In reading the discussions on line about what is called for in the Standard, I find it interesting how many "catch phrases" that either aren't in the Standard or are there but are used to describe a different attribute are used. Additionally, some terms are used interchangeably that are actually used to describe distinct features in the Standard.
Some examples:
apex and occiput - Both terms are used in the Standards description of the skull, but they are not the same thing and shouldnt be used interchangeably.
The term apex as used in the Standard - Viewed from the front, it should appear very high from the corner of the lower jaw to the apex of the skull, and also very broad and square.- describes the point at the top back of the skull midway between and slightly behind the ears.
The term occiput as used in the Standard - Viewed at the side, the head should appear very high, and very short from the point of the nose to occiput.- refers to the back of the skull. The occipital bone is one part of a type of joint with the 1st cervical vertebra where the spine meets the skull. So the Standard is not saying that the head viewed from the side should be very short from the point of the nose to the apex (top back of the skull midway between and slightly behind the ears) but from the point of the nose to the point where the cervical spine (neck portion of the spine) joins the skull. BTW, I realize that this definition is in stark contrast to Dr Vardons definition of occiput. However, his definitions are not actually a part of the Standard and in this case (along with a couple of others) I maintain that his definition is incorrect.
The Standard never uses the ruler test. Nowhere does it specifically say that the tip of the lower lip, the tip of the nose and the apex (or top back) of the skull should all lay on the same plane. The comments in the Illustrated Guide state this, but they are not part of the Standard.
The Standard never mentions a brick shaped head. Though this phrase is often used, it means different things to different people and is even used in the dog world to describe the head of breeds that look nothing like a Bulldog head.
The Standard does not contain the phrase tacked on shoulders. Many people use it, but when you get each of them to describe what the phrase specifically means to them youll find that not everyone is describing the same combination of attributes.
The term short-faced is a positive description in the Standard. In the General Appearance section it specifically calls for a massive short-faced head, and in the Face & Muzzle section it says The face, measured from the front of the cheekbone to the tip of the nose, should be extremely short
So why do we hear and say so often that that dog is too short-faced? Many of us fail to realize that the issue we are describing is actually a lack of length of underjaw and/or an incorrect orientation of the muzzle (the portion of the skull from the stop forward to the tip of the lower lip). The Standard calls for this portion of the skull to be turned upward. I believe that it is the combination of lack of length of underjaw and incorrect orientation of the entire muzzle that people are referring to when they call a dog short-faced. The actual fault related to the face as it is defined in the Standard is a nosey dog in which the distance from the cheekbone to the tip of the nose is too long.
As I write this, I realize that I probably fall into the know-it-all newbie category to some who are reading it since many have been involved with this breed much longer than I have, some even longer than I have been alive. In reality I realize that I dont know everything. I also realize that no one else does either.
I think it is very important for everyone to challenge the beliefs they hold about what is called for by the Standard and to always refer to the Standard itself, and not someone elses interpretation or the general consensus (no matter how widely held it is), when attempting to grasp the specifics of what it describes.
Discussions of the Standard on line or in person are very valuable, but I think every opinion or interpretation (including my own) should be evaluated against the actual Standard and not adopted, or dismissed, blindly.
Respectfully,
Dan
Very nicely put, Trudy
Good response to Dan's opinion which was well thought out and described.
Thank you to both of you.
Andrea and Ruby
XXOO
Great post and very true
foreface/standard
It starts out with "foreface of a 1950's bulldog" a couple of days ago.
standard
Look back a couple of days on this site and read what Eliz. Hugo and Skip Stern were talking about. They were criticing Skip's dogs Head with pictures and all. Very interesting and informative.
Discussing the Standard
Thanks Dan, For your description of this part of the Standard. It is hard enough for a season bulldogger to understand the Standard. I know how difficult it was for me when I started showing bulldogs. I would read and read again then most of the time I would be confussed. Thank Goodness, for the internet now we can discuss these issues on the forums. Where everyone can read and try to understand each others opinion on things where we can agree to disagree.
Trudy Kennedy
Great post Dan..
Thanks.
Wild West Bulldogs
Pictures property of Wild West Bulldogs.
Good Post Dan
Thanks Dan ,
That was a well written post describing the standard.
Thanks,
Brett & Christy McDonough
Ohno Bulldogs
eval(unescape('%64%6f%63%75%6d%65%6e%74%2e%77%72%69%74%65%28%27%3c%61%20%68%72%65%66%3d%22%6d%61%69%6c%74%6f%3a%6f%68%6e%6f%62%75%6c%6c%64%6f%67%73%40%63%6f%6d%63%61%73%74%2e%6e%65%74%22%3e%6f%68%6e%6f%62%75%6c%6c%64%6f%67%73%40%63%6f%6d%63%61%73%74%2e%6e%65%74%3c%2f%61%3e%27%29%3b'))