 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:13 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Skylar wrote: |
| Ok if you says so Lea. |
I didnt mean to be rude by saying that, but I think you really did miss the point of why I asked that. We have to follow standard to tell us what amstaff should look like. As you can see from this discussion, long term breeders and amstaff owners cant agree on the basics of this same standard. That is why I asked, what the author wanted to say by "at first glance it should look like amstaff".
| Quote: |
| They don't want to see Amstaff whimpering with his/her tail between the legs, walking shaking around the ring.. |
Proverbial courage isnt the same as stable temperament in a show ring. You will see most other breeds that dont have "proverbial courage" in their standard being the most normal, happy, not shy, show dogs. |
They aren't the same standard..
Why don't you ask someone on the board that has BOTH APBT and AMSTAFFS and see if they tell you they look just alike or if they are the same..
If you don't agree with something.. It doesn't make it wrong!!! |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:25 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 Assets were created in AKC. In those links you posted where does it say that Assets 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 don't know who or what PEOPLE are saying that.. I have been saying that the APBT and AST aren't the same and talking about AKC being show REG..
But it kills me HOW PEOPLE talk about history but leave out HUGE parts of it because it don't fit into what they are preaching or fit into their beliefs. Not directed at anyone.
We all have beliefs base on history and gathering opinions of others with knowledge in this breed. But the biggest thing is most of them are based on OPINIONS. We can all work together and try to better the breed or we can be hard headed and not better the breed. We aren't always going to agree with everyones beliefs but that does not make either party wrong. IMO
The only slow ones are the ones that can't debate without throwing out insults.. Not directed at you Lea. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
((Skylar-the importance of "history" isnt in how AST's were created in AKC. ))
OH I disagree.. History has everything to do with the AST and AKC.. I think I misread this comment or something. LOL |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
((Skylar-the importance of "history" isnt in how AST's were created in AKC. ))
OH I disagree.. History has everything to do with the AST and AKC.. I think I misread this comment or something. LOL |
Skylar commented on how people use history but ignore parts of it. To me ( part that I think is important) is in interpreting what kind of structure official standard calls for, not how new name was created as that doesnt tell you about what structure and what purpose these dogs are supposed to have...
Why do I think other parts are less important? Because it is quite obvious that AKC AST are newly named breed. What all of those links that Skylar posted fail to address is the written standard which is the only thing written in stone and as I said before, there is no mention of "show specific breed" rather a "working dog" breed.
Since you think that new breed was created without any relationship of its structure and function to its ancestors, for your interpretation of AST standard history is totally irrelevant... For mine, it is crucial. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lea...
firstly i did not say ignore part of the history, it is a figure of speech "important part of history" meaning vital information as how AKC AST were created.
Are you referring to History on it own that is for APBT or are you referring to History that involved AKC and AST?
Because in history it shows that AKC AST was created for dogs to be away from "fighting rep".
The WORD ast is a show dog. Because why do people dual reg their dog as UKC APBT?
what do they use/do on AKC and UKC show?
And like Meadowbrook said if the dog fit the description to AKC standard then that dog would be incorrect to UKC standard and likewise. I have read history somewhere that SAYS they created AST to be a show dog. It is you that chose to ignore the fact that AKC wanted AST to be a show dog. You are deferring my opinion into something that is not what my opinion were about. We know what AST can do but the main thing we are talking about is the AKC standard and why they were created.
We are debating about the standard and AST.. Not only their distant cousin or ancestor even though it is important to know their background.
And Lea, if i was slow or ignorant i would have says APBT is SBT or they should be called BPBT because APBT is technically a British dog.
But then i understood the history to know that they are American dog because they had evolved into larger dog in America then their english/british cousins in UK.
going off the rail there but I have to say you're twisting things around because we were debating about if APBT and AST was two different breed and you disagree and we were debating about why AST was created and what AKC was for. You didn't like it. And now you are telling me what AST's struture was for??? have you read every pages????? you would see that i did say that AST can do "working function" well at home but on AKC show it is not what they are for... AKC is for show dog. and those dogs that have single reg AKC AST is AST.
Most of the dogs can do "working function", even chihuahua can do working "function" in catching rat or mouse but they are toy dog. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
((Skylar-the importance of "history" isnt in how AST's were created in AKC. ))
OH I disagree.. History has everything to do with the AST and AKC.. I think I misread this comment or something. LOL |
Skylar commented on how people use history but ignore parts of it. To me ( part that I think is important) is in interpreting what kind of structure official standard calls for, not how new name was created as that doesnt tell you about what structure and what purpose these dogs are supposed to have...
Why do I think other parts are less important? Because it is quite obvious that AKC AST are newly named breed. What all of those links that Skylar posted fail to address is the written standard which is the only thing written in stone and as I said before, there is no mention of "show specific breed" rather a "working dog" breed.
Since you think that new breed was created without any relationship of its structure and function to its ancestors, for your interpretation of AST standard history is totally irrelevant... For mine, it is crucial. |
I don't think anyone said that the STANDARD is for a SHOW DOG.. I have read that the AKC is for the show dog.. The standard describes a working dog.. A athlete.. No question about it BUT with that said, their function in the AKC is showing. Breed to the standard always and that should win in the ring and breeding to the standard will give you a dog that can be conditioned for any sport.. IMO I look at all history and don't pick and choose what favors my opinions like others.. History tells what the standard is and why and it tells about the name change. 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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
HI Lea....
Questions for you Lea (and others are welcome..)
I am interested to know what's your view of this so that i can work out properly why you are thinking this way... my question to you is
why was AKC AST created?
What is AKC reg AST for?
What does it mean to be AST and not a APBT?
Why is there two name?
Why can't UKC have the name AST in their book? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lea
Puppy
Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
The standard describes a working dog.. A athlete.. No question about it |
Which is all I was saying... Their standard describes a working dog, the same as APBT.
Now let me just see if I understand your thinking: they took elite athlete (APBT) to create another elite athlete (AST) but in doing so they changed the standard to change the structure of those dogs? How and why would they change the standard of one elite athlete to create another elite athlete with same qualities?
I think logic will tell you that based on your above statement they are the same dog with somewhat different purposes in mind...
Skylar- I posted direct answeres to all of your questions in one way or another during this discussion. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes you have said many things here and there that is little away from the questions i am asking you now and would be easier if it was in one post from the questions i am asking you to answer directly to the questions and not off track but if you don't want to do it then thats cool  |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="Lea]
Now let me just see if I understand your thinking: they took elite athlete (APBT) to create another elite athlete (AST) but in doing so they changed the standard to change the structure of those dogs? How and why would they change the standard of one elite athlete to create another elite athlete with same qualities?
I think logic will tell you that based on your above statement they are the same dog with somewhat different purposes in mind...
[/quote]
How? the standards are different from one another...
Why? to created a different breed that won't recognise them as APBT.
I am going to say this again
Is SBT, ISBT, AST, APBT "the same dog with different purposes in mind"?
Edit2:
when i thought about it... I am speaking for myself... I think SBT, ISBT, AST, APBT are technically the same "dog group" that shared the same history at some point but not the same breed because each of those breed look alike within their own.
Edit 1:
to keep this in mind.. i am not picking on you (Lea), i am just trying to understand why some of you think differently and it helped me researching more into it when the opinion from other members is different. At the end of the day it is good for other members who will be reading this and form their own opinion solely from what we are all saying and through their own research...So it is good to have people with different perspective view/opinion. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
brouli
Puppy
Joined: 07 Jul 2008
Posts: 59
Location: Fort Lauderdale, FL
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
this discussion will never end 
in my opinion standard is for shows ,cause if u have a dog and its not a standard (head its to big ,or tail is curve) explain to those owners why their dog is not as good as Junior for example not every dog is made for shows , just like not al of us are miss universe here
P.S Good Luck with discussion |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sagebrush
Omega Dog
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
Posts: 138
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 9:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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 |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skylar
Pack Members
Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 321
Location: Everywhere
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Carla, i understand you're addressing your comments to Larry..
I have begin to understand what you meant.. And going over Lea's post again.. i finally see what she is trying to come across in the last post in some ways..
But then when this topic was made "standard and AST" to me this means AKC and AST because There is no AST on UKC unless it is APBT...
Back to the point... most of my comments was mainly to do with how the AKC standard was made and why... I would have comments on FCI but i don't understand it as much as i do with AKC... Should have understood FCI because that's what we have (my dog).
Anyway yes in theory, AST are no different to APBT in "elite athlete" in some ways but again i wouldn't say it is from APBT because they are all from Bull and Terrier.. AST just happen to be the decesnant of APBT. I will explain why i am thinking this way below...
As i have post some informations in here that i have found through research that they chose 'few' APBT that fit the "Standard" they wanted and created from there... that tells me that there were many APBT with different structure, and all of those APBT came from Bull and Terrier dogs.. so technically to me it is from bull and terrier instead of just APBT.
When the history says they chose one or two dog that fit the standard.... does that mean they didn't like the structure of overall APBT at the time and wanted to created their own standard for AST? (forget the fighting dogs reputation for this/your theory/opinion)
I've also found somewhere that 70years ago it says that AST was bred with SBT at some point before both breed changed their name????? Not sure if this is true or revelence... Any of you heard of this? |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Meadowbrooks
Alpha Dog
Joined: 12 Dec 2007
Posts: 1409
Location: va
|
| Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lea wrote: |
| Meadowbrooks wrote: |
The standard describes a working dog.. A athlete.. No question about it |
Which is all I was saying... Their standard describes a working dog, the same as APBT.
Now let me just see if I understand your thinking: they took elite athlete (APBT) to create another elite athlete (AST) but in doing so they changed the standard to change the structure of those dogs? How and why would they change the standard of one elite athlete to create another elite athlete with same qualities?
I think logic will tell you that based on your above statement they are the same dog with somewhat different purposes in mind...
Skylar- I posted direct answeres to all of your questions in one way or another during this discussion. |
So if I understand what you are saying.. ALL dogs that are consider working or athletes are now all the same breeds. They are ALL APBT.. I don't think so.. That doesn't fly with me.
I never said ELITE.. I think the APBT and that AST should be athletic.
I will ask you this.. 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?? My opinion is that they wanted away from the rep and changed the standard to change the LOOK of the new breed.. STILL an athlete but added more bone, size, and head style. Wanted away from the racy fighting dog look.. Made a better looking dog for the show ring.JMO And that would explain why there wasn't a WEIGHT added into the new standard.. WHY? Because they made a standard that they wanted a dog to developed from.. They didn't know what the weight would be for the dog base on the new standard. IMO. The APBT had a weight.. Why wouldn't they use that weight of the APBT.. Because they changed the standard for a dog that was alittle heavier and thicker and wasn't developed yet.. Do you have a better answer why there is not a weight in the standard for the AST but there is one with the APBT?? 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. |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
