Bulldog Standard Discussion Part 1


Bulldogs World Forum Archives

These archives contain a copy of the contents of the old Bulldogs World Forum for reference purposes.Posting is disabled in the archives.
Click here to visit the active Bulldog Forum


Bulldog Standard Discussion Part 1

Lets try a discussion over the next few days and see how it goes. Learning the standard is not simple and hopefully we all get better at it over time, with study and an open mind.

Some of this may appear elementary at first to some, but let's try to remember not everyone reading this has been in the sport for many years. Some of the readers are eager to learn and I've found this is a good way to increase our knowledge.
=========================================

Lets start with General Appearance:

The perfect bulldog must be of medium size and smooth coat; with heavy, thickset, low-swung body, massive short-faced head, wide shoulders and sturdy limbs. The general appearance and attitude should suggest great stability, vigor and strength.

The disposition should be equable and kind, resolute and courageous (not vicious or aggressive), and demeanor should be pacific and dignified. These attributes should be countenanced by the expression and behavior.

========================================
I hope Elizabeth will add her thoughts as many of us know she has researched lots of old materials and done tons of research towards the original intent and meaning of the standard.

Its OK and encouraged for people to share differing viewpoints as that's one way of learning. Let's all agree not to attack anyone personally for a having a different view, but rather keep things on a profesional level.

I'll pose a question to get it started.

1. Why does the standard use the term MUST in certain places, but in other places uses the term SHOULD?








Re; I can't agree either

Who ever taught you without health and temperement you have nothing was a excellent mentor. Everyone has their own opinions on these boards I would agree that a shy shy bulldog would be a very serious problem, and I am not talking about a dog that has been attacked in the ring, A very shy bitch can pass this on to her pups have I seen it yes. We have to have sound minds on these dogs. When a judge goes up to a dog in show ring and lets say he makes a jester like he has bait and the dog shys away going behind the handler sould she or he be considered for the points absoulty not. The attidude of a bulldog should suggest Stability, Strenght & Vigor. A vey shy dog is not a stable dog and in my opinion should never be used in a breeding program if this shyness was inherited from Sire Or Dam.

Kim

agree with Kim

I agree that overly-shy is a trait that should not be awarded.

I can't agree either..

as having two dogs that were viciously attacked in the ring. One was less than happy about showing after that, one was completely horrified and it was the end of her career.
Granted, ideally a dog would shake it off, spring right back and not become aggressive himself, some bulldogs are soft, some even too much. Not my favorite personality, but I fault blind agression severely.
e

JessicaAndCrew's picture

I can't agree with....

it being a fault if the dog was ruined by being attacked in the ring?? How can you blame a dog that was attacked for a personality fault, when it was a victim and not the aggressor?? IMO, a dog that is aggressive or shows those tendencies, shouldn't even be in the show ring. I was at a show a couple months ago where a snarling snapping bitch went after mine, as I comforted her and told her it was ok. The owner looked at me, and said...."OH....she's ok...." S'CUSE me???? What about an I am sorry?? Is she ok?? No....to many people turn a blind eye to their dogs behavior, and the impact it can have on another dog, even one that wasn't shy. I have seen to many of "those" types of dogs and people, and it gets old real quick, especially if you have ever been on the "receiving" end.

mikki96's picture

I'm right there with you Jessica...

I am so SICK of worrying about my dogs at a show and about having to protect them rather than have fun with them. I am tired of the excuses that are made for the bad behaviors and the oh well attitude that seems to becoming more prevelent. We arent ostriches and our heads dont belong in the sand on this issue.

I originally got into bulldogs because I loved the temprements of the one ones I had met... and I'd be lying if I said I hadn't considered other breeds because of it...but I just cant imagine myself with another breed. I love these guys so much. I love that we have 3 males all intact, all running around playing together... I love that I can trust my dogs with anyone. I hate that I had to stop showing one of my girls after she got attacked and ended up with an open wound on her head. I was happy to get to take her out as a veteran this summer and she seemed to enjoy it again... I am looking forward to a few more outings with her and I hope she's ok through it but it wasnt fair to her. I dont prefer to have a shy dog, but would take a shy bully anyday over an agressive one.

Re: I can't agree either..

trust me I do agree completely, I would never own or show a aggressive dog.... I have kids, and its a big free for all in my home. I was always taught from the start if you don't have health and temperament you have nothing. why I shouldn't post late at night with to many cups of coffee, and be misunderstood. I've had words at shows if people don't mind there dogs, I've had a dog grabbed by a large dog and its recovered thank god. I have seen breeders of all breeds breed soft to soft to soft I don't' think the result is good. Dog breeders in general should make note of every personality trait and breed accordingly no?

http://kristiebarwick.webs.com/

Make that 11!

I couldnt agree more!
Ward

good temperment

..was cornerstone in the development of the modern bulldog. It would have never survived if there was any hint of the old aggression, perceived or real. This breed was on very thin ice as far as public perception was concerned. It was a concerted effort to create a breed, based on the ancient one, that would fit in as a proper member of polite society. A loving pet. As you breed, you HAVE to be aware of temperment, from a standard standpoint and from a basic common sense standpoint.

I agree

Nice additonal clarification. I believe your interpretation to be correct of NOT vicious or aggressive, meaning not acceptable. I believe the creators of our standard knew the importance of this from the beginning.

Harrold
www.majorleaguebulldogs.com


mikki96's picture

I agree with Ward and E but I read one more must..

my background is in accounting and auditing where the must and should discussion happens often. In my field, you audit any kind of standard to words like must, will, shall, does and does not (and a few others that arent coming to mind at the moment) and take that to mean the item is there without exception. Shall, should, could, may, etc mean that you hope the item in question is as preferred but isnt an absolute necessity to comply.

I am used to reading the word "not" in the same manner as must. I take "not" very strongly and in the same manner as a must, will, shall. So while I read:

"The disposition should be equable and kind, resolute and courageous (not vicious or aggressive), and demeanor should be pacific and dignified. These attributes should be countenanced by the expression and behavior."

I interpret this is they should be kind, resulate and courageous but it leaves room for dogs that might be shy, mellow, a deadhead or overly outgoing and bouncy, etc but they MUST NOT be vicious or aggressive. I read this as there is no tolerance for this poor behaivior otherwise it wouldnt have been pointed out as a "not" in the standard. Therfore I add a must to Ward's count.

Re: Bulldog standard pt 1

I meant string and leggy... And that post was mine.
E

Re: Bulldog standard pt 1

I meant string and leggy... And that post was mine.
E

Re: Bulldog standard pt 1

And on a personal not I have never like the suggested weight standard, I prefer an actual guidline. A stringy leggy bully can weigh as much a an over done thick bulldog....both are incorrect but the uneducated spout that they are within weight.... I think it is easier to balance a dog when given a height recommendation.

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

A stringy and over done dog does not match the standard anyway. There is always a danger of misinterpretation when features are taken out of context.
E

me too

Having been actively showing Mastiffs for years, I have a "picture" in my mind--I know what constitutes type. Now that we have our first Bulldog, I want to learn what is the picture of a "typey " Bulldog. Hope more will comment.
Nancy

Honalee Mastiffs and Bulldogs
www.honaleemastiffs.com

Bulldog standard pt 1

I love when we get these convos started happy.gif
I have always taught my handling classes with the motto that you are paying for one persons interpretation of a written standard.....just like my interpretation of a sunset will be different than yours, we are looking at the very same thing happy.gif

When I read this portion of the standard, I envision a dog under knee high on the average person that exhibits nice muscle tone and thick legs that would rival that of nice table leg. I envision a dog that isnt 'floppy' and sagging with wrinkles or excessive weight, but a dog that could sprint if put to the test. The low slung stature is not due to an excessive belly, rather a nice thick chest. The expression would be accentuated by a deeply dark eye that when relaxed shows softness and friendliness and when alert shows intention. Paired with a deeply upturned jaw should look very snobby and can be paralleled to one looking down their nose in a dignified manner.

I have always wondered the same with the would and should part......in a blue print they never say that part A should fit into part b....if it is proper it must happy.gif

And on a personal not I have never like the suggested weight standard, I prefer an actual guidline. A stringy leggy bully can weigh as much a an over done thick bulldog....both are incorrect but the uneducated spout that they are within weight.... I think it is easier to balance a dog when given a height recommendation.

Re: Bulldog Standard Discussion Part 1

I have been scratching my head about that since I got into this breed. Breed standard's should read like a manual and most do! They use the word is and are or nothing.. Could you possibly imagine if a manual to build something read with the word should? (You car "should" have 4 tires) you could put on only 2 but it wont work very well.. :)

Sonny
www.armadagroomandboard.com Sonnyduebulldogs
Detroit Bulldog Rescue
http://groups.msn.com/DetroitBulldogRescue
A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves
himself.
-Josh Billings

flbulldogmom's picture

I second that Tammy, was about to post the same thing....

I'm SO excited you started this thread of discussion it is PERFECT timing as I have my first puppy and am just starting fun matches with him!!! Thank you.

[linked image]

Re: I agree with Ward and E but I read one more must..

I interpret this is they should be kind, resulate and courageous but it leaves room for dogs that might be shy, mellow, a deadhead or overly outgoing and bouncy, etc but they MUST NOT be vicious or aggressive. I read this as there is no tolerance for this poor behaivior otherwise it wouldnt have been pointed out as a "not" in the standard. Therfore I add a must to Ward's count.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I personally feel that shy is a temperment fault, and can lead to other issue's. a deadhead to me could pass for dignified, and I love my dog like this, but he's not very showy. I have read on many websites "wasn't shown cause they didn't like the ring" or was attacked in the ring and can't be shown again. I personally think these are faults as well. Mind you I think one has to match temperments in breedings just as much as other faults, and I do agree they must not be vicious or aggressive.

http://kristiebarwick.webs.com/

cherishedbullies's picture

Thank you Ward and E.. I am really enjoying this..

newbies like myself can learn so much from disscussions.. I hope you all continue !!

[IMG][linked image][/IMG]

Re: Bulldog Standard Discussion Part 1

I basically agree with this, but what it comes down to is that "must" refers to the definition of the breed, and "should" refers to the ideals. As Christie says--the bulldog first must look like a bulldog. One could go down the philosophical road of why or what is the essence or origin of Bulldog. It's clear that Bulldogs were not the only dogs used for bullbaiting, but none of the others would meet the definitions intended by the "musts".

The semantic use of these terms is less important than understanding what it is that essentially a bulldog is and must be, as opposed to other breeds of dogs, or creatures in general.

That's what I would like to read more about: First the "musts" the essence of the Bulldog, and then the equally important "shoulds" --how that essence is developed in actual dogs (moving toward ideal)

I know little, but would like to learn more of those things.

Drew

Re: Bulldog Standard Discussion Part 1

The perfect bulldog must be of medium size and smooth coat; with heavy, thickset, low-swung body, massive short-faced head, wide shoulders and sturdy limbs. The general appearance and attitude should suggest great stability, vigor and strength.

The disposition should be equable and kind, resolute and courageous (not vicious or aggressive), and demeanor should be pacific and dignified. These attributes should be countenanced by the expression and behavior.

1. Why does the standard use the term MUST in certain places, but in other places uses the term SHOULD?

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

We are discussing the BCA standard..

This is a discussion that has been going on for a long time. If you have access to old Bulldoggers you will find an article or two on the whole issue of the "must" vs "should" debate.

From what I have read, it all seems to be an issue of semantics.

I googled "what is the difference between must and should" and got several responses, in other words, we are not the only ones asking this, and I am certain the other queries did not have to do with the BCA Bulldog Standard.

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

Should=you don't have to do it.
Must=you have to do it...no choice.

"Must" is used to express obligation, necessesity, it is a certainty or extreme likelihood.

"Should" only expresses probability

IT reflects the severity of importance.

Ex:

You really SHOULD see a doctor about that sore throat.

You MUST get that lump checked out unless you want to get sick.

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

My personal point of view is that every feature discussed in the standard is a "must" in order to have a perfect bulldog.

"Standard" defined;
"Widely recognized or employed as a model of authority or excellence"

Dog standards are "standards of excellence".

As a way to familiarize yourself with the standard (if you are not already) is go and count your "musts" and your "shoulds" your "mays" your "shalls" and your "nevers"...

You find will the entire document almost exclusively uses "should" in describing features.

The "musts" are really few and far between.

The portion here; "The perfect bulldog must be of medium size and smooth coat; with heavy, thickset, low-swung body, massive short-faced head, wide shoulders and sturdy limbs..." as Ward points out, gets a "must" in front of each of those points... "the perfect Bulldog MUST - He MUST be medium sized, MUST have a smooth coat, MUST have a Heavy, Thickset, Low-swung Body, MUST have a Massive Short - Faced Head, he MUST have Wide Shoulders and he MUST have Sturdy Limbs..."

A perfect bulldog cannot be perfect if he does not have those things going for him.

Under tail.. "..must be short, hung low, with decided downward carriage.."

In movement.. "must, however, be unrestrained, free and vigorous...."

As a side note and something to consider when looking at the entire pictue of the breed from it's inception as a show dog with a written standard. The Philo Kuon had no "musts"...neither did the original 1875 standard (I just skimmed it, I don't think I missed any).

The whole "should" issue allows for faults, although a fair amount of dogs do and always have gotten by without having strength in the "musts"...

Makes you wonder if the emphasis placed on the "must" features by the writers of our BCA standard was done for a reason, for example, they realized that those issues were often overlooked?

Just thinking aloud..




My Thoughts

Ok the word must means a requirement, Properties & Symmetry are 5 points My thoughts would be that his size was important because it gave the bulldog the proper balance so he could stay on the bull and this was a must. When standard was written history went along with it.

Should I would think after the years of pulling them out of the pits these are all the things you should want. Kim

Standard Discussion - my thoughts

"The perfect bulldog must be of medium size and smooth coat; with heavy, thickset, low-swung body, massive short-faced head, wide shoulders and sturdy limbs."

The first sentence of the Standard is what the Bulldog MUST be - He MUST be medium sized, MUST have a smooth coat, MUST have a Heavy, Thickset, Low-swung Body, MUST have a Massive Short - Faced Head, he MUST have Wide Shoulders and he MUST have Sturdy Limbs.

I have talked to numerous bulldogger that believe there are only 3 musts in the Standard, I count 10. This 10 includes the MUST's in the Tail and Gait Sections of the Standard.

The word should is used to accentuate certain attributes that "SHOULD" be associated with the perfect bulldog.

Re: Bulldog Standard Discussion Part 1

I read it as your bulldog MUST look like a bulldog at first glance, and have breed type. I never noticed the SHOULD in front of disposition, but bulldog temperaments have had me thinking allot lately and trying to break them down into categories. 2 mins in the ring is hard to show all aspects of how they react in different situations. I have the kindest girl, loves people, plays great off lead with strange dogs, good in the ring, never over bearing, but fights with one dog at home...

http://kristiebarwick.webs.com/

Re: Bulldog Standard Discussion Part 1

In the example you give the only place that the word "must" appears is in the statement "must be of medium size". I believe that referring to a vague statement "Medium size" , in the Non-Sporting group that would be the medium of 10 lbs to 150lbs or so, with the word "must" is almost equal to using the word "should"

Bruce Fisher
FISHERIDGE BULLDOGS

Respect the Elders, Teach the Young , Cooperate with the pack, play when you can , hunt when you must, rest in between, share your Affection, voice your Feelings, Leave your Mark!!!

More articles we recommend: