|
Post by bubsy on Feb 10, 2009 0:33:21 GMT -5
Anyone watch? What did y'all think of the Amstaff? Here are some pics of him chavezpits.com/males_pgs/bouncer.htmI loved the Rhodesian Ridgeback...another breed that I need to have one of these days, but he didn't place. My friend was showing her Cardigan Corgi, but they didn't place either.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 10, 2009 11:09:11 GMT -5
I was flipping back and forth. The commentary this year so far has been AWFUL. OMG. It was so annoying I couldn't stand listening to it. The first thing I thought when I saw that AmStaff was OMG he is EFFING HUGE! Not my style at all. Work prevented me from taking off this year to actually go, but let me tell ya' I am jonesing more than ever to get back into showing. I miss it so much it hurts to watch
|
|
|
Post by bamapitbullmom on Feb 10, 2009 12:44:29 GMT -5
The commentary has never been great, IMO. Memba that movie Best in Show? LOL
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 10, 2009 12:48:50 GMT -5
The commentary has never been great, IMO. Memba that movie Best in Show? LOL I love that movie ;D Yeah, you are right, it's always been crummy, BUT IMO this year was worse than ever. That woman that was sitting with David Frei was just.....really dumb. It also sucked because when the AmStaff was being judged, Frei said something about the Our Gang series and that that was the same dog, and the woman goes, "Where's the ring on his eye?". Then Frei responds, "Oh, actually, I think the Little Rascals dog was a Bull Terrier, but they are in the same family" and then he rattled on about how when you have a big, strong protective dog get into the wrong hands you have trouble....There was a lot of stuttering, and misspoken words, and Frei misidentified his own friend who was handling one of the dogs!
|
|
|
Post by bamapitbullmom on Feb 10, 2009 13:31:06 GMT -5
Frei has always been a little goofy. The way his lips move make me want to scream.
It would be nice if they had someone with a great sense of humor and extensive knowledge of the breeds and handlers to commentate. Most of the time I watch I mute it.
|
|
|
Post by bubsy on Feb 10, 2009 13:55:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought the Amstaff was mighty big. I looked at the rest of the breeder's dogs on the site I posted...they also breed bullies....ehhhhh. LOL yeah when he said the Little Rascal's dog was a Bull Terrier I was rolling my eyes!
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 10, 2009 13:59:40 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought the Amstaff was mighty big. I looked at the rest of the breeder's dogs on the site I posted...they also breed bullies....ehhhhh. LOL yeah when he said the Little Rascal's dog was a Bull Terrier I was rolling my eyes! Yeeeup, Chavez is an AmBully breeder. Goes to show you the direction *some* AST breeders are going. UGH.
|
|
|
Post by bubsy on Feb 10, 2009 17:30:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I thought the Amstaff was mighty big. I looked at the rest of the breeder's dogs on the site I posted...they also breed bullies....ehhhhh. LOL yeah when he said the Little Rascal's dog was a Bull Terrier I was rolling my eyes! Yeeeup, Chavez is an AmBully breeder. Goes to show you the direction *some* AST breeders are going. UGH. Weird, is this a new thing for Amstaff breeders? The shows I've been to, I've always liked the Amstaffs being shown..but I haven't been to a show in a while. I hope this doesn't become a widespread trend...
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 11, 2009 6:47:46 GMT -5
Yeeeup, Chavez is an AmBully breeder. Goes to show you the direction *some* AST breeders are going. UGH. Weird, is this a new thing for Amstaff breeders? The shows I've been to, I've always liked the Amstaffs being shown..but I haven't been to a show in a while. I hope this doesn't become a widespread trend... AmStaffs have been getting progressively fatter for a while now. The judges put up what the breeders/exhibitors show them. There aren't too many options in the ring right now. NOT knocking breeders and exhibitors, I just do NOT like the big meaty dogs - my preference. I've been saying it for years. Gaff Kennels who has been breeding the big AmStaffs (and winning) for a while, has influenced American Bullies, for instance. In general, AmStaff blood is what makes up American Bully bloodlines. P.s. I'm moving this to the Pit Bull board since it's definitely on topic.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 11, 2009 6:48:52 GMT -5
And the BIS winner:
|
|
|
Post by bubsy on Feb 11, 2009 14:27:43 GMT -5
I love Stump! I was rooting for the Giant tho ;-) At 10 years old, he looks fantastic.
|
|
|
Post by bubsy on Feb 11, 2009 14:32:39 GMT -5
Weird, is this a new thing for Amstaff breeders? The shows I've been to, I've always liked the Amstaffs being shown..but I haven't been to a show in a while. I hope this doesn't become a widespread trend... AmStaffs have been getting progressively fatter for a while now. The judges put up what the breeders/exhibitors show them. There aren't too many options in the ring right now. NOT knocking breeders and exhibitors, I just do NOT like the big meaty dogs - my preference. I've been saying it for years. Gaff Kennels who has been breeding the big AmStaffs (and winning) for a while, has influenced American Bullies, for instance. In general, AmStaff blood is what makes up American Bully bloodlines. P.s. I'm moving this to the Pit Bull board since it's definitely on topic. Damn, that's too bad. Do you think different areas of the country go for larger dogs? Gaff is out on the West Coast, right?
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 11, 2009 14:43:58 GMT -5
I think diff areas do go for different types; I think the big dogs really started on the West Coast. But at this point they (the big dogs) are all over the place.
|
|
|
Post by Courtney on Feb 11, 2009 16:34:22 GMT -5
Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but these larger AmStaffs...are they less healthy?
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 12, 2009 8:34:59 GMT -5
Forgive my ignorance on the subject, but these larger AmStaffs...are they less healthy? Well, hip dysplasia is a concern, for sure. There are also other reasons I personally don't like the big ones....they aren't as atheletic and they have gone from a fairly light, muscular athletic dog to a dog that is heavy, carrying excess weight and just doesn't look the way the breed is supposed to look. There is a sorry trend in the dog show world - take a good, sound working dog, breed it for the show ring, and you end up with an overdone charicature of the breed you started with. It's kind of the nature of the beast, although it doesn't HAVE to be. If you check out working Border Collies or Australian Shepherds, and compare them with dogs winning in the AKC show ring, those are two of the most stark examples I can give you. I wanted to give you an example of AmStaffs: I've always liked these Dauntless dogs (kinda admired from afar). www.amstaffs.com/page2.htmlTo me, these are correctly sized, athetlic looking dogs. They look the way AmStaffs should. Compare these dogs with some Gaff dogs (Gaff has produced a lot of AKC champions). www.gaffkennels.net/studs.htmGaff is extremely popular (as you can tell by just doing a google search of the name....the dogs are all over the place, in a million pedigrees). But to me, a lot of those dogs just don't look the way AmStaffs should look. Personal preference.
|
|
|
Post by Courtney on Feb 12, 2009 12:35:07 GMT -5
Thanks Mary, great explanation
|
|
|
Post by bubsy on Feb 12, 2009 13:16:03 GMT -5
Thanks for the links, Mary. I like the Dauntless dogs. I always liked the Hartagold dogs...I still go to the site to look at them. I was very sad to hear that she passed...I wonder if there are others who are carrying on her lines. There is a breeder in my area that is well known, I saw her and some of her dogs at Westminster in 2005. Any thoughts? I think Miss Texas is beautiful :-) www.absoluteamericanstaffordshireterrier.com/index.html
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 12, 2009 14:06:05 GMT -5
Lora from Hartagold had dogs of the same/similar bloodline as my breeder (White Rock & Royal Court). Lora didn't have a bloodline, she was just helping to perpetuate good bloodlines that other breeders created. Lora was a great person in the breed and I miss her presence on all the lists and forums. I was so sad when she passed. It was shortly after she was married, too. And yes, I like Absolute, too
|
|
|
Post by windowdog on Feb 12, 2009 14:47:22 GMT -5
In reference to the actual show, I loved Stump, my very first dog as a kid was a pure breed English Springer Spaniel. I know the dogs look way different but those long furry ears just nailed me right away.
As for heavy bullies, I'm the last person to ask about conforming to breed standards, all I know it bullies have an image problem and breeding them stocking and more powerful looking just feeds into the overall public fear of them. Some of my relatives were amazed Devin is a pit, when they think pit they think of those 90 pound beheamoths some folks are breeding.
|
|
|
Post by RealPitBull on Feb 13, 2009 9:25:23 GMT -5
I thought this article was relevent to the discussion at hand.....and helps explain why dogs that don't necessarily truly represent the standard win so much. And why with the huge variety allowed for within AmStaffs, you'll see in the ring nothing but reds and fawns that are big and thick.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why The Stand-Out Best Dog Can Be A Loser
- E. K. (Katie) Gammill
The Best of the Best or one that looks like the rest? Let’s be honest. Something called “preferred type” is flooding the rings today and in many breeds, it has little to do with the Breed Standard. When “current type” does not equal correctness, the best dog can lose because in many rings, the fatal flaw is being a stand-out.
“The best dog you’ll ever breed may be the hardest dog you ever finish!”
A dog show friend, absent from the sport for several years, attended some local shows with me. Welcoming the opportunity to view dogs in general after her sabbatical, she became visually distressed. Her despair increased when a “less than average” class dog received BOB. The waning quality in her beautiful breed breaks her heart. She stated it would be wasted effort to show a dog correct to the standard today, as some judges feel compelled to award dogs conforming to the majority of the entries.
Observing other breeds, she remarks on the lack of neck, restricted front movement and the lack of rear follow through; we discuss “gay tails” and breed type variances. We watch faulty movement and see coats dragging the ground. Weak pasterns and sickle hocks complete the picture. She wonders what causes this to happen to functional dogs in such a short time. It seems the correct dogs have fallen victim to what one may refer to as the “Perfection of Mediocrity”.
Today, many breeders and owners turn to performance, choosing not to participate in a “crap shoot” where such variety=2 0in type confuses both judges and ringside. I make this statement at the expense of being tarred and feathered but increasingly, the best dog you’ll ever breed may be the hardest dog you will ever finish. It will be the “odd man out” and look different from the majority of dogs represented in the ring. Why? Some judges, insecure in a breed and therefore lacking courage, choose to walk “different” dogs rather than stick their neck out. Understandable, but should those lacking confidence be passing judgment on another’s dog?
My old mentor said, “The pendulum of type swings to and fro, but those remaining true to the standard triumph in the end.” Those dedicated breeders have the knowledge to restore a breed to its initial form once it hits bottom.
Should a judge reward a dog to suggest it could possibly assist in correcting breed faults? NO! It is a breeder’s responsibility to incorporate such animals into their programs, regardless of success in the show ring. Judges are to judge to the written standard to the best of their ability, fairly and efficiently. They avoid awarding “drags of a breed” when possible but judges have little insight into the Pandora’s Box of breeding.
A respected dog person of long standing approached me with this statement while at a seminar. “A judge CAN NOT GO WRONG by putti ng up winners conforming to the majority of the type of dogs in the ring on a given day.” My response was “Surely not!” Well, I believe it now! After observing an all breed judge from ringside, I watched two outstanding individuals “walk” because they looked different from the rest of the short neck, sickle hock, smaller than average dogs lacking side gait that toddled around the ring like fuzzy little caricatures of the breed.
This strange “look alike” perspective takes over in many breed rings and not just among judges. Asking a breeder what their standard said about head planes, the response was: “What are parallel planes?” We discussed the occipital bone, short and medium muzzles, balanced heads, etc. Reading a standard and applying it can be two different things.
Judges should have the ability to articulate why one dog wins over another. So is that why they make terminology common among standards - to make it easier for judges? If anyone can describe a bulldog and an afghan using the same language, please step forward. Removing the “point system” from the old standards has had a negative affect. In a final decision between two comparable individuals, one has an idea where to hang their hat regarding prioritizing.
Should we just BREED TO WIN or should we BREED TO THE STANDARD and expect judges to judge to the Standard?
It is a "Judas Kiss" to any breed when a judge puts up a dog simply because it looks like the majority in the ring. It encourages people to breed to “winners” rather than to a breed standard. In judge’s education, they address soundness but type takes priority. Educators assume that new applicants understand structure and corresponding movement. Type without soundness is as detrimental to a breed as soundness without type. A bad front and bad rear working in sequence produces “balance”. Do two wrongs make a right? The goal is “a balance between type and soundness”. A breed must be able to walk to the water bowl without falling over its own feet!
This brings us to the next question. Are not judges “protectors of the breed standards?” Judges education is NOT at fault. Perhaps the problem is what some judging applicants do NOT bring to the table! It is a privilege to pass judgment on a breed but one has the responsibility of understanding “Basic Dog 101”. The AKC’s required anatomy test neither assures someone’s knowledge nor is it any guarantee a judge has the ability to analyze structure and movement .
Some breeder judges today send dogs with a handler giving little thought as to their quality or future effect on a breed. Shouldn’t breeder judges be especially careful to send correct dogs for public observation? Breeders have a responsibility to put out “the best of the best” rather than a dog that wins simply because it “looks like the rest.” By so doing, they are sending false signals to both ringside and new judges.
When judges say, “This must be what the breeders want as the ring is flooded with this type” it is detrimental to any breed. It IS NOT about “what breeders want.” Breeders and judges have a responsibility to breed and judge to standard.
Should handlers show dogs for clients when they KNOW the dog or bitch is not a good representative of the breed? Breeders and exhibitors have a responsibility to promote only dogs that DO represent their breed standard and to sell as pets those who do not! A good handler should make every effort to finish a dog but they too are responsible and should be more selective regarding client dogs. Handlers who read the standard and who have the courage to turn down an inferior dog are to be admired.
Advertisement does not always mean a dog represents “breed excellence”. Handlers do not always present “good dogs”. Advertising carries some influence and if a judge selects winners on advertising alone, they do a disservice to the breed and it reflects on their ability as a judge.
“Priority judging” can be detrimental to breeds as Judges become caught up in selecting for individual virtues be it eye, ear set, feet, or coat color. That is why some specialty judges “put up pieces” rather than the whole package. Virtues are important, but a dog should “fill the eye”. A single virtue cannot take precedence over a plethora of faults! Priority judging explains why many judges take so long to judge a class.
Dismayed exhibitors approach me with serious concerns regarding the direction of our sport. Time and effort is required to understand what makes a breed “breed specific”, and what constitutes “breed excellence”. There is no short cut. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. However, it should be a knowledgeable opinion. Personal preference only enters in when two dogs are equal according to the breed standard.
Another issue is “spot entering”. Granted, today people enter under specific judges where they feel there is a chance of winning. However, why on a four-day weekend, do we see one point on Thursday, a major on Friday, one point on Saturday, and a major on Sunday? Should not one support the person who supports them by entering all four days? If there is a major, don’t break it by not attending. Don’t bump up a bitch or dog to BOB without first asking the other exhibitors their preference. Many people drive miles only to fi nd someone failed to show up ringside or” bumped up” a new champion and broke the major. This co-operation is something we used to be able to count on. Today it is “iffy” at best. This is “sportsmanship” !
Watch dogs go around the ring. Some are structurally inefficient. Some shoulders do not open up, the dog reaches from the elbow. Ask yourself why one dog out-moves another. Go analyze short coated dogs. Take this knowledge to your own breed ring and “look beneath the coat”. Understand top lines, body shape, breed specific movement and toy/moderate/ giant. Do some study and then some soul searching. Ringside observers and breed enthusiasts look on in dismay today, wondering where the functional dogs of the past have gone. Sadly, some faults are so prevalent today they are viewed as “virtues”.
"Winning because of an exceptional breeding program takes the breed and breeders toward breed excellence. That should be the goal yesterday, and today."
Requested to address this issue, I decided t o take time to sit back and see the “big picture.” The “big picture” is upon us, folks, and it is not pretty! My reason to become a judge was the challenge to select the best of the best according to a written standard. I love dogs! I love SOUND dogs with BREED TYPE! Both virtues, believe it or not, can be present in the same animal! Through combined efforts and a willingness to call “a spade a spade”, our breeds WILL survive. Breeding for the sake of winning is a downhill slide. This alone assures the future of our breeds. Turning things around will take dedicated breeders and judges, critical handler selection, and educated exhibitors. Our sport deserves nothing less than the best of our intentions.
ASK YOURSELF THESE QUESTIONS.
Why do breeder judges “put dogs with handlers when they know the animal does not represent breed excellence?
Why do handlers accept such dogs knowing once they finish, they will be “petted out”?
Are you kennel blind and do you breed to standard?
Should bree ders and newcomers read the standard prior to stud and bitch selection?
When will more mentors open up to newcomers?
And lastly, are “gas money” and “filler” dogs destroying our sport?
Putting a breed back on track requires ETHICAL HANDLERS, DEDICATED BREEDERS, AN UNDERSTANDING OF BREED STANDARDS and KNOWLEDGEABLE JUDGES WITH THE COURAGE TO MAKE RESPONSIBLE SELECTIONS. Being a judge is not for the faint of heart. Sending the best dog to the next level and being a part of its journey to the pinnacle of success is a thrill of a lifetime.
There is but ONE standard. “Preferred breed type” is like a flavor of the month, very fleeting! BREEDERS, JUDGES AND EXHIBITORS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THEIR BREED STANDARDS. CURRENT FADS AND PERSONAL OPINIONS ARE FLEETING AND DESTRUCTIVE.
- E. K. (Katie) Gammill
|
|