staffies and pitbull's history

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

jacko said: ↑

some countries in eastern europe still use ebt and sbt. check out the gull terrs on you tube, they"re similar to ebt but they are in india and pakistan.
Click to expand...

May be in middle east (Asia) they have these dogs...not in eastern Europe , no one uses anything but APBTs

jacko · May 11, 2012

ricky there are videos on you tube of matches between ebt and apbt in russia. check them out. i have no opinion on these matches as they are what they are however.

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

Herodog1 said: ↑

Forgive me for butting in,
I was just wandering, I keep hearing that good apbt are all GAME BRED and that EBTs & SBTs are not so can't compete with the apbt. I don't dispute this, I was just wander if both SBTs & EBTs had been game bred and tested in the same way as the apbt from the begining until the present day would they then have been a match for the apbt?
What are your thought's on this? peace

If they (SBT) had been game tested from the start (1935) and only the proven ones got bred from then we would not be having this discussion ...but they have been bred for show since 1935 and there gameness and conformation is not to the same standard as APBTs... EBTs have been bred for show a lot longer , the mid 1800s, and have never played any real part in sport..every one can name the odd 1 or 2 that have been used ..
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

jacko said: ↑

ricky there are videos on you tube of matches between ebt and apbt in russia. check them out. i have no opinion on these matches as they are what they are however.
Click to expand...

Yes about 20 year ago..APBT have only been in Russia since the end of communism, no one uses them in years..go on SMART forum and see if you seen 1 out of the hundreds they talk about

jacko · May 11, 2012

have you a link, as all i can see is smart car forums,lol

bruce pitbull · May 11, 2012

its called smart kennels

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

jacko said: ↑

have you a link, as all i can see is smart car forums,lol
Click to expand...

sent you a pm

7mmrowland · May 11, 2012

RickyB said: ↑

I only comment on where Im from...I have seen it and SBT don't as a rule be able to compete with APBTs...but I know no SBT has competed here in about 20 years...
Click to expand...

It seem as when you comment you speak for the whole world! About every 5th reply you gotta jab in a comment on how they cant compete! NOT? One would think after the 3rd reply of this nature,you covered where your from....

7mmrowland · May 11, 2012

RickyB said: ↑

Herodog1 said: ↑

Forgive me for butting in,
I was just wandering, I keep hearing that good apbt are all GAME BRED and that EBTs & SBTs are not so can't compete with the apbt. I don't dispute this, I was just wander if both SBTs & EBTs had been game bred and tested in the same way as the apbt from the begining until the present day would they then have been a match for the apbt?
What are your thought's on this? peace

If they (SBT) had been game tested from the start (1935) and only the proven ones got bred from then we would not be having this discussion ...but they have been bred for show since 1935 and there gameness and conformation is not to the same standard as APBTs... EBTs have been bred for show a lot longer , the mid 1800s, and have never played any real part in sport..every one can name the odd 1 or 2 that have been used ..
Click to expand...

Im not getting this game tested from the start(1935) thing! So a breed gets a name and someone hits the BRAKES! ok
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

7mmrowland · May 11, 2012

12 gauge said: ↑

this is a good read if anyone interested that tells me some groups walked away with their staffords because they didnt care about the kc recognition. and if these folks were brave enough trying to safe their staffords from getting ruined, i think its fair to think that those dogs were kept alive and producing throughout the years and maybe among our dogs but with different pedigrees?
still pure speculation nonetheless

- Bill Boylan was born and raised in the Black Country. He was brought up among people who owned Staffords andgot his first pup at the age of 6, but his father didn’t consider the dog to bea good one so he gave it away. After 3 years in the 9th East Surrey Regimentduring the first World War, which included 12 months as a Prisoner Of War, hereturned to work in the engineer industry. One time he went to Cannock as a maintenance engineer he saw this lovely piedStaff, who was described as a terror as they had to feed the dog by pushing thefood towards him with a broomstick. He eventually won the dog over and becameits friend and when Bill left the Black Countryhe brought this dog to remind him of his roots, so when he moved to St. Albans he came with a Staffordand his wife.
The Kennel Club did not yet recognize the breed and in the early 30’s much waswritten about the merits of a Stafford in amagazine of the time called ‘Our Dogs’. There was talk of seeking recognitionby the Kennel Club, which would enable them to be exhibited at dog shows. Atthe time he firmly believed that ‘showing’ would result in the fighting spiritbeing bred out of the breed for the purpose of the show ring and he was rightas there aren’t that many Staffords around today that could battle with thelikes that he was used to. Although he did think it was a good idea for them tobe registered and described for those who wanted to know more about them.

There were instances were newcomers to the breed had been sold mixed breeds, whichweren’t real Staffords at all and to him it was all wrong. If registrationwould help prevent and eliminate that sort of behavior he was all for it, butthat was way back in the 30’s.
Over the years the Kennel Club wanted one agreed Standard for the entire breedas different clubs just operated to their own standard, which was no good andit was important for everyone that something definite was decided. The KennelClub sent out notices to all the breed clubs to seek cooperation and agreementon one Standard for the entire breed and in May 1948, the Southern Club calleda special meeting to discuss this matter asking to drop the maximum height from18” to 17”.

The Cradley Club had already sent off to the Kennel Club what they thoughtshould be accepted, 14” to 16” and this was returned for discussion at the mainmeeting at Wolverhampton, to which all Clubshad sent delegates and the 14” to 16” height ratio was accepted without furtherobjections from anyone. There had been no prior suggestion of a drop to 16” andthe Southern Clubs delegates understood it, as it would be a reduction of only1 inch and not 2.

In a interview in the mid 80’s, Bill was asked what his thoughts about thechange of Standard in 1948 was and he replied like this:

“ It was the Cradley fanciers who brought out the little ones. It appears theywanted the Standard to suit their little dogs, not their dogs to suit thestandard. That is why they wanted the height brought down to 16” as theyalready had their smaller dogs ready. Newcomers to the breed, unaware of thesituation as it then existed, just went along with the alteration. They hadn’tmuch choice anyway!”

According to Bill the reasons for breeding smaller Staffords were many. Acommercial purpose was one, selling to females in competition against thePoodle and so on. His good friend Vic Pounds feared the exaggerationists in theshow circuit, as they would aim for massive heads, bigger boned animals and soon and who can blame him when you see the typical show specimen in today’s showring.

When asked about his thoughts he firmly stated:

“We are governed by ‘fashion’. In other words the 1948 Standard contained thenew height/weight ratio, which I disagreed with and left the Club because of. Ididn’t want to be a Club Member, all I wanted were good Staffordshire BullTerriers, but for my bitch I needed a good stud dog, most of which, as they aretoo standardized, do not come up to what one really wants, so you have to lookaround and try to find the nearest to what you want, which will probably havebeen bred for the show ring, which is dictated by ‘fashion’. When an animalbecome popular at shows it becomes the dictate of ‘fashion’ and fashiondictates sales, and to maintain the sales they maintain the popularity of the breedin order to maintain puppy sales and put money in their pockets!”

This “hot” topic would never lay to rest as it is still today being talkedabout in the same intense way. The debate will probably go on forever as therewas a split in the Stafford fancy and the morehardcore sporting enthusiasts kept on breeding their stock after what had beenproven to be the best, “game to game” regardless of show standards. 4 yearsafter the Standard was changed another Meeting was called to discuss the“Desired” heights for the breed and the following is the notes from thatMeeting.

Notes from a 1952 meeting on the "Desired" heights for the breed.

The long and short of it!
Notes from a 1952 meeting on the "Desired" heights for the breed.

Standard Amendment
The joint meeting of Staffordshire Bull Terrier Specialist Clubs was held on Saturday, July 26th, 1952,at Birmingham,following the Staffordshire Bull Terrier Club's Championship Show.

The following represented their respective clubs:

East Midlands' S.B.T.C, Messrs. Adderson,Gibling and Greenwood.

Northern Counties' S.B.T.C. Mrs. Greenwood and Messrs. Ainley and Greenwood.

North Ireland S.B.T.C. Messrs. Gordon,Piesing, and Tryhorn.

North WestS.B.T.C. Messrs. Crompton, Heargraves and Rawnsley.

Scottish S.B.T.C. Messrs. Adams, Findlater, and Smith.

Southern Counties' S.B.T.C. Messrs. Boylan, Cairns, and Tomlinson.

The Staffordshire B.T.C. Messrs. Dudley, Jack Dunn and Holden.

After a speech of welcome by Mr. Holden, chairman of the S.B.T.C., the meetingelected him to the chair.

Mr. W. A. Boylan, on behalf of the S.C.S.B.T.C., Tabled the following motion: “Thatthis meeting agrees that the Height/Weight clause of the standard be amended toread 'Desired heights - Dogs 16 inches; Bitches 15 inches. Desired Weights -Dogs 38 lb; Bitches 34 lb.' "

"In making this proposition" said Mr. Boylan, "I am doing soafter many years in the Breed, and after noting the tendency since thealteration of the first Standard of 15 to 18 inches, which were the original measurements,to the present one of 14 to 16 inches. My chief objection to the latter is thatthe tendency seems to be at the present to get a dog as short on the leg aspossible, and at the same time carry the maximum weight allowed in theStandard. We see exhibits of less than 14 inches being placed first, whilstdogs of 16 1/2 inches or 17 inches are put right out, when they are, in fact,only as much over the maximum height as the winning short-legged ones are lessthan the minimum height. That to me is entirely unfair and is also leading awayfrom the ideal fighting dog.

We have heard that some of our breed clubs have been in a certain amount ofdifficulty in having a reasonable number of exhibits that conform to the newStandard. Many of our oldest breeders are in agreement with this propositionand I will quote one. Mr. Charlie Townsend states:
“The new move only fixes an ideal height and an ideal weight. With the slidingscale we are only perpetuating the lack of uniformity in the Breed. With theideal size the judge can use his discretion, and that is a good thing. “

I had the privilege of putting this motion to a special general meeting of theSouthern Club in March 1951, and have had plenty of time since to study itsimplications, and I am even more convinced than I was then that this willgreatly benefit the Breed. Any of us who claim to have the interest of theBreed at heart must of necessity have in mind a picture of our ideal Stafford, and I ask what your ideal in size and weight is?If it differs from my proposition, with all respect, I ask you to state it andfully discuss it, and so give all Stafford owners, both present and future, theconsidered opinions of names which will live in the Breed forever. The decisionof this meeting will be a future guide on the wisdom of our actions. If we failnow and leave things unsettled as they are, you can take it from me, Mr.Chairman, and Gentlemen, that a move will be made which will advocate arevision of the Standard to the point of leaving the height clause out of theStandard altogether.

In seconding the motion, Mr. Cairns referred to the first Joint Meeting atWolverhampton, where the present Standard was agreed, and said:

“ The outstanding thing about that meeting was the manner in which we reallygot down to the job, and I am sure that the same spirit will prevail at thismeeting. Fundamentally we have all the same object in mind. To do our best forthe Breed, our Clubs, and for our members. We have a great responsibility, andone which if we were not all sincere and deeply interested in we would havepassed on to someone else”

Going back over my notes of that first meeting, I notice that the SouthernCounties drew attention to the fact that the Kennel Club had expressed theopinion that we should state a desired height and weight in the new Standard.The S.C.S.B.T.S. general meeting had decided on heights of 15 and 17 inches,but in view of the Kennel Club suggestion, agreed “ Desired height – Dog 16inches and Bitches 15 inches” This was put to the joint meeting. Mr. Jack Dunn,then representing Scotland,raised objection to this, and made a plea for “the little 24 pounders” which heknew around 1928; he did not say “little 14 inches” presumably because these “little24 pounders” were tallish 16 inchers. That is how the 14 to 16 inches cameabout.

I cannot believe any Clubs’ membership accepted this without argument, but suchwas the standing of the respective delegates that these objections wereover-ruled. I am equally certain that is this motion is tonight accepted bythis meeting after listening to the discussion, the delegates here will becapable of getting their membership to accept the majority decision of thismeeting.

The case for this motion has already been given the widest publicity, whichwill certainly have been followed closely by everybody here.

It was first stated in March 1951, at a special general meeting of theS.C.S.B.T.S. and subsequently dealt with at great length in succeeding numbersof ‘The Stafford’. A nationwide poll was organized, resulting in 183 votesbeing cast in favor to 6 against.
The important point, after the overwhelming majority, is that these votes camefrom all over the country; they were not confined to any one particular area.

Despite all the words written in support of the amendment, only one letter wasreceived from the whole area north of Londonagainst!

As this is the only articulate objection to this proposition it is worthreferring to. This letter states:

“If we adopt a rigid height and weight clause with one stipulated figure thenscales and measurers would have to be adopted at every show”

It seems incredible that the simple statement ‘desired height’ could beinterpreted by anyone to mean that all Stafford dogs, for example, must in thefuture be exactly 16 inches. It has been stated time and time again bycountless experts that the desired height for a Stafford dog is 16 inches andthe present proposition is only capable of one interpretation, which is thatthe dog most nearly approximating the desired height and weight shall receivethe most marks when the height/weight clause of the Standard is applied in thering. The writer of this letter is so wide of the mark, that it is the presentday standard, which calls for weights and measures to apply it correctly,whereas the proposed amendment allows that latitude which renders weights and measurescompletely unnecessary.

If this interpretation has been propagated in the councils of those Clubs knownto oppose the amendment it can only be said that their decisions have beenarrived at on a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the amendment andas such are valueless.

The writer continues: ‘ any responsible person in the breed sees in the presentStandard his ideal Stafford to be in the upper limits of the weight/heightclause, then breed for it and tell the newcomers to aim for it’.

Would it be unfair to interpret this as an argument in favor of the amendment?
If we are going to say that the correct height and weight for a Stafford dog is 16 inches and 38 pounds, what reasonableobjection can there be to stating it in the Standard? We have reached theposition where supporters and antagonists all agree that the ideal dog shouldbe 16 inches and 38 pounds; can we logically continue with a Standard thatdiscards dogs with a shade over 16 inches, whilst permitting others to be twoinches under?

The main reason for stating a height and weight at all is to establish thedesired balance of a Stafford. If we show 16inches and 38 pounds that puts the balance in a nutshell.
14 to 16 inches and 28 to 38 pounds have confused everybody. We have all seen14 inch dogs shown, but what about their weights?
If anyone wants to lose some money try guaranteeing a class for under 32 pounddogs. Yet there were well filled classes for these when the minimum height was15 inches! Think this over carefully. It can mean only one thing and that isthat the present Standard has created so much confusion that it is not capableof correct interpretation by the judges and is therefore useless.

Opponents have argued that we are rushing out fences, and that sufficient timehas not elapsed since the inception of the present Standard and the tabling ofthe amendment.
The original Standard was agreed in 1935, the present Standard in 1948. Aperiod of 14 years, including seven years of war, when breeding was at itslowest ebb, and very infrequent dog shows were confined to small areas of thecountry. The period 1948 to 1952 saw a marvelous upsurge in the Breed, with anaverage of four new Champions each year, compared with four in four years inthe pre war period, when there were two specialist clubs as against eight now!

Opponents did not argue we were rushing our fences when the present Standardwas agreed, yet the rate of the development in the first seven year period,with phenomenal expansion in the last four years. These facts coupled with thefirst class organization of the Breed today, eight specialist clubs, a breedmagazine, 26 Championship shows a year, and countless other shows puts us inthe best position ever to assess development in the Breed.

If it was in order to alter the 1935 Standard in 1948 after 10 lean years, itmust be in order to propose this slight amendment now, particularly when nopoint has been argued more fully than this one. Every interested person has hadample opportunity to state his case, and what do we find? 183 voted in favor, 6against, oceans of printed matter in favor, two letter (one of which wasmisleading) against!

If the clubs’ representatives are here to serve their members they must takethese figures into account. Perhaps we shall hear during the discussion howeach club got their opinions of their members; were these truly representativesof their membership?

It gives me great pleasure to second this proposition, because transcending allother considerations, the present Standard has led to complete chaos, and thisconfusion will have a very serious effect on the Breed until it is altered, asit surely will be, if not now then later.

One height and one weight states the desired balance of the animal in thesimplest possible terms. It can only lead to a greater uniformity in the Breed,make satisfactory judging, and give the breeders, the backbone of the fancy, afair crack of the whip!

The chairman then invited questions and asked for further clarifications on thepoint as to whether the proposed amendment did mean that dogs should have to beexactly 16 inches and 38 pounds. Replying, Mr. Boylan said that the propositionmeant exactly what it stated; its object was to establish a desired height andweight, an ideal and this was capable of only one interpretation, and that wasthat the dogs most closely approximating this ideal, other points being equal,would win. This allowed latitude above and below the ideal. The chairman saidthis should satisfactorily clear up that point.

In the discussion, Mr. Hargreaves, N.W.S.B.T.S, said that he considered thepresent Standard satisfactory. He preferred a dog of 16 inches and 38 pounds, butthought it dangerous to permit dogs above 16 inches. Mr. Ainley, NorthernCounties S.B.T.C, agreed with this view.

Mr. Boylan asked whether, in view of this, would either of the clubs concernedbe prepared to tell their members owning dogs over 16 inches that they wouldhave to leave their clubs, as those clubs were not prepared to cater for them.
Both answered in the negative.

Put to vote, the motion to agree the amendment was carried, 12 votes for and 8against.

The following Standard amendment was also tabled by the Southern CountiesS.B.T.S.:

That the section of the Standard concerning eyes be amended to read “Round ormedium size, not protruding and set to look straight ahead. From medium to verydark brown, the darker for preference, some may even appear black.”

This was carried nam. con.
North West S.B.T.C proposed that clubs supporting this meeting agree thattravelling expenses of all delegates present be added together and that eachclub contributes an equal amount to the total expenses. It was explained thatthis was proposed with the object of helping the most distant clubs. Afterdiscussion the motion was withdrawn.

Scottish S.B.T.C. proposed that each club guarantee the breed classes in allchampionship shows in its area, and submit its own list of championship showjudges to the promoting society.

It was stated on behalf of the Scottish club that this motion was made in hopethat some agreement could be reached whereby they would be given an opportunityof putting up judges for shows in Scotland; at present they have notbeen given an opportunity to have a say in the choice of judges in their area.

Mr. Cairns stated that the Southern Counties had never put up a list of judgesfor any of the Scottish Championship shows and if all the English clubs actedsimilarly there should be no further difficulties. He was in sympathy with theScottish club’s point of view and was sure his society would also support thisview. However, whilst the motion was simple as applied to Scotland,certain difficulties could be foreseen when it came to a division of theEnglish Shows.

The Scottish club proposed that clubs represented at this meeting agree toexchange club judging lists, or to include in their lists the names ofspecialist judges mentioned in the list of other clubs. The Scottish delegatessaid that this motion was linked with the above and arose from the sameconsideration. They would be satisfied if delegates would report back to theirclubs and put the Scottish point of view to their members.

A vote of thanks was accorded the chairman for the able way in which he hadconducted the meeting and he in turn thanked the delegates for their attendanceand interest in the important matters which had been so thoroughly discussed

Click to expand...

Not much discusion on this post...maybe it was over looked...ill give it a bump!

northdogger · May 11, 2012

Ive seen both staffords compete with other staffs and against APBTs, and seriously.. Theres no comparison! Yes, the odd one can compete with the bulldogs but thats it. The % of getting good gamedogs are so much lower in the staffs! And the ones Ive seen have come from game bred stock and non gamebred stock. The ones that went agaisnt bulldogs all got ran over sooner or later...

7mmrowland · May 11, 2012

northdogger said: ↑

Ive seen both staffords compete with other staffs and against APBTs, and seriously.. Theres no comparison! Yes, the odd one can compete with the bulldogs but thats it. The % of getting good gamedogs are so much lower in the staffs! And the ones Ive seen have come from game bred stock and non gamebred stock. The ones that went agaisnt bulldogs all got ran over sooner or later...
Click to expand...

So whats your point? the odd one's that are owned my members are suppose to take a back seat and listen to this BS from drama queens?

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

7mmrowland said: ↑

It seem as when you comment you speak for the whole world! About every 5th reply you gotta jab in a comment on how they cant compete! NOT? One would think after the 3rd reply of this nature,you covered where your from....
Click to expand...

What have you to say to .?....I only cover where Im from...as I know what is the history... but if you know better say so ..instead of commenting on what I say...

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

7mmrowland said: ↑

It seem as when you comment you speak for the whole world! About every 5th reply you gotta jab in a comment on how they cant compete! NOT? One would think after the 3rd reply of this nature,you covered where your from....
Click to expand...

Nobody has bred SBT since 1935 for gameness..dog fighting in the UK was stopped well before then...all SBT after 1935 where breed by show people with show (kc) standard ...not till the mid 1970s did one start breeding for gameness/sport.....if you don't believe this ,,,show a bloodline /strain thats be kept for sport/gameness since 1935

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

7mmrowland said: ↑

RickyB said: ↑

Herodog1 said: ↑

Forgive me for butting in,
I was just wandering, I keep hearing that good apbt are all GAME BRED and that EBTs & SBTs are not so can't compete with the apbt. I don't dispute this, I was just wander if both SBTs & EBTs had been game bred and tested in the same way as the apbt from the begining until the present day would they then have been a match for the apbt?
What are your thought's on this? peace
Im not getting this game tested from the start(1935) thing! So a breed gets a name and someone hits the BRAKES! ok
Click to expand...

I think iv answered this with my last post
Click to expand...

Click to expand...

PitNoob · May 11, 2012

jacko said: ↑

some countries in eastern europe still use ebt and sbt. check out the gull terrs on you tube, they"re similar to ebt but they are in india and pakistan.
Click to expand...

In russia, the ebt is still being used as is the sbt. The Gull terrs are a result of ebt x bully kutta crosses. These crosses when bred back to a bully kutta is called the gull dong.

Dusty Road · May 11, 2012

PitNoob said: ↑

In russia, the ebt is still being used as is the sbt. The Gull terrs are a result of ebt x bully kutta crosses. These crosses when bred back to a bully kutta is called the gull dong.
Click to expand...

I know nothing about what they do in asia nor do I care ....but the Russians only match APBTs ..check out SMART kennel forum....then get back here with your answer...

7mmrowland · May 12, 2012

RickyB said: ↑

Nobody has bred SBT since 1935 for gameness..dog fighting in the UK was stopped well before then...all SBT after 1935 where breed by show people with show (kc) standard ...not till the mid 1970s did one start breeding for gameness/sport.....if you don't believe this ,,,show a bloodline /strain thats be kept for sport/gameness since 1935
Click to expand...

So in 1935 as of the 1st day of the year nobody bred what was labeled as a SBT for gameness? SBT was a name given to a type of dog fitting a standard in 1935 so be it, dosent mean that type of dog was kept and not shown and was used in a working fashion. Dont be simple minded ricky and beat around the bush!
If you think your glass holds any water you should be able to explain what the breed was before 1935. Dont leave 1935 as a hangup for excuse!!!

7mmrowland · May 12, 2012

12 gauge said: ↑

this is a good read if anyone interested that tells me some groups walked away with their staffords because they didnt care about the kc recognition. And if these folks were brave enough trying to safe their staffords from getting ruined, i think its fair to think that those dogs were kept alive and producing throughout the years and maybe among our dogs but with different pedigrees?
Still pure speculation nonetheless

- bill boylan was born and raised in the black country. He was brought up among people who owned staffords andgot his first pup at the age of 6, but his father didn’t consider the dog to bea good one so he gave it away. After 3 years in the 9th east surrey regimentduring the first world war, which included 12 months as a prisoner of war, hereturned to work in the engineer industry. One time he went to cannock as a maintenance engineer he saw this lovely piedstaff, who was described as a terror as they had to feed the dog by pushing thefood towards him with a broomstick. He eventually won the dog over and becameits friend and when bill left the black countryhe brought this dog to remind him of his roots, so when he moved to st. Albans he came with a staffordand his wife.
The kennel club did not yet recognize the breed and in the early 30’s much waswritten about the merits of a stafford in amagazine of the time called ‘our dogs’. There was talk of seeking recognitionby the kennel club, which would enable them to be exhibited at dog shows. Atthe time he firmly believed that ‘showing’ would result in the fighting spiritbeing bred out of the breed for the purpose of the show ring and he was rightas there aren’t that many staffords around today that could battle with thelikes that he was used to. Although he did think it was a good idea for them tobe registered and described for those who wanted to know more about them.

There were instances were newcomers to the breed had been sold mixed breeds, whichweren’t real staffords at all and to him it was all wrong. If registrationwould help prevent and eliminate that sort of behavior he was all for it, butthat was way back in the 30’s.
Over the years the kennel club wanted one agreed standard for the entire breedas different clubs just operated to their own standard, which was no good andit was important for everyone that something definite was decided. The kennelclub sent out notices to all the breed clubs to seek cooperation and agreementon one standard for the entire breed and in may 1948, the southern club calleda special meeting to discuss this matter asking to drop the maximum height from18” to 17”.

The cradley club had already sent off to the kennel club what they thoughtshould be accepted, 14” to 16” and this was returned for discussion at the mainmeeting at wolverhampton, to which all clubshad sent delegates and the 14” to 16” height ratio was accepted without furtherobjections from anyone. There had been no prior suggestion of a drop to 16” andthe southern clubs delegates understood it, as it would be a reduction of only1 inch and not 2.

In a interview in the mid 80’s, bill was asked what his thoughts about thechange of standard in 1948 was and he replied like this:

“ it was the cradley fanciers who brought out the little ones. It appears theywanted the standard to suit their little dogs, not their dogs to suit thestandard. That is why they wanted the height brought down to 16” as theyalready had their smaller dogs ready. Newcomers to the breed, unaware of thesituation as it then existed, just went along with the alteration. They hadn’tmuch choice anyway!”

according to bill the reasons for breeding smaller staffords were many. Acommercial purpose was one, selling to females in competition against thepoodle and so on. His good friend vic pounds feared the exaggerationists in theshow circuit, as they would aim for massive heads, bigger boned animals and soon and who can blame him when you see the typical show specimen in today’s showring.

When asked about his thoughts he firmly stated:

“we are governed by ‘fashion’. In other words the 1948 standard contained thenew height/weight ratio, which i disagreed with and left the club because of. Ididn’t want to be a club member, all i wanted were good staffordshire bullterriers, but for my bitch i needed a good stud dog, most of which, as they aretoo standardized, do not come up to what one really wants, so you have to lookaround and try to find the nearest to what you want, which will probably havebeen bred for the show ring, which is dictated by ‘fashion’. When an animalbecome popular at shows it becomes the dictate of ‘fashion’ and fashiondictates sales, and to maintain the sales they maintain the popularity of the breedin order to maintain puppy sales and put money in their pockets!”

this “hot” topic would never lay to rest as it is still today being talkedabout in the same intense way. The debate will probably go on forever as therewas a split in the stafford fancy and the morehardcore sporting enthusiasts kept on breeding their stock after what had beenproven to be the best, “game to game” regardless of show standards. 4 yearsafter the standard was changed another meeting was called to discuss the“desired” heights for the breed and the following is the notes from thatmeeting.

Notes from a 1952 meeting on the "desired" heights for the breed.

The long and short of it!
Notes from a 1952 meeting on the "desired" heights for the breed.

Standard amendment
the joint meeting of staffordshire bull terrier specialist clubs was held on saturday, july 26th, 1952,at birmingham,following the staffordshire bull terrier club's championship show.

The following represented their respective clubs:

East midlands' s.b.t.c, messrs. Adderson,gibling and greenwood.

Northern counties' s.b.t.c. Mrs. Greenwood and messrs. Ainley and greenwood.

North ireland s.b.t.c. Messrs. Gordon,piesing, and tryhorn.

North wests.b.t.c. Messrs. Crompton, heargraves and rawnsley.

Scottish s.b.t.c. Messrs. Adams, findlater, and smith.

Southern counties' s.b.t.c. Messrs. Boylan, cairns, and tomlinson.

The staffordshire b.t.c. Messrs. Dudley, jack dunn and holden.

After a speech of welcome by mr. Holden, chairman of the s.b.t.c., the meetingelected him to the chair.

Mr. W. A. Boylan, on behalf of the s.c.s.b.t.c., tabled the following motion: “thatthis meeting agrees that the height/weight clause of the standard be amended toread 'desired heights - dogs 16 inches; bitches 15 inches. Desired weights -dogs 38 lb; bitches 34 lb.' "

"in making this proposition" said mr. Boylan, "i am doing soafter many years in the breed, and after noting the tendency since thealteration of the first standard of 15 to 18 inches, which were the original measurements,to the present one of 14 to 16 inches. My chief objection to the latter is thatthe tendency seems to be at the present to get a dog as short on the leg aspossible, and at the same time carry the maximum weight allowed in thestandard. We see exhibits of less than 14 inches being placed first, whilstdogs of 16 1/2 inches or 17 inches are put right out, when they are, in fact,only as much over the maximum height as the winning short-legged ones are lessthan the minimum height. That to me is entirely unfair and is also leading awayfrom the ideal fighting dog.

We have heard that some of our breed clubs have been in a certain amount ofdifficulty in having a reasonable number of exhibits that conform to the newstandard. Many of our oldest breeders are in agreement with this propositionand i will quote one. Mr. Charlie townsend states:
“the new move only fixes an ideal height and an ideal weight. With the slidingscale we are only perpetuating the lack of uniformity in the breed. With theideal size the judge can use his discretion, and that is a good thing. “

i had the privilege of putting this motion to a special general meeting of thesouthern club in march 1951, and have had plenty of time since to study itsimplications, and i am even more convinced than i was then that this willgreatly benefit the breed. Any of us who claim to have the interest of thebreed at heart must of necessity have in mind a picture of our ideal stafford, and i ask what your ideal in size and weight is?if it differs from my proposition, with all respect, i ask you to state it andfully discuss it, and so give all stafford owners, both present and future, theconsidered opinions of names which will live in the breed forever. The decisionof this meeting will be a future guide on the wisdom of our actions. If we failnow and leave things unsettled as they are, you can take it from me, mr.chairman, and gentlemen, that a move will be made which will advocate arevision of the standard to the point of leaving the height clause out of thestandard altogether.

In seconding the motion, mr. Cairns referred to the first joint meeting atwolverhampton, where the present standard was agreed, and said:

“ the outstanding thing about that meeting was the manner in which we reallygot down to the job, and i am sure that the same spirit will prevail at thismeeting. Fundamentally we have all the same object in mind. To do our best forthe breed, our clubs, and for our members. We have a great responsibility, andone which if we were not all sincere and deeply interested in we would havepassed on to someone else”

going back over my notes of that first meeting, i notice that the southerncounties drew attention to the fact that the kennel club had expressed theopinion that we should state a desired height and weight in the new standard.the s.c.s.b.t.s. General meeting had decided on heights of 15 and 17 inches,but in view of the kennel club suggestion, agreed “ desired height – dog 16inches and bitches 15 inches” this was put to the joint meeting. Mr. Jack dunn,then representing scotland,raised objection to this, and made a plea for “the little 24 pounders” which heknew around 1928; he did not say “little 14 inches” presumably because these “little24 pounders” were tallish 16 inchers. That is how the 14 to 16 inches cameabout.

I cannot believe any clubs’ membership accepted this without argument, but suchwas the standing of the respective delegates that these objections wereover-ruled. I am equally certain that is this motion is tonight accepted bythis meeting after listening to the discussion, the delegates here will becapable of getting their membership to accept the majority decision of thismeeting.

The case for this motion has already been given the widest publicity, whichwill certainly have been followed closely by everybody here.

It was first stated in march 1951, at a special general meeting of thes.c.s.b.t.s. And subsequently dealt with at great length in succeeding numbersof ‘the stafford’. A nationwide poll was organized, resulting in 183 votesbeing cast in favor to 6 against.
The important point, after the overwhelming majority, is that these votes camefrom all over the country; they were not confined to any one particular area.

Despite all the words written in support of the amendment, only one letter wasreceived from the whole area north of londonagainst!

As this is the only articulate objection to this proposition it is worthreferring to. This letter states:

“if we adopt a rigid height and weight clause with one stipulated figure thenscales and measurers would have to be adopted at every show”

it seems incredible that the simple statement ‘desired height’ could beinterpreted by anyone to mean that all stafford dogs, for example, must in thefuture be exactly 16 inches. It has been stated time and time again bycountless experts that the desired height for a stafford dog is 16 inches andthe present proposition is only capable of one interpretation, which is thatthe dog most nearly approximating the desired height and weight shall receivethe most marks when the height/weight clause of the standard is applied in thering. The writer of this letter is so wide of the mark, that it is the presentday standard, which calls for weights and measures to apply it correctly,whereas the proposed amendment allows that latitude which renders weights and measurescompletely unnecessary.

If this interpretation has been propagated in the councils of those clubs knownto oppose the amendment it can only be said that their decisions have beenarrived at on a complete misunderstanding of the meaning of the amendment andas such are valueless.

The writer continues: ‘ any responsible person in the breed sees in the presentstandard his ideal stafford to be in the upper limits of the weight/heightclause, then breed for it and tell the newcomers to aim for it’.

Would it be unfair to interpret this as an argument in favor of the amendment?
If we are going to say that the correct height and weight for a stafford dog is 16 inches and 38 pounds, what reasonableobjection can there be to stating it in the standard? We have reached theposition where supporters and antagonists all agree that the ideal dog shouldbe 16 inches and 38 pounds; can we logically continue with a standard thatdiscards dogs with a shade over 16 inches, whilst permitting others to be twoinches under?

The main reason for stating a height and weight at all is to establish thedesired balance of a stafford. If we show 16inches and 38 pounds that puts the balance in a nutshell.
14 to 16 inches and 28 to 38 pounds have confused everybody. We have all seen14 inch dogs shown, but what about their weights?
If anyone wants to lose some money try guaranteeing a class for under 32 pounddogs. Yet there were well filled classes for these when the minimum height was15 inches! Think this over carefully. It can mean only one thing and that isthat the present standard has created so much confusion that it is not capableof correct interpretation by the judges and is therefore useless.

Opponents have argued that we are rushing out fences, and that sufficient timehas not elapsed since the inception of the present standard and the tabling ofthe amendment.
The original standard was agreed in 1935, the present standard in 1948. Aperiod of 14 years, including seven years of war, when breeding was at itslowest ebb, and very infrequent dog shows were confined to small areas of thecountry. The period 1948 to 1952 saw a marvelous upsurge in the breed, with anaverage of four new champions each year, compared with four in four years inthe pre war period, when there were two specialist clubs as against eight now!

Opponents did not argue we were rushing our fences when the present standardwas agreed, yet the rate of the development in the first seven year period,with phenomenal expansion in the last four years. These facts coupled with thefirst class organization of the breed today, eight specialist clubs, a breedmagazine, 26 championship shows a year, and countless other shows puts us inthe best position ever to assess development in the breed.

If it was in order to alter the 1935 standard in 1948 after 10 lean years, itmust be in order to propose this slight amendment now, particularly when nopoint has been argued more fully than this one. Every interested person has hadample opportunity to state his case, and what do we find? 183 voted in favor, 6against, oceans of printed matter in favor, two letter (one of which wasmisleading) against!

If the clubs’ representatives are here to serve their members they must takethese figures into account. Perhaps we shall hear during the discussion howeach club got their opinions of their members; were these truly representativesof their membership?

It gives me great pleasure to second this proposition, because transcending allother considerations, the present standard has led to complete chaos, and thisconfusion will have a very serious effect on the breed until it is altered, asit surely will be, if not now then later.

One height and one weight states the desired balance of the animal in thesimplest possible terms. It can only lead to a greater uniformity in the breed,make satisfactory judging, and give the breeders, the backbone of the fancy, afair crack of the whip!

The chairman then invited questions and asked for further clarifications on thepoint as to whether the proposed amendment did mean that dogs should have to beexactly 16 inches and 38 pounds. Replying, mr. Boylan said that the propositionmeant exactly what it stated; its object was to establish a desired height andweight, an ideal and this was capable of only one interpretation, and that wasthat the dogs most closely approximating this ideal, other points being equal,would win. This allowed latitude above and below the ideal. The chairman saidthis should satisfactorily clear up that point.

In the discussion, mr. Hargreaves, n.w.s.b.t.s, said that he considered thepresent standard satisfactory. He preferred a dog of 16 inches and 38 pounds, butthought it dangerous to permit dogs above 16 inches. Mr. Ainley, northerncounties s.b.t.c, agreed with this view.

Mr. Boylan asked whether, in view of this, would either of the clubs concernedbe prepared to tell their members owning dogs over 16 inches that they wouldhave to leave their clubs, as those clubs were not prepared to cater for them.
Both answered in the negative.

Put to vote, the motion to agree the amendment was carried, 12 votes for and 8against.

The following standard amendment was also tabled by the southern countiess.b.t.s.:

That the section of the standard concerning eyes be amended to read “round ormedium size, not protruding and set to look straight ahead. From medium to verydark brown, the darker for preference, some may even appear black.”

this was carried nam. Con.
North west s.b.t.c proposed that clubs supporting this meeting agree thattravelling expenses of all delegates present be added together and that eachclub contributes an equal amount to the total expenses. It was explained thatthis was proposed with the object of helping the most distant clubs. Afterdiscussion the motion was withdrawn.

Scottish s.b.t.c. Proposed that each club guarantee the breed classes in allchampionship shows in its area, and submit its own list of championship showjudges to the promoting society.

It was stated on behalf of the scottish club that this motion was made in hopethat some agreement could be reached whereby they would be given an opportunityof putting up judges for shows in scotland; at present they have notbeen given an opportunity to have a say in the choice of judges in their area.

Mr. Cairns stated that the southern counties had never put up a list of judgesfor any of the scottish championship shows and if all the english clubs actedsimilarly there should be no further difficulties. He was in sympathy with thescottish club’s point of view and was sure his society would also support thisview. However, whilst the motion was simple as applied to scotland,certain difficulties could be foreseen when it came to a division of theenglish shows.

The scottish club proposed that clubs represented at this meeting agree toexchange club judging lists, or to include in their lists the names ofspecialist judges mentioned in the list of other clubs. The scottish delegatessaid that this motion was linked with the above and arose from the sameconsideration. They would be satisfied if delegates would report back to theirclubs and put the scottish point of view to their members.

A vote of thanks was accorded the chairman for the able way in which he hadconducted the meeting and he in turn thanked the delegates for their attendanceand interest in the important matters which had been so thoroughly discussed

Click to expand...

ill bump this reply till someone can argue otherwise!!!

Dusty Road · May 12, 2012

argue what...show people who ruined the breed ?

Log in or Sign up

staffies and pitbull's history

Dusty Road CH Dog

jacko CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

jacko CH Dog

bruce pitbull Pup

Dusty Road CH Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

northdogger Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

PitNoob Big Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

staffies and pitbull's history

Dusty Road CH Dog

jacko CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

jacko CH Dog

bruce pitbull Pup

Dusty Road CH Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

northdogger Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

PitNoob Big Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

7mmrowland Big Dog

Dusty Road CH Dog

Share This Page

Useful Searches