Proportion
The circumference of the skull in front of the ears should measure at least the heigth of the dog at the shoulders.

"I wonder how many people have actually made this measurement? I think we would find out our Dogs are taller than this part of the Standard says they should be."

***************************************************

You are reading that wrong. This measurement is about head size. It is not about equating height with head circumference, it is about making sure the head is sufficiently large. Most mature show bulldogs have no problem with this measurement. It does not say "the height of the dog should equal the circumference of the skull in front of the ears".. we would have overly tall dogs then.

PUTTING MY WORDS IS CAPS- THIS IS HOW I OFTEN INTERPRETED THIS PART AS WELL...NOW YOU SAY THAT THIS IS ABOUT HEAD SIZE- YES I GET THAT. BUT IT IS ABOUT WQUATING HEIGHT WITH HEAD CIRCUMFERANCE IF YOU READ THAT...IT SAYS AT LEAST- WHICH AT LEAST MEANS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE OTHER...I ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS WOULD CREATE BALANCE- PROPORTIONATE..WILL THINK MORE ON THIS..
THANKS.
RHIANN

Rhiann @ Butlerbullz

Many people get this confused. BACK is a portion of the topline, not the entire topline itself.

If the "back" is too long, the dog looks swamp or sway back (if the dip is more than "slight). The back is the area right behind the withers, right up to where the loin starts.

Many people consider "back" the entire length of the dog, from his occiput to his tail. Not true.

From AKC's Complete Dog Book;
Back- Variable in meaning depending on the context of the standard. In some standards defined as the vertebrae between the withers and the loin.

Loin- defined as "the region of the body on either side of the vertebral column between the last ribs and the hindquarters".

Put it in context;

There should be a slight fall in the back, close behind the shoulders..."

"...whence the spine should rise to the loins..."

Our standard clearly differenciates between back and loin. Consider that the back is short with a slight fall and the loin needs to not only rise but then also fall, it is clear (to me anyway) that any length in the dog's topline is in the loin region.

So, while too many people take that "short back" thing to the extreme and have a stubby dog with a flat or nearly flat topline, conversely you should not be led then to believe that the dog should be long like a dachshund either, with a short back area and an overly long loin area. Remember the balance aspect of the standard. If you look at a dog and his proportions seem "too long" to you, he probably is.

True, this is a very debateable part of the standard and this is one area where many peope have varying opinions on what "short" means, what "slight" means and what degree of rise and fall to the topline there should be.

This is where a mentor, lots of books and lots of observation comes in.

This topline is mentioned in the very first standard.. "Rosa's shape is perfect"
Note that the "back" is short with a slight fall and all the length is in the loin.

Here is my ideal topline in a modern bulldog;

Drastic difference between a dog that lived in 1819 or so and one that is alive right now? Not at all. And when you consider there is almost 200 years of breeding and man's intervention involved. I think the idea has held up pretty well.
e

Well the head is supposed to be viewed as square dead on is it not? And the front itself is to be square and balance would be both the squares being equal or at least I have interpreted that from the illustrated standard. I apologized for being graphic I should have explained more that 'Looking dead on, I like to see the front completely square and the head should be equally as wide as the width between the legs and the chin to the top of the head should be the same height as ground to where the leg adheres to the brisket area (I am not talking length just height). Sorry if I offended anyone with the previous comment

Thank you. His name is Ch. Hug-O-Bull's Morgan Road Armani.
E

"The back should be short and strong..."

I didn't mean to imply that the breed was suppose to be square, but in regard to proportion, I feel that a dog should not be longer than his height, because if the back is longer than the height, then he looks like he has a long back rather than a short back.

Heather

That boy has a lovely topline and a very nice tail set Who is he (sorry dont mean to change topic like that but I would love to know )

I DID think that "back" was the entire topline, I had no idea that it wasn't. I really appreciate these discussions. This really sheds some light on the area that I would like to improve upon in my dogs.

YGM....

Hi there.

No I did not, but I do not follow those anyway. Moat weight charts I have read are for dogs larger than my own and I always coming away feeling like I have a stable full of pee wees.

Twister looks fine, just use your common sense and don't make him too fat.

I heard one breeder once tell a newbie "make puppies fat, that's how you grow rib"

NOT TRUE! But I think anyone with common sense would figure that out, however, seems if some bit of info comes out of a breeder's mouth it is taken as gospel by some, no matter how rediculous it is.
e

Size
The size for mature bulldogs is about 50 pounds; for mature bitches about 40 pounds.

"Another question how much does "about" weigh?...5#,10# or... well you get my point."

**********************************************

The good news is the guys who wrote this kept weight ambiguous. "About" is open to debate and they knew that. This is why the "medium size" thing is important to keep in context. I personally do not buy the argement that 70# is "about 50#"..or that a 70 pound dog is a medium sized dog anymore. Ambiguous yes, rediculous ,no. This is an area that can be interpreted differently. My personal "about" is 10 pounds up and everything in between.


*************************************************

Proportion
The circumference of the skull in front of the ears should measure at least the heigth of the dog at the shoulders.

"I wonder how many people have actually made this measurement? I think we would find out our Dogs are taller than this part of the Standard says they should be."

***************************************************

You are reading that wrong. This measurement is about head size. It is not about equating height with head circumference, it is about making sure the head is sufficiently large. Most mature show bulldogs have no problem with this measurement. It does not say "the height of the dog should equal the circumference of the skull in front of the ears".. we would have overly tall dogs then.

********************************************

Symmetry
The "points" should be well distributed and bear good relation one to the other, no feature being in such prominence from either excess or lack of quality that the animal appears deformed or ill-proportioned.

"In my opinion this is a very important part of the Standard.
Balance is what holds all the Different Attributes together to make the perfect picture, with out Balance you can never have the perfect Bulldog."

*********************************************

This is why the average dog with the monster jaw should not be admired...

***********************************************

Influence of Sex
In comparison of specimens of different sex, due allowance should be made in favor of the bitches, which do not bear the characteristics of the breed to the same degree of perfection and grandeur as do the dogs.

"I have always compared this part of the Standard to the example of the Lion and Lioness. Today, though I feel the Bitches are for the most part far superior to the Dogs. I would love to see this part of the Standard have to be implemented more in the Breed ring."

**************************************************
I always did the male/female peacock thing, but the lion analogy works well too.
It is not about the bitches being better than the dogs however. It is to warn judges not to discount the generally "plainer" bitches.

Brings up a question about doggie bitches..
"...bitches, which do not bear the characteristics of the breed to the same degree of perfection and grandeur as do the dogs".

Does not say "which should not bear..." says they "do not bear...."
So.. if a bitch does resemble a dog.. is that ok?

Just playing Devil's advocate.. a good doggie bitch is not a problem for me, as long as she is not over done.
e

if so, could you repost please - would be nice to keep track as Twister matures

thanks

There is a fine line between Fat and Just Right.
This is the hardest thing for me to see when looking at my dogs at home. When I get them in the ring they always seem to look thinner, and I'm not talking about in comparison to the other dogs, than they do at home. I tend to keep my dogs a little leaner so when showing I put a pound or two on them. I remind myself that a pound or two is a lot on a 50 lb dog so as to not over do it.

Size
The size for mature bulldogs is about 50 pounds; for mature bitches about 40 pounds.

"Another question how much does "about" weigh?...5#,10# or... well you get my point."


Proportion
The circumference of the skull in front of the ears should measure at least the heigth of the dog at the shoulders.

"I wonder how many people have actually made this measurement? I think we would find out our Dogs are taller than this part of the Standard says they should be."

Symmetry
The "points" should be well distributed and bear good relation one to the other, no feature being in such prominence from either excess or lack of quality that the animal appears deformed or ill-proportioned.

"In my opinion this is a very important part of the Standard.
Balance is what holds all the Different Attributes together to make the perfect picture, with out Balance you can never have the perfect Bulldog."

Influence of Sex
In comparison of specimens of different sex, due allowance should be made in favor of the bitches, which do not bear the characteristics of the breed to the same degree of perfection and grandeur as do the dogs.

"I have always compared this part of the Standard to the example of the Lion and Lioness. Today, though I feel the Bitches are for the most part far superior to the Dogs. I would love to see this part of the Standard have to be implemented more in the Breed ring."

We own a boy who is out of ENG CH Mystyle Rolex Ocobo who is currently 18 months old and bang on standard weight and IMO is very close to standard in most areas but it is hard for him in the ring over here because everything else is at least 10lbs bigger than he is and he looks like a fish out of water. It takes a judge who knows the breed standard to put him up instead of all these overweight over furnished dogs.

For some reason so many people thing big is better and confuse weight for substance.

actually, the best fighters were NOT big. Yes, there were big ones, but the smaller ones (not the toys) were preferred.
e

Now that is one crazy critique!
I guess anything that guides you will work, just make sure your visualizations can be properly justified.
E

I, too, much prefer a "standard" sized dog and think it fits better with the purpose that bullies have been breed for for the past couple hundred years--that of being a companion dog. A compact, standard dog is a better fit for a house or apartment and more "portable". I imagine back in the day that larger size/mass may have been PREFERRED in the fighting ring (as long as the dog was still agile!) but for our modern day bulldog, I love to see a more standard size. Of course my boy is one of those "beyond standard", but if it comes down to health, movement, balance, etc. I'd go for bigger over standard

i like how you broke this one up I have always gone by the idea as graffic and off key as it sounds (sorry) that the chest should be as wide as the dog is tall...a perfect square and if you remove the dogs head, it should fit perfectly in that square illustrating balance sorry gross but I have always used that when judging and I think it is a great way to remember

..is a hotly debated subject. Like Harrold points out, easy to get mass in a 75 pound dog.

What is tricky is to get good mass in a dog under 60 pounds. Tricky, but not impossible by any means.

A bulldog has to have good mass, especially a dog (male). Mass without sloppiness is ideal (to me anyway).

There are many lighter weight dogs that do not carry any mass and they have trouble winning. This gets "blamed" on judges not understanding or caring about the standard.

Some people are more interested in the mass than the size.

It is good to prefer dogs on the bottom end of the scale, I certainly do, but don't forget they have to have some bulk to them.

Get proper size and mass then you've really got something.

e

Rolex himself is only a 52lb dog. I have had my hands over him and to be totally honest, I find him extremely balanced and of a very correct pleasing size, but put him next to other dogs not only at Pat's place or many of the dogs in the ring, he stands out though he is what the standard calls for. I was thrilled to see my young boys sire (Jambulls Jeeves at your service owned by Margie Foley) was only about 53lbs....small but nicely balanced. I find a trend in making rolly polly bullies sad. I have had many a breeder state that it helps make the chest spring or at least look like it has.....not correct for the dog nor the standard Some of these guys already have issues with breathing...the weight just makes it much worse

just keep breeding to the standard. Those fat bulldogs with no tuck up don't look good to the folks that know the breed.
e

I have had a judge use my led to look at the topline but never measure length.

Where did that notion come from??????

I am new to the sport but I have noticed this as well. I have been told one of my boy's strengths is his rib and topline but yet when he is in the ring with all these rolly polly dogs he is the odd man out. I had a judge tell me once he like my dog but he just needed to mature a little which was ok with me because he is only a year and I get that but in that particular instance I was thinking to myself you don't really mean mature you mean get fatter.

Its a good discussion and full of nuggets of knowledge and experiences of the experienced, and not-so experienced. I found it very helpful that when we went to the shows, while waiting to go in and afterwards, we would have our mentors ask us what we saw in the ring. This usually fueled a discussion and it brought out some very fine points, that otherwise would have been missed. Not to be mean or speaking negatively, but to make note of the attributes that best lined up with the standards. Somedays we agreed, others not, but for the most part, we always came away with valuable information, and insight. Keep it up guys, we're just getting started!

Perserverance isn't a long race.
It's a series of short races,
ran one after the other.

-In memory of Casper

The standard also states: Underline -- The body should be well-ribbed-up behind with the belly tucked up and not rotund.

*********

I see lots of "rotund" bulldogs in the ring...they generally, in my opinion, lose the distinct "roach" and topline of the bulldog.

*********

As the standard states: Topline -- There should be a slight fall in the back, close behind the shoulders (its lowest part), whence the spine should rise to the loins (the top of which should be higher than the top of the shoulders), thence curving again more suddenly to the tail, forming an arch (a very distinctive feature of the breed), termed "roach back" or, more correctly, "wheel back".



Mary and Otto, Maisy & Apple
Marby Bulldogs

There is no official measurement for length and bulldogs are not a square breed.
E

I will tell you from experience, that a 70lb fit, muscular bulldog will look like he weighs the same if not less than the 55lb soft, rolly-polly bulldog. Remember that muscle weighs more than fat.

My boy looks out of place sometimes, he looks too lean at times in the ring. But he is the type of bulldog that is agile enough and sound enough that he could probably still work a bull. That being said, I have put a tape to him and I know that his head is 1 inch larger than his height, but his length is also 1 inch longer than his height, so he is a tad too long.

a breeder say they wanted there puppies super thin so they wouldn't develop hip dysplasia? I thought rib, hip dysplasia were genetic.

http://kristiebarwick.webs.com/

My dogs were always bigger than the standard did alot of showing they always did great then I got a very standard size dog very correct, I really had a hard time finishing him because of his size, as majority of the dogs in show ring were bigger. Now I saw many standard size bitches do very well the doggie bitches while be bigger had a harder time finishing but this was in 90s. Kim

if that's the case, then Twister is right on track - he'll be 5 months on 11/18 and was 33.4 on Monday!

[IMG][/IMG]

It was me Kim this was in a old Bullddog digest 1972/ 1986 written very long ago yes the size of our dogs have changed maybe a brreder can post what weights are now.

My first bulldog was a larger girl--a LOT bigger than her more compact, standard-sized daughter, but when the two had a tug-o-war it was the daughter who won, hands down! Yes, bigger isn't neccesarily "stronger"!

This is my first post, but I've been monitoring this forum for months. My husband and I are new to the breed, only since February of this year. "Newbie" is spot on for us, so this discussion comes at a great time and I am eager to see how this thread progresses.

I have been making every effort to study the breed standard and compare it against what I have been able to see in the ring. At every show I've attended (only a handful or two compared with the years of shows some of you have under your belts) I take lots of pictures of the dogs, from whatever angle I can get, and go home and put them up on the computer and compare them against the standard. I've made progress and think I can now identify some specific aspects of the breed that I believe most conform to the standard. In the process, I'm discovering what I like or dislike. But what is most difficult for me is to take that information and apply it ringside - being able to identify proper movement, overall appearance and balance. Having experienced people discuss the nuances and interpretations of the standard, as perhaps the original writers intended, as well as how today's exhibitors interpret it, are of immense help.

Something new I've learned today is Elizabeth's comment on the circumference of skull versus height. May be a simple distinction for many, but it was a good insight for me.

I can see that my work is cut out for me, and it will take a long time to develop a good eye for the breed. I just wanted to express my appreciation for the posters and the depth of this discussion.

forget about the health and concentrate on type, the health you can fix later...........................Yea right!

I own one and she is an excellent brood bitch but I would never show her. I think you should be able to tell a bitch from a dog just by looking at her head.

bitch.....and I can like a typey bitch....as long as they are balanced....what I am seeing alot of now are bitchy dogs though......and that I don't particulary care for IMO.

I saw a program about bulldogs which was made in England, and one of the breeders they interviewed made the exact same comment about how the head should fit between the legs (if it was decapitated). I was kind of surprised...I had never heard of that reference before! Sooo, you aren't the only one that thinks that way about head proportion and leg width/height.

PUTTING MY WORDS IS CAPS- THIS IS HOW I OFTEN INTERPRETED THIS PART AS WELL...NOW YOU SAY THAT THIS IS ABOUT HEAD SIZE- YES I GET THAT. BUT IT IS ABOUT EQUATING HEIGHT WITH HEAD CIRCUMFERANCE IF YOU READ THAT...IT SAYS AT LEAST- WHICH AT LEAST MEANS AT LEAST EQUAL TO THE OTHER...I ALWAYS THOUGHT THIS WOULD CREATE BALANCE- PROPORTIONATE..WILL THINK MORE ON THIS..
THANKS.
RHIANN

**************************
"Balance" in this area does not necessarily apply to bulldogs. This does allow for a head that is large in relation to the body which would make a dog anything but "balanced" (in a conventional sense). Yes, a head can be too big, but this measurement cautions against it being too small. Most bulldogs have no problem falling into this measurement however.