 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Christian_Kennels
Puppy
Joined: 18 Jan 2008
Posts: 29
Location: USA
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Christian_Kennels wrote: |
I never spent too much time talking to the slow kids in school and even less in college why should I start now? |
You must have met a lot of "slow" people in your life as it seems anyone you cant win an argument with or doesnt agree with you is "slow"... Why not comment on my reply to you about AST standard suggesting they are working dogs? Or anything that suggests ASTs are primarily "head" and show only breed.... Or are those "slow" people's topics?
Skylar-the importance of "history" isnt in how ASTs were created in AKC. In those links you posted where does it say that ASTs standard doesnt call for working dogs?
To be quite honest I really dont understand how people can look at the standard, read it, understand it, and still say that those words do not describe a working dog? |
I see you missed where I addressed those comments in my first 3 or 4 post over and over again. I guess your further behind then I thought.
| Lea wrote: |
| To be quite honest I really dont understand how people can look at the standard, read it, understand it, and still say that those words do not describe a working dog? |
And I have to be quite honest also if you want a working animal - buy a horse! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Meadowbrooks"]
| Quote: |
| So if I understand what you are saying.. ALL dogs that are consider working or athletes are now all the same breeds. |
Well no, just the ones that are actually the same breed... Why do you think didnt mix any other breeds with APBT to create this new breed if they wanted something else? Could it be that APBT already had everything they wanted.
| Quote: |
IF the UKC people wanted to show their APBT but keep it as the same dog in AKC, then when they had to come up with a standard WHY wouldn't they have used the same exact standard that they ALREADY HAD? Why change any words?? |
To me they read exactly the same. As I said before, I dont see any difference in them.
| Quote: |
| STILL an athlete but added more bone, size, and head style. |
no... You cant have an athlete if you add more bone to dog that is already an athlete.... AST standard has a height restriction whereas UKC doesnt have height, but weight. I guess they thought that surely, people will breed dogs that are suggested height, and elite athletes, which only gives you a very small range of weight... AST standard doesnt go into as much detail in many other respects, not just weight whereas APBT does. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Christian_Kennels wrote: |
| I guess your further behind then I thought. |
You know, people that behave like you usually have deep, personal insecurities and issues... So if this makes you feel smart......  |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Well no, just the ones that are actually the same breed... Why do you think didnt mix any other breeds with APBT to create this new breed if they wanted something else? Could it be that APBT already had everything they wanted. |
But yet they changed things around in a NEW standard and did not copy the APBT standard.. Which I think they would have if the APBT had everything they wanted..
| Lea wrote: |
| To me they read exactly the same. As I said before, I dont see any difference in them. |
You can read the two standard and they read the same to you.. Now I know why you think they way you do..
EXACTLY the same.. But you state the weight is in the APBT standard and not in the AST but they are EXACTLY the same.. OK
| Lea wrote: |
| no... You cant have an athlete if you add more bone to dog that is already an athlete.... AST standard has a height restriction whereas UKC doesnt have height, but weight. I guess they thought that surely, people will breed dogs that are suggested height, and elite athletes, which only gives you a very small range of weight... AST standard doesnt go into as much detail in many other respects, not just weight whereas APBT does. |
That is you excuse.. That is what I mean.. People that have the same belief as I do, don't have to pull at strings. Everything that is there make sense.. They just assume people would know what weight.. Now come on. They didn't put it there because they didn't know what it would be.. Why wouldn't they put the APBT weight in there if they wanted to keep the EXACT dog.. Because they didn't..
I disagree with you 100% that you can't add bone or thickness to an athlete.. So a marathon runner is a athlete or a tennis player but a football player or a heavy weight boxer can't be a athlete??
They added it to change up the looks and look better in the ring without losing the athlete..
They changed up the standard to get away from the Rep of the fighting dog.. Would the AST be a GREAT fighter compared to the APBT.. IMO NO!! that is where they changed it.. The AST is still a athlete but not for the pit. IMO That is where you are thinking of not of an ATHLETE but of a fighter.
I am talking about the whole picture of an ATHLETE you are talking strictly of a fighter which they wanted away from.
The Ukc people that wanted to show wanted a dog that still looked like an athlete but NOT a fighting APBT.. IMO |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sagebrush wrote: |
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
The standard is in stone and it is a fact that is was changed and it is different from the APBT.. We don't have to come up with ways to prove it is different. WHY? Because it is written different..But the ones that think they are the same are the ones that come up with MANY excuses to make us believe it.lol History, twisting of words, trying to convince us the meaning of words are different and so on.. I don't have to do that.. All I have to say is READ it. LOL |
Forget that the UKC Standard existed and pretend that the AKC Standard was written from scratch....it STILL was written in the context of a group of dogs that had a HISTORY and is based on the work those dogs did.....just as it is for any other working breed. Standards are written in context of the function for which the breed was developed -- whether they do it today or not -- and must be read with that in mind.
Knowing that, the Standard does a good job of describing what is wanted in the breed.
And, we happen to have a lot of writings and history that is pretty good evidence of what the founders considered the breed to be.
Carla |
I agree Carla to a point.. I don't believe they base the AST standard on the Fighting APBT.. I feel that they took bits and pcs and added to them some to change the look. That is where I disagree with you.. They made the standard and then developed the AST to it.. JMO And Like I said over and over.. They CHANGED the standard that was BASED on a breed that HAD a standard already.. They changed it to look better in the ring and to get away from that APBT fighting look. IMO.. that is what history tells me. To me it is very simple... They had a breed that I read that they had so much pride in but yet did not copy the standard.. Put a height in there and left out the weight and so on.. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Omega Dog
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
| My opinion is that the standard was developed from the APBT and therefore they new what the weight should be or was. With the AST, that wasn't the case. The dog wasn't developed yet. IMO So they COULDN't put a weight in the standard. |
So why did they put a height range in? The dog wasn't developed yet.
Brandon was pretty clear on what the dog should weigh. As are some people that have been in the breed a lot longer than you or me!
Not all AKC breeds have the weight in their Standards -- Boxers, Airdales, and (can this be right?), the Bull Terrier lists neither height nor weight!
How do they do it? Are those breeds not developed yet?
I think the HEIGHT was put in the AST Standard to distinguish it from the English dog -- the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I think they knew there would be some range of weight because of the range in height and the different styles that come in the breed. But again, Brandon felt the breed to be 15 to 25 pounds heavier than "the English dog".
He says nothing about seeing how the dog developed.
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sagebrush wrote: |
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
| My opinion is that the standard was developed from the APBT and therefore they new what the weight should be or was. With the AST, that wasn't the case. The dog wasn't developed yet. IMO So they COULDN't put a weight in the standard. |
So why did they put a height range in? The dog wasn't developed yet.
Brandon was pretty clear on what the dog should weigh. As are some people that have been in the breed a lot longer than you or me!
Not all AKC breeds have the weight in their Standards -- Boxers, Airdales, and (can this be right?), the Bull Terrier lists neither height nor weight!
How do they do it? Are those breeds not developed yet?
I think the HEIGHT was put in the AST Standard to distinguish it from the English dog -- the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I think they knew there would be some range of weight because of the range in height and the different styles that come in the breed. But again, Brandon felt the breed to be 15 to 25 pounds heavier than "the English dog".
He says nothing about seeing how the dog developed.
Carla |
They put the height because it went with their vision of what they wanted..
Brandon was PRETTY CLEAR but it is not in the standard.. But is in the APBT standard.. Correct??
and you state "YOU THINK"
Brandon FELT and was PRETTY CLEAR.. Sounds again like OPINIONS
I go by the standard and how it was done.. I don't go by YOU THINKS and FELTS |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Meadowbrooks"]
| Quote: |
You can read the two standard and they read the same to you.. Now I know why you think they way you do..
EXACTLY the same.. But you state the weight is in the APBT standard and not in the AST but they are EXACTLY the same.. OK
People that have the same belief as I do, don't have to pull at strings. Everything that is there make sense.. |
Ever heard of "interpretation". AST standard MUST be interpreted as it is not detailed enough. But we already went over this.. You think that "slightly" is a definitive term.
| Quote: |
I disagree with you 100% that you can't add bone or thickness to an athlete.. So a marathon runner is a athlete or a tennis player but a football player or a heavy weight boxer can't be a athlete?? |
Heavy weight boxer cant even think about the agility that a gymnast has... But you are forgetting that humans are not designed for anything in particular, so we can only use muscle mass as an argument. And yes, when it comes to muscle mass body builder doesnt have a chance (agility wise) next to a gymnast... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Omega Dog
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
| Wanted away from the racy fighting dog look.. |
Most pics I see of fighting dogs of that era don't look particularly "racy" to me...and I don't think that APBT standard of 1936 describes a "racy" dog....
I think that "look" has become more popularized today.....
Carla
Last edited by Sagebrush on Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sagebrush wrote: |
So why did they put a height range in? The dog wasn't developed yet.
|
Like lea said.. "interpretation"... by judging what the history says... they based it on chosen dog that they like and probably use their height even though it doesn't tell you that.
| Sagebrush wrote: |
Brandon was pretty clear on what the dog should weigh. As are some people that have been in the breed a lot longer than you or me!
|
no comment, but that doesn't make Brandson the most expert on what is good for the dog. was he involved with APBT or AST? i will look it up..
| Sagebrush wrote: |
Not all AKC breeds have the weight in their Standards -- Boxers, Airdales, and (can this be right?), the Bull Terrier lists neither height nor weight!
|
we're not talking about other breed but AST.... But then IT IS because they want AST to be different from APBT and their rep at the time.. there is no Boxers under different name.. if he/she wanted to change Boxers then i am pretty sure it would be the same case as AST re height and some of the structures but nowadays boxers had been around longer then APBT was at the time when they changed it to AST so most of the boxers nowadays are similar unlike APBT was at the time. (will look it up to see how long boxers had been around  )
| Sagebrush wrote: |
How do they do it? Are those breeds not developed yet?
|
Read the history... it is simple.... But if you are referring to other breed above then this goes with the statement i made above...
| Sagebrush wrote: |
I think the HEIGHT was put in the AST Standard to distinguish it from the English dog -- the Staffordshire Bull Terrier. I think they knew there would be some range of weight because of the range in height and the different styles that come in the breed. But again, Brandon felt the breed to be 15 to 25 pounds heavier than "the English dog".
|
And most of APBT (slight distinguish).... But are you saying that they were mixing with "the English dog" ? if so... would that make them different breed? or are you saying that some APBT are similar to SBT?
But i have read the history that doesn't say they wanted to put height in AST to distinguish from the english dog... They were already larger then english dogs. Infact most of APBT was in varity height and weight so they set the height for AST to distinguish it slightly then APBT.
I feel you have picked out the word "distinguish" from the history about AST and change it to your opinion because they said
"The breed was recognized by the American Kennel Club in 1936 as the Staffordshire Terrier; in 1972 the name was changed to American Staffordshire Terrier to more clearly distinguish the dog from its English cousin."
http://www.akc.org/breeds/american_staffordshire_terrier/history.cfm
"In 1936, they were accepted for registration in the AKC Stud Book as Staffordshire Terriers. The name of the breed was revised effective January 1, 1972 to American Staffordshire Terrier. Breeders in this country had developed a type which is heavier in weight than the Staffordshire Bull Terrier of England and the name change was to distinguish them as separate breeds"
As we know that AST was created through APBT... To put two and two together it should have showed us that they were already larger then their cousin SBT before AST was created.
from the history... Should we say that APBT is Staffordshire?
because this is what i have found
"In any event, it was the cross between the Bulldog and the terrier that resulted in the Staffordshire Terrier, which was originally called the Bull-and-Terrier Dog, Half and Half, and at times Pit Dog or Pit Builterrier. Later, it assumed the name in England of Staffordshire Bull Terrier.
These dogs began to find their way into America as early as 1870, where they became known as Pit Dog, Pit Bull Terrier, later American Bull Terrier, and still later as Yankee Terrier."
when i hear somebody say AST is APBT... Does that mean APBT was not APBT at the time when they created AST?
Because the year 1870's - 1936 is about 66years...
AST had been around since 1936 - 2008.. about 72years...
| Sagebrush wrote: |
He says nothing about seeing how the dog developed.
Carla |
Got any link about this brandson? i am interested to look it up and see if we interpret it differently.. Other then that... it is in the history that says they chose the dog that they like that fit the standard they wanted to created and used some of the structures of those dogs to created the AKC standard.
But anyway how long was APBT around before Amstaff was created? I am not talking about Bull and terrier dogs before the "APBT" was recognised... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Lea"]
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
| Quote: |
You can read the two standard and they read the same to you.. Now I know why you think they way you do..
EXACTLY the same.. But you state the weight is in the APBT standard and not in the AST but they are EXACTLY the same.. OK
People that have the same belief as I do, don't have to pull at strings. Everything that is there make sense.. |
Ever heard of "interpretation". AST standard MUST be interpreted as it is not detailed enough. But we already went over this.. You think that "slightly" is a definitive term.
| Quote: |
I disagree with you 100% that you can't add bone or thickness to an athlete.. So a marathon runner is a athlete or a tennis player but a football player or a heavy weight boxer can't be a athlete?? |
Heavy weight boxer cant even think about the agility that a gymnast has... But you are forgetting that humans are not designed for anything in particular, so we can only use muscle mass as an argument. And yes, when it comes to muscle mass body builder doesnt have a chance (agility wise) next to a gymnast... |
oh and dog can? so square and rectangle are the same and have same spellings? just because they are in the same category?
athlete is still athlete.
boxer... dunno about agility but they can punch fast or hard... is that agility. There are many sort of agility. if you're so expert then maybe you can break it down into how AST is meant to be doing as agility?
Last edited by Skylar on Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Omega Dog
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Skylar wrote: |
no comment, but that doesn't make Brandson the most expert on what is good for the dog. was he involved with APBT or AST? i will look it up..
|
Wilfred T. Brandon is the man most responsible for getting AKC to recognize the APBT. He also wrote the Standard. The original petition he submitted to AKC called for AKC recognition under the name "American Bull Terrier" -- a name used very commonly at that time for the APBT.
There is an excellent article by him in the Ormsby book. It's rather long, but I'd love to get it on-line somewhere....
Carla |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have found the link... it doesn't make sense at the moment so i am going to pull it apart and start from there because he doesn't say much about the actual history or APBT and AST... Because he didn't say why he want to reg the dog under AKC and what is the point of registery his dog on another kennel club when UKC is already there? Its 6am over here so i will look it up again when i wake up in few hours.
thanks i will look for this book... I am sure (I hope) that i can pretty much find the information that will back up what i think / learned/ researched... |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Skylar wrote: |
| There are many sort of agility. maybe you can break it down into how AST is meant to be doing as agility? |
History.... The same way APBT is.... Its all in the parts of the history that you didnt focus on (you mainly focused on why AST became a newly named breed not what type of a dog those that created standard wanted)...
But if you want to discuss particular details of AST structure then that is a whole different topic. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Ever heard of "interpretation". AST standard MUST be interpreted as it is not detailed enough. But we already went over this.. You think that "slightly" is a definitive term. |
Yes, to much and most of the time it is used as an EXCUSE of what some people have in their yards that is not correct. LOL
But we aren't talking about a WORD..We are talking about something that was NOT in the standard.
You said the two standard were EXACT.. Colors allowed in one and not the other.. One has height one doesn't.. One as weight and one doesn't..
No need to use interpretation at all unless you are pulling for strings again.
Would you own a REDNOSE AST and would you show it.. NO! WHY? Because it would be a CORRECT AST but it would be a CORRECT APBT..
| Lea wrote: |
| Heavy weight boxer cant even think about the agility that a gymnast has... But you are forgetting that humans are not designed for anything in particular, so we can only use muscle mass as an argument. And yes, when it comes to muscle mass body builder doesnt have a chance (agility wise) next to a gymnast... |
I notice this about you. lol When a point is made you change the wording around.. We are or was talking about being an athlete which you stated you can't have a athlete if you were bigger..
Now you switched it to AGILITY. No a body builder would have a hard time with a gymnast but funny phil and I was just talking about a body builder friend of his that was a ALL TIME gymnast and a coach.. LOL
But I wasn't talking about a body builder.. Lets say a football player or anything like that.. There are levels of agility.. A athlete is a athlete. IMO
This is how I look at it..
The standard was written for a dog that was a vision and the dog to be developed to. Unless you can show me the AKC AST that was around with the NEW AKC standard that they wrote the standard on.. There wasn't one.
They didn't put weight in there because they didn't know what the weight would be on a thicker, heavier dog.
It is written in many places that the some of the oldtimers wanted AWAY from the rep and that style of dog.. Reasons why they went to AKC.. Would explain WHY they CHANGED the standard and the look alittle. They wanted a better looking SHOW dog for the SHOW REG and away from the APBT fighting look.. No rednose explains ALOT.. Explains they wanted away from that rep.. PLEASE don't come back and say that was a pigment issue.lol I heard that and that is really reaching for those strings. The rednose represented the PITBULL Or should I say recognized as a pit..BUT YET IN AKC there weren't ALLOW.. But YOU state that they are the EXACT standard... How many REDNOSE AST do you see? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
