-
Staffie.
User deleted
first of all i want to reply to Brooke.
The FCI standard gives not so many indication about how a Staffordshire Bull Terrier must be, he just uses some words to describe his appearance but it doesn't gives any full stop about how the dog must be constructed.
The standards of the Italian breeds have more details that can help to have an homogeneous breed stock, that thanks to the numbers and the precise measurements that you can find in the standard wrote for the italian breeds.
If you have never seen a staffordshire bull terrier you can't have an idea of the breed by its actual FCI standard, that's my opinion.
The other problem is the duality of the breed, Bull and Terrier togheter, that kind of standard gives the opportunity of going to one or the other side easily, but for the stafford, like the AST or the APBT the truth is in the middle.
The FCI staffordshire bull terrier standard says:
Skull : Deep through with broad skull.
Stop : Distinct
you can imagin that with such a kind of description any one can have his interpretation and this problem, plus the bull side of the breed, can only increase the wrong interpretation.
Seen that thing, you can imagin in how many ways can be interpreted that part of the standard:
Desirable height at withers : 14-16 ins. (35,5 to 40,5 cm), these heights being related to the weights.
Weight : Dogs : 28-38 lbs (12,7-17 kg),
Bitches: 24-34 lbs (11-15,4 kg).
the word "desiderable" is realy important in that case, the breed standard DON'T that the height MUST BE, that's why we find a lot of important UK champions and important stud dogs that are 5 cm taller than the height desiderable on the standard.
That point can cause diferent schools fo think, some people think that the weight must be 17 kg, even if the dog is 45 cm tall, here is the terrier type or what in the last period some people call Old type stafford or Irish staffords.
Some people think that all is relative and "desiderable", so, to have strong bones, broad skull....it can be 40 cm tall but 22 kg of weight, here is the bull type.
The standard says that the Weight is related to the height, that's means (for me) that a 45cm taller dog can be 20-21 kg of weight.
the weight indicated on the standard, i think can only help to understand how "heavy" a staffordshire bull terrier can be, it's (i think) the only way to have a Point to fix the middle way between bull and terrier, even if this is not an infallible way of doing.
appena ho un attimo cerco di esprimere il mio pensiero anche riguardo alle domande poste da staffydea
ora scappo
. -
BrookeLynn.
User deleted
Thanks for info all... I just know I want a balanced, and portortioned staffy that comes close to fitting the breed standard height and weight. Does that sound right? . -
Staffie.
User deleted
that's right, i like standard sized dogs but i prefer dogs at the limit of height, with a good and long the legs, not too short like a bull dog.
the same is for the weight, usually i don't mind about their weight, the important is that it is proportioned to a balanced dog, sometimes for me, the weight on the standard is not ideal for a balanced dog and the dog can look too light for a staffordshire bull terrier.. -
BrookeLynn.
User deleted
Thank you staffie! I have another question . the standard says the the feet turn out a little. Does that mean dogs in the ring with completely straight fronts will be penalized? I wonder why the standard calls for the feet to turn out a little? . -
staffydea.
User deleted
hi Brooke!
for feet, same speech ... the standard accepts a little turn out but it isn't so specific.
Personally i look dogs out of the ring, when they're "natural" ... this moments are better to evaluate the real feet feature because they aren't placed.
I think that is important a little turn out, it allows correct movement, right elasticy and push. For a breed born to "fight" is indispensable considering what it should make like push and amortize.
In ring isn't penalized a dog with legs much straight, indeed ... is more elegant to see and it gives a view more slender.
But it's simply a question of "eye pleasure"
However is important that legs aren't "impaled", i don't like an "amstaff foot" in stafford
. -
finaitastaff.
User deleted
ok,con l'inglese non seguo bene.
..comunque rispondendo a dea di un 7 post addietro:
...pensavo non ad una questione di funzionalità lavorativa, che impone rigidità selettiva,bensì ad una questione di funzionalità vitale..senza neanche pensare se ad una groppa più o meno inclinata si accostasse un determinato grado di angolazioni...che tra l'altro così su due piedi mi viene difficile descrivere, per via delle differenti inclinazioni delle diverse articolazioni degli arti posteriori che si potrebbero comporre in modo tale da dare un posteriore adeguato alle funzioni vitali...errore mio che sono andato in OT,in quanto non solo si stava parlando di staffy ,ma anche di standard di razza.
sorry 
Edited by finaitastaff - 16/1/2011, 18:06. -
finaitastaff.
User deleted
...per quello che ho capito dei post "inglesi" di staffie e dea,non posso fare altro che esprimere il mio accordo per la vostra visione dello staffy, dai commenti da voi fatti sullo standard
.
INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARDInterpretazione dello standard |
