"Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high......The forehead should be flat (not rounded or domed) neither too prominent nor overhanging the face.."
The type of head on your dog has been described by some as being "browy".. in that the brow in prominent.
e

IMO, I much prefer the chiseled, muscular look over the heavier, round look seen so often today.
Pugilist looks so athletic and quite capable of challenging a bull--even though it was a gruesome sport and not the reason for breeding bulldogs now ( thank goodness ).

This is just too funny-I have done this several times to a judge I never showed to before(I'm not too proud to say I'll show these puppies), and find out after I get there that the judge leans more towards the male exhibitors-dern shot in the foot again!! Oh well, in those situations I can only hope my dogs put their best foot forward or the judge likes my suit.....
Laura

I saw a little light bulb go on there lol .

Charlie is a nice dog with some great qualities and has already proven him self in the ring. There are no perfect bulldogs , like any other dog/bitch this is just one area that completes the package. Now that you see it, the only thing you can do if you use him in a breeding program is not double up on it.

Give him a big hug :o )



Margie

http://www.jambullsbulldogs.com/

http://www.myspace.com/jambulls_bulldogs

"So, we get these browy dogs sometimes, I am about to start showing one myself soon, as a matter of fact. Wish he didn't have it, hope it doesn't bother many people, will make sure not to show him to myself and be very aware of why he might not win.
But he does have some other very lovely things about him, so off we go.
That's really the key. If the dog is great, he probably can carry a fault well. If he is just an "OK" dog, he will end up in the middle of the pack all the time with the fault likely keeping him out of the major ribbons.
It's times like that you have to wear a pretty tie, or show your boobs to the judge "

rofl....love it!
thanks E-

Paula~

"I see where my dog's apex is at the brow, not at his ears. Hang in there with me....and please answer this question:
Where does the standard say that the high point of the skull should come right between the ears and not the brow"

well, the apex of something is the top of it.
The brow cannot be considered the top of the head can it?
What about the rest of it?
Occiput is considered the back or apex of the skull, not the brow.
e

the above post by Skip

I see where my dog's apex is at the brow, not at his ears. Hang in there with me....and please answer this question:

Where does the standard say that the high point of the skull should come right between the ears and not the brow.

"I have become increasingly more aware of the lack of proper layback in Bulldogs. I have a Ch. boy that has layback similar to Skip's boy. I dont want to come to the point that the lack of layback effects the way I look at the whole dog. It is becoming a large pet peeve of mine. I see this a major fault in some judges today always looking for one thing or the other. I want to keep the whole dog in perspective. Elizabeth dont think I am implying something because I, emphatically,am not. I just see and hear judges say I am looking for this or that. How do you, E, keep things that are offensive to you from impairing your judgement of the whole dog.
Ward"

Hi Ward!
Judging is tricky because it has to be a decision made right there without the benefit of sitting ringside and evaluating only my favorites. I have to do the best I can in a short amount of time per dog and hope the handler is giving me their best shot.
That being said, there are type faults that to me just can't be there. Granted, in a small or weak entry with no other option, sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
I am lucky in that I judge huge shows and I can be picky.
I am very clued in to type and outline.
Flat backs, high tail sets and heads that are not typical really go against my grain.
I want my winners to have a classic profile, from tip of jaw to tip of tail.
The heads that go from jaw tip to brow then bend back to the occiput are strange looking to me.
Yes, you have to keep faults in perspective, but faults and total departures from type are different things.
That being said, I did award a lovely dog in England a CC and he was "browy" to me, maybe even apple headed, I don't recall for sure now. But, he had a lovely muzzle and jaw and a very nice body and moved well.
In that situation you have to do what is right.
I judge as if I am going to critique afterwards and really want to make sure each pick is totally justified according to the standard.
Some judges find issues that offend them more than the head in profile, but I was taught by some serious head hunters and they brain washed me well!!
So, we get these browy dogs sometimes, I am about to start showing one myself soon, as a matter of fact. Wish he didn't have it, hope it doesn't bother many people, will make sure not to show him to myself and be very aware of why he might not win.
But he does have some other very lovely things about him, so off we go.
That's really the key. If the dog is great, he probably can carry a fault well. If he is just an "OK" dog, he will end up in the middle of the pack all the time with the fault likely keeping him out of the major ribbons.
It's times like that you have to wear a pretty tie, or show your boobs to the judge
e

I have become increasingly more aware of the lack of proper layback in Bulldogs. I have a Ch. boy that has layback similar to Skip's boy. I dont want to come to the point that the lack of layback effects the way I look at the whole dog. It is becoming a large pet peeve of mine. I see this a major fault in some judges today always looking for one thing or the other. I want to keep the whole dog in perspective. Elizabeth dont think I am implying something because I, emphatically,am not. I just see and hear judges say I am looking for this or that. How do you, E, keep things that are offensive to you from impairing your judgement of the whole dog.
I have copied I hope a pic of Angus finishing.
Ward

I agree with Elizabeth "As far as "lovely length of foreface", I just can't see that description going with this particular dog"

No disrespected intended but with the picture Kim posted she stated
" This is the correct foreface of the Bulldog "

foreface - the part of the head that is in front of the eyes

Honestly my first reaction was OMG you can't be serious lol ( sorry Kim )
I was on my way out so I didn't have a chance to post at the time. After reading your second post and that of Lottie's I understand where your coming from and agree 100 % on the over all length of skull we are seeing.

Elizabeth does a wonderful job of explaining the standard in terms a novice can understand. The pictures she posts are a teaching tool to get her point across . I my self have come away with a better over all understanding of the standard.

IMO for what it's worth I think these paticular words in the standard are what's confusing to allot of people.

The skull should be very large broad and square

Cheeks--The cheeks should be well rounded very short from the point of the nose to occiput

Stop--The temples or frontal bones should be very well defined, broad, square

When taken out of context describes what we're noticing winning in the ring - large, rounded and short being the key points here.

What's missing again IMO are these VERY descriptive points

Skull--Viewed from the front, it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull
The forehead should be flat (not rounded or domed), neither too prominent nor overhanging the face

This is a big one that gets over looked >>>>> Stop--The temples or frontal bones should be very well defined, broad, square and high, causing a hollow or groove between the eyes. This indentation, or stop, should be both broad and deep and extend up the middle of the forehead, dividing the head vertically, being traceable to the top of the skull.


Another big one >>>> Nose--The nose should be large, broad and black, its tip set back deeply between the eyes. The distance from bottom of stop, between the eyes, to the tip of nose should be as short as possible and not exceed the length from the tip of nose to the edge of underlip.


I won't even get started on jaws but those are a few areas IMO that could be improved on.

Margie

http://www.jambullsbulldogs.com/

http://www.myspace.com/jambulls_bulldogs

What is the foreface? Is that what you guys are debating? Is this the distance from the corner of the eye to the corner of the jaw.

Please comment on my dog's head as it relates foreface, corner to corner and nose placement. Maybe this will help me understand better.

Don't worry about hurting my feelings - I have none. If you need a different angle let me know.

I have tried to Google but not getting very good results.

i wish there were more pictures of his head and his body. This the one i see all the time, i would like other views.

Vicky,
Bosco, Bella, Breve' & Holly

http://langagerbulldogs.tripod.com

PHOTOS ARE PROPERTY OF LANGAGER BULLDOGS, YOU MUST HAVE WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR ANY USE OF THESE PHOTOS FROM LANGAGERBULLDOG.

for taking the time to explain that Elizabeth.

What is the name of the dog that has the studded collar? It seems that this dog's head has alot of the same characteristics as the picture in the standard. I'm still just a pictures kind of learner, but reading your explanation helps.

I personally like in depth descriptions!!


kristie

I wish we had heads today like Pugilist. He has the brick head that is completed with that big jaw with tons of upsweep. Lottie

yes, this dog has several faults, but I believe Kim was just pointing out the length of foreface. I wasn't trying to turn the topic to a total head critique. This dog needs help in several areas. I agree with you on those things. But I can still look at the dog and wish we had this type of length of foreface on many of the dogs today(yes he does need more upsweep). Lottie

Margie:

Now I know what you and e are looking at. Thanks for pointing that out to me. The picture doesn't help, but I see how his eyes are too low. I'll have to return him to Costco! (just kidding!)

Skip

I will preface this post with this. I am going to respectfully disagree, and I really hope and pray that my comments are not taken as disrespectful or mean just because I do not agree with Lottie. But I do like to debate dogs..
The dog that Kim posted a picture of is very weak in many areas. It is my opinion (feel free to argue it) that any time a picture is posted for learning it should be of intense high quality to get the point across.
There are many new people trying to learn here and pictures imprint on many like a baby duck to it's mom.
I would not advocate the posted dog to anyone as being lovely in any area (except in the fact that he is a bulldog and all bulldogs are beautiful, but we want to talk technical, I assume). The poor nose placement and layback is just for starters. The curve of this dogs jaw starts way too late (again, reference the part of the standard that mentions depth from corner of the eye to corner of the mouth), lending to the weakness throughout. As far as "lovely length of foreface", I just can't see that description going with this particular dog, mainly because his jaw is so weak.
True, the foreface in the first picture (the one we are discussing) is a departure from the overly short type we see so often today, but the fact that it is longer on this particular dog does not make it correct.
And the fact is, there is no measure given in the standard for length of foreface. It does in fact, call for the face to be "extrememly short" with the muzzle being called "very short, broad, turned upward.." Confuses many people who wonder why there are complaints about short muzzle. Easy to see why, Standard seems to stress it.
The only measuement which really clues us in on "how short is too short" is the line;
"very deep from corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth".
On the dogs with the incorrect faces (and we had a lengthy discussion on this a few months back) we see that the (imaginary) line that would trace (presumably) straight down from the corner of the eye to the corner of the mouth would fall forward on these faulty dogs, as it does on the picture Kim posted. So, while the referenced dog is longer than many we see today, he still is not correct.
Here are some pictures to illustrate my point;

This is good;

This is good, even though his flews are "shorter" than the white bitch's, there is nothing in the standard that would fault this dog for that, and the line falls very nicely from the eye corner to mouth corner. Also notice how much longer and well turned up his jaw is. Now, I will say that his flews might be faulted in that they are described this way in the standard;
"...thich, broad, pendant and very deep, completely overhanging the lower jaw at each side....." and his could be faulted for not being "broad" enough, but in my opinion, I think it is a minor complaint considering the strength in so many areas of his head;

These are good, and in fact, in my opinion excellent. I just love the big, wide jaws that "project considerably and turn up";


This one is too short (although not as bad as many we see, IMO). Trace a line from the corner of his eye to the corner of his mouth and see that it does not fall straight down, but goes forward, indicating not so much shortness in muzzle but is an indicator of where the turn in the jaw starts. Because the standard looks for depth in that area, we can assume (right?) that this is where the deepest curve of the jaw occurs.

When you are at shows, watch that measurement. If the dog appears to be ill proportioned in his head, in that his face seems too short to you and you just can't put it into words, follow that line from eye corner to mouth corner and see what it does. The overly short muzzles that we find offensive are more likely faulty in more areas than just length here. The is often lack of jaw curve (no depth from eye to mouth) and we loose any sense of power in the head with dogs constructed this way.
Now.. if you get a dog that seems too short for your taste, yet he meets the requirements of the standard as far as everything we discussed, what part of the standard indicates that this shortness is in fact faulty? This is a subject that is curious to me, as many beautiful heads (in my opinion) are fautled for being too "short faced" and I cannot find where the standard indicates this measurement anywhere, let alone faults it for being "too short".
I feel that the tougher, more intense faces with the huge, up-turned jaws will tend to have a shorter look to their muzzles than dogs with jaws which do not turn up or have any length.
In that case (in THAT case), give me the shorter muzzle than the longer one, provided it meets the standard requirements.
Isn't this fun!!
e

It could just be that his head is slightly tipped back that gives the appearance the eyes are set low, I can't say forsure . But take a credit card or piece of paper even and set it just on the top of the nose like it's shown in the drawing. By doing so in this photo his eyes are set to low .

Again could be just that his head is tipped back.

Margie

http://www.jambullsbulldogs.com/

http://www.myspace.com/jambulls_bulldogs

I am getting better at picture taking, I'll keep trying to post them as I get more.

Skip said: "Layback: Looks fine to me - a strength of this dog".

E said: "Hmmmm.....major point of contention for me. I see his head as a classic example of "two planed".. something I always complain is too common and very incorrect. There should be no "break" in the profile."

I think I understand what you mean whan you say "two planed" - I now see that fault on my dog. I accentuated it though when holding his jaw in that picture (thanks for the dog show pointer!). My original assessment was based on the picture you provided from the illustrated standard and its explanation, which said that the straight edge should "tip of the lower lip, tip of the nose, and top of the head" and it even show another picture pointing to those locations. I thought that my dog met that criteria. But I do see where there is a "break". Does the standard or illustrated standard use the word "break" or is this an interpretation. I tried to find a similar picture of my dog to compare all three - the one below is the best I have for now. I see where my dog has "break", but we are talking millimeters, when I actually slowly lower a ruler in on his face as shown in the illustrated guide. But, nonetheless, certainly not as flat a layback as the picture of the dog you provided.

When comparing the picture of my dog's head to the picture of the in the illustrated guide Skip said: "Front view: The eyes appear to be in the correct spot: In line, split the top of the nose, fall just below the ears horizontally and just inside the ears vertically - similar to the way they appear in the illustrated standard. The eyes are dark, but not perfectly round."

Here is my dog again, and the picture from the illustrated standard:



My explanation comes from the way that I interpret the picture in the illustrated guide. Maybe that is where I am at fault in my assessment - using the picture not stated standard. That being said, when I compare the two pictures - the eyes appear to me to be in the same place.

E said: "I see that his eyes are set too low according to the standard, according to the picture"

Please explain why the eyes are too low.

So glad we had this discussion. I learned so much with the photos. Thanks for sharing Skip and Elizabeth.
Great clarity!!!

"Front view: The eyes appear to be in the correct spot: In line, split the top of the nose, fall just below the ears horizontally and just inside the ears vertically - similar to the way they appear in the illustrated standard (can't believe I just wrote that!). The eyes are dark, but not perfectly round."

Ok, interesting way to word that. I see that his eyes are set too low according to the standard, according to the picture, but you see him every day, I do not.
I am curious about your reference here;
"In line, split the top of the nose, fall just below the ears horizontally and just inside the ears vertically"

What do you mean by that? There is nothing in the standard that gives those directives.


"Layback: Looks fine to me - a strength of this dog".

Hmmmm.....major point of contention for me. I see his head as a classic example of "two planed".. something I always complain is too common and very incorrect. There should be no "break" in the profile.

I see this as a strong layback;

here is a drawing that Betty Davey did back in the mid 1970's showing proper layback.

Very different than your dog.
Interesting stuff.
e

I also see that corner of the eye is in line with the corner of the jaw (can be seen better in my first picture). What I don't understand is the discusstion of "short" and "distance" between the nose eyes and jaws - that stuff confuses me.

in my pictures are the following:

Front view: The eyes appear to be in the correct spot: In line, split the top of the nose, fall just below the ears horizontally and just inside the ears vertically - similar to the way they appear in the illustrated standard (can't believe I just wrote that!). The eyes are dark, but not perfectly round.

Layback: Looks fine to me - a strength of this dog.

Flews: Are thick but could be thicker and overhang nicely.

That's about all I can pick out right now....

I would like to see your critique of him first.
e

Here is a side profile and a front shot.

skip
send a full side profile shot of the dogs head to get the answer you are looking for.
Did you want a critique of his entire head or just the part we were discussing?
e

on Pugilist is wondeful.
e

"How would this dog stack up in the ring to some of the nice dogs of today? I understand the head is ideal, but to me from all the pictures I've seen, it looks to be lacking in the chest. It doesn't look very broad, deep and full.. Brisket isn't well let down.. Faulty eyes (?) In the pictures I've seen they look so anyhow.. It's my nature to see all the faults I guess.. "

It is hard to know how this dog would do today because we don't see him animated. No, he is not as thick as so many people prefer now, but give him a break, the breed was still being built upon back then (mid 1920s) and from what I have seen, there was not the same thickness then as we see now (and I am in no way saying the over abundant mass we see now is a good thing). I find his front totally acceptable according to the standard and given his time frame. In fact, he might be more of what the standard inteneded than what we have now. We will never have the answer to that. I would love to see what the original guys thought of our dogs in America today. His eyes are very typical bulldog eyes. No, they are not perfectly round, but I am not a huge critic of that myself, in relation to the entire head. It is nice when each feature is perfect, but that rarely happens in any given region of the dog. The health of the eyes would concern me more and it appears that his lids are healthy from these pictures. Again, hard to know. I would venture a guess that entropion is a problem more of modern dogs anyway.
I would hope he could beat the type of dogs we see so often today with heads that are completely devoid of type. Again, not being able to see his body or movement, we can't know the answer to that.
Depends on the judges I guess..
e

I'll never be judge because I can't get past certain things..

I love that dog but no picture has ever done him justice... Some dogs are not photogenic I guess.. Unless you see him in person you don't realize how great he really is..

How would this dog stack up in the ring to some of the nice dogs of today? I understand the head is ideal, but to me from all the pictures I've seen, it looks to be lacking in the chest. It doesn't look very broad, deep and full.. Brisket isn't well let down.. Faulty eyes (?) In the pictures I've seen they look so anyhow.. It's my nature to see all the faults I guess..

for those who ask for critiques (which I am not inclined to do here), please tell us how YOU feel first. And don't worry so much about faults, find the virtues first!!
Anyone can count faults.. not many can see the good dogs through whatever fault he has.
e

That should have read

The skull should be very large broad and square , very short from the point of the nose to occiput

Cheeks--The cheeks should be well rounded


Sorry about that lol


Margie

http://www.jambullsbulldogs.com/

http://www.myspace.com/jambulls_bulldogs

LMAO I was doing the copy & paste thing to save on typing ,I totally missed it lol.

How do I edit lol


Margie

http://www.jambullsbulldogs.com/

http://www.myspace.com/jambulls_bulldogs

wear a studded collar!

I agree with Skip on telling us newbies our dogs faults. We have tough skin....I do have some feelings but when it comes to the truth about my dogs I NEED to hear it so I can learn. I learned the hard way with my first boy, I was told he was outstanding...and then at some shows a few people came up to me and told me his faults. I asked a few people also and I was happy when they told me the truth. I was not offended....I needed to know! He is still a great dog, doing good in Rally but now I know better what to look for. But I still have loads to learn! So this is great that we can show pictures of our dogs and take people's opinions and go from there. I know we all don't agree on everything but I like to hear peoples opinions.

Heather

"Cheeks--The cheeks should be well rounded very short from the point of the nose to occiput"

Margie.. go back and correct that!!! lol
e

yes, nose placement is not the best on this dog, but I still feel this dog has lovely length of foreface. Give me a little more length of foreface, then to short any day(IMO). Lottie

Thanks so much I love the feed back. I bet there are alot of things you can share about education. I have gotton alot of emails from people just loving this. Kim

No need to explain, I know what you are saying. I was just making a point that I don't like the layback.. lol Don't get you panties in a wad..