The Bulldog is meant to be a medium sized dog NOT a large dog. I am very very particular about weight and it would have to be a very special dog for me to show one over 55lbs.

Personally, I love the new revised illustrations. Much better portrayal of the standard than the original pics.
I only use the illustration to help me grasp what the written standard is saying. For people who are better at processing information visually than comprehensively this is a great tool.
Kind of like asking for directions to get to a destination. Do you prefer written turn by turn instruction or do you prefer a map.
Great tool!


http://jamlerbulldogs.spaces.live.com/

The officially recognized standard does not have illustrations or added verbage.

Thank you for making that clarification

I know for me, it didn't matter how many times I read the standard, certain parts I just couldn't make sense of. Basically, it was more a lack of knowing all of the terminology of the bulldog anatomy. I have a medical background but human anatomy is different from canine. What really helped me, was a copy of the Bulldogger that named body parts, muscles and bones.

And I do see your point with the illistrated guide, it isn't the standard, you're right. I have been guilty of looking at it as if it was part of the standard. Thanks for the clarification. I love this board, constantly learning!

~Heather

To attend one of the BCA Judges seminar that Brenda Newcomb Or Elizabeth Milam does They really open your eyes to the standard.

I had the pleaseure of attending Elizabeth's 2 years ago and I thought I had a pretty good grasp of the standard but WOW her prensentation really opened my mind up alot.

Brett & Christy McDonough
OHNO BULLDOGS
Brett's Cell 281-627-1719
ohnobulldogs@comcast.net
http://www.ohnobulldogs.com
http://www.bulldogcluboftexas.com
http://www.bulldogclubofla.com

I believe you have a copy of the "Illustrated GUIDE to the Standard" unless they have changed the name.

Dan

Heather,

You have pointed out my main concern with the Illustrated Guide to the Standard in your response.

You posted "for me, I think that it does portray the bulldog, it's the standard."

In reality, it is not the Standard. The Standard is the Standard, and it does not contain pictures or supplemental explanations.

The Illustrated Guide is a very considered effort by a select group of highly studied and long-time lovers of the Breed to clarify the Standard for those who do not have, or do not wish to take, the time to glean the finer points of what makes a Bulldog a good example of the Breed from the written description that is contained in the Standard.

I am not nearly as qualified as those who participated in the development of this tool, and do not have the knowledge or talent that was necessary to produce the document. But having said that, I very much think it is important for me and everyone else to keep in mind that the clarifications and illustrations it contains are simply a set of interpretations of the Standard. And, as I've already said, they are not part of the Standard itself.

Just my 2 cents,
Dan Bandy

and a pretty accurate illustration of what the correct bulldog should look like.

Some people have a hard time "seeing" what the written standard depicts, and I think the illustrations bring out those points quite well.

I have a copy of the newly revised "Illustrated Standard" and I believe there is improvement. Is it perfect, in my opinion, no...and there is no way it can ever be.
Everyone will have there own opinion of what is wrong and right with the Illustrated Standard. Kind of like Judging...very subjective.
But it is a tool that can convey to novices and hopefully All Breed Judges what they should be looking for. Again it is a TOOL and I feel a good one.

Read Farmans monograph

I agree, nothing weedy about him at all. I see your point but had no idea about the writers of the standard,etc. Now, that would make for some interesting research. (I may just do that next!)

I also agree that 80lbs would be next, if the standard said 65lbs. I think there was a time when larger bulldogs were more accepted. I have a big male, he's a Valiant Jerry grandson and he's too big. He is pointed and has some very good qualities, but his biggest fault is his size. He is very lean, no fat...so, you can't let him lose weight-wouldn't be good for him physically and he would no longer look balanced. We decided that we wouldn't show him anymore and we won't use him as a stud either.

I would like to see more dogs in the ring that would be closer to the standard in size but didn't look like couch potato. Thanks for the example.
~Heather

I believe that a well muscled 50lb dog would be too small too bring down a bull and a flabby 50lb couch potato couldn't do it either. An athletic 60-65lb well muscled bulldog, I believe, could give a bull a hard time. Just my 2 cents.

~Heather


It was CRITICAL to the guys that wrote our standard that the weight was kept where it was. The dogs were not supposed to be big in order to do their job. One of the main reasons they even formed a club was to keep size DOWN.

But then, we should not be looking at modern bulldogs with bull baiting in mind. If so, they would look very different. Some aspects were preserved for historical purposes, not for practical ones. One historical aspect that was preserved was the mid-size dogs. Once you allow 60 pounds, 80 is not too far away...

Anything over 60 pounds is getting too big. Type goes away with too much or too little size. I realize that many dogs are in that range.. does not make it right..

The trick in bulldogs is to keep mass without making them huge.

Here is a well-muscled 50 pound dog. And he is just 50 pounds, might even be 49.
Nothing weedy or unsubstantial here.
I am sure you can easily read into the fact that I am adamantly opposed to an increase in weight in the standard.






e

for me, I think that it does portray the bulldog, it's the standard. This is the measuring stick of our breed. The biggest things that I see that are lacking, in general are noses that are perpendicular, tails and withered back ends (which influences the gait). I personally would like to see the weight changed on the standard. I believe that a well muscled 50lb dog would be too small too bring down a bull and a flabby 50lb couch potato couldn't do it either. An athletic 60-65lb well muscled bulldog, I believe, could give a bull a hard time. Just my 2 cents.

~Heather