SJOUKE

Registered: 06/24/08
Posts: 335
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:11 PM | Reply with quote #201 |
|
WOW!!!! 
 So,if I understand it correctly: Mastiffs like these are very rare? __________________ Greetings:Ann-Lisa & Sjouke!
 |
| Loading... | |
Tracy

Moderator
Registered: 05/30/06
Posts: 7,559
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:18 PM | Reply with quote #202 |
|
Not rare at greiner hall or st patricks!! __________________ Ranchlands Mastiffs
http://www.ranchlandsmastiffs.com
Member MCOA, SSMF, FAME
Rescue Volunteer SSMR
If you dont rescue, Dont Breed.
We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.
Albert Einstein |
| Loading... | |
SJOUKE

Registered: 06/24/08
Posts: 335
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:21 PM | Reply with quote #203 |
|
Does that breeder have a website? __________________ Greetings:Ann-Lisa & Sjouke!
 |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:32 PM | Reply with quote #204 |
|
Erika,
"Could vs did", are the important wordings and you need to listen better!
It was regarding bone density vs strength and taken out of context and twisted, does create your own fabrication, does it not?
I've seen homes that were built so flimsy, that you could take a large fan and blow them down.
No, I didn't blow them down and people weren't crushed in the aftermath!
Get my meaning?
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
gwenstone

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 1,345
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:36 PM | Reply with quote #205 |
|
Quote: Your little Rainmaker , what’s in a name here on the Continent
Rainmakers is the kennel name. We call her Idril, after Tolkien's work. Rainmakers is owned by Becki Thyssen. Ann-Lisa, you'll find her website here. Idril is out of Rainmakers Fully Loaded x Rainmakers Keeping the Faith
You have to know Marcel that Becki lives on Indian Reservation land. The name Rainmakers just fits in fine.
Carl
__________________ Carl & Bes Van Bael
"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world."- Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
"Let him that would move the world first move himself."-Socrates |
| Loading... | |
emarsh
FORUM DONOR !!
Registered: 04/06/07
Posts: 1,603
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:49 PM | Reply with quote #206 |
|
"Get my meaning?" That this was/is hyperbolic rubbish ? Oh, ok. I feel better about that poor brick-boned dog now !
Erika M. __________________ Erika M.
http://www.kyniska.com |
| Loading... | |
rnmkrmstffs
Registered: 08/01/06
Posts: 258
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:53 PM | Reply with quote #207 |
|
My kennel was actually named after my dear departed Puddles. When he came to me his name was Puddles. I liked it and wanted a registered name that went with it. So he came to be known as Rainmakers Just Mak'n Thunder. Afterwards I decided to name my kennel after him. __________________ Rebecca Thyssen
http://www.rainmakersmastiffs.com |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 03:54 PM | Reply with quote #208 |
|
Erika, Bone density and large bones are not always tied to the same tree. That was the point being made, sorry if you ran in another direction! __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
emarsh
FORUM DONOR !!
Registered: 04/06/07
Posts: 1,603
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 04:00 PM | Reply with quote #209 |
|
I just quoted you Steve - ""I've seen large boned dogs, with bone so soft you could make a thumbnail impression by applying slight pressure." I am glad you didn't poke that poor dogs bones though !
Erika M.
__________________ Erika M.
http://www.kyniska.com |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 04:13 PM | Reply with quote #210 |
|
If I exaggerated the concept, in order to emphasize the point, you can hold it against me if you wish. But large bones do not always make for strong bones!
That was the point, and "hyperbole" is not a dirty word, if used in pursuit of making definitive examples for the better understanding of issues.
Now I must run off in order to continue kicking and beating my daughter's Chihuahua! __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 06:51 PM | Reply with quote #211 |
|
MB Wynn & co had indeed valuable documentations in order to provide an image of the Alpine ancestry in the modern Mastiff , therefore re-read his book . Wynn obtained lots of "documentation" and it's not Wynn I fault if that documentation was not fully vetted in many instances. Wynn lived at a time in which there were no telephones, no fax machines, no computers, no internet, few photographs, no automobiles, no planes and snail mail! His contemporaries endured the same environmental obstacles. All the more credos to Wynn's efforts in obtaining the information that he did under those difficult circumstances. That said, I do take many of the premises mentioned with a grain of salt, due in part to the conditions of obtaining verified information and the distances and time needed to fully vet those speculative views.
Nobody tries to prove that the actual Mastiff breed was a pure bred strain throughout centuries of breed history , but one must see under the eyes that it has worked as a funnel , ie in darkest of times without any definite clue , but then progressively emerging as a species towards a breed specific image based upon the contemporary needs re functionality and finally ending up in a well defined standard . That breed funnelling shall go on further , each time based upon contemporary standard interpretations annex specific ways of purpose ! Well, I agree in part, but man has always kept a hand in that "emergence". Dog brokers and other less than savory characters have always kept the "Mastiff" form from becoming extinct. The large size has been both a blessing & a curse for Mastiff types throughout history!
And , of course , de goût et de couleur on discute pas , but that does not exclude that throughout breed history of successive generations of Mastiff fanciers , generations which each had their own experienced individual contrasts , one should not be able to distillate the trends of evolution in breed interpretation . Well Nietzsche can be quoted and perhaps be applicable in these respects.
In the early days of dog shows , the breed was mainly dictated by a rage for size , in particular height , a/o ch Turk , Hales’ Lion , &c ; around 1870 there emerged a anti-trend for more vigour , strength and also clean squareness in head , a/o Rajah , his son Wolsey , &c ; around 1880 the fancy was more in for mere ‘ show decorum ‘ , ie squareness in head needed to become more rococco-like , bodies more bulky ; around 1890 the fancy was aware about the wrong direction and became more aware about the interest of soundness and tried to combine type & soundness without aiming at the pitfall of excess . Basically a result of the formation of an organized approach to breeding a "pure bred Mastiff". As groups met in one venue ( i.e. dog shows ) judges came into play and standards were formed and followed.
One could go on till present , but I think I’ve made clear my point of ‘ distillating ‘ a great amount of respective contemporary individual interpretations annex practices , which each in each cannot change the direction of the main stream of the breed evolution , as p ex the FACT that the acclaimed TOP-CLASS specimens have become progressively more broader in trunk , so that the 4/3 standard ratio of more than a century ago , a ratio which was averagely matched by the majority of those Victorian , now to date has been transformed in a 3/2 ratio , a ‘ NEW’ ratio which is seemingly not put into question , as being subject of a FIFTY PERCENT departure from the authentical one . Using the word "authentic" at a time in which the basic premise was laid out for a breed that was still in it's infancy, seems premature, since there was lots of infighting going on within the early club, which left our good Rev. Mr. Wynn out in the cold!
This is a fact , no one can deny that fact , as also no one can deny the fact that the head decorum has become more apparent , long flews , heavy folds , over large ears annex an unfunctional massiveness in limbs . Measurements were less that ideal back then and the ways Mastiffs were measured were not always done with care. Once again, more grains of salt! Not certain as to the totality of your points here Marcel.
So , you further on can swallow a huge lot of your own vague suppositions , spay muddle aka confusion all kind , and thereby close your eyes for definite trends in our breed , the Mastiff . That is exactly my point, in that nobody "knows" for "FACT" very much about the early Mastiff since the Mastiff was never one form!
And those so-called others are not locked into breed history and they certainly don’t accept blindly ever word . No , they are definitely critical minded but , listen carefully , IN A CONSTRUCTIVE ARGUMENTED WAY , instead of ‘ terrorisin ‘ breed’ eminent history without a clue for another valuable approach , except from creating historical chaos and being merely breed chauvenist in cases as a/o the massiveness in limbs , a feature which comes down from the ALPINE Mastiff , and not from its own indigenous genetics ! Once again Marcel, you avoided my earlier question of "where did the Alpine/Saint get it's bone?" You can label me a "terrorist" if you like ( please make note the direction of where the first stones start flying), but the question still goes unanswered by you. Why call the the breed the Alpine "Mastiff" if there is no Mastiff in the Alpine?
Your interpretation re the Alpine Mastiff development is chauvenistically coloured . Where are the references for as p ex ‘ many Hospice Saints were bred to Mastiffs to increase bone and change type!Perhaps in some specimens ! ‘ ? What is your ‘ reliable ‘source ? The same type of "reliable" sources that you find from your travels & readings! Plus, common sense and my own eyes! I can reference books and pages ( I did site you one just the other day) and the "chauvinism" that you accuse me of is questionable, since I am not the one with the dogmatic religious beliefs! I'm the guy who challenges dogma and questions rigid thinking by those, based on perfumed BS and haughty accalades, of high society and their "attributes" uber alles! The Mastiff in the Saint and the Saint in the Mastiff, at this point in time, is indisputable! The only question is, when and where these fusions occurred! We don't see very large boned Saints prior to the introduction of the "Saint" into England, not to mention type changing as well. And I don't believe you would deny the crosses that occurred after that introduction, in order to suit the fancy and popularity of the "Mastiff/Saint" look, that was more popular than the lesser Alpine breed in many British circles. These are things I've read, is it in stone? I can't "prove" it! But somehow the Saint changed in form and I can only reason the ultimate source of that change! Is that "Chauvinism", or just common sense!
And thank you for your accolade – ‘ there will always be those who come to logical conclusions based on empty rhetoric and speculation .’ Only in response to your earlier kind words of me my friend! I didn't fire the first salvo! Look, you were the one to say that we can debate and not take it beyond to personal levels, yet you seem to not adhere to your own preferences! I don't follow your way of construct, I admit that, and I commend you for the format which makes you most secure! But if I feel that a single crocus does not a springtime make, please spare me from the wrath of Khan!
Re – ‘ early Hospice Saints possessing extraordinary bone ‘ , nobody has said this ! My point is that they were heavier in bone than the Mastiff , indigenous to Britain . I don't believe that from all pictures that I've seen in that regard! There were similar leg constructs on Mastiffs in that same period in time.So you’re skewing my words for a definite reason . No reason other than my opposing view! I’ve clearly stated that the extraordinary bone/limb emerged from the ultra-selective breeding for show decorum a/o in England instead of the Hospice’ functionality which did not care for extraordinary bone , but only for bone/limb thickness which was appropriate for doing their job in those harsh scenery . A Hospice dog was not a catwalker , he did not need the exaggerated thickness in limbs , displayed by his later dog show offspring , but he definitely had the inert genetic clue for such levels of cross-sectional limb size in its very own self . So you are saying that the Saint did not possess the large bone, yet it had the capacity for large bone that NEVER EXPRESSED after countless generations? Please re-think what you've just stated! Genetically, it is without sand!
This debate shall not go on forever , as you’re running out of gas , ie to date only able to repeat your own words , and once again the super large bone come from the Alpine related large & heavy dog species , Darwin-like adapted to cold harsh conditions by a/o great cross-sectional sized limbs . So now the large bone DID exist? Marcel, you want it both ways! It's not me who is running low on methane!
Re the general look of most pre 19000ties Hospice Saints , how on earth can YOU know that that picture represent that ‘ general look ‘ . You’re always denying other man’ documentation as being irrelevant because of representing only sole individual , see the Pluto’ case , and now you’re SETTING IN STONE , the general look of the Hospice Saints throughout centuries of pre 1900ties . Have you pictures annex descriptions of all of them in order to make your conclusion right ? Well I don't have ALL of the pictures, but I've seen plenty over the years, since my first love was the Saint and not the Mastiff! That said, Barry and all of the other Barry's that came down from that Hospice in the clouds, did not have extraordinary bone! Some were very nice Mastiff "like" dogs, that did not possess the substance, type and bone that was evident in latter years. When my doctor hands me a prescription I fill it, I don't ask him for his medical history and education, nor do I ask for the researchers that formulated the product prescribed! I must take a leap of faith that he knows what he is saying, because I trust him and I don't need superfluous documentation. In Mastiff history, there are few "doctors" and those that emerge as learned in this field, should be challenged, if certain premises are vague. Everyone is a target for inquiry and if something doesn't make sense to a particular poster, they MUST ask for clarification! NOBODY is above that scrutiny in this breed of ours! NOBODY!
For me it’s clear , you’re handling a system of ‘ two weights and two measures ‘ and everyone who reads this posts can take note of your way of discussion . Must everyone use your methods of weights & measures? Must there always be some picture or name attached to your premise, in order to give it more weight? Does THAT make it correct and indisputable? Or, does it add to the general confusion of smoke & mirrors, in order to project competence, in an area that cannot be anchored in competence due to the nebulous ways of securing information? You herald Crown Prince as a dog much aligned by those that didn't know better! Yet in the photo that I saw, this dog was truly wanting and appears to have some major structural issues. Now you can state your case, and I support your right to do so, but you can't conclude that everyone else was historically wrong, based on your logical conclusion to the contrary. There were a ton of well respected fanciers who blasted Crown Prince and felt that he contributed to the poor condition in soundness that lasted for close to 100 years! I respect your taking the opposing view, but all because you can site other judges that placed him, does not prove that the other critics were dead wrong! What is your view of that historical photo? You like that "Mastiff"? In either case, I'll defend your ability to voice that view, without seeing you as a terrorist!
It becomes rather painful for this Hellingly thread to become confronted with a irrelevant reference to hoofed animals . Where is the interest re this discussion about massiveness in limbs , other than ridiculising another man’ well documented arguments ? And who’s avoiding to look up at the real answer of that question of heavy limbs’ origin ? To date , only you on this board , because of which reason ? The "reason" was the extra appendage, or dew claw, no more, no less! It isn't necessarily a proof positive extention of "Alpine" origin.
Is someone else besides yourself , not entitled to answer your own question ? If that’s the case , you should aim at a place as hermit in some remote monastery , maybe at Great Saint Bernard ? What’s really the matter there ? Are we being sarcastic now Marcel? Asking a question and next step ‘ terrorising ‘ the answer in your own experienced vague , chaotic way ? I think on the long term , people are not longer prepared to play in that selfish game of playing ‘ the man instead of the ball ‘ . Where did I heard it before ? So , this issue is closed as it’s way from a mutual positive constructive approach and it only should further degenerate in some foul name calling , totally irrelevant re the real content of the issue . The name calling has never started from this poster and never will! Well you can alway run from a debate and then accuse "ME" of creating your flight from this discourse. After all, who am I to hold you here if you wish to go into seclusion! You seem to need clear cut answers to questions that don't have clear cut solutions! You may feel that your way of approaching this subject is the ONLY way. If that's the case, who am I to tell you not to use the approach which makes you most secure! But I come from a different mindset, no doubt one that you cannot be comfortable with! So the "chaos" that you see and find totally confusing, is seen as such because it gets you thinking on levels that have already been put to bed in your psyche and this dissonance of sorts, MUST be put down, in order to bring your thoughts back to stasis. I understand! Fully!!!
If you’re ‘tuned‘ rightly , you may call this a runaway or a surrender , so be my guest as it bothers me no single daim , in the knowledge that readers of this thread can definitely make up their mind re the value of this thread , free from your allegations , quite embarrasing not only to me but a whole lot of historical stalwarts who were part of the development of this breed . Very sad , isn’t it ? Safety in numbers Marcel? I speak my mind based on what I've learned over the years. I can't always quote chapter & verse, but I do try my best to impart something of what I've learned. If we come from different avenues and come to different conclusions, so be it! I hold you in high regard no matter what, because of your passion if nothing else! If you need to demonize me and use numbers in order to support your views, I've been there before and it won't affect my accumulated experiences, or personal beliefs. Ultimately, this breed will find various levels of form & function, as it has for countless centuries and our petty disagreements in the greater span of time, will be without rememberance of those who we deem judges & juries of our interactions!
Now , one can take poison on it , that you shall refer to your freedom of speech in your own way and that nothing is set in stone and blablabla , &c , so do realise your responsibality to this board of learning and the members involved and take your conclusions in that way , but this way of behaviour leads to NOWHERE , except from some highly insignificant field game . Either you’re constructive in a positive critical way , otherwise you shall have to look for someone else as I mentioned earlier on re another member on this board . The key is ‘ CONSTRUCTIVE ‘ and be sure I’m NOT A FOOL . You are not a fool! And I am not your patsy!
Edit – Small detail of relevance . Look at Sir Edwin’ drawing of the Alpine Mastiff , and one can observe a rather short coated body ditto limbs , but a definitely ‘bushy’ stern . Why ? ... A tail is longish thin , so coldness can get problematic in order to behold required temperature which cannot be held at correct level , and therefore this thin tail of a high ratio square surface : cubic contents , is clothed by a woolly coat ! So if one spots a real heavy limbed Mastiff , do scrutinize his tail clothing ! Drawings & paintings are rarely accurate! But if they serve your preposition, more power to you!
PS The Marquis' Pluto' tail should be frozen in harsh Alipine conditioning , isn't it ? Or is this also only anecdotical and of no relevance ? I don't understand! I do not agree , David , with your statement re origin of heavy bone , therefore read this and former posts . It's important to know the origin , because if one aims at one particular virtue , ie massive limbs , there's also the link to the breed who's responsible for that 'virtue' with thereby also the possibility of not only inheriting the virtue but also that breed' points which are NOT wanted in the Mastiff . I think , you know where I'm talking about . How do you know what is NOT wanted in the Mastiff? Where does it say that large bone is undesirable? Size is a great desideratum, isn't bone part of size, or have you personally revaluated that trait as un-Mastiff like? If you now see a Mastiff with great bone, will you label it Saintly?
Yes , I do like Beaufort because he's the epitome of the authentic standard . Many present top classers are overdone in many ways and this has nothing to do with an enhancement of specific breed functionality , no justly otherwise . My 'fear' is that due to the 'selling by auction' procedures re coming into the picture of the showring or re 'creating' an own 'stamp , which is mostly to be translated in still more elevated levels of excess in Mastiff points .
Beaufort shows a sound construction , had the right coordinates to do his job properly and lived up to real old age . Small Mastiffs live longer than larger Mastiffs, yet 300 lb Zorba lived to 13! He's a real nice historical example for our actual fancy . That doesn't exclude that I also can admire actual MM-like specimens , but there's a point of no sound return . We've reached since some time another ratio 3:2 (150:100) instead of 4:3 (133:100) and therefore I despise every effort which should be made in order to , once again , ' recreate ' another ratio into direction of a 166:100 ratio aka a ratio which perfectly matches the phenotype of a modern English Bulldog , a ratio which doesn't generate anymore any level of Mastiff 'grandeur' ! I'm totally confused with your ratios Marcel, I must admit! And if I'm confused....guess what!...LOL
For me personally , it's not the question if my views suit the actual general taste , but that they represent as best of possible , the Victorian ideas about our breed , those who founded our breed in his own speciality and I hope my view can in some slight way prevent that our precious breed becomes only an embellished brindle/fawn/apricot variety of the Saint Bernard , and even losing his wonderful skills in guarding , one of its main puroposes for mankind .
Victorian ideals are very nostalgic, but this is 2008 and although we should respect past performance, if progress is to be made, we must bring this breed into the 21st century! That means questioning old views and wording and clarifying aspects of subjective interpretations, so that we can ALL be on one page! Good thing that the Victorians did not admire the Neanderthals! __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/03/08 at 10:32 PM | Reply with quote #212 |
|
 Barry the "famous" Saint Bernard
Barry was brought to Berne by a monk in 1812. This is a fact that the old Prior confirmed to Heinrich Schumacher in 1866. Barry remained in Berne and finally died at the age of 14. His body was stuffed and put on exhibit. The taxidermist gave Barry a rather humble and meek attitude because the Prior wanted Barry to serve as a reminder of constant servitude to future generations. In 1923, the old mounted Barry was refurbished. Barry had become rather brittle and his coat had dissolved into over 20 pieces. It is thanks to the craftsmanship of the next taxidermist, Georg Ruprecht that Barry was so expertly preserved. __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SJOUKE

Registered: 06/24/08
Posts: 335
|
| Posted 09/04/08 at 02:10 PM | Reply with quote #213 |
|
Several judges said about Sjouke that he had great bone. What do they mean bij that? How does "not great bone" look like? Can anyone place a picture of a dog who hasn't great bone? __________________ Greetings:Ann-Lisa & Sjouke!
 |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/04/08 at 02:22 PM | Reply with quote #214 |
|
One of the reasons , David , I present Beaufort is that he implements the Victorian ideas about the Mastiff phenotype . And , of course , every breed has known its development during more than a century as general flavors change to compare with women’ fashion , taking into account that in that fashion regularly are made retro stylings in some sense of nostalgia and maybe the next year one goes for futuristic lines .
If one shouldn’t have ANY notice of the ‘generally accepted’ Mastiff phenotype in the Victorian era , then where are our roots , our haven of safety or our historical touch stone ?
Should I want a real reveil of that Victorian phenotype aka Beaufort ? Yes . Why ? Because it matches so closely the standard which not only calls for massiveness aka bulk but also limitations in order to prevent excess in any form , and therefore Beaufort is an excellent model . Is such aim at a reveil realistic ? 100 percent , NO . Should I stop mention those famous fore bears ? No , because it’s a definite warning for EXAGGERATION , a feature which was quite disastrous in many eras of our breed history . If you look at Beaufort & co , you perfectly can assess excess in any form re actual Mastiffs . Yes , he’ a touch stone . Does I despise those MM-like bulky ones ? No . Do I try in some very tiny way to prevent further evolution re increasing bulk vis-a-vis the MM phenotype ? Yes . Why ? Because too much way off the standard and in ANY way more functional and certainly not more healthy .
And I agree , we must focus at the future of our breed , especially re soundness aka health , conditions which were mainly strongly neglected in the Victorian era due to the rage for head type & substance in fore body . So do have we sounder Mastiffs at present ? Generally spoken , yes .
Do we have better OEMC heads at present ? No , I prefer heads as Orlando and of course the OEMC correct head type drawn by RH Moore because they are genuinely standard ‘clean’ without any superfluous tralala , as a/o over wrinkling , heavy folding , overlong lips annex flews , excessive dewlap , overlarge coarse ears , high fore heads , doomed skulls , &c , &c . Re head type , we can still ‘learn much from the Victorians ! Can it be done ? Yes , whynault .
Steve , nice article re calcification and also nice of you to repost my former post but as I’ve clearly said , the heavy bone discussion is closed for me . Almost all relevant cards are laid on the table , so let the readers of the thread make up their minds . I stand by my points and you by yours and further discussioning is senseless and enerving .
I couldn't resist , but be sure no gloating on my part . This is a taxidermistic HIGHLY bred 'show' Mastiff counter part , born about some century later . Take your time when comparing it with the Holy Barry bred ONLY for functionality , when slurping some Swiss brandy ! Do take in mind Barry was YOUR example for demonstrating so-called 'average bone/limb size . Heavy limb fur , that Barry ...
So , I'm sure you do have an utmost plausible explanation for this limb comparison of a Mastiff and a Holy Hospice displaying + FIFTY percent more lateral breadth off 2/3 of the leg height , isn't it ?
Make your day , give a good push of gas and maybe a airborne dispute is arising about skewed pics , different angles of views , ditto re lengths of legs and ratios , quality of respective taxidermy annex breed examples , &c , &c , aka the cat who's searching after her own kittens , is coming our way , an do observe the respective cross-sectional tail size re ability to withstand extreme coldness , but as I've made up my mind , this time without me because without any sense as it's clear as the bright water from the source upon Great Saint Bernard , ie HEAVY BONE is coming from THE HOLY ALPINE ONES , THUS NOT THE BRITISH MASTIFF .
And even nowaydays it remains very obvious that Saint Bernards (let's say 'theoretically'7/8 pure Saint annex 1/8 Mastiff) are averagely STILL MUCH HEAVIER in limbs than Mastiffs ( let's say 'theoretically' 7/8 pure annex 1/8 Saint B) .
So , stay tuned with a tiny hint , ie if you don't like my style of writing a/o rhetoric , &c , &c , don't read it !
Source of Mastiff pic - Dogs of the last hundred years at the British Museum (Natural History) by Kim Dennis-Brown and Juliet Clutton-Brock .
Edit -
The KC standard asks for black nails . At Crufts 2005 , the judge Mrs Jill Hicks reported a/o that white toenails were still in evidence . In fact , nails can display a range of different shades from deep black via taupe (brownish grey) up to albino , ie clear white enabling to observe , the pink quick in the centre . If one breeds albino to albino the result shall be hundred percent albino , iow it breeds true being recessive .
The KC Bull Mastiff standard stipulates that dark toenails are desirable whilst the AKC ask for black nails and that against the KC English Bulldog standard without any colour reference re toenails . In the knowledge that ‘black nailed’ English Bulldogs , that pigment definitely needed to come down from the Mastiff input before the ‘creation’ of the Bull Mastiff standard .
White nails correlates strongly with white coat colour , and a/o the Great Dane - & the Fila standard allow them only if the coat colour does contain a certain amount of white , p ex as in the harlequin Dane . So if in Mastiffs with an amount of white in coat , especially off pads , show up white nails , one can presume there’s a similar genetic link in play .
Few Mastiff judges consider white toenails as a heavy fault , and certainly if the dog in question is otherwise well-pigmented in markings & nose . Nevertheless ‘enormously cross-sectionally sized’ white nails are intriguing , especially in unicolored specimens without any white patch and displaying quite breed- untypical enormous leg bone/limbs , ditto size in ‘ snowshoe-like pads ’ , in the knowledge that this very peculiar emsemble of specific details is since long times utmost common in top-class show Saint Bernards .
A todays’ proof of the Holy supremacy in bone/limbs massiveness aka FIFTY percent more breadth in limbs , certainly not only due to SMOOTH COATED fur .
Attached Images:
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/04/08 at 05:31 PM | Reply with quote #215 |
|
Marcel,
If you wish to use a dane like "Mastiff" to display bone density & girth compared to Barry's "great bone" be my guest!
As I stated earlier, one crocus does not make a spring!
You still have not addressed the issues I've raised, regarding the origin of "great bone" in the Saint! Instead, you shut down the discourse due to fragile nerves on your side. Perhaps some good brandy might settle your anxieties.
Typically, in feral creatures, if given enough time, mutations and Darwinian selections can account for shape shifting forms, that may benefit the organism i.e. for colder climates etc.
But in the Saint, there is no indication of heavy limbs emanating from the breed (intraspecific) without man's intervention. That intervention, was due to crosses, which added to that bone size. Saint type changed in England and so did bone in a number of specimens, due to those crosses. You claim that the heavy bone was in the genes of the Saint, but never expressed? How does that occur? It can't! After countless generations at the Hospice the genes would have made themselves known, if they were in fact hiding!
The Barry "type" is a far cry from the Saint/Mastiff look that emerged years later.
The Roman Molosser, which is the remnant behind most of these Alpine breeds gave rise to the Hospice Saint. Those guardians of the legions interbred with local dogs and left their mark. The Monks later utilized selective finds and bred them into the noted Saint of the Hospice. Other crosses have influenced bone as well, most notably the Newf. But that introduction also had an affect on type, not just hair length & bone. So, it all depends on the period in time at the Hospice, when debating these issues of bone & type.
Were there Mastiffs that were wanting in bone? Of course, but what does that prove? Weren't there Mastiff's which also carried good bone?
As far as your style of writing goes, feel free to keep on track, if you recall it was you who first complained about my style! I felt it only proper to respond point for point in your elongated and time consuming post, but you state that the conversation is over and I guess... that's that! Yet, you still respond when you wish as in your last post, so it does get confusing about where one conversation ends and another begins. Perhaps as long as you are in control and feel determined to direct the course of conversation, you feel safe, otherwise it's usually bye bye? I won't label it childlike, but it does border on that aspect.
Perhaps "soft bones" are not as metaphorically perfumed as " sharply cropped ears pinning to heaven ", but I presume that poetic license does have it's place!
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/04/08 at 06:18 PM | Reply with quote #216 |
|
Marcel,
We can continue to cannibalize one another, or start anew!
Your call!
Our differences are there, make no mistake, but our common ground for the betterment of the breed is there as well.
We will continue to bump heads, no doubt, but if we proceed in this downward spiral, nothing positive will emerge from that free fall!
I hope you're on the same page!
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/07/08 at 07:29 AM | Reply with quote #217 |
|
I wonder if there are here Americans on the board who ever visited the Swiss area of Great Saint Bernard in spring time ? We did and we saw endless lila colored fields of crocuses , a thrilling sensation especially in such a Grand Alpine scenery .
I thought we had some clearness about the play rules aka ‘ Do play the ball instead of ... ‘ , but , once again , showing my respect , I’m thankful re the utmost concern about my nerves and in the same time I shall comfort everybody that my nerves were/are fine and that without any form of medicine . I hope everyone could say the same .
Re origin of heavy bone in Mastiffs , I’ve said more than once that the issue was closed for me . The reaction was that someone was in need to trigger some extra provocation , salted by , once again , some quite tasteless remarks re my personality .
So the original issue was the origin of the heavy bone of the breed which is subject to this board and to date , I think , is the Mastiff . Ad nauseum I’ve provided quotes of then contemporary Mastiff historians illustrated by a number of drawings annex pics . All those & other documents demonstrate the same concept – The Mastiff of the early Victorian era was a large massive bodied phenotype with large ‘adequate’ bone to sustain that body mass , not more or less .
That conclusion is clear to me and it should be rather quite superfluous to present a ‘big’ number of illustrations in order to prove something which is evident if one knows his breed classics aka thé prominent pillars of Victorian Mastiff breeding . All Victorian grand male champions as Turk , Queen , Rajah , Wolsey , Cardinal , Pontiff , Crown Prince , Prince Regent , Beaufort , Peter Piper , Marksman show off , in slightly different degree , that the then Mastiff breed was NOT a heavy aka Saintly limbed race , but a breed with that typical balance of the mighty body of a guard which can seize a human , complemented with large but functionally adequate bone/limbs . Females followed that trend in their own proper sexe linked way .
If one should do the effort to study illustrations ancient books , as p ex of James Watson , one should immediately see the difference in bone/limbs between contemporary Mastiffs and Saint Bernards , the latter being ‘tout court’ superior’ in that respect .
In those times , Mastiff' heaviness is bone/limbs was much better to compare with that of the Bloodhound , slightly less tall but proportionally about the same cross-sectional size of bone/ fore limbs , as a/o shown by the comparison between ch Beaufort , 29 1/2 i tall and the contemporary Bloodhound par excellence , Mr Edwin Brough' Burgundy , about 28 inches tall . By the way , the Bloodhound was a common ancestor of both the Mastiff and Saint Bernard . Do notice the mutual difference in 'FLESHINESS' on hind legs , the Mastiff displaying the broad hams , a perception also enhanced by the Mastiff' stance , his back hand being somewhat more closely placed to the eye of the beholder .
Those who are not prepared to believe this truth , are usually the same who are not prepared to believe that during history , the great majority of top-class Mastiffs annex the exception proves the rule , were in overall phenotype , medium sized . Take par example Rajah , Wolsey , Beau , Crown Prince , Beaufort , Ogilvie , Peter Piper . Those were the Mastiffs who mainly fixed the OEMC breed’ phenotype , and not the tall dogs as p ex Turk , &c.
Re heavy Saintly bone , I’ve never claimed that it was never expressed at the Hospice as I only said that due to Darwin-like factors the Alpine breed was favoured with a phenotype , much more coarse in many respects opposite the lowland sub-species in Britain which was confronted with totally different habitat .
The monks were happy with that form of phenotypical acclimatation and they didn’t had any reason to exaggerate some features of that specific phenotype , as their obvious aim was to breed the most healthy aka sound aka functional ones .
Now if such a phenotype annex genotype came into the ‘hands’ of Englishman , famous for their ‘upgrading’ of livestock all kindred and functionality was no longer top priority , it becomes obvious that their craftsmanship of selective breeding practices shuold give different results , because they focused on exaggeration of features which were present in the functional aka almost natural styling of the very same breed . So , the Saint Bernard in Britain got his rather almost ‘unnatural’ size in limbs .
The cross with the Mastiff was only done for head properties as the vogue was going for squareness opposite to the Hospice’ race which owned a more ‘natural’ shape in head properties without ‘artificially bred’ shortness in face , &c , &c . So , the Barry type has NOTHING to do with the early Victorian Mastiff which didn’t possessed any of the functional requirements in order to be efficient in Alpine circumstances , a/o the thin tail should be frozen off , &c , &c . So those monks were certainly clever re choosing correct phenotypes for breeding in their stock so well known for FUNCTIONALITY , for them an ‘artificially bred’ square Mastiff head alone was worthless .
Everything before the early Victorian era , is interesting reading stuff but rather irrelevant because too much speculation and too less clearness . If asked after examples of real heavy limbs in Mastiff during Victorian days , the answer and/or the pics involved were never given . Why ? Because one becomes confronted with pics as a/o from ch Turk , of enormous tallness annex body mass but unfortunately only moderate in limbs ?
Why is it that in the ‘quest’ after heavy limbs’ in Mastiffs , one has to travel back in time several thousands years back in order to find a so-called proper example of ‘something finally set-in-stone’ an Assyrian heavy limbed Mastiff-lookalike with thereby the absolute connotation that Assurbanipal was never ‘King of the Alps’ . Yes, yes, yes , running in the past until meeting an ultra heavy boned ‘Mastiffs’ , justly before entering Noah’ Ark ...
For so far I know , nobody on this board has assumed that Victorian Mastiffs didn’t carried ‘good’ bone . That bone was large but Darwin-like more appropriate to their specific functionality of guarding Britain’ Masters & properties , so that sort of ‘good bone’ was indeed present in a great number of Mastiffs , known by reports or illustrations .
About symptoms of ‘childlike’ behaviour and anaylysis of their origins , I know quite a lot more than you and Carl together . Trust me on that , being thirthy-five years full-time involved with educating children , at school some two-hunded each year under personnal supervision & and two at home which gives also clear insights in order to assess one's very own self behaviour re such systematics vs causes , ditto controls over them .
Quite perceptive at school play fields , is that children annex teenagers , now and then , ‘label’ each other with silly names , particularly if they are ‘standing’ in the losing counter , being an obvious expression of frustration and/or jealousy . Another symptom of obvious ‘childish’ behaviour is blaming the other one that he (the other one) started first with being ‘unkind’ and there was a uncontrollable need to response in the same way , ie monkey-like imitation of behaviour whilst again another one is ‘labeling’ the one who’s leaving the place of silly behaviour in the knowledge that there’s NOT any interest or ‘proudness’ to be part of such silly way of playing around without any form of mutual respect .
A quite typical example of ‘childish behaviour’ is questioning the level of task , p ex some try to convince the teacher & the others to play on a smaller field instead of the genuine scaled one , because of their lack of phyiscal condition and/or mental perseverance , as they do know about the little chance they have to put their ‘stamp’ upon the field game .
It are mostly the same children or teenagers who do not want to 'learn' from adults aka teachers because they are mostly in the convincement to know things better , even without having read any single handbook re the specific matter , so a clear example of a childish inflated ego .
Childish behaviour is also to observe in the fact that some youngsters do think that their own ‘marbles’ are always nicer & more valuable than those of others , and they shall argue until eternity in order to get the last word as 'proof' of their being right , not in any way hampered by any ideas of objectivity and those same children also have the need to make 'cliques' in order to try to enhance their 'labeling force' against some other ones who seemingly have a lot more of adult aka wise common sense in order to approach the living together issue in a constructive , so NOT destructive , way .
Do I need to go on with this matter , or should it be irrelevant because the main ‘message’ is already made clear ?
So , in the trustful convincement and respect that every ‘engaged’ adult has built up common sense re educating children annex teenagers , I still dare to state that I’m an academically qualified and experienced expert in education matters , a/o in assessing childish behaviour , you and Carl NOT .
And , by the way, I never claimed to be ‘such an expert’ in rearing Mastiffs because what I’ve posted about that issue was only ‘common sense’ built up through limited own experience , assessing behaviour of other one’s dogs , and reading Mastiff related information all kind . Still , without any outspoken claim on my part , I became labeled as some ‘would-be’ expert . Sad , isn’t it ?
So , if both of you are ever again in the ‘desire’ of labeling any other members on this board , all equal in their own respect re the betterment of the breed , try firstly to identify your own ‘underlying’ reasons for ‘labeling’ read ‘manipulating’ that particular member of the board .
As you yet must know , I’m NOT interested in people who try to threaten as this is UTMOST irrelevant for the betterment of the Mastiff breed and be sure I’m independent and do not have any interest in being on the same page if truth cannot be said due to some skewed breed historical perceptions . So , your warning for a free fall is again irrelevant if meant that no matter what breed issue , we all do need to sing the same tune , being ‘in fear’ for some ‘tasteless’ reaction . Let me have a good laugh , being uninterested in silly games .
The only reason I have to be present on this board is procuring information and interpretation I’ve gathered during space of time , and certainly not only for you & Carl , but for EVERYONE who’s interested in those issues involved . So again , if you and Carl don’t like my posts , so don’t read them and ignore them as being irrelevant . That’s fine as you & others do have the same opportunities re presentation of your information/interpretation and let the readers , each for thelmselves , decide upon the scala of information/interpretation what suits them best to make up their own positive critical mind , free from any game re sheer private aka personnal matters . So don’t throw stones or ‘boulders’ if you’re living in a glass house .
Attached Images:
|
| Loading... | |
gwenstone

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 1,345
|
| Posted 09/07/08 at 10:59 AM | Reply with quote #218 |
|
Marcel, I'm sitting here, wondering what I said that is so personal or even childish. I posted some pictures of the pup when we came back from Wisconsin. I told you that bone is not a property belonging to the St.Bernard and a bit back, I agreed with David that we should look at the future and move on. That's it. Marcel, this is a message board. This means... people post an opinion and others respond to that. As far as I know this is still a democracy and one is allowed to have an opinion. This opinion can wake you up from a dream world but it's only an opinion.
I really don't understand why you have to bring up the fact that you had to deal with 200 children each year. Is this the reference? I had to deal with a 1000 dogs a year in my boarding kennel, funny dogs, crazy dogs, lawyers, vets, ... and I had to clean up after them, very often after the lawyers and vets too... real life. You simply don't have this experience as a teacher. In fact... you never left the school classroom... you don't have the taste of real life. You stay in that dream world and feel good preaching. God forbid someone doesn't agree.
I have a very strong opinion about most academics in the dog world. When you have to deal with vets on a regular basis you very soon notice that 90% of them, if not more, are not capable of dealing with Mastiffs and yes... I have the impression that a lot of them are only after your money. They don't share your worries. Don't get me wrong... there are some excellent vets out there, very knowledgeable people... but these are rare, very rare.
Again Marcel, I don't see any reason why you mention my name for going personal. I browsed through this post and I cannot find it. Steve doesn't even know you. How can he go personal.
Quote: I still dare to state that I’m an academically qualified and experienced expert in education matters Did anybody ever question that? I'm the first one to say that you're very knowledgeable. But it is in your nature to very much idolize the whole thing. You start analyzing pedigrees and try to find out why a certain breeder did a certain combination. He or she MUST have done this because of that or that reason. Very often this is not the case. I look at it more from my experience as a breeder. Finances do have a very big impact on a breeding program. Emotional impulses and friendships are very often the reason certain breedings happen. This breeding experience reflected on the history of the past is reason enough to ask to look at it in another way. History is only correct if you take everything into consideration. Also the human aspects of breeding.
Carl
__________________ Carl & Bes Van Bael
"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world."- Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
"Let him that would move the world first move himself."-Socrates |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/07/08 at 12:31 PM | Reply with quote #219 |
|
Marcel,
You've built your case against me, the same way you build you case on other matters as well.
You'll seize on a premise and run the field with the ball, even though your legs are taking you in the wrong direction.
As a father of three married children and three grandchildren, I believe my "childish" ways are a projected aspect of your own persona.
Now, you can say that I'm acting childish by this observation, but I do have a point of view based on your behavior in this regard. I'm not responsible for you leaving threads, deleting threads and running away as you've done in the past! You picked up your "marbles" and left the group to play by themselves. You were punishing us? Depriving us of the rare comic books? I believe that you've been hanging around children for too long perhaps!
If you track the posts, you WILL find that I did not throw the first stone.
My high crime was in not agreeing with some of your posts, perhaps in part, because they are in many instances, very confusing and unintelligible! Key points are made, then changed to suit your argument. If you don't agree with my views, you demand immediate verification, instead of recognizing that my views are formulated by years of assimilated subject matter, which gives rise to my views. Not every thought can be footnoted with page, author and chapter. For the most part, I'm at my office when I'm responding to you and others and running a number of businesses, as I'm attempting to post at the same time! I'm not retired, or on sabatical when formulating my posts and I don't have the convenience of being near my collection in order to extract certain answers to validate some challenges raised. Rather than not respond, I do respond, even at the risk of that response not being up to the calibre of your personal, overly structured way of posting.
Others have had difficulty in your way of presentation in certain posts and there is a natural gap in understanding on the internet in general, but coupled to the content in your postings, it does get confusing at times. No doubt you'll see this as the Lilliputians to your Gulliver, instead of recognizing the actual issues!
There is a language barrier and there are misunderstandings, on both sides, no doubt, but you fail to acknowledge this aspect of these interactions. You assume the worst first ( e.g. "there are sommeliers and there are sommeliers" )! When I gave you that compliment, you took it as a slight and incorrectly responded as such. That's but one example, there are many.
We all add to the whole Marcel and if you truly feel you are here to help in that regard, great! But make no mistake, actions speak louder than words and threatening to leave, or deleting threads, is not evidence of altruistic reasons for imparting information to the group.
I welcome debate, even if the issue may be circular in nature!
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/07/08 at 03:10 PM | Reply with quote #220 |
|
Carl , no problem about people posting an opinion and others respond to that , if that’s done free from superfluous ‘silly’ labeling , thé reason why so less people do engage themselves in debates re this kind of issues .
Re ‘ you never left the school classroom... you don't have the taste of real life . You stay in that dream world ... ‘ , you definitively know you’re L-Y-I-N-G. You only knew me from a distance and now after years you poorly try to put my in some comic case aka the unwordly professor Barabas . Well , let me tell you this , as you and Steve being self-employees cannot figure out that being a teacher is alot more than you do imagine because each school is the final result of teamwork under adults , with at least one pedagogic meeting a week , next to this I had much more socio-cultural commitments than you ever had in that part of life known by me , which stood merely in the sign of breeding Mastiffs and all the rest did interested you less or nothing, and now you try to present you as an ‘open world’ connoisseur, so don’t run next to your shoes ...
Steve , you try to attack constantly . Do you think readers aren’t aware of that ? Your ‘psychological projection’ theory is only part of manipulation and , said again , irrelevant . Nice to bring old cows to the fore , especially if one claims a better debating future on this board . So , yes I do regret my deletings as they were valuable for this forum , but ‘trop is sometimes too much’ , and in such cases faults are coming from both sides . The way , you and some others were attacking my style of writing was at ‘that momentum of time’ the drop which did overflow the bucket . A silly play of some groupie against one individual , so don’t play the poor unguilty one , as people on this forum do know your way of discourse ...
And of course , you shall deny any fault at all , ie as in your case it’s ALWAYS the other one who started to throw . That must be very said for you . By the way , do you honestly believe this yourself ?
Can you give one example from my posts which were ‘VERY confusing and UNintelligible ‘ ? I do respect your views but there’s no reason for trying them to push through someone else throat , no matter the length of your experience , a feature which does not prove you’re always right .
So , you definitely have good excuses for being incomplete . Is that my fault ? On my part , I always try to be clear as possible , but as everybody else I do have my personal style in writing , so does it hurt anybody , to ask some explanation if necessary ? I certainly am prepared to answer in a rspectful manner .
Re language barrier , I do agree as it’s like speaking dialects and one’s not able to figure out the nuances . Have I said that I leave the board or delete posts ? Can one have confidence in some breed altruist who has already contributed a lot to this board’ information purpose or does he needs to be treated as a hostage by a subtle warning ? I guess not , as I’m free as a bird who does earn a minimum of respect ...
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/07/08 at 05:47 PM | Reply with quote #221 |
|
I'll first begin with informing you that my wife has been a teacher for close to 40 years, so I'm not unacquainted with your false assumptions of my background and experiences! Steve , you try to attack constantly . Do you think readers aren’t aware of that ? Your ‘psychological projection’ theory is only part of manipulation and , said again , irrelevant . Nice to bring old cows to the fore , especially if one claims a better debating future on this board . So , yes I do regret my deletings as they were valuable for this forum , but ‘trop is sometimes too much’ , and in such cases faults are coming from both sides . The way , you and some others were attacking my style of writing was at ‘that momentum of time’ the drop which did overflow the bucket . A silly play of some groupie against one individual , so don’t play the poor unguilty one , as people on this forum do know your way of discourse ... Well, I don't know what "trop" is! And I'm sure that others don't either!!! Just another example of your confusing style! I have been accused of writing in words that don't appeal to the masses and I've made a concerted effort to amend my usage, so that more can understand my meanings. Perhaps you need to adjust your skills and become more intelligible! But let's face facts Marcel, don't shift blame for your decisions and way of behaving! If the heat got to hot in the kitchen, you ran! Don't blame anyone for that decision of YOURS!!!
And of course , you shall deny any fault at all , ie as in your case it’s ALWAYS the other one who started to throw . That must be very said for you . By the way , do you honestly believe this yourself ? I don't deny counter punching, or responding and defending my raison d'etre, but if you genuinely are interested, scroll back and see for yourself!
Can you give one example from my posts which were ‘VERY confusing and UNintelligible ‘ ? I do respect your views but there’s no reason for trying them to push through someone else throat , no matter the length of your experience , a feature which does not prove you’re always right . Just scroll up and see "trop"!
So , you definitely have good excuses for being incomplete . Is that my fault ? On my part , I always try to be clear as possible , but as everybody else I do have my personal style in writing , so does it hurt anybody , to ask some explanation if necessary ? I certainly am prepared to answer in a rspectful manner . You show disdain for anyone who does not use your style of explanatory equivalents! Being "incomplete" and voicing my views without accommodating references, are two different things! You are labeling my views as incomplete, because they don't measure up to your way of expression! That doesn't make your position valid and mine less than valid! It only means that time has inhibited my ability to go one on one with EVERY subjective statement you concoct! You stated that you "regret your deletings" yet you don't accept the attitude behind them, which certainly is yours and yours ALONE!
Re language barrier , I do agree as it’s like speaking dialects and one’s not able to figure out the nuances . Have I said that I leave the board or delete posts ? Can one have confidence in some breed altruist who has already contributed a lot to this board’ information purpose or does he needs to be treated as a hostage by a subtle warning ? I guess not , as I’m free as a bird who does earn a minimum of respect ... It's not about ego and respect Marcel, trust me on this! I've been bashed by many for my views and positions, long before you came on the scene! I'm not looking for fame, fortune, respect, or personal aggrandizement! All I have is whatever experiences I can muster and the ability to state my views, which have been based in American Mastiff interactions close to 40 years. No doubt, there is much that can be added by European experiences and other continents, which have had a long involvement in this breed! We each play a role and contribute in our own way! Your experiences are invaluable to the totality of information that is presented on these threads, but you are a piece of the puzzle, as am I and anyone else!
Lets get our house in order and recognize that nobody has domain over information, or status, due to historical anecdotes in this regard. We are all trying to inform and educate, so that in time, the breed benefits by our explorations into it's past!
Stylistic modes of expression, are varied and never immune from critical observation. That's what keeps us informed and at the same time, not locked into the dogmatic views of any one individual!
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
gwenstone

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 1,345
|
| Posted 09/07/08 at 08:46 PM | Reply with quote #222 |
|
"Curiously enough, the feminine portion of the spectators, while indifferent to the charms of the bull-dog, is keenly alive to those of his tiny caricature the pug, and his big brother the mastiff. Sealskin jackets and velvet mantles crowd round " Granby " and other great lion-like creatures of the mastiff race. Is it their short faces, their black muzzles, or their leonine colour ?...
...Three famous breeders of the present day are working hard at the improvement of the English mastiff ; one by the aid of the bloodhound, another by the St. Bernard, and the third, it is shrewdly suspected, by the bull-dog. From whatever source they produce their dogs, it is already settled that a mastiff who resembles a bloodhound too closely stands no chance of getting a prize, the happy medium which combines the bull-dog brow with a little of the bloodhound" lip being esteemed perfection....
....Amoung the most remarkable of these are Granby, said to be the best dog in England; Turk, the winner of more then fifty prizes, and Champion Turk, who boasts an equally glorious career and rejoices in being the father of the magnificent Granby..."
from All the Year Round by Charles Dickens 1876
Clearly the bloodhound is used more than some wish to admit. Why is Granby never mentioned in other literature? You can see some Sainty bone in these old pictures. Enjoy the old Saint type by clicking on reload.
Carl
__________________ Carl & Bes Van Bael
"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world."- Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
"Let him that would move the world first move himself."-Socrates |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/08/08 at 12:30 PM | Reply with quote #223 |
|
Interesting find Carl, I had not seen the Dickens comment before you posted same!
In viewing the various pictures of those Saints, it becomes clear that their bone were as varied as the mastiff's bone. Saint type was also varied, with Mastiff, Bloodhound, Newf and local stock ALL having had their impact in that regard.
Upon observation, the heavier boned specimens seem to present more Mastiff like qualities then do their lesser boned brothers. Whether that bone comes from the Mastiff, Newf, or a hybrid "pop", it is clear that the "great bone" seems to come into play, after the breed hits England and then crossed with the Mastiff. English Saint breeders wanted more head and with that head came "other" attributes as well. To believe that those English breeders could refine & confine only head type and eliminate every other inherited Mastiff quality, is short sighted, to say the least!
When those reported 3 Newfs were introduced into the Alpine strain at the Hospice, they may have also impacted on bone size, so we can't ignore that fact either. I always wondered about those Newfs. If black, where did the black go? Black is dominant over most other colors, so there must have been a selective process to eliminate that color, "if" it was used, or perhaps landseers were used? Just a puzzlement, as Yul might say! Or in the words of Dickens..............
Quote: It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way--in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
gwenstone

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 1,345
|
| Posted 09/08/08 at 02:04 PM | Reply with quote #224 |
|
How does the color inheritance work in Newfoundland. The Solid Black is dominant, or BB. The Landseer is recessive to the solid black, or bb, and is the result of the piebald gene, which places the self-color on a white background. Solid Bronze is recessive to black, and the Solid Gray is a dilute of black. Care must be taken when matching dogs with recessive genes, as the piebald gene will result in a solid color and white dog. Where the solid color is black, the Landseer results, which is a color allowed by the standard. However, if dogs with Brown or Gray backgrounds are bred with a Landseer, the possible results are a Bronze and White or a Gray and White dog, both of which are explicitly disqualified in the standard. (Note that 'solid' color is considered by the standard to include some white.)
So I guess it's all in there to create a St.Bernard. The brown Newfoundland was widely spread. Nevertheless one has to be very careful. This information is written down but is it accurate? Even today when you go to a puppy mill or in the mall to one of those shops.... They try to sell you whatever sells the best. Most people simply don't know what they buy in these places.
From what I understand, people like Bill George from Canine Castle in London, or George White, where Mr.Luckey bought his bitch, would these days not only be locked up for animal cruelty but certainly be considered as extreme puppy mills. How can you trust the lines of these kind of breeders? It's from there too that the upper class got their dogs. For many a big Spaniel looks exactly the same as a small Newfoundland.
BTW. The extract above is from a show held at Bill Georges' Canine Castle. More then 1000 dogs entered and visitors from all over the world. Bill George was famous for his miniature bulldogs. The basis for the French Bulldog.
About bone... St.Bernard influence??
Of course not...
Carl
__________________ Carl & Bes Van Bael
"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world."- Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
"Let him that would move the world first move himself."-Socrates |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/08/08 at 02:19 PM | Reply with quote #225 |
|
So , it’s fine that everyone involved had the opportunity here on the historical tread to give ‘his’ views on the matter of actual disagreement , now what counts is that this thread regains its quality of information annex individual interpretation and that just as before without any practice of brainwashing , so sheer informative .
Carl , your quest after the Victorian Mastiff Granby is really interesting . As one can read from the KC Stud Book 1874 , Granby was sired by ch Turk ( see pic & description in the article by Caractacus ) out of Pemberton’ Dolly , the latter being halfsis to ch Turk because sired by the same ch King whilst Dolly’ dam , Pemberton’ Jenny was full sis to Pemberton’ Wolf who grandsired Edgar Hanbury’ Queen ( see pic ) , the dam to ch Wolsey & his brother Prince , the latter being the sire of ch Beau ( Beaufort’ sire) .
Granby was born in 1871 , just like ch Green’ Monarch , the latter one definitely being the more successful in the ring but also at stud as a/o he sired a/o two champions , Beaufoy’ Nero (see pic) , unfortunately without offspring , and the breed important WK Taunton’ Gwendolen , the latter being dam of the blind Dr Campbell’ ch Lily II , WK Taunton’ Columbine & Phoebe , all three sired by ch Cardinal .
Lily II was without KCSB progeny whilst Columbine became grandam to WK Taunton’ ch Constable and Phoebe became dam to a/o ch Griselda & Lady Doughty , both sired by the Belgian Revend HKE Van Doorne ch Orlando , bred by Dr JS Turner , the latter one became dam of WK Taunton fourth and last own bred ch Carshalton Prince .
So , Green’ Monarch was definitely present in WK Taunton’ top-class breeding together with his ch Cardinal & ch Hotspur complemented by Hotspur’ older and bigger brother Rev Van Doorne’ ch Orlando , the one so famous for correct OEMC head type .
Looking through the KCSB , that Granby sired nine litters . His most impressing offspring , according to MB Wynn , was Stanley out of ch The Emperor’ dam ch Countess , a roomy brood well-known by her drawing into Vero Shaw’ Book of the Dog .
MB Wynn describes him in the American Kennel Register Dec 1885 as – ‘ Countess was mated with £Granby , a dog (with all his faults) possessing much of the King type ( ed note see head drawing in MA Moore’ book The Mastiff ) , which line he was inbred to From this alliance came Stanley , a stone fawn born in 1874 , one of the grandest headed dogs that has been produced . Vaughn Davis made a small oil painting of this dog’s head and engraved it on a salver , which was presented through the Mastiff Club and won by Mr Mark Beaufoy . Strange to say that this portrait bears a great likeness to Crown Prince, although painted before the dog came out .’ Pitiful enough , Stanley never produced any KCSB offspring .
Further on , Granby grandsired ch His Lordship , really tall dog who was also campaigned at the Continent , but also this son remained without progeny. Other sons of interest were Granby Jr (see at right his head within the grand tableau of different dog breeds ) out of Fabius’ Vesta and Vandal ( see pic ) , who was exported to the States , being out of Langsyne’ Queen Bess .
So , even without any Granby’ drawing or photo , one can make a fair assumption re that Mastiff’ qualities based upon related documents annex pics in order to assess Charles Dickens’ quote about that same Granby .
Edit - As before , Steve , it's very obvious that you're very SELECTIVE in showing up ancient Saint Bernards in order to try to score a point . You're wrong , and you know it but you don't want to admit your skewed ' Mastiff chauvenistic' opinion re great bone/limbs . When shall you see the light ?
By the way , which then top Saint breeder should have used at stud that one upside at left of your tableau , being more a sighthound than a genuine Saint ? So , once again , this is not a genuine cross-sectional résume of the then Saint Bernard breed and if you like , I can offer you a similar tableau of ancient Mastiffs who had averagely definitely lesser bone than demonstrated by this gathering of Saint Bernards .
We here are talking about historical TOP-CLASS breeding re both breeds , which fixed the respective breed phenotypes during space of time , so this not about untypical puppymill-like specimens .
[URL]http:/See this link /www.canedisanbernardo.org/engl/capitolo2bis-engl.html[/URL]
It's impossible to assembly such a same array of truly 'coarse boned/limbed' Mastiffs , even not , if using ONLY the very bests of that same space of time re that aspect . Or maybe you can ?
Attached Images:
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/08/08 at 06:01 PM | Reply with quote #226 |
|
Congratulations Marcel, you have once again concocted a view of Monarch, as a dog that did not exemplify the qualities of Mastiffs lost!
My "chauvinistic" examples, are surely a conglomerate of various Mastiff...ex...Saint....ex...crosses....infused to collaborative intra Hospice/British style composites, of historical fiction!
In other words, clueless derivatives of Saint like proportions!
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/09/08 at 01:18 PM | Reply with quote #227 |
|
Aha , Steve , playing game aka ‘ Monarch , a dog that did not exemplify the qualities of Mastiffs lost ‘ . Well , in order to follow your gameness for once , let me show a picture of Tweedview Belle , the dam of your all-time favourite , the one and only Hellingly Joseph . Do scrutinize her bone/limbs in order to assess that nothing was lost , half a century after Green’ Monarch and do read the last sentence below the pic .
Attached Images:
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/09/08 at 02:14 PM | Reply with quote #228 |
|
Well Jos. was never my "all time favorite" and his dam certainly is not viewed as correct by modern eyes, no matter how she may have been seen by those erudite cliques of mastiff connoisseurs back when. Must you always believe everything you read in print?
The "historical TOP-CLASS" breeding that you mentioned, in one of your prior posts, includes mention of Cardinal. Well although an important historical dog, his dam was ???????? And his sire Lukey's Bruce ll goes back to Yarrow, Old Bobtailed Countess, White's dog and Hertford's Pluto. Not exactly pure, "top-class" uniform specimens of Mastiffs. In fact, Green Monarch has an uncanny resemblance to a Labrador. But these are just "my" observations and are certainly worthless in the grand scheme! Don't you agree? __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/09/08 at 03:20 PM | Reply with quote #229 |
|
This Tweedview Belle , quote - ' WAS EXPORTED TO AMERICA WHERE IT WAS HELD AS THE BEST MASTIFF OF ITS TIME ' must have been based upon show reports , prizes and outside ring 'breed rumours' in the States as she definitely had wonderful attributes , ie a proud and sound stature , a long deep all through framing, nice hind angulation with tail nicely set on , besides some throatiness ( partly due to her collar )and a nice femine head without any syperfluousness in wrinkle or folding annex perfect markings whilst her ears are carried in an interested way which gives a skewed impression on that part but I do believe , when at attention it would give a much better image .
Re her limbs , one could say they are rather light but that's another point of discussion , ie if you take as example the Pug phenotype , a really bulky body sustained by at first sight inappropriately developed limbs , but what is the case ( we do own two pugs of about 2 1/2 years old ) those small creatures do have an enormous swiftness in behaviour re our heavy limbed English Bull . An outsider should think they should break their legs in those rough plays with such a comparatively monster , but no they are so game and almost endless in energy .
Re our Mastiff , I do underline it NOT a Pug , but a real impressive sound guard who eventually must be capable to seize and hold an evil doer . Therefore he needs some attributes - definite body mass , strength in limbs especially in hind legs to do the sizing jumb with the connotation that this seizing must be done in a ' swift ' way .
Now , assessed biomechanically , in ' swiftness ' the lighter limb is favoured against the heavy limb because of the law of inertia aka the increase of energy to ' conquer ' gravity is versely proportional to the weight of in this case the 'pendulum' or swinging limb . The more heavy the limb , the slower the pendulum movement and vice versa .
So this biomechanical feature , besides the already mentioned fact that Darwin-like there's no reason at all for Saint-like limbs , is a utmost essential part of the Mastiff' functionality in high duty .
And I do not know if those Americans knew this , but this Tweedview Belle has the phenotypical requirements of an excellent 'female' guard . |
| Loading... | |
gwenstone

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 1,345
|
| Posted 09/09/08 at 05:24 PM | Reply with quote #230 |
|
Quote: there's no reason at all for Saint-like limbs This is a very strange remark for a somebody so long in the breed. Why does the Standard ask for very large or heavy bone then? Why did the OEMC put up a clearly very heavy boned Mastiff drawing in their Illustrated Breed Standard?

Bone is not easy to breed for. You really have to go for it but putting that it slower the pendulum movement and that this is reason enough to ignore heavy bone because of functionality is a bit over the top. Breeding Mastiffs is also trying to breed symmetrical beauty. A large heavy body asks for heavy bone. BTW... the very heavy boned Bernegarden St.Bernards (even in the Saint world this was exceptional) moved as the best. I really could enjoy their movement. More then once I went to the St.Bernard ring to see them preform. They were very , very functional. A pleasure to look at. I don't think functionality is an argument.
Carl
__________________ Carl & Bes Van Bael
"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world."- Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
"Let him that would move the world first move himself."-Socrates |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/09/08 at 05:43 PM | Reply with quote #231 |
|
Tweedview had nothing of the squareness in head, that you always seem to equivocate with proper form. A snipey muzzle, high rear, poor topline, cobby body, no depth of chest, neck line cut into shoulder assembly, terrible tail set, but nice pigment!
Quote: WAS EXPORTED TO AMERICA WHERE IT WAS HELD AS THE BEST MASTIFF OF ITS TIME '
Keep in mind, that many believed that the worst were sent to the states and the best were kept in England!
Now, I can't pull the article in which this appeared, but we both know I posted that in the past and if you're an honest broker, you will acknowledge that mindset and recall that view!
Lots of Mastiffs were sent to America, but the best specimens were kept by the Brits. Unfortunately for them, when they needed our help in revitalizing the breed, we then sent them the progeny of their "rejects" that they initially shipped to us!
What comes around, goes around!
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
collie

POWER POSTER
Registered: 06/11/08
Posts: 2,315
|
| Posted 09/11/08 at 11:26 PM | Reply with quote #232 |
|
Here are some boys from the 60's, who though of different heritage, both had some real bone - Ivan Putski and Bruno Sammartino.
Attached Images:
__________________ "Nothing is foolproof, because fools are ingenious" |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/12/08 at 10:37 AM | Reply with quote #233 |
|
David,
I actually knew Bruno, as my friend was Terry Terranova the referee at Madison Square Garden for those "wrestling matches".
Terry was a former boxer and the President of a bus driver's union. He fought Marcel Cerdan in a non title fight and won. Bruno would be considered out of shape by today's standards sans steroids et al.
As a side note, what is your view of the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC) project at Cern? __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/12/08 at 12:50 PM | Reply with quote #234 |
|
Carl , Re – ‘ This is a very strange remark for a somebody so long in the breed . Why does the Standard ask for very large or heavy bone then ? , - it’s not because one’s long-termed in Mastiffs , that one needs to become bewildered by recent developments and be sure the standard asks only for ‘large bone ‘ , not more not less , to translate as bone which is skeletally appropriate to bear the substance a rato the chest/height 4:3 , so ‘ large bone ‘ is not the same as cross-sectionally Darwin-like Saintly heavy LIMB , the latter being visual vs the former only clearly visual by Xrays .
Re – ‘ Why did the OEMC put up a clearly very heavy boned Mastiff drawing in their Illustrated Breed Standard ? ‘, - I guess one’s following the trend of the day , which is breed functionally incorrect .
Re – ‘ Bone is not easy to breed for . ‘ , - yes , especially when without the Saintly hand .
Re – ‘ You really have to go for it but putting that it ( ed note bone ) slower the pendulum movement and that this is reason enough to ignore heavy bone because of functionality is a bit over the top . ‘ , - I was not talking about a moving skeleton , but about a living dog , so in that way the major proportion of the pendulum action is fixed by the particular weight of the limb in question , ie a limb of flesh & bone and as I stated before ad nauseum it’s definitely the Saint by its original purpose did needed Darwin-like those table legs .
Re – ‘ Breeding Mastiffs is also trying to breed symmetrical beauty .’ VERY CORRECT .
Re – ‘ A large heavy body asks for heavy bone .’ , - where can one read this in a standard which asks for a chest/ratio 4:3 aka a Mastiff standing 30 inches at shoulder for a chest circumference of 40 inches , a standard which also points out that – ‘ Any departure from the foregoing points should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded in exact proportion to its degree .’ So do explain your interpretation .
Re – ‘ the very heavy boned Bernegarden St.Bernards (even in the Saint world this was exceptional) moved as the best ... very , very functional ‘ , - correct , but that does not include that a Mastiff needs table legs , which was also ‘wordly’ emphasized some seventy years ago by that great canine expert annex Crufts judge , the Dutch gentleman Mr Toepoel , a man of great vision re functionality & soundness .
Re – ‘ I don't think functionality is an argument .’ , - well , what is than an argument for a sound aka health dog ?
Steve , that’s partly true but it’s not only the fault of the Britons who sold that stock to Americans with big purse but small breed knowledge . Note - Think also about Minting , Cambrian Princes , Black Peter , &c .
Re – ‘ Lots of Mastiffs were sent to America , but the best specimens were kept by the Brits . , - would you do otherwise ?
Re – ‘ Unfortunately for them, when they needed our help in revitalizing the breed, we then sent them the progeny of their "rejects" that they initially shipped to us ! ‘, - nothwithstanding that feature and the after war problematics , it were the Britons who bred the high quality stock of the fifties and sixties , a/o Hotspot , Drake , & whilst the then American stock was rather at low grounds ...
David , re – ‘ Here are some boys from the 60's, who though of different heritage, both had some real bone - Ivan Putski and Bruno Sammartino .’ , - you’re maybe right but thick-setness is not always the same as having ‘real bone’ ( ed note - I understand you mean in the sense of heavy bone ) . By the way , I presume is meant to ‘lighten’ this discussion as I do not think that you are considering them as true human ‘ lookalikes ‘ of the OEMC standard re bone & &c .
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/12/08 at 02:05 PM | Reply with quote #235 |
|
 Different Saints can show different "bone" due to color (note white rear legs over stifle on dog at right, enhances size)( fig 1, white on the center of head, broadens the head as well), angle of shot and hair length, length of leg, etc.
From FCI Saints FOREQUARTERS : "Strong muscles descending from shoulders and surrounding a well boned humerus are connected in correct angulation to the massive bones of the seen from front absolutely straight and muscular fore-legs. Legs slightly fringed down to pastern."
From AKC: Saints Upper Arms "Very powerful and extraordinarily muscular."
Lower Leg "Straight, strong."
AKC Mastiffs:
"Forequarters Shoulders - moderately sloping, powerful and muscular, with no tendency to looseness. Degree of front angulation to match correct rear angulation. Legs - straight, strong and set wide apart, heavy boned."
OEM Standard:
| | | "Shoulder and arm slightly sloping, heavy and muscular. Legs straight, strong and set wide apart; bones being large. Elbows square. Pasterns upright."
Since both Saint & Mastiff standards were written by different authors, we get different wording that essentially mean the same thing, when it comes to bone. In the AKC Saint standard, no mention is made of bone, just muscle and in the FCI standard "massive" bones are mentioned (ETYMOLOGY: Middle English massif, from Old French, from masse, mass ; see mass ), funny how they chose "massive" as their description, yet some would ignore that connection to the dog who's very name is derived from that etymology! Next, they also use the term "well boned" when referring to the humerus. So, we have a different set of terminology that basically means one & the same thing in my view. "Well boned, massive bones, heavy boned, large boned" Just different authors who used different wording, which describes similar structural traits.
Quote: Massive:
- Consisting of or making up a large mass; bulky, "heavy", and solid: a massive piece of furniture.
"Heavy boned" means massive!
| __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/12/08 at 02:22 PM | Reply with quote #236 |
|
A breed that was banned from running down deer, no longer needed thinner bones. Expeditation solved that issue and after that, the "House Mastey" only needed to look impossing.
The "Mastiff" in historical terms, was a short, tall, racey, pied, massive, Lyme Hall'ed scrawny, shag haired, ban-dogged, Spanish, Alpine, Indian, Tibetan, Assyrian, Boar hounded, Dane like, bull-dogged, Alaunted, DDB'd, Sainted, Molossian soul!
Depending on the time frame that one extracts for debating purposes, almost any form can be used in that argument. Pendulum legs & table legs not withstanding!
Once again, and I'm beginning to sound like Dr. Seuss............."Where did the Saint get it's bone?"
Quote: ‘ Lots of Mastiffs were sent to America , but the best specimens were kept by the Brits . , - would you do otherwise ? Marcel, I was not making a value judgement, just an observation! The irony, is that we gave back what we got, through exporting in order to revive the breed!
Quote: it were the Britons who bred the high quality stock of the fifties and sixties , a/o Hotspot , Drake , & whilst the then American stock was rather at low grounds ...
Thank God for those Saint Bernard & Bull Mastiff crosses, ay?
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 06:06 AM | Reply with quote #237 |
|
Steve , I agree re the virtual influence of white on perception of size with the remark that , referring to my comparison of the respective Crufts `2008 BOB winners in Mastiffs vs St Bernards , resp limb factor 100 vs 150 , such ‘virtuality’ cannot generate a difference of about fifty percent .
Re – ‘ Since both Saint & Mastiff standards were written by different authors, we get different wording that essentially mean the same thing, when it comes to bone .’ , - yes , there’s a ‘ possibility ‘re this assumption but no proof as both standards were written by people who were educated in the same mother language taking into account that different wording can also mean ‘ even more ‘ difference than the reader is supposing .
Iow , we shall never know the real level of massiveness recalled by those different adjectives but seemingly for the vast majority of the people the adjective heavy is situated at a higher level of 2D bone/limb massiveness than the less ‘ loaded ‘ adjective , ‘ large ‘, demonstrated by the fact that Mastiffs of the tall type as a/o ch Parcwood W Bear are frequently overall judged as being large referring to their tall stature and Mastiffs of the bulky type as a/o MM mostly are overall judged as being heavy reffering to their extreme 3D size .
The Saint Bernard breed is a native breed of Europe , so theAKC Saint standard is not that relevant , and re the wording ‘ massive ‘ , one must know that in Europe vast mountainous regions are called after that wording , a/o the Massif Central in the heart of France , formed by massive volcanic upheaval and erosion by wind and water , offering rugged hills , cliff-top castles , long meandering rivers and spectacular limestone gorges , certain mountain ranges , &c .
Re - "Heavy boned" means massive ! , - agreed .
Re , ‘A breed that was banned from running down deer , no longer needed thinner bones . Expeditation solved that issue and after that , the "House Mastey" only needed to look impossing .’ , - a genuine Mastiff including purposely adequate large bone/limb is indeed imposing without those table legs , the latter quite unfunctional re seizing & holding , ie a Mastiff needs at first body mass and secondly a double pair of swift pendulums to run up fastly in order to give the evil doer no extra time for acting against its Master or property , ie a Mastiff of equal height vs weight with adequate bone/limb is better off for that job than the other equal one having table legs annex pads aka feet on clay .
A genuine Saint Bernard , physically and/or mentally , shall never possess those almost perfect guarding tools of the genuine Mastiff .
Re – ‘ Thank God for those Saint Bernard & Bull Mastiff crosses, ay ? ‘ , - the only thing you have at hand , is the profit of the doubt ...
David’ reference to pugilist phenotype is quite interesting because there’s some commonness re ‘ seizing/holding ‘ .
Those examples were good boxers but both should have never been a match for the greatest all time , the one and only Muhammed Ali , the world-wide accepted ‘ sportsman of the XXth century ‘ . Ali was not a giant of 8 feet tall weighing up + 300 lbs , no he was 6'3" tall and according to the momentum of his career from 186 up to 236 lbs heavy .
He was pure power , reaction rate , speed , rhytm and blues , endurance , &c . In his prime he could dance like a fly and knock like a bull , that should be the human epitome for a guarding Mastiff instead of merely clumsy heaviness without the required speed , reaction rate , &c .
|
| Loading... | |
gwenstone

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 1,345
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 10:31 AM | Reply with quote #238 |
|
Quote: the latter quite unfunctional re seizing & holding Give me an example of a Mastiff that is functional when it comes to seizing & holding. Where do you get it from that this is the Mastiffs function?
Quote: to run up fastly in order to give the evil doer no extra time for acting against its Master or property There are breeds out there that are better suitable for this function. When an "evil doer" enters a property these days then it's most likely that he has a gun. You better have a good alarm system or rely on your own gun. I don't see any correlation between being able to guard and the size of bone. I know great guard dog with a lot of bone and I know lousy guard dogs without a lot of bone. It's all about muscles. A Mastiff need muscles instead of fat. The Standard asks for well defined muscles so this cannot be a problem. A well muscled 220 pounds Mastiff will do the guarding job just fine. This has nothing to do with bone. You let it sound like the Mastiff can't move properly. This is not serious. A video from Bucks County 2007
Every Mastiff in this video is physical quite capable of guarding their homes. It is a misconception that a Mastiff has to be more protective. They'll do their job when needed.
Carl
__________________ Carl & Bes Van Bael
"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world."- Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
"Let him that would move the world first move himself."-Socrates |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 11:21 AM | Reply with quote #239 |
|
Re – ‘ Give me an example of a Mastiff that is functional when it comes to seizing & holding .’ - read former post , Carl .
Re – ‘ Where do you get it from that this is the Mastiffs function? , - the Mastiff standard asks for ‘ capable of guarding ‘ , and that in Victorian perspective , is certainly more than only being imposing & barking , ie if there’s lethal danger for own people , he must be able to do his ultimate innate job , seizing & holding without biting .
Re – ‘ There are breeds out there that are better suitable for running up fastly in order to give the evil doer no extra time for acting against its Master or property ‘ , yes , but they don’t have the innate capacity of seizing/holdin without biting .
Re – ‘ When an "evil doer" enters a property these days then it's most likely that he has a gun. You better have a good alarm system or rely on your own gun .’ , - a good alarm system is fine but not always adequate , a/o p ex when the case is happening outside during a walk and I understand that even in the Far West it’s not permitted to shoot an evil doer in case of non-lethal direct danger , a condition which shall be weighed up when shooting should have happened . In case of a Mastiff’ defense without biting , the possible later consequences are zero or really restricted .
Re – ‘ I don't see any correlation between being able to guard and the size of bone .’ , considered directly you’re right but taking the matter into the breed context of what I’ve written above , one gets the connection via the chain – breed adequate large bone , ditto limb – more limb swiftness – more reaction ratio – more speed – more efficiency in catching for holding/seizing job .
Re – ‘ I know great guard dog with a lot of bone and I know lousy guard dogs without a lot of bone. It's all about muscles. A Mastiff need muscles instead of fat. The Standard asks for well defined muscles so this cannot be a problem , a well muscled 220 pounds Mastiff will do the guarding job just fine. - quite right .
Re – ‘ This has nothing to do with bone .’ , read the plea above .
Re – ‘ You let it sound like the Mastiff can't move properly. ‘ , - that’s your and only your opinion and definitely not mine .
Re – ‘ A video from Bucks County 2007 . Every Mastiff in this video is physical quite capable of guarding their homes .’ , - quite right and based upon what I can see they do have breed appropriate bone/limb for that matter .
Re – ‘ It is a misconception that a Mastiff has to be more protective .’ , - I haven’t seen any emergence in the ring , so that issue I cannot assess .
Re – ‘ They'll do their job when needed . ‘ , - we all do hope so .
|
| Loading... | |
gwenstone

~ POWER POSTER ~
Registered: 10/14/07
Posts: 1,345
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 01:44 PM | Reply with quote #240 |
|
Marcel, I can be wrong but I don't know one Mastiff that does seize and hold. I'm not sure whether this ever was the case or just written down in some attempt of making the Mastiff more heroic as it was. In my opinion every Mastiff capable of guarding will bite when attacking. The main function of the Mastiff is to scare away intruders before they enter the property. When safety was an issue, I would let a Mastiff function as the bell ringer but next to that I would have kennels that can be opened from inside the house when necessary, within those kennels, a couple well trained Rottweilers. Much more effective.
Carl
__________________ Carl & Bes Van Bael
"Popular opinion is the greatest lie in the world."- Thomas Carlyle 1795-1881
"Let him that would move the world first move himself."-Socrates |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 03:02 PM | Reply with quote #241 |
|
Steve , I agree re the virtual influence of white on perception of size with the remark that , referring to my comparison of the respective Crufts `2008 BOB winners in Mastiffs vs St Bernards , resp limb factor 100 vs 150 , such ‘virtuality’ cannot generate a difference of about fifty percent . No doubt there are Saints with larger bones than some Mastiffs. My point, is that at times, based on a number of books written by multiple breed judges, color can throw off the eye and make traits appear larger, or smaller, depending on the color and placement. Two dogs standing side by side with equal bone, one being a Mastiff and the other a Saint, will always show the Saint winning the bone award, even though both are in fact of equal size.
Re – ‘ Since both Saint & Mastiff standards were written by different authors, we get different wording that essentially mean the same thing, when it comes to bone .’ , - yes , there’s a ‘ possibility ‘re this assumption but no proof as both standards were written by people who were educated in the same mother language taking into account that different wording can also mean ‘ even more ‘ difference than the reader is supposing . Agreed, no proof!
Iow , we shall never know the real level of massiveness recalled by those different adjectives but seemingly for the vast majority of the people the adjective heavy is situated at a higher level of 2D bone/limb massiveness than the less ‘ loaded ‘ adjective , ‘ large ‘, demonstrated by the fact that Mastiffs of the tall type as a/o ch Parcwood W Bear are frequently overall judged as being large referring to their tall stature and Mastiffs of the bulky type as a/o MM mostly are overall judged as being heavy reffering to their extreme 3D size .
The Saint Bernard breed is a native breed of Europe , so theAKC Saint standard is not that relevant , and re the wording ‘ massive ‘ , one must know that in Europe vast mountainous regions are called after that wording , a/o the Massif Central in the heart of France , formed by massive volcanic upheaval and erosion by wind and water , offering rugged hills , cliff-top castles , long meandering rivers and spectacular limestone gorges , certain mountain ranges , &c . Keep in mind your post relating "Massive" to the Dane! We need to allow for "overlap" in the wording of various authors, before claiming direct designations and rigid meanings.
Re - "Heavy boned" means massive ! , - agreed . Now I can sleep tonight!...LOL
Re , ‘A breed that was banned from running down deer , no longer needed thinner bones . Expeditation solved that issue and after that , the "House Mastey" only needed to look impossing .’ , - a genuine Mastiff including purposely adequate large bone/limb is indeed imposing without those table legs , the latter quite unfunctional re seizing & holding , ie a Mastiff needs at first body mass and secondly a double pair of swift pendulums to run up fastly in order to give the evil doer no extra time for acting against its Master or property , ie a Mastiff of equal height vs weight with adequate bone/limb is better off for that job than the other equal one having table legs annex pads aka feet on clay . No doubt a Doberman can do that task even more efficiently than the Mastiff, but at what point does the degree of efficiency pass an invisible line of correctness?
A genuine Saint Bernard , physically and/or mentally , shall never possess those almost perfect guarding tools of the genuine Mastiff . Perhaps in years past, but I've known some Saints that would make excellent guards, perhaps too excellent! Many modern Mastiffs are not very good at guarding. To a degree, "temperament uber alles" has reduced some of that ability. When we breed for really sweet personas, we can lose libido and guarding abilities. I know this first hand!
Re – ‘ Thank God for those Saint Bernard & Bull Mastiff crosses, ay ? ‘ , - the only thing you have at hand , is the profit of the doubt ...That's the only thing that most of us who study this breed can ever ask for!
David’ reference to pugilist phenotype is quite interesting because there’s some commonness re ‘ seizing/holding ‘ .
Those examples were good boxers but both should have never been a match for the greatest all time , the one and only Muhammed Ali , the world-wide accepted ‘ sportsman of the XXth century ‘ . Ali was not a giant of 8 feet tall weighing up + 300 lbs , no he was 6'3" tall and according to the momentum of his career from 186 up to 236 lbs heavy .
He was pure power , reaction rate , speed , rhytm and blues , endurance , &c . In his prime he could dance like a fly and knock like a bull , that should be the human epitome for a guarding Mastiff instead of merely clumsy heaviness without the required speed , reaction rate , &c . There are boxers and there are football players. In a fight, not a boxing match, the football player has my money on him. Ali did not possess a great knockout punch and 5'10" Joe Frazier knocked Ali on his can!
In the animal world, size is a great desideratum, when it comes to dominance and power. Speed and agility is left to prey animals and those predators that hunt the quicker prey. Usually the cheetah will give up it's catch to a lion, or hyena, even though it's "Ali" like moves landed the meal.
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 03:04 PM | Reply with quote #242 |
|
Carl , re ' I can be wrong but I don't know one Mastiff that does seize and hold .', - so be happy for it as it's only in case of utter emergency , a condition which was not your deal in the presence of your Mastiffs , so indirectly maybe they already did perfectly the first gear approach of guarding .
Re - ' In my opinion every Mastiff capable of guarding will bite when attacking' , - once again , exception proves the rule , but breed history gives alot of documentation re seizing/holding and no biting , so if you want to undermine also thé innate breed character re his duty , be another' guest , not mine
Re - ' a couple well trained Rottweilers. Much more effective.' , to get yourself maybe in jail ...
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 03:28 PM | Reply with quote #243 |
|
RE: the three 1830 Newf into Saint crosses. It is fair to obtain the "profit of the doubt", by stating that those Newfs were in all probability of the Landseer variety. Of interest.....................
History of the Breed What Color is a Newfoundland and When? - Emma H. Mellencamp PhD. History of Art '57 reprinted from Newf Tide Vol. 7 No. 4 1976 A rumor has been going around for more than a century that the black Newfoundland dog was very popular in the late 18th and early 19th centuries until Sir Edwin Landseer's "Distinguished Member of the Humane Society" painted in 1838, made the black and white Newfoundland the "In" dog to have. In four years of intensive research on Edwin Landseer and his contemporary painters of animals, the breed called "Newfoundland", I have found, were not black and the painting of "Distinguished Member" had no effect upon the color of the breed whatsoever. C. Bede Maxwell reproduced in color (1972) a pair of Newfoundlands in a painting dated 1800: the male was black and white and the bitch yellow and white. Reinagle's much published "The Newfoundland Dog" (Drury, p. 47 and Chern, 2nd ed. p 33) was first published in a magnificent edition of 1803 (Wm Taplin) in which it is clear that those dark areas on the dog which seem to be black were tawny yellow, his muzzle a steel-blue. In fact, all the early 19th century illustrations which I have found, and whose color I could authenticate were white with black or dark areas and frecklings. Not a single all-black was called a Newfoundland. One of the handsomest of these is P.E. Stroehling's "Duchess of York" (Fig. 1, detail) painted in 1807. It's true the dog does not have as handsome a coat or the magnificent feathering of that 1976 sensation "Topmast's Pied Piper" but the pictured dog was bred some 175 years ago.
Sir Edwin made several portrayals of the black and white Newfoundland dog before the one pictured here (Fig. 2), painted in 1842. I don't think his stance would get by even in an Unsanctioned Fun Match, but the artist was only 22 at the time and even the most precious of artists must have a formative period. Landseer's mature paintings show an almost photographic realism and an understanding of many breeds of dogs both in action and repose. |  Fig. 1- Duchess of York (detail) P.E. Stroehling 1807. Reproduced by permission of Her Gracious Majesty, the Queen, copyright reserved to the crown.
|
 Fig 2- Lion, a dog. Crown copyright. By courtesy of Victoria & Albert Museum. Painted in 1824.
| Our Fig. 2 is called "Lion, a Dog" which title is helpful since Sir Edwin painted also magnificent real lions and did the life-sized models for the bronze lions at the base of the Nelson monument in Trafalgar Square in London. The "Lion" in the Victoria and Albert Museum is, as are most Landseer paintings everywhere, in storage. One climbs several enormous flights of marble stairs to the attic. The Museum attendant was even older than I; we climbed very slowly to the attic. "Lion" is hanging high on the wall. Luckily, there is a flight of iron steps opposite so that one can see the painting at eye level and luckily also, it is an enormous one - 591/2 X 771/4 inches. I saw it on a (rare) clear day with light streaming into the attic through a window on the same level as the painting. He is white with black markings and much handsomer than the photograph indicates. He was a quite famous dog in his time; many historians chronicle stories about him, describing him as "a splendid fellow powerful as he was good tempered, but he would not submit to insult." |
There are many lost Landseer painted treasures out there, somewhere. Sir Edwin was incredibly prolific, painted almost continuously for over 50 years, sometimes two different pictures, one with each hand at the same time. It was a parlor trick, of course, but he was a deft technician. The Graves' catalog lists over 500 major works and it is not altogether complete. His most recent biographer, Cambell Lennie (1976) reports that "the sale of Landseer's works of art, some 1,400 of them took place over seven days ... beginning 8th May 1874 at Christie's ... " Yet anyone who has tried to find information about Sir Edwin's and his contemporaries' paintings has met with exasperating obstacles. The 19th century major biographies of Sir Edwin are in storage and/or crumbling into confetti. A search for his actual paintings is even worse: the British Museums have only several dozen among them, all but a few in storage. Many of our American museums, tired of storing Landseer's and other 19th century realistic paintings and enormous engravings, have sold them at auction. And when they have been retained, it takes perseverance, pull and patience to get them out to view. The engravings of Newfoundland dogs, both Sir Edwin's and his contemporaries, are more readily available, reproduced smaller in books, but they are, of necessity, black, gray and white. When searching for color, only the paintings themselves, or color descriptions by contemporaries, will do. It's easy to fall into the error that a black dog in an engraving is indeed a black dog. I found an engraving of "Ptarmigan Hill" painted by Landseer in 1869, showing two shaggy black beauties I was quite certain must be early Newfs, until a color heliotype of the painting published in 1876 showed them to be a grayed violet-blue which was described as "liver-colored", and the dogs themselves identified as "retrievers."
Only a researcher in the field can know the deep satisfaction of finding a drawing or a painting of a dog, not only definitely dated but also described by 19th century viewers as a "Newfoundland."  Fig. 3- Drawing by Sir Edwin Landseer, 1827. By courtesy of Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.
| Fig. 3 is a drawing by Sir Edwin for Annals of Sporting, 1827, showing not only that the artist had progressed in his technical ability, but also that the black and white was the dog the British called "Newfoundland." The accompanying text: The sense of smelling exhibited by the Newfoundland dog almost exceeds credibility; hence the value of the animal in finding wounded game of every description. "Their discrimination of scent" says Col. Hawker" in following a wounded pheasant through a furze brake, or warren of rabbits appears almost impossible." For covert shooting where strength, scent and courage are absolutely indispensable, the Newfoundland dog as a retriever has no equal ... Annals of Sporting, Vol. 11, p. 131.
|
Vero Shaw, in his Illustrated Book of the Dog (1890) says that Landseer "corrupted the public mind upon the subject of the Newfoundland. A vast number of people, without troubling themselves to inquire into the matter, have associated the black & white dog with the correct type of Newfoundland, utterly regardless of the fact that Sir Edwin may have selected this color as brighter and more suitable for the object he had in view." Shaw, possibly also without "troubling himself to inquire into the matter" copied this thought from Stonehenge (J.H. Walsh) in his 3rd ed. of 1878. The opinion continues to be repeated endlessly into our own times. Given the perspective of almost a century, it is clear that Shaw and Stonehenge were writing at a time when the black Newfoundland was indeed replacing the formerly popular black & white. Stonehenge himself admits that he has changed his illustration of the black Newfoundland of his first edition to one of an improved breeding. Both dog historians have themselves not troubled "to inquire into the matter" that Sir Edwin could and did produce a large number of black animals, magnificently recreated in paint during his mature period: Prince Albert's stunning black "Eos", a greyhound, "Dash", the Duchess of Beaufort's coal-black spaniel, and "Flora", a silky-black spaniel in "Prince George’s Favorites". The latter includes an all-white pony named "Selim" and a black & white Newfoundland named "Nelson." It is true all of these were so-to-speak "portraits" commissioned by the nobility. But Sir Edwin also painted black dogs by his own choice: "Two Dogs Setting a Hare" one very black and the other white with dark freckling. "Jack in Office" includes two all-black dogs. "Laying Down the Law" has two black dogs in the group surrounding the amusing white poodle "Judge." The paintings cited above are only a very small sampling of the black dogs Sir Edwin produced. He was a master painter and would not have stooped to change the color of his dogs to suit "the object he had in view". He changed the background to suit the actual color of his dogs. Even in his early painting, note that in "Lion" the white area of the dog is against a dark background, while the dark head is silhouetted against the light sky: Let us hope that this evidence will lay to rest the misconception that Sir Edwin painted black & white dogs because he was unwilling or unable to paint an all black. Sadly enough, Stonehenge in his first edition of 1865 was writing at a time when it was fashionable to downgrade Sir Edwin who was rapidly falling from the position of most sought-after animal painter of his time, into ill-health, alcoholism, periods of insanity and death in 1873. "Few painters" says Campbell Lennie "are remembered more for their execrations and less for their excellencies than Sir Edwin Landseer." Sir Edwin's Newfoundlands, to whom he gave the name "Landseer" decades after his own death, were black and white. The black Newfoundland began to gain prominence during the last several decades of the 19th century. But were all of those black engravings of Newfoundlands really black? Surprisingly enough, I have at this writing, a color photograph of a dog called a Newfoundland by 19th century catalogers, the original painting of which I have seen, but whose color no one of the later 20th century would believe. Did you notice that in the last issue of NEWF TIDE, Vol. 7, No.3, that the black & white dog in "Old Newf Tales" was called a "Newfoundland" and that the book was published in 1872? I can vouch for its authenticity, I submitted it. And of all five stories about Newfoundlands, which were illustrated therein, all were black & white. Now that color has become a compelling issue among. breeders of the Newfoundland dog, may I suggest that a look backward, with definitely dated pictures, plus contemporary documentation, may give a key to the present and the future of our breed? As an art historian of more than 35 years, I can assure you there will be surprises. After all, if the 20th century Labrador dog is a "kissing cousin" of the contemporary black Newfs, what is the origin of the increasingly popular yellow Labrador? __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/13/08 at 03:39 PM | Reply with quote #244 |
|
Since the Newf had another early fuzzy history, it is also a good investment to obtain "profitability of doubt", by assuming that the breed in England would have been crossed with the Mastiff as well. These types would then be sent to the Hospice and add to the general type that the monks were trying to obtain. No doubt the bone from the early Newf/Pyrenean/mastiff composites found it's way into the remaining Hospice stock, which already was an extension of early Molosser/Mastiff crosses and gave rise to better bone through crossing and selective breeding. Once that "Saint" was introduced to England ( late pre- post 1900's), the Mastiff was used once again and boosted the hybrid flavor which many British fanciers favored over earlier types. __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
000000

~ ~
Registered: 02/27/08
Posts: 2,666
|
| Posted 09/14/08 at 07:23 AM | Reply with quote #245 |
|
Steve , your ‘comparing’ remarks re Mohammed Ali are of interest , but merely only your opinion which cannot change the world-wide accepted opinion, exception proves the rule , that ALI is considered to date the all time best boxer . Other great boxers were maybe better in some ‘virtue’ , p ex Frazier’ KO punch , but that is without great interest if you don’t have the other levels of required abilities to place that uppercut when the fly is supremely dancing .
Note – They had three fights – the first one won by Frazier ( a/o due to politics which provoked Ali’ very long absence aka lack of routine in the boxing ring ) , the two following ones won by the human representation of lion- vs cheetah-like balance tooled up till almost ultimate boxing perfection in his prime ...
Re – ‘ These types would then be sent to the Hospice and add to the general type that the monks were trying to obtain. No doubt the bone from the early Newf/Pyrenean/mastiff composites found it's way into the remaining Hospice stock, which already was an extension of early Molosser/Mastiff crosses and gave rise to better bone through crossing and selective breeding. ‘
This very same train of thoughts re the origin of heavy Saintly bone is , besides maybe the Newfy partner in the game , almost a replica of what you’ve said before .
The statement ‘profit of doubt’ is like the scale of Richter , some formerly doubtful things are at date placed within a clearly argumented context which can lead to that very statement whilst other formerly doubtful things are more difficult to place into such context and therefore need to be further investigated and finally one has the , for some , formerly doubtful things , p ex ‘maybe that heavy Saintly bone comes from the Labrador , &c ‘ which are only good for some laugh .
Re – ‘ Once that "Saint" was introduced to England ( late pre- post 1900's), the Mastiff was used once again and boosted the hybrid flavor which many British fanciers favored over earlier types. ‘
Which was the result of that hybrid flavor ? Saints with more Saintly bone/limb due to Mastiff input with less bone/limb ?
It should be of interest if one should have a brandnew ratio , ir the girth relations between chest/ellbow , chest/half-way leg , chest/pastern , as I presume that it should give nice information re the development of our breed during the last period , and that specifically re the standard requirements chest/height 4:3 ratio ( 133:100 aka 45i / 30i ) vs large bone , p ex approximately exemplified by that Victorian breed monument WK Taunton’ Beaufort (142:100 aka 42i / 29,5i ) vs a 12 i forearm girth being about 28 percent of the chest girth .
This 28:100 forearm/chest ratio , belonging to one of the best allround ancient Mastiffs can be used as a touch stone for breed typical symmetry or call it balance in order to recognise breed faulty symmetries re the standard interpretation of ‘ large bone ‘ and its standard link within the general standard concept of balance , massiveness vs GRANDEUR , the latter difficult to obtain by breed unfunctional table legs , due to the overemphasis of limb vs required air beneath the body .
I do not have any reference re Beaufort’ pastern girth , but a chest/pastern ratio could be applicated as point of interest because one of the features of Saintly ‘ table ‘ leg is that the level of tapering down from ellbow to foot is definitely less apparent than in the ancient Mastiff examples , as a/o Beuafort also taking into account his foot surface is also definitelly smaller than the Saintly’ one .
Grandeur can best be studied by looking at the Great Dane styling , so much air , it almost is his ‘royal airness’ , but re Mastiff breed typical balance vs massiveness , of course , the airness fails definitely as also does the modern Bulldog but that in the opposite way . That’s the problem , finding that Mastiff ‘ massiveness vs grandeur ‘ balance , somewhere on the track between the Bulldog and the Great Dane ...
Some actual Mastiffs which are definitely bulkier as Beaufort but they seemingly still retain that specific Beaufort’ 28:100 ratio , other definitely bulkier ones seemingly display a less heavy ratio , ie p ex 26:100 or even more less , giving a perception of rather breed-unlike light built legs whilst other definitely bulkier ones seemingly display a much heavier ratio , ie p ex 30:100 or even more , giving a perception of breed-unlike heavy built legs .
Note – Do take into account that even Beaufort’ chest/height 142:100 rather was faulty re 4/3 aka 133:100 because ANY departure from any standard point should be considered a fault and the seriousness with which the fault should be regarded in exact proportion to its degree .
This 4/3 Mastiff’ rule stands sky high since 1883 and , nevertheless some historical under-way struggles , up to present-day . If the Kennel Club should try to change our standard , than common sense re soundness aka health should behold that same standard requirement as long than the rest of this century .
If the fancy remains in flagrantly surpassing this 4/3 rule re the standardly proper levels of massiveness aka substance , than it persists in a MAJOR standard fault , ie fifty or more percent , and that with the eventual higher leveled presence of soundness aka health problematics . Or one’s serving the interest of the breed as laid down in the standard , or one’s serving merely its own varied interest ...
This tableau containing three horizontal rows for comparison is of interest for acquiring an idea re the origin of the ‘ heavy Saintly bone . The upper series of pics show up British top-class representants some years before the ‘input’ of continental imports of the ‘ Golden Era ‘ , mentioned in the hereabove linked article about Cani di San Bernardo . Note - In attachment also a larger format for better assessment .
A Saintly Golden Era which was built upon Emir Jura’ linebreeding represented by the middle series of pics whilst the lower placed group photo show up the Saintly Continental version imported and linebred in Britain , in this case owned/bred by the Scotish breeder of Berndean .
Every Saint in this tableau of sixteen exemplars , exception proves the rule , shows up the Saintly heavy limb but one do can observe an evolution re the level of British heavy Saintly limb from before and after the input of continental ‘ Golden Era ‘ stock , even taking into account the different shade of perception re bone/limb cross-sec size of smooths vs longhaireds .
Where’s the place of the Mastiff in this tableau ? Well p ex look above at left , third dog from left , upon Abbotsford Romeo’ head annex face and one can observe , nevertheless the heavy ear , the typical Mastiff’ flattened skull annex bevelled off look from low fore head up till the occiput region but one cannot observe any definite Mastiff influence re Saintly bone/limb , because of the lack of presence of British Mastiff’ typical proportional shortness in legs vs the Saint’ , of proportional more squarely placement of legs , thereby taking into account that the then contemporary Mastiff top-classers were certainly not heavier in bone/limb ?
Is there some need to give another tableau in order to demonstrate the latter assessment , p ex by the broad casted pic of the OEMC gathering at Buxton about 1929 showing up the average bone/limb styling of the contemporary Mastiff stock ?
Winding up , the origin of the actual levels of Saintly heavy bone comes not from authentical British selective breeding practices , but from paralel-wise authentical Continental ‘ Golden Era ‘ results based upon available & suitable mountainiously indigenous stock and that done by Saint celebrities as a/o the Dutch gentleman Mr Albert de la Rie .
Short note – Isn’t it obvious that the Continental Saint clubs do have an enormous documented annex illustrated database re breed history compared with the British’ counter parts ... ?
Attached Images:
|
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/14/08 at 12:24 PM | Reply with quote #246 |
|
Marcel,
No doubt some Saints had very nice bone. You can easily present many photos to make your case and you have!
My contention, was that the Mastiff was the influencing factor in the early development of that bone.
The Roman "Mastiff" and then the Pyrenean Mastiff into the Newf/Mastiff and finally into the Saint!
The "hybrid vigor" that I speak of, can boost limb size regardless of the size of the individual parental stock, so in affect if your Mastiff "stud" possessed slightly less bone than the Saint bitch, the get could still be greater in bone than the original couple.
Once that has been achieved, then selective breeding for those qualities could ensue and large bones can then become more commonplace.
There are different time lines and different breeder's types, as we had discussed earlier, and this leads to pockets of diversity within the argument.
If we view the bas reliefs and acknowledge that a Mastiff like dog did once exist with large bone, then it's only logical to progress to present time lines and reward the early Mastiff as the progenitor of those gifts passed on to Saints et al. To emphasize once more, if we find the bas relief a valid object for reviewing past forms, then there can be no doubt that massive bone once existed in the Mastiff progenitor.
The subsequent crosses infused the early "Mastiff" genes (through other crosses) back into the pool and enabled breeders of different breeds to utilize traits once diminished, such as massive bone. In the 1950's Mastiffs, there was a terrible lack of bone in the breed. The crosses which boosted bone, here and abroad, earlier and later, were the "Mastiff types", which were left genetically unaffected by shortages & inbreedings that hit our breed hard. Dane like Mastiffs contributed to reduced bone size and the dane crosses, were a direct contributor of that lesser bone circumference that are used as templates for validating lesser bone in the breed. (e.g. the Newf crosses back into the weakened remaining Hospice dogs in 1830. This was an "injection" of sorts, utilizing the Mastiff genes through the Pyr & Newf )
Since there are some things in stone "literally", why not accommodate those objects into the development of "massive bone" for a mastiff, instead of viewing it as a detraction of sorts, not to be incorporated due to a subjective interpretation?
The "Saintly bone" was an early Mastiff attribute!
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/14/08 at 12:39 PM | Reply with quote #247 |
|
 __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/14/08 at 12:55 PM | Reply with quote #248 |
|
More grist for the mill:
THE MASTIFF TYPE. Captain Turner wrote: "Entering a Thibet village and being indolently disposed and prompted by mere curiosity I strolled along among the houses ; and seeing everything still and quiet, I turned into one of the enclosures, which serve as folds for cattle, the instant I entered the gate to my astonish- ment up started a large dog, big enough, if his courage had been equal to his size, to fight a lion, and I was a good deal startled at first, but recollecting their cowardly disposition I stood still ; for having once had one in my possession I knew they were fierce only when they perceived themselves feared. Some people came out of the houses, and he was soon silenced."Mr. Moorcroft in the account of his journey to Lake Manasarovana, in the i8th century notices the Thibet dogs as guards to the flocks of the Uniyas and bore testimony to their fierceness and disposition to attack strangers. Some 30 years ago a Mr. Jolland of Buxshall near Lindfield, Sussex, had a fine specimen presented to him by Mr. Cooper, who endeavouring to penetrate Thibet from Assam was prevented on entering the boundaries, by a message from the Thibetan authorities, accompanied by a Thibet mastiff and a dagger for his acceptance, with the intimation that if he advanced it would be at the risk of encountering many such dogs and weapons. Mr. Cooper had two English bulldogs with him which nearly killed the Thibet mastiff, before they could be choked off, nearly shaking the life out of him.
This specimen somewhat resembled a Newfoundland, but is described as having a wolfish cast of head, his coat was of long thick black hair, with the usual tan paws, his tail bushy and carried over his back. The dog flew at Mr. Cooper who completely cowed him by administering a severe thrashing, which has been the Author's experience with the only Asiatic specimen he has ever owned.Mr. Bennet stated that the Thibet mastiff is bred on the Himalaya mountains, on the borders of Thibet, for the purpose of guarding the flocks and the women who attend them. They are the watch dogs of the plateau, and guard the women and homesteads while the Bhotans are away on their trading excursions. Mr. Bennet stated that these dogs are the defenders of almost every considerable mansion in Thibet and that he had to pass by a row of wooden cages containing a number of them, when on an embassy to the court of Tesloo Llama in Thibet, and that they were so savage that it was unsafe to approach them.Some years ago I met with a gentlemen who had seen many of these dogs brought down to Calcutta for sale by the Bhotans, and he said that they resembled Newfoundlands far more than English mastiffs, and that the heads of all the specimens that he saw were pointed and wolfish. In colour they were generally of a dusky black, with light tan paws, that some were a kind of dun approaching to fawn, and that they stood not above 27 or 28 inches at shoulder, and in his opinion, had little claim to be considered mastiffs. Subse- quently to this I corresponded with Mr. Robert Shaw, chief commissioner at Ladak, and I found that he had seen them around Ladak, and his description was very similar to that given me by the gentlemen whose opinion and statement I have quoted.
Dogs of a more distinct mastiff type are found in Mongolia, some of a silver-grey colour with long hair and fine brush-like stern. Some years ago now I met with two Asiatic mastiffs that had been brought over from Russia, the one said to be a Siberian was of a dirty white colour, with long coarsish coat, somewhat long in head, but broad, blunt and sguarc in muzzle, with very small ears, deep but somewhat narrow in body, standing probably some 31 or 32 inches at shoulder with great bone, but very deficient in muscular development compared to good specimens of the English variety. The other was a lower standing animal, being not more than 29 inches at shoulder, with rounder barrel, short stout limbs, and one of the most typically mastiff heads I have ever seen eyes remarkably small and grey in colour, the muzzle short blunt and very deep, lips extremely pendulous, ears very small, co::t short, very dense and somewhat woolly, colour a deep red chestnut, with blue or slate coloured points, and a white streak up the face, white on breast and paws, stern somewhat thick and brush-like, He had a split nostril, and the skin instead of being black, was bluish slate colour. That this was a true mastiff colour I was aware from having seen an English mastiff bitch of exactly the same colour and markings at Lord Stanley's of Alderley in Cheshire. In temper the Russian (which I purchased) was sullen and ferocious to strangers when on chain, when loose however taking no notice of anyone but his master, and he was a most undemonstrative and uninteresting animal in disposition.On several occasions he growled ominously at me on very slight provocation, on one occasion growling at me I kicked him broadside into his kennel and clapped the door to just in time, as he rushed at it like a wild beast. On another occasion, losing my temper at his repeated snarling I seized him by the collar and beat him with my slipper until I was tired, this completely cowed him, he never showed any ill temper towards me personally afterwards and even grew to be somewhat affectionate, but no one else would he let approach him. He showed the utmost indifference to cold, preferring sleeping on the hard cold brick floor, to his wooden bench, either with or without bedding.Of recent times Thibet is the only country that has obtained any notoriety for possessing the Asiatic mastiff in any state of purity, but I am inclined to think that isolated specimens and little families of the pure breed still exist in those vast regions, stretching from Thibet right into Russia, in fact through the whole regions of ancient Sarmatia. These Asi- atics are not nearly as muscular as the English breed, and inferior for fighting purposes, and any further introduction of the Asiatic blood into the English breed, although it might give greater dignity of expression, more loose skin and wrinkle, and restore the somewhat lost pendulosity of the lip, and perhaps a smaller ear ; would nevertheless result in failure, as the girth of skull in our English mastiff and bulldog, has been cultivated for generations, and improved by careful breeding not understood by foreigners, for in breeding domestic animals the English have long possessed talent unrivalled by other nations. Having thus laid down these generalities I will resume my evidences by saying the earliest and most incontestable proofs we possess of the origin of the various races of dogs, are the delineations of the animals that existed in the days of early Assyrian, Egyptian, and Grecian sculpture, and among these we may trace dogs of the mastiff as well as greyhound and other types, existing centuries before the Christian era. The characteristics are the same to day, as they were when the noble mastiff delighted the eyes of the Assyrian kings.It will be interesting to my readers to know where they may see for themselves proof of my statements and arguments based thereon as I proceed and in persuance of this plan I may say there is a fine specimen of the Assyrian mastiff, drawn from a baked clay bas-relief found in the Birs-i-Nimroud figured in page 164 of a little work entitled " Ruined Cities of Bible Lands," by Dr. W. K. Tweedie, D. D., it is also figured in the third edition of Nineveh and Persepolis by Mr. Vaux, the bas-relief itself was found by Henry Rawlinson, and presented by the late Prince Consort to the British Museum. The tail in this specimen is curled over the back, the same as seen in the Thibetian mastiff, the pug, and delineations of our earlier English mastiffs. It is also worthy of remark that the Assyrians were always careful to define long hair when it existed, but in this specimen the stern appears free from any roughness, although so minute are the details that the very fraying at the end of the rope is depicted, the loose skin hangs down the face in enormous wrinkles or folds, and the lips were extremely pendulous evidently, although the mouth is marked by a slit or line in the usual conventional form of Assyrian sculpture. The ears are of medium size, chest very deep, and limbs massive, the head short and of great volumn, and muzzle short and truncated. There is a great similarity between this dog and some of our noted English specimens.
Further examples of the Assyrian mastiff are figured in " Gleanings from the Natural History of the Ancients," by the Rev. W. Houghton, and they have more of the European mastiff character about them, and their sterns while carried gaily are not raised above the line of the level of the back. There is a fine specimen of one of the Assyrian mastiffs figured in Berjeau's work. " The Dog in Old Sculptures, Paintings, etc.," from a sculpture in the British- Museum. This is a noble example of the breed, reminding me strongly of Taurus 2nd 9339, for some time my property, and one of the very best specimens of his day taking all points into consideration. In the British Museum is a sculpture showing the use that the Assyrian kings made of these mastiffs. It represents a lion hunt or artificial battue of lions, in an enclosed park, of Assur ban-i-pal, King of Assyria, who flourished some 640 years B.C. The dogs are held back by men with a rope, one dog before the lion is at a dead stand, evidently barking, the others showing evident signs of impatience to get at the royal game. In another part of the museum are models of these hunting dogs of the same monarch, found behind the slabs at Nineveh, so we see this king was fortunate in possessing both modeller and sculptor, although the artist's names have not been handed down to us.Darwin in his Animals and Plants under domestication, states that on the tomb of Esarhaddon is figured one of these Assyrian mastiffs. Esarhaddon (2 Kings xix-37) son and successor of Sennacherib died according to George Smith's Assyria 668 B.C. In his reign the wandering tribes of Cimmerians migrated across the Caucasus ; and Esarhaddon also attacked and subdued the Medes, and this powerful monarch probably introduced the mastiff from these countries after his conquests. Although he died 668 B.C. his tomb would not be ornamented until the reign of his son Assurbanipal, who we find in possession of many of these mastiffs. In the " Excelsior Helps in Progress in Religion. Science, and Literature, vol. v, is some mention of these Babylonish dogs. Colonel Rawlinson (the merits of whose opinion as a judge of the mastiff I am unaware of the value of) was inclined to think that the mastiffs sculptured on the Assyrian slabs were of the Thibetian breed. But they do not accord in peculiarities of feature with more modern specimens of that breed, and I am inclined to think that it is far more likely that these mastiffs sculptured on the Assyrian slabs etc. were ,i breed which either existed in Assyria itself at that date or else were introduced from Sarmatia, Albania, Hyrcania, or Iberia, or some of those northern parts of Asia above' Armenia, which we read ot having possessed dogs large, and courageous enough to have successfully coped with the lion. Moreover they are more like our English mastiff in type than the shaggy mastiff of Thibet, which always seems more or less to have been crossed with the sheepdog of the country. The mastiff of Turkestan being a small dog, little better than could be produced by crossing an English mastiff with a Scotch sheep- dog. The Mongolian mastiff (of which Mrs. Assiter possessed a beautiful specimen exhibited at Maidstone sho\v in 1870, and of which animal I have a lock of hair) is a long woolly coated animal, which seems characteristic of all the more northern Asiatic animals. However, Col. H. Smith sr.ys " In Persia, where the rulers were generally descended from tribes of Central Asia, the princes possessed vast hunting packs, as is mentioned by Xenophon. \Ye find Megasthenes (who flourished about 300 B.C.) the first to notice the true mastiff with drooping ears, these he suggests were most likely known to the Greeks as the Candarides and Sen, the latter not being Chinese but Afghans of Candah.'ir," but Col. H. Smith seems to have gone too far north-west- -overlooking the Hyrcanian, from whence in a north-eastern direction, has probably ever been the cradle of the Asiatic mastiff.Turning from Assyrian to Egyptian sculpture, in the Museum at Boulaq, is a tablet that formerly stood before the tomb of king Antafaa 2nd, in the valley of the El Assisif at Thebes, on this tablet are figured the four favourite dogs of the king, and one represents a very perfect mastiff of vast size, this dog has a smaller ear than the Asiatic or Assyrian mastiffs, the head is short and full, and the muzzle short and truncated, but the latter point not so marked as in the Assyrian. The neck is thick, and breast deep. Dr. S. Birch, L.L.D. of the British Museum, who kindly sent me his pamphlet containing cuts and particulars of these dogs, remarks that the mastiff" is a breed rarely represented in the Egyptian sculptures, and from one of the names of the dog in question, he conjectures it to have been black in colour, and thinks it was probably of the same breed as we see figured on the Assyrian sculptures. But the talented antiquarian is not sufficiently well versed in the minutiae of canine type, to detect the fact that the dog has more of the European character, being higher in forehead, and in fact, to use a comprehensive expression being more bulldog-like in character. The pam- phlet was reprinted from the " Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology vol. iv. 1875," an d besides containing numerous cuts of dogs, throws great light on the early existence of several known types, as well as the great antiquity of the love and value for the dog in Egypt. Dr. Birch's remark that the mastiff is but rarely found depicted among the numerous Egyptian sculptures of the dog is very suggestive that the species does not belong to Africa. Col. H. Smith mentions that in the south-east of Arabia he was informed there was a race of dogs allied to the mastiff', by its great size and round truncated muzzle, but that the lips did not overhang the lower jaw, and the ears were semi-erect, the coat fine,He states that this appears to be the breed figured in the temples of Ceylon, whither the race may have been brought by Arabian navigators.
In Stanley's African expedition he heard of vast dogs used for the purposes of war by the natives. There appeared in The Daily Telegraph of August 10, 1876, page 3, col. 5, mention that " On the shores of the Victoria in Usukuma he heard of a people far north possessing very large dogs of such fierce nature that they were often taken to fight against the enemies of their masters." These people he subsequently ascer- ained to be the Wakedi, a tribe living north of Usoga. In the same issue page 3, col. 6, " Usongora is a great salt field, it is rom all accounts a very land of wonders," among other things he mentions a breed of very large dogs of extraordinary ferocity. Again in the same paper, issue of Oct. i5th, 1875, P a S e 5' c l- 4. " All my men had distinguished themselves, even " Bull" my British bulldog had seized one of the Waturu by the leg and had given him a taste of the power of the sharp canines of the breed. And in col. 6 of the same " I hear strange tales about the countries on the shores of this lake (Victoria) which make me still more eager to start, one territory is said to possess a breed of such large dogs that even my mastiffs are quite small compared to them. One of Stanley's mastiffs was presented to him by the Baroness Burdett Coutts I believe. From the sculptor's art we may learn that the true mastiff has always been confined more or less to latitudes 20 to 60 north of the equator, and to certain countries. Col. H. Smith states that the Takhti Boustan sculptures and Indian carvings, paintings, and manuscripts are destitute of the form of the mastiff.Greece, the land of classic song and ennobling art has never possessed the breed, seemingly. Nothing remains of the work of Praxiteles (except the Apollo Sauroctones) ; his dogs long since have been lost, along with his famous Cupid and the form of his Phryne as Venus, but as he worked the time resisting bronze and lasting marble, perhaps in spite of Byron's invective, it is left for some other Pictish Peer to draw down another " Curse of Minerva " for his canny picking out some model canine guardian of the "Lares." The Athsenian Phidias and his rival Alcamenes have left us r.o examples of their talent, nor has Sicyonian Polycletus, although reckoned the most skilful among the ancients. But Myron, who so excelled in carving animals, that his famous cow, the poets would have us believe imposed on the dewlapped bulls of Thessaly, has handed down to posterity, one beautiful piece of sculpture, showing plainly the type of the Grecian molossus, which was in the possession of Lord Feversham, at Buncombe Park, Yorkshire.Turning to the classic writers we enter upon a sea of literature that requires a skilful pilot to steer clear of the numerous rocks that are liable at every turn to assail us, and the carelessness and ignorance of later writers on Natural History have greatly added to the mist that hangs over classic lore. The term for the mastiff among some naturalists, is the molossus, originating with our early writers, who chose to think that the classic writers meant a mastiff, in the sense we now use the word, whereas the molossus was not in reality a* The Lares were placed on the hearth or beside the door in private houses. Plutarch tells us the Lares were covered with dogskin, and the image of a dog placed next to them.
mastiff. Many people therefore, erroneously think the word molossus necessarily means a mastiff, whereas the Greeks only became acquainted with the true mastiff about the time of the Macedonian conquest at 336 B.C., being about 300 years after the breed was cultivated by the Assyrian kings. History informs us that Molossus was the name of a king of a people living in Epirus, who took the name of Molossi from him, and the district obtained the name of Molossis, where were the mountains of Selli or Suli. This country became famous for its dogs as guardians of flock and home- stead, and they were imported to Rome, and became well known under the name of canes molossi. Grote in his History of Greece Lib. iii. chap. xxiv. page 558, states that the Molossians and Chaonians were two of the principal nations of Epirus, and that Epirus is essentially a pastoral country, that its shepherd dogs were celebrated through all antiquity.Of the unmastiff-like type of the Molossian we may learn from Aristotle who says : Of the Laconian dogs, that they were produced from a cross with the wolf. " Laconic: canes ex vulpe d cane genevantur" Arist. Hist. Animals, Lib. viii. ch. xxviii., and of the Molossian he says, they differ nothing from the Laconian, but as a guardian of the flocks and herds they are eminent against wild beasts for size and courage." Lib. ix. ch. i. The difference in the period of gestation between the Lacon- ian and ordinary breeds of dogs is mentioned in Lib. vi. ch. 20, which goes a long way towards furnishing positive proof that the Laconian and Molossian dogs were in reality in the opinion of the ancients, the result of a union between some large breed of dog and the wolf. That such a union is possible has been proved in several instances beyond doubt or dispute, and Buffon in his dissertation on mules (under the Ass) mentions an instance of a cross between a mongrel mastiff and the wolf. Virgil iii. line 18, mentions Latrante Lycisca and from Claudian we learn that Francia possessed dogs produced from crossing the dog with the wolf, and without extending these remarks, it is palpable that the molossus was a dog of wolfish type.Classical writers carelessly or for convenience called any and all dogs approaching anything like the dogs of Epirus in size or character by the common term molossus. The Rev. \Yatkins in some well written and interesting notes on the British dogs, published in the Antiquary, shows the molossus was a word soon used in a much wider sense than its primitive meaning warranted, i.e., a dog belonging to the Molossi. And although Virgil in his Georgics, Lib. iii. line 404, distinguishes between the swift Spartan and fierce Molossian, later writers classed all large dogs under this heading. It is recorded by /Elian that the Molossi wept over their dogs slain in war, and the effigy of one, slain at the battle of Marathon, was placed over his master's tomb. M. A. Plautus, the comic poet, who died about 184 B.C., -informs us that the Molossian dogs were house dogs, and opposed and indifferent to hunting. " Molossi canes parasiti quibus opponantur venatici" Plant, s.c. i. A.I. The word "parasiti" being used in a satirical sense. In the Dictionary of Ambrosius of Celephini (the 1663 orgth Edition) is a curious collection of Greek notices of the molossus some of which derive them from the brazen dog made by Vnlcan. My late friend J. W. Thompson (of mastiff notoriety) nearly led me into a very absurd and never-the-less amusing error over some brazen dogs at Cote- hele House. Mr. Thompson informed me that he understood that they were very ancient colossal dogs, upwards of four feet high, and beyond doubt casts of Molossian dogs or mastiffs. I wrote to the Dowager Countess Mount Edgcombe, who very kindly informed me of the error, the" dogs in question being only ancient brazen fire dogs, upwards of 250 years old, and standing some four feet high. Had I accepted my late friend's statement without further enquiry, and enlarged upon it in Goldsmith-like style, it would justly have landed me in rather a brazensmith literary bungle, but I have endeavoured to verify as far as possible the statements I have made use of throughout this work.De la Barre Duparcq in his work "The Dogs of War" which is in the French, mentions that there are two ancient marble statues in the Vatican at Rome of the true Molossian dogs, and Col. H. Smith states that in the Vatican collection of Sculpture there is only one statue of a genuine mastiff.
The high state of perfection to which ancient sculptor's attained in representing the dog at a very early date in its various attitudes and varieties, may be gathered from the fine piece of sculpture (attributed to Myron) at Dtmcombe Park, Yorkshire, which is a figure of Alcibiade's dog, and it will be remembered Alcibiades died 404 B.C. As a further proof of the perfection art had attained and the early existence of certain recognised breeds. In the Hall, of Animals in the Vatican at Rome, is a remarkably fine statue of a dog of pointer-like form, represented at a dead point, sculptured out of white marble, interspersed with black knots and veins. This ancient work of art was found under the ruins of a mansion in ancient Rome, the execution is said to be faultless, and the figure exadlly the same as the pointers used formerly in Spain and Portugal, being remarkably broad across the chest, and stout in the limbs, with an expansive forehead, and tail docked within a short distance of the root, as was the fashion in Spain and Portugal up to the present century. Again in Youatts work on the dog are figured some grey- hound puppies, taken from a statue of Aclaeon and dogs, found in the ruins of the Villa Antonini, near Rome. The dogs of the ancients were generally large and powerful watch dogs, for house and fold, as Virgil mentions the Amyclean shepherd dog, Georgics Lib. iii. 345. AmyclaB being a city of Laconia, which was famous for its dogs.From the Ajax of Sophocles, Adi i, scene i, we learn that the Laconian or Spartan dog was a true hound, hunting by scent. I have not a copy of the original Greek by me, but Adam's translation runs as follows : "And now I will seek thee among the tents of Ajax, where he keeps the utmost guard, searching and tracing his newly impressed steps, to see whether he is in or not, thy search for him is certain as a Spartan hounds scent for the game." I mention this fully as it not only proves the existence of the true hound at that period, but is plainly the source together with some lines in Sir Philip Sydney's Arcadia, from whence Shakespeare derived his hounds of Theseus in Midsummer Night's Dream, and if the Electra of Sophocles did not more than furnish the skeleton of Hamlet, I am mistaken. But to return to the subject, classical writers used the word molossians at a later period to embrace the true mastiff and allied groups, and Dr. Caius, Gesner, Linnaeus, and other naturalists followed the classical jumble. Therefore leaders and translators should be very guarded how they render molossus as a mastiff, for the true molossian was an erect - eared (altas aure) slate coloured (glauci) or fawn (fulvus) sw r ift footed wolfish-looking dog, identical or almost so, with the modern Suliot boarhound. A fine sculpture of the true molossus was found at Pompeii, w r ith the inscription, " Cave Canem," which I would have translators remember.Horace has well described the breed in his Epodes, ode. vi. lines 5 to 8, and in his Satires, Lib. ii. Sat. vi. It will be seen throughout this work that I have constantly extracted the history of the mastiff from the writings of the poets, and I may say, poetry is a great instructor of the past, an honest, an enduring historian, a truthful exponent of every day life of the time it w T as written. The noble sculptures of the past decay, the efforts of skill and art of the older empires and past times leave only crumbling remains, indistinct through age ; to prove their existence, and nothing, the work of man's hand has outlasted the creation of man's mind. The productions of the poets still live, may still be studied with advantage and drawn from, like a never-failing \vell. Rightly were the poets crowned with evergreen, Homer still speaks fresh and vigorous as in the days of the Calydon boar-hunt, or Actseons tragical fate in pursuit of the stag. So with our later poets. The world grows older, man does but " Fret and strut his hour upon the stage, and then is seen no more." But they endure, live and reveal truthful information if wo only consult their oracular mediums. The dusky daughters of Cadmus, The lettered page.
__________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |
Natalie

Registered: 04/11/08
Posts: 579
|
| Posted 09/14/08 at 12:59 PM | Reply with quote #249 |
|
STEVE COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THE "SHORTER LIMB AND GREATER DIAMETER CONCEPT" FROM YOUR PODT, i THINK IT WAS # 177? aLSO, WOULD YOU TELL ME WHO THAT DOG IS IN THE PICTURE? THANKS NATALIE __________________ Natalie R.Y, Allouche |
| Loading... | |
SteveOifer

~ TOP SUPREME POWER POSTER~
Registered: 06/01/06
Posts: 23,431
|
| Posted 09/14/08 at 01:10 PM | Reply with quote #250 |
|
The dog is G.H. Brutus and displays massive bone.
My other remarks were based on the genetics of canines. It's usually easier to get heavier limbs in shorter legs than in longer legs.
Coursing hounds have longer finer legs and if one breeds for longer leg length, the genes seem to accommodate to that factor by producing finer bone. This is not always the case, but the factors are there and can be bred about if one takes the time to selectively eliminate the finer boned progeny.
The honey badger has very strong forelegs and is designed for going to ground, not for speed. The cheetah has long thin legs, so we see these traits in other species as well. Due to the many crosses in Mastiffs, these factors are not easily controlled, but they can be accomplished in the right hands. __________________ For the betterment of the breed!
"Above all, a uniform type should be aimed at by breeders and uniformity of type can only exist in a proportionate ratio in the purity and distinctiveness in any breed"!.........M. Moore
"If breeds did not adhere to a specific shape, form, and colour range, or if breeders disregarded this blueprint, the breed would degenerate to the point that it would hardly resemble the breed at all. Selective breeding does not just create breeds- it preserves them as well. Breeding purebred dogs inherently means accepting limitations on your freedom to just breed anything"...Catherine McMillan
" A reinforced consolidation of the American and British standards could be the basis for restoring our breed to the gladiatorial glory of its ancient past, in capability if not in usage".....Norman Howard Carp-Gordon
"I can live with doubt, or not knowing, rather than to have answers that might be wrong"...Richard Feynman
TEST YOUR DOGS! |
| Loading... | |