Perfect stafford - what would your ideal Staffordshire Bull Terrier look like? Discussions

Hopefully it wont end up an “us” & “them” regarding the people who prefer the varying types. I love all Staffords its just my preference is for what I see as a better balanced dog than many of the show examples today.

The biggest problem I have with a lot of the KC dogs is that they are quite extreme in looks, show people (not all or a dig at those who do) historically tend to take things and mould them into their idea of perfection but therein lies the problem, if you look at many breeds and how they have changed over the years most of this moulding consists of certain traits the dogs carry becoming more and more extreme. Like we are seeing in the Staffords nowadays, larger heads, smaller noses, shorter legs and wide chests. When do they stop moulding? To me it seems for some that rosettes become more important than the future of the breed or the health of the dogs.

I don’t say I dislike these dogs but I was always of the opinion “if it aint broke don’t fix it” as far as I am concerned most of the dogs seen back in the early 30s were perfect and didn’t need fixing, I think the problem with the standard was that they dropped the height but not weights, surely the law of averages would tell you that in doing this you end up with a less well balanced, more exaggerated dog that is if you believed the dogs beforehand were balanced. How many times have I heard of dogs in the show ring being penalised for being too tall and over the standard but never too heavy and over the standard? Everything in moderation is okay but the fear most people I talk to have is that they take the dog too far and it becomes like the English Bulldog which would be very sad indeed. The problem there is that the people moulding never accept that there is a problem until it is too late. I find it frustrating that some well known dogs have had problems with breathing and over exertion when the Stafford should essentially be an athlete whatever his chosen path in life is. Lastly this is not a dig at all KC dogs or breeders there are good and bad in both sides, but I am talking primarily about the dogs being shown and the dogs from those lines. I have seen as many good examples of KC dogs as I have bad I have seen a fair few bad examples of the alternative strains but the fact that for the most part a lot of the alternative lines & strains the focus has usually been health swings me.

I wouldn’t say they should be treated as a different breed just because they don’t fit the standard. What about breeders who do breed Staffords but just don’t believe in following the KC standard and perhaps breed to their own or the old Standard. Those people with KC registered dogs that would never fit the standard, do their dogs suddenly become a different breed. I thought a standard was just a guide?

Being a Stafford is not just what is on the outside, it’s the temperament that really makes them what they are

Hopefully it wont end up an “us” & “them” regarding the people who prefer the varying types. I love all Staffords its just my preference is for what I see as a better balanced dog than many of the show examples today.

The biggest problem I have with a lot of the KC dogs is that they are quite extreme in looks, show people (not all or a dig at those who do) historically tend to take things and mould them into their idea of perfection but therein lies the problem, if you look at many breeds and how they have changed over the years most of this moulding consists of certain traits the dogs carry becoming more and more extreme. Like we are seeing in the Staffords nowadays, larger heads, smaller noses, shorter legs and wide chests. When do they stop moulding? To me it seems for some that rosettes become more important than the future of the breed or the health of the dogs.

I don’t say I dislike these dogs but I was always of the opinion “if it aint broke don’t fix it” as far as I am concerned most of the dogs seen back in the early 30s were perfect and didn’t need fixing, I think the problem with the standard was that they dropped the height but not weights, surely the law of averages would tell you that in doing this you end up with a less well balanced, more exaggerated dog that is if you believed the dogs beforehand were balanced. How many times have I heard of dogs in the show ring being penalised for being too tall and over the standard but never too heavy and over the standard? Everything in moderation is okay but the fear most people I talk to have is that they take the dog too far and it becomes like the English Bulldog which would be very sad indeed. The problem there is that the people moulding never accept that there is a problem until it is too late. I find it frustrating that some well known dogs have had problems with breathing and over exertion when the Stafford should essentially be an athlete whatever his chosen path in life is. Lastly this is not a dig at all KC dogs or breeders there are good and bad in both sides, but I am talking primarily about the dogs being shown and the dogs from those lines. I have seen as many good examples of KC dogs as I have bad I have seen a fair few bad examples of the alternative strains but the fact that for the most part a lot of the alternative lines & strains the focus has usually been health swings me.

I wouldn’t say they should be treated as a different breed just because they don’t fit the standard. What about breeders who breed Staffords but just don’t believe in following the KC standard and perhaps breed to their own or the old Standard is it fair to tell them what they should & shouldn’t be calling their dogs because they don’t fit what is seen as acceptable by the KC or because they have their own interpretation of how a dog should look. What about those people with KC registered dogs that would never fit the standard, do their dogs suddenly become a different breed because they are not 14”-16” would you say the same about dogs who are say 13”. I thought a standard was just a guide?

Being a Stafford is not just what is on the outside, it’s the temperament that really makes them what they are

Can I just ask all those that have Irish staffys etc- do you personally prefer to keep the name Staffordshire in your dogs name ?
and if so- what is the reason that you feel you like to keep the connection between the two breeds when some examples are VASTLY different from each other?

I apologise If I offended you Emma, didnt mean to upset you. I just dont like that particular type of dog which is common on the show circuit, the small, black, short nosed big headed type of dog. I didnt mean it as a personal critisism, maybe you are right we should make more of a disticntion between the two types of dog.

KC show dogs also show a vast array of difference between lines Laura as Im sure you are aware.

I would be the first to agree that big heads and squashed muzzles are a major no no and if breeders pursue this look it will be harmful and sad for the Staffordshire Bull terrier - its not a look I personally prefer and I have stood next to dogs in the ring exactly like that but there are also some crackin examples of KC staffys being shown and because they comply with the standard and are not exagerrated does not make them fat and unfit.

i think we need to otherwise constant disagreements will continue.
laura's Cassy, looks like a tall SBT (and a gorgeous one at that ) , but there are some that look nothing like a SBT, and with that in mind, it figures how the SBT is blamed for so much in the papers etc, if no one knows what a SBT is supposed to look like and have guidelines, then any dog can be classed as a SBT, and anyone can call their dog a SBT, but is it? if it differs so much to the 'breed standard' then why do people still insist on calling it a SBT?

CBT- theyre NOT all like that though

Same as not all Irish look like Lauras- theres plenty of crap examples of them about -
same as with EVERY breed :?

i personaly dont care if they keep the stafford in the name, at the end of the day its the dogs that i like not the name

I didnt say they were all like that lel
I said thats the type that is common, and the reason it is common is because that is what seems to win, heaven knows why but they do.

So Sorry emma, it was me that posted the picture. I didn’t intend to create an argument but intended to use the picture as an example. I should have used another breed in fine condition. My apologies

the only breed that should have been posted is a SBT, as this is what the topic is about, can you understand now why we think the dog is undernourished? it does not resemble a SBT and therefore we comment on the condition, had it been a SBT in the same condition we would have posted the same comments, BUT if it had been on a post about APBT's then the comments could have been different

So i would have been wrong either way :?

i prefer the APBT to the SBT (regardless of type) so I am biased I would rather look at pics of APBTs in good condition than staffs in good condition

it was just my opinion on that type of 'fitness' you are entilted to yours

but the APBT has no place in this particular topic

I certainly would not have said it was wrong to post the picture, it was obvious (at least to me) that by posting the picture you were illustrating the type of physique you prefer yes a picture of a Stafford would have been better but its certainly not to say that was wrong just like nobody’s opinion here is right or wrong just personal ideas and preferences. Nobody should ever have to apologise for having an opinion, that is what places like this are for. Would be a boring world if we all liked the same thing a little bit of variation never goes a miss my problem is when it goes to the extreme (both sides!!).

Personally I will always call my dog a Stafford as that is what she is regardless of how others feel if you saw her picture I am sure if you all answer honestly you would say she looks like a Stafford straight away if asked because she is, if you met her in person you would say the same because she is Stafford through and through just not bred to conform to a set standard, yes there are some bad examples out there but there are some crackers too. The same goes with KC dogs, there are so many I like here I wont even start but then I have seen some pretty bad examples that on occasion have looked like crosses just not leggy crosses but more like bulldog crosses so it works both ways. I totally understand about the varying types and that not all KC dogs are extreme like I have mentioned usually when I refer to these dogs I am talking about the winning show dogs which are representatives of the breed and imo many of these dogs are extreme in looks.

As long as people breed Staffords that are well balanced and have the right attitude I couldn’t give two hoots whether they are KC or not or this or that what matters to me is that people breed healthy happy dogs not for exaggerations or any one feature.

Pheeew i was begining to think i was'nt :wink:

laura, i agree Cassy is a SBT and looks like one, (a tall one but a SBT) she is beautiful and not taken to the extremes with fitness either.

this is dogweb not *another dog site*

Thanks Emma :wink: , I am glad too lol. There has been enough bitching of late thanks to a select few hopefully we can accept that everybody is entitled to their opinions and whether we agree or disagree we are all here for the love of the breed so that has to be good eh.