height and weight ratios of SBTs 1935 and revised standard

height and weight ratios of SBTs 1935 and revised standard:

Spartan Dogs - Staffordshire Bull Terrier - Height and Weight Ratios Original and Revised

please let me know the height and weight of your SBTs and which standard they fit.

Dog and bitches and conditioned yes/no are worked out for both standards.

 

Dog: 43cm 17,3kg summer and 18.5kg winterfat..

 

current standard example then, wouldn't you say?

 

The whole Kennel Club standard nonsense messed the dogs up in my opinion. THERE IS ONLY ONE WAY TO JUDGE A STAFFORD AND IT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH LOOKS!

 

you got experience of staffies then tam??

 

you were not addressing me but Bip.

But i agree ion that if you replace stafford with bull&terrier (the original worker that spawned both the apbt and the sbt). the only reason i posted this is to give some insight in how the original SBTs were close in height weight ratio to the apbts. When you look at the ratios.

And that further exageration of this standards, further worsens the general functionality.

 

@ BANDOG BILLY. Yes mate I've been around a few over the years and seen some good ones. Although looks are not important, being well proportioned is! The Kennel Club messed up when they decided a dog at 16 inches should weigh 38 pounds! This encouraged show breeders to go for the chunkier more bully type to the detriment of physical performance. A stafford, of 16 inches fighting fit. to coin a phrase, would be in the low thirties in my opinion, and he must be game!

 

ah,i wasnt looking for conflict tam,your answers spot on,theres some good examples of staffies on this site,and seen a few crackers in the outside world as well,and in my opinion,having/selling/or buying a kc reg is money based and nothing else,and i agree 100% what your saying 16inch low 30s without a doubt,like i said on another thread,the father daughter fotos post is a good example of 2 staffs (in my opinion).

 

Billy, I never took your post to be confrontational. Your probably the same as me, someone who is interested in the history and true nature of the breed. Anyway, respect.

 

a could have worded it a bit better though..

 

well I have a 6 month old english staff, good lines and he's 17in at 17.2kg already, heheh, he'll be a big one.

 

bsl, you gave a link to your kennels, i presume you believe you have good representatives of the correct Stafford type, do you mind sharing your own opinions, based on what you have learnt and seen first hand , what you personally prefer as to height and weight,also temperament around animals and children, as well as to work.do you stick to the old standard or use it as a guide,...thanks , just looking to understand the originator of the thread,,,no bullshit.

 

TL, before joining g-d I have read once and then on this site and also appreciated your comments and no-nonsense approach, therefore will try to reply to your question.

I like 'em very people-friendly, especially around children.

I prefer 'em Bull & Terrier amongst other dogs/ quarrel, but find it the most practical if they exert their dominance aggression towards the same sex (that way easier to keep a dog and a bitch together), however I won't judge a dog or bitch that is dominant aggressive against all other canines.

The old standard is just a reference to me, nothing more. Would rather compare to old Bull&Terrier than to old SBT (being the show version of the B&T).

Our views can be found here:
http://kennels.bsl-sbt.com/index.php?s=&l= intro 1
http://kennels.bsl-sbt.com/kennels/bslkennelsintroduction.php?s=&l= intro 2
http://kennels.bsl-sbt.com/kennels/bslkennelsbreedings.php?s=&l= breeding goal
http://kennels.bsl-sbt.com/articles/standardsandathleticcapacity.php?s=&l= about standards and capacity

We hope to fulfill our needs in continuing access to a B&T canine, solely for our own pleasure, not that of others but offer occasionally stud services to help other enthusiasts out.

Our dogs can be found here: http://kennels.bsl-sbt.com/ourdogs/ourdogs.php?s=&l=, different types of dogs but all related.

But in a wider perspective (always good to keep your mind open), as some examples I also like the looks of this one: Cosmos Staffords - Staffordshire Bull Terrier Breeding and Training not too heavy in the bone, a functional strong head with not too much "stop". Amos Bane was also one I appreciated. Then for the pupose better relate to some older ones: this is a nice bitch for an "Irish" one: http://apbt.online-pedigrees.com/pictures/230859.gif. and this one not too compact DR: http://i473.photobucket.com/albums/rr99/willywuss/harrisons_big_red1.jpg. But also some nice ones in the scandanavian countries. And over the pond where it all began although a lot more compact: late Ricky had something special.

In other words: good dogs are where you find 'em.

I am not that much around fora, but this would sufficiently give an impression, I reckon.

All the best to you.

J

 

standard = opinion, i have my own opinion how my staffords must be like. standards for any breed is just bullshit and another forced structure thrown at us. feed what you want but be honest with yourself. dogs that dont do the job get rid of, simple as, doesnt matter how good looking or within standard. keep them balanced and stay away from dog shows.

from what i understand standard is all about stucture/beauty before performance, if this is the reason anyone is breeding, studing or raising, you're are just one more in the bunch screwing this breed further.

 

i believe in the use of breed standards for this reason; a standard should be a written description of a performance animal. Exceptions do and should exist and standards need to be flexible enough to recognize and change in the case of a significant change in the description of successful performance animals.
of course this is idealistic as there are precious few breeds who are valued for any meaningful performance. and even fewer people who honestly care about more than looks.
the problem with purebred dogs is not in a breed standard, it is in the people who twist, mis-interpret and distort the fact that a standard is meant to be a framework for the respective performances.
there is no doubt that the modern sbt breed standard is more dis-placed from performance bred animals, sad as that is, does it really matter? the vast vast vast majority of people in the sbt breed have no connection to, real interest in, or aspirations to use their dogs historically anyways. the "performance" dogs of today used competitively for weight pull, a-frame, coursing etc should most likely not fit any written standard old or new as this arena is historically meaningless. these people are using an old breed for a new purpose, so are really changing what was to what suits them now. in essence, they are creating a new type of dog. which makes either or any existing standards, non-applicable.

 

thank you for the reply, good luck to you and yours.

 

cant argue with that.

 

are big staffs rare? or are they looked down on?......................I got told today my staff will be oversized, doesn't worry me in the slightest, so long as he's got the temperment a good staff should have.