|
Post by cadgi on Jun 16, 2009 16:59:10 GMT
for a pup to take milk from it's dam isn't drive,that instinct,same as going to toilet or eating.now if you put the dam in a locked room on her own but the pup still managed to get in and then take milk off her then i'd call that drive. all i was stating in the above statement was my preference between two extream's and believe me there are dog's out there with no drive.obviously a dog with both qualities is far better (that's why i breed,trying to get the right balance of both for today's climate) unfortunatley the dog men of old never had the luxury of owning dog's for a hobby,they were functional not bred to look good (that's for the show ring) and if the dog's in the pic's look like ill wreck's that doesn't mean they're not healthy.as i've stated before modern human's tend to judge thing's on how they look not what they can do.when it come's to breeding for trait's/point's then I.M.O. you should put type to type and maybe with alot of luck you'll get what your breeding for. A.T.B......Lyndon.
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jun 16, 2009 17:09:05 GMT
I think we all basically agree with the fact that in an ideal world a dog would have everything, fantastic conformation and the drive or gameness to do the job that you've asked of them.
The thing that started this was the statement that some of them had very poor conformation...I don't think anyone can dispute that. That doesn't mean that they couldn't do their job well but in an ideal world no dog would be built like that as it will most likely have some form of consequence at some point in the dogs life. I've seen the most unlikely looking dogs perform better than the athletic looking ones on many, many occasions in athletic trials and I would always prefer to take one of those home but I would never be 100% happy with a dog that I know had weaknesses, I want a dog that's good in all areas.
If I owned a Veyron and the tracking was out I've no doubt it could still trounce most cars on the road but I also know that it would be faster and work better with the tracking fixed, it wouldn't be good for performance or tyre wear. The same principle can be applied to dogs, faults are faults no matter what the ability.
|
|
|
Post by ianhurley on Jun 16, 2009 17:09:48 GMT
great pics frank, and thus the problem of judging a dog by one photo! the same dog but different picture and i suspect most people would say great looking dog! i think this is the first time I've seen a pic of blue bell. cheers for posting them frank. would that be ch. red joe in the background? do you have any other pics to put up mate as some of us would appriciate? any of the game english bred staffords?
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jun 16, 2009 17:15:39 GMT
Those pictures illistrate layed back pasterns. Not an unforgivable fault or one that hindered performance but certainly not desirable. I'm sure if the breeder could have had them a little more upright they would have done.
|
|
|
Post by ianhurley on Jun 16, 2009 17:23:45 GMT
i'm in no way advocating that we should breed for poor construction, far from it. but as cadji say's theres no point having the perfect looking dog that lacks drive. that would be worse. i'm sure we all want that dog that looks the business but also works well in what ever activity we are into.
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 18:02:15 GMT
great pics frank, and thus the problem of judging a dog by one photo! the same dog but different picture and i suspect most people would say great looking dog! i think this is the first time I've seen a pic of blue bell. cheers for posting them frank. would that be ch. red joe in the background? do you have any other pics to put up mate as some of us would appriciate? any of the game english bred staffords? Problem with most of those old pics is that the owners would not like it if they where placed on a public forum m8. But if I see a oportunity to place some, and it fits in the discussion, I will infuse them. No that isn't Red Joe, thats a pitbull. This was the time that the Irish slowly changed their stock from Staffords to Pitbulls.
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 18:05:48 GMT
Another reason for a lot of bad conformations is the food those dogs got. Some where fed good, while others where just fed on leftovers and very bad food. Specially in the first year(s) of a dogs life this can cause a lot of problems. Have seen some real bad cases.
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 18:42:13 GMT
great pics frank, and thus the problem of judging a dog by one photo! the same dog but different picture and i suspect most people would say great looking dog! i think this is the first time I've seen a pic of blue bell. cheers for posting them frank. would that be ch. red joe in the background? do you have any other pics to put up mate as some of us would appriciate? any of the game english bred staffords? Problem with most of those old pics is that the owners would not like it if they where placed on a public forum m8. But if I see a oportunity to place some, and it fits in the discussion, I will infuse them. No that isn't Red Joe, thats a pitbull. This was the time that the Irish slowly changed their stock from Staffords to Pitbulls. Why did they change Frank? Cheers Marco
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 19:09:40 GMT
Problem with most of those old pics is that the owners would not like it if they where placed on a public forum m8. But if I see a oportunity to place some, and it fits in the discussion, I will infuse them. No that isn't Red Joe, thats a pitbull. This was the time that the Irish slowly changed their stock from Staffords to Pitbulls. Why did they change Frank? Cheers Marco This was because the Pitbull was in general a gamer dog than the Stafford. They gave average more good dogs than Staffords. But the Stafford was known for their hard bite. But we can assume that a good quality Pitbull would have beaten most(with some exceptions) of the Staffords.
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 19:13:40 GMT
Very true, but you can have the farstest train in the world but if the nuts and bolts aint holding it together properly, sooner or later it will come off the tracks!. Thats not an old saying i just made that up! ;D We will remember you by this saying after your long gone ;D ;D Missed you this weekend m8
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 19:41:11 GMT
Jolly fun mate @ least in the highest order in something thank you very much for your qualification, it is apreciated! Your reply on the other hand can be called rather typical. I have noticed you are a bit upset and that is allright and a good start for a good conversation and teaching. my questions to you are. where in my reply have i made the comment that undershot or overshot can not bite or bite hard? what about week teeth light bones inverging canines? Where have i given you the impression that i have never seen a good working Staffordshire Bull Terrier? and much more important how do you know? And ofcourse you come up with the bull shit that i ofcourse never had the experience of working them - how do you know? and again ofcourse i have a one sided view and you are sugesting to be open minded, then why are you not capable in replying to me and prove me wrong with evidence? And ofcourse you end your intelligent reply with the message that you have nothing more to say on this and i think that is absolutely the most intelligent line in your reply and i think indeed it is wisdom not to speak much more of this absolute bullshit. so back to the lesson! The questions are simple: How can a wrong construction provide more wind then a good construction? and what is the advantage of misconformation in a jaw towards a good conformation? please tell me 'cause i am eager to learn from an experienced person like you. cheers - Marco Sorry m8, but have known Milo and a good daughter of him, and would not trade him for the ones on your pics if I had the choice, although I agree that there where better built dogs than him. Gameness first was the motto, because without this they where worthless. If they had the chance to get both correct, gameness including a great built they would have it. But as all things in life, you can not always have it all. I have seen a fair amount of those dogs on that site, and must say that what I saw in a lot of those eyes I do not see that a lot anymore. Yes, the good old days........ But if we talk about construction, I have seen lately some nice well built animals, also some of yours that I like. It can be the construction or the spirit(that little red bitch). But those old dogs where something special, and the selection to get something like that was tough. Hey Frank, The point for today is that above dogs can be seen and about Milo only stories can be told. i am not a good believer i must admit this weekness. so to me it has no value. i see dogs just not in good construction and not been taken good care of. I think that there are dogs today that make a better study then these photo's The pictures i have posted where posted to show good construction and good taken care of you have to admit there is a difference. and the difference in time makes it useless to compare in working quality's now that the people in those day's let there dogs fight doesn't mean that they where better because today we don't put them under such conditions anymore. I know all the story's of the old day's i know the complete told story of these dogs but to me Frank real Staffords live. This discussion is not about my dogs but i can tell you for sure that if my dogs where in such condition i would really be ashamed. i have known other dogs then you in my life with these dogs and i wouldn't trade one of them in for Milo if i had the chance. and that is the true value of old photo's you can't say they where good when there is only a picture available and the picture doesn't do the story right. This is a public forum board it is wrong to refer to these pictures as good or even as it was written down real staffords. Use today's best dogs for examples. we don't work with the dogs we had we work with the dogs we have. cheers mate nice evening! Marco
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 19:49:03 GMT
Why did they change Frank? Cheers Marco This was because the Pitbull was in general a gamer dog than the Stafford. They gave average more good dogs than Staffords. But the Stafford was known for their hard bite. But we can assume that a good quality Pitbull would have beaten most(with some exceptions) of the Staffords. was it gameness that made them more succesfull in the pit Frank. Or where they mainly better constructed and had a huge advance becouse of that in the pit. Becouse after the discussion about the so called real staffords here and all the comments about these same dogs in so many other endless dicussion about dead dogs it is hard to deny that at least these "real staffords" had proven to be dead game. So how can a dog be more game then dead game? just some thoughts of the ignorant no nothing about these dogs! Cheers Mate
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 20:02:02 GMT
Sorry m8, but have known Milo and a good daughter of him, and would not trade him for the ones on your pics if I had the choice, although I agree that there where better built dogs than him. Gameness first was the motto, because without this they where worthless. If they had the chance to get both correct, gameness including a great built they would have it. But as all things in life, you can not always have it all. I have seen a fair amount of those dogs on that site, and must say that what I saw in a lot of those eyes I do not see that a lot anymore. Yes, the good old days........ But if we talk about construction, I have seen lately some nice well built animals, also some of yours that I like. It can be the construction or the spirit(that little red bitch). But those old dogs where something special, and the selection to get something like that was tough. Hey Frank, The point for today is that above dogs can be seen and about Milo only stories can be told. i am not a good believer i must admit this weekness. so to me it has no value. i see dogs just not in good construction and not been taken good care of. I think that there are dogs today that make a better study then these photo's The pictures i have posted where posted to show good construction and good taken care of you have to admit there is a difference. and the difference in time makes it useless to compare in working quality's now that the people in those day's let there dogs fight doesn't mean that they where better because today we don't put them under such conditions anymore. I know all the story's of the old day's i know the complete told story of these dogs but to me Frank real Staffords live. This discussion is not about my dogs but i can tell you for sure that if my dogs where in such condition i would really be ashamed. i have known other dogs then you in my life with these dogs and i wouldn't trade one of them in for Milo if i had the chance. and that is the true value of old photo's you can't say they where good when there is only a picture available and the picture doesn't do the story right. This is a public forum board it is wrong to refer to these pictures as good or even as it was written down real staffords. Use today's best dogs for examples. we don't work with the dogs we had we work with the dogs we have. cheers mate nice evening! Marco I understand what you are saying m8. To understand the conditions some dogs where in, you have to understand also how some of these people lived. I have spend time with people who had nothing in their livingroom, only a sofa, and no car in front of their house. They ate themselves sometimes even worse then the dogs. If we miror it to this picture these dogs where treated very well, only not to our standards. Comparing our dogs to those dogs at this time is a waste of time, your right. As most of our dogs would not stand a chance in Hell that they would come up to scratch. If we look at Pits with generations of game to game, two or three generations not tested stock makes your change of game dogs at least drop down to maybe 25%(for example), what to think from our 5, 10, 15 or even more generations not tested? Marco, don't see this comment as critic on you, as I really like some of your dogs and the time you spend on getting other people enthousiastic to sport with their dogs is much admired. But see it as this, Real Staffords is meant more as Game Staffords? And if gameness is regarded as a major part of the Stafford of old, we can say yes, these where some of the last "real Staffords".
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 20:06:15 GMT
and how did those gamer pitbull's do in the badger game Frank? something to be reckoned to be the ultimate game test wasn't it! Did the pitbulls do better or worse then the game staffords of that day? where is agility and conformation more important in a pit or in a badger den?
Now where did that superior Pitbull really had his advantage?
Just thoughts you know
Cheers mate
Marco
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 20:09:32 GMT
This was because the Pitbull was in general a gamer dog than the Stafford. They gave average more good dogs than Staffords. But the Stafford was known for their hard bite. But we can assume that a good quality Pitbull would have beaten most(with some exceptions) of the Staffords. was it gameness that made them more succesfull in the pit Frank. Or where they mainly better constructed and had a huge advance becouse of that in the pit. Becouse after the discussion about the so called real staffords here and all the comments about these same dogs in so many other endless dicussion about dead dogs it is hard to deny that at least these "real staffords" had proven to be dead game. So how can a dog be more game then dead game? just some thoughts of the ignorant no nothing about these dogs! Cheers Mate Gameness was much better secured with the Pitbull. The Yanks had/have sometimes yards of 80, 100 or even much more on their yard. The selection was very tough, and in the last century they made a step that would have taken at least 500 years in the UK, as the numbers where much smaller. Yes the conformation of the Pit, specially the size with the same weight was also a major part of their advantage. Aver seen a 18 kg Staff? Compare that with a 18 kg Pit and you see a height difference of at least 10 cm. A dog that wins can be deadgame, but you will not see that. The dog that dies can have died before he could quith. So there is no rule or law you can write up on those things. Also circumstances play a major part.
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 20:14:39 GMT
Hey Frank, The point for today is that above dogs can be seen and about Milo only stories can be told. i am not a good believer i must admit this weekness. so to me it has no value. i see dogs just not in good construction and not been taken good care of. I think that there are dogs today that make a better study then these photo's The pictures i have posted where posted to show good construction and good taken care of you have to admit there is a difference. and the difference in time makes it useless to compare in working quality's now that the people in those day's let there dogs fight doesn't mean that they where better because today we don't put them under such conditions anymore. I know all the story's of the old day's i know the complete told story of these dogs but to me Frank real Staffords live. This discussion is not about my dogs but i can tell you for sure that if my dogs where in such condition i would really be ashamed. i have known other dogs then you in my life with these dogs and i wouldn't trade one of them in for Milo if i had the chance. and that is the true value of old photo's you can't say they where good when there is only a picture available and the picture doesn't do the story right. This is a public forum board it is wrong to refer to these pictures as good or even as it was written down real staffords. Use today's best dogs for examples. we don't work with the dogs we had we work with the dogs we have. cheers mate nice evening! Marco I understand what you are saying m8. To understand the conditions some dogs where in, you have to understand also how some of these people lived. I have spend time with people who had nothing in their livingroom, only a sofa, and no car in front of their house. They ate themselves sometimes even worse then the dogs. If we miror it to this picture these dogs where treated very well, only not to our standards. Comparing our dogs to those dogs at this time is a waste of time, your right. As most of our dogs would not stand a chance in Hell that they would come up to scratch. If we look at Pits with generations of game to game, two or three generations not tested stock makes your change of game dogs at least drop down to maybe 25%(for example), what to think from our 5, 10, 15 or even more generations not tested? Marco, don't see this comment as critic on you, as I really like some of your dogs and the time you spend on getting other people enthousiastic to sport with their dogs is much admired. But see it as this, Real Staffords is meant more as Game Staffords? And if gameness is regarded as a major part of the Stafford of old, we can say yes, these where some of the last "real Staffords". I know Frank !!
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 20:16:25 GMT
and how did those gamer pitbull's do in the badger game Frank? something to be reckoned to be the ultimate game test wasn't it! Did the pitbulls do better or worse then the game staffords of that day? where is agility and conformation more important in a pit or in a badger den? Now where did that superior Pitbull really had his advantage? Just thoughts you know Cheers mate Marco I have heard from some people who tried Pits for badger that they did not better than a Staff. But also this would depend on the lines you have I guess. Badger the ultimate gametest... Some think it is, others think it isn't. There where dogs that did Badger but no dog, and there where dogs that did dog, but no Badger. So also not really a good answer for this. A nice saying is: One mans game dog is anothermans cur(or something like this.)
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 16, 2009 20:17:27 GMT
Go to bed now, but like this topic
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 20:25:06 GMT
was it gameness that made them more succesfull in the pit Frank. Or where they mainly better constructed and had a huge advance becouse of that in the pit. Becouse after the discussion about the so called real staffords here and all the comments about these same dogs in so many other endless dicussion about dead dogs it is hard to deny that at least these "real staffords" had proven to be dead game. So how can a dog be more game then dead game? just some thoughts of the ignorant no nothing about these dogs! Cheers Mate Gameness was much better secured with the Pitbull. The Yanks had/have sometimes yards of 80, 100 or even much more on their yard. The selection was very tough, and in the last century they made a step that would have taken at least 500 years in the UK, as the numbers where much smaller. Yes the conformation of the Pit, specially the size with the same weight was also a major part of their advantage. Aver seen a 18 kg Staff? Compare that with a 18 kg Pit and you see a height difference of at least 10 cm. A dog that wins can be deadgame, but you will not see that. The dog that dies can have died before he could quith. So there is no rule or law you can write up on those things. Also circumstances play a major part. i know what dead game is Frank for me the way mr Mallen has explained dead game is slightly different then the pitbull people's explanation of dead game. i well know your version. so a good construction with the same gameness is a more functional and succesfull formula. And breeding for the whole dog instead of only a focus on gameness has proven to be more succesfull? interesting indeed isn't it? but i can't believe i've mentioned something else in all my reply's on this subject. Cheers Mate
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 20:27:23 GMT
Go to bed now, but like this topic Good night mate
|
|
|
Post by stefan on Jun 16, 2009 20:32:43 GMT
Those pictures illistrate layed back pasterns. Not an unforgivable fault or one that hindered performance but certainly not desirable. I'm sure if the breeder could have had them a little more upright they would have done. One of my bitches has also laid back pasterns, but like you say it doesn't hinder her. She even won a few lure races.
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Jun 16, 2009 20:46:45 GMT
great pics frank, and thus the problem of judging a dog by one photo! the same dog but different picture and i suspect most people would say great looking dog! i think this is the first time I've seen a pic of blue bell. cheers for posting them frank. would that be ch. red joe in the background? do you have any other pics to put up mate as some of us would appriciate? any of the game english bred staffords? sorry ian mate, but to me that is not a great looking dog although its endured some hard times so fair play to him. For me Marco makes a lot of sense and sorry but poor conformation is just that, 'Poor'! I does not aid anything especially a fighting dog, racing horse, boxer, whatever. Yes heart would be the most important factor, but if these animals were to be true champs at whatever their task then they would need correct construction to stay the distance, Marco, thanks for your comments and keep em coming mate. Without criticism and discussion of our dogs how can we continue to improve them
|
|
|
Post by hiphoplyricalrobot on Jun 16, 2009 20:50:07 GMT
Those pictures illistrate layed back pasterns. Not an unforgivable fault or one that hindered performance but certainly not desirable. I'm sure if the breeder could have had them a little more upright they would have done. One of my bitches has also laid back pasterns, but like you say it doesn't hinder her. She even won a few lure races. If they are detrimental in structure then over long periods of hard work they they will unfortunatly
|
|
|
Post by quinlent on Jun 16, 2009 20:53:26 GMT
and how did those gamer pitbull's do in the badger game Frank? something to be reckoned to be the ultimate game test wasn't it! Did the pitbulls do better or worse then the game staffords of that day? where is agility and conformation more important in a pit or in a badger den? Now where did that superior Pitbull really had his advantage? Just thoughts you know Cheers mate Marco I have heard from some people who tried Pits for badger that they did not better than a Staff. But also this would depend on the lines you have I guess. Badger the ultimate gametest... Some think it is, others think it isn't. There where dogs that did Badger but no dog, and there where dogs that did dog, but no Badger. So also not really a good answer for this. A nice saying is: One mans game dog is anothermans cur(or something like this.) That is interesting isn't it doesn't it come down to my old line Frank as i said many many years ago that it is the dogman that makes the difference in the matter. I am 100 % sure i am the only person in this forum board or any where else that has trained over seventhousant dogs of all breeds and Pitbulls and Amstaff's from the USA Holland and the rest of Europe from the very early ninety's up untill today with my own hands. I had crawling amstaff's and turned them into show champions. i turned uncontrolable pitbull's in social companions i have bred and trained Staffords that have a daily job with a social function with authistic children. i made one specific dog a fine companion within 5 min last iron dog event. people spirited dogs are born but gamedogs are made! Marco
|
|
|
Post by dog on Jun 16, 2009 21:35:58 GMT
Those pictures illistrate layed back pasterns. Not an unforgivable fault or one that hindered performance but certainly not desirable. I'm sure if the breeder could have had them a little more upright they would have done. One of my bitches has also laid back pasterns, but like you say it doesn't hinder her. She even won a few lure races. I know many, many dogs with laid back pasterns that have one lure races, A-frame competitions and weightpulls etc. It certainly doesn't hinder to any great extent but it does create unecessary stress on the tendons and has the potential to create pain and injury...not that it always will but it has the potential.
|
|
|
Post by cadgi on Jun 16, 2009 22:33:25 GMT
and how did those gamer pitbull's do in the badger game Frank? something to be reckoned to be the ultimate game test wasn't it! Did the pitbulls do better or worse then the game staffords of that day? where is agility and conformation more important in a pit or in a badger den? Now where did that superior Pitbull really had his advantage? Just thoughts you know Cheers mate Marco i know this wasn't directed/asked of me but i would say badger/pitbull is no real test for the pit.dog on dog is a true test.i would also say conformation in the pit is more of a priority than in a test with the badger.i would also say that the pit has the making of the stafford due to conformation/built better for the job if all else being equal. A.T.B.......Lyndon.
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 17, 2009 5:26:44 GMT
Yes heart would be the most important factor, but if these animals were to be true champs at whatever their task then they would need correct construction to stay the distance Yes they need good construction, and most of the old Staffords had that. A lot of pictures are of a very poor quality, but thats because you English and Irish are very bad in making pics ;D ;D ;D ;D My point in this discussion is that I have the feeling that Marco thinks that the dogs of today would be able to beat (hypotheticly) the old Staffords because of their construction. I can wake up everybody here and tell that this is not true. Heart wins matches, construction is second. There where even almost blind and blind dogs that competed in tough competition, and they won. Have seen give up the best constructed strongman athletes, just because they did not have the heart, and others in a worse physical state win because of their heart. The point where this discussion started was where the dogs on that website THE "real Staffords"? Are they worthy of admiration even with maybe not a 100% make up? I can tell anybody that I would have any of those dogs before every modern dog of today(as 90% would lack heart, and . Construction is the easiest part m8's, heart is the most difficult one to get. Although its both not a walk in the park. And lets face the facts, our modern day Staffords, the new standard ones, are in bad proportions bred to stand a change in the real competitions of old. OUR DOGS ARE NOT ABLE TO FULLFILL THEIR OLD TASKS ANYMORE AND WIN. So where do we stand in this light with our modern maybe a bit better conformations? So yes m8, conformation is important, but its not that the best constructed dog will win the match. And it is not that the old dogs where that bad that they almost fall apart as it seems that some guys think. So in my book, yes they are worth the admiration.
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 17, 2009 5:38:42 GMT
so a good construction with the same gameness is a more functional and succesfull formula. And breeding for the whole dog instead of only a focus on gameness has proven to be more succesfull? No! Why? Because the formulla was more simple than all we infohorney bookworms think. They bred winner to winner, and thats all that counted. They even bred with blind dogs(know a few examples in Pits) if they could win, as I stated before. And now you think, yes but they must have gone from bad to worse then...........NO. Why? Because if they got to bad they could not win anymore. And Gameness was first, but they also must have been able to win the match. So this made the NATURAL selection if you all allow me to call it like that. We think too difficult people, it was only about the winning. And this on the end perfected the physical of the dogs. But even in Pitbulls there are dogs that win in mainstream competition without that faultless physique.
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 17, 2009 5:42:16 GMT
One of my bitches has also laid back pasterns, but like you say it doesn't hinder her. She even won a few lure races. If they are detrimental in structure then over long periods of hard work they they will unfortunatly A racehorse yes, earlier then a dog. But as stated again we are talking about those old dogs now or they could barely stand on their feet.
|
|
|
Post by frank on Jun 17, 2009 5:45:06 GMT
Here you make the biggest fault ever m8! And this is the whole point why we can not agree on this matter. You have the wrong idea about the gamedog.
|
|