View Full Version : Size matters
skipper
03-12-2012, 11:09 AM
One thing I remember Bobby Holland tell me, when he saw Barracuda against Ch Fatty (I think) is that Barracuda was also HUGE for his weight. The two dogs weighed the same, but their apparent sizes made it look like it was a rat and a mouse.
Congratulations,
Jack
This is an interesting topic in it self. Dogs that are either big or small for their size. I would very much prefer to have the bigger dog at set weight. But then again it's often a matter of knowing their true weight. What are your thoughts? Do you prefer having a smaller/bigger dog depending on it's style? In my experience bigger dogs usually have a BIG advantage, no matter style. Perhaps a high driving chest dog could have some advantages being lower?
Interesting topic indeed, i'd like to read some opinions based on experience. I certainly think style of the dog plays an important role
I have a female who looks like she's around 18 kg's but weights 20,4 on her proper weight. She was raised in the house and walked for like 1,5 hour every single day. I think a dog who's raised like this compared to a dog who's been on a chain for all his life always weights more because of muscle mass. Dont know whether i should see it as a good or a bad thing. At least they're strong on the legs. Would like to see opinions on this too!
I must disagree with the muscle mass thing R2L. Your dog is not on her feet more than a dog on it's chain spot. Or am i misreading ?
Officially Retired
03-12-2012, 12:11 PM
This is an interesting topic in it self. Dogs that are either big or small for their size. I would very much prefer to have the bigger dog at set weight. But then again it's often a matter of knowing their true weight. What are your thoughts? Do you prefer having a smaller/bigger dog depending on it's style? In my experience bigger dogs usually have a BIG advantage, no matter style. Perhaps a high driving chest dog could have some advantages being lower?
Ah-hah, you already anticipated my rebuttal :mrgreen:
I agree with you that generally a dog who is bigger at the weight is going to have the advantage. In some case, it can be an almost ridiculous advantage. The old man who rented me a property in TN for a few years, acquired some stock that was unbelievably-huge for their weight ... and they were naturally long-winded ... and he won a lot of deals with those dogs! It was almost unfair they were so huge for the weight!
However, that said, my dogs often run a little small for their weight, and yet they win a high-percentage of their matches too, because they have the intelligence to use their size effectively. For example, my Mystery (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=136097) bitch was a muscular, squarely-built 38 otc and she faced Buttercup (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=122662) who was a tall, rangy 38 and huge for her weight. The larger bitch was battlecross that had some serious mouth, but she was also slow and stupid and not quite as physically-strong as Mystery. Now Mystery didn't really have much mouth at all, but she was strong as a bull, very fast, and most importantly she was a highly-intelligent, pit-wise animal. Both bitches had good air.
The result? That bitch only bit Mystery one time, right across the muzzle at the start, and she did some heavy damage (punctured the bone). But after Mystery got herself out of that bad spot, that bitch never touched her again, even though she was "bigger" for the weight. Mystery got up under the other bitch, deep into chin/bottom jaw, and stayed there the entire time. Mystery was actually up under the bitch (both facing the same direction), with Buttercup literally straddling her back, with Mystery just up under the jaw ... out of harm's way ... and dismantling the bitch's weapons from "a safe hiding spot." Mystery had a lot of experience, and Buttercup was green, so they picked up Buttercup after she started to show she wasn't too happy with what was going on.
The Moral of the Story?: it depends on the style/intelligence of the animals involved. Like a good reach in boxing, that "size advantage" is only good if the shorter boxer stays on the outside and agrees to eat jabs all day. A longer reach can become a disadvantage in a phonebooth-war kind of fight ;)
So too, having a size advantage can be a great asset to a dog, who uses it effectively, while being smaller for the weight can be a death sentence to an average dog who doesn't have the brains/heart to use what he has in the most effective manner. These roles, however, can quickly be reversed if one style is smart enough, and committed enough, to use the tools that he has to his best advantage ... which is why intelligence is such a great trait to have married to gameness 8)
Jack
I must disagree with the muscle mass thing R2L. Your dog is not on her feet more than a dog on it's chain spot. Or am i misreading ?
its just my guess, but standing on the feet is something different then handwalking, free running and playing around. doesnt give the dog full hard muscles.
was talking to some credible man from southern europe a few weeks ago and he said, dogs of my yard are always heavyer raised up there as "house dogs" then the littermates i keep on a chain here. funny thing is they would prefer "house raised" dogs if they could.
skipper
03-12-2012, 12:32 PM
Ah-hah, you already anticipated my rebuttal :mrgreen:
I agree with you that generally a dog who is bigger at the weight is going to have the advantage. In some case, it can be an almost ridiculous advantage. The old man who rented me a property in TN for a few years, acquired some stock that was unbelievably-huge for their weight ... and they were naturally long-winded ... and he won a lot of deals with those dogs! It was almost unfair they were so huge for the weight!
However, that said, my dogs often run a little small for their weight, and yet they win a high-percentage of their matches too, because they have the intelligence to use their size effectively. For example, my Mystery (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=136097) bitch was a muscular, squarely-built 38 otc and she faced Buttercup (http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/public/printPedigree.php?dog_id=122662) who was a tall, rangy 38 and huge for her weight. The larger bitch was battlecross that had some serious mouth, but she was also slow and stupid and not quite as physically-strong as Mystery. Now Mystery didn't really have much mouth at all, but she was strong as a bull, very fast, and most importantly she was a highly-intelligent, pit-wise animal. Both bitches had good air.
The result? That bitch only bit Mystery one time, right across the muzzle at the start, and she did some heavy damage (punctured the bone). But after Mystery got herself out of that bad spot, that bitch never touched her again, even though she was "bigger" for the weight. Mystery got up under the other bitch, deep into chin/bottom jaw, and stayed there the entire time. Mystery was actually up under the bitch (both facing the same direction), with Buttercup literally straddling her back, with Mystery just up under the jaw ... out of harm's way ... and dismantling the bitch's weapons from "a safe hiding spot." Mystery had a lot of experience, and Buttercup was green, so they picked up Buttercup after she started to show she wasn't too happy with what was going on.
The Moral of the Story?: it depends on the style/intelligence of the animals involved. Like a good reach in boxing, that "size advantage" is only good if the shorter boxer stays on the outside and agrees to eat jabs all day. A longer reach can become a disadvantage in a phonebooth-war kind of fight ;)
So too, having a size advantage can be a great asset to a dog, who uses it effectively, while being smaller for the weight can be a death sentence to an average dog who doesn't have the brains/heart to use what he has in the most effective manner. These roles, however, can quickly be reversed if one style is smart enough, and committed enough, to use the tools that he has to his best advantage ... which is why intelligence is such a great trait to have married to gameness 8)
Jack
Good post. Pit smartness is something a lot of breeders seems to rank very low in their program. In fact some even rank gameness pretty low. Mouth seems to be the most popular trait these days. Don't get me wrong. I love a dog that can bite. But I've seen many hard biters biting nothing but air, when facing a smarter "soft" mouthed dog. And their owners starts making excuses like "Must've been the keep. Brought in on the wrong weight. My dog would've won any other day" And so on. When in fact they are to stupid to see quality as it's presented right in front of them.
Officially Retired
03-12-2012, 12:42 PM
Good post. Pit smartness is something a lot of breeders seems to rank very low in their program. In fact some even rank gameness pretty low. Mouth seems to be what's the most popular trait these days.
Thanks, and yep, a lot of people (who aren't too smart themselves) seem to like dogs who aren't too smart either ;)
Fact of Life: Evolution favors the intelligent and those who never stop trying :idea:
This is true even in fighting. Muhammad Ali wasn't the heaviest puncher in heavyweight history, but he was the smartest, the most athletic, and believed in himself more than any boxer in history ... which combination of traits enabled Ali to beat all of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history (Liston, Shavers, Foreman, Lyle, Frazier, etc.).
Don't get me wrong. I love a dog that can bite.
As do I, so long as they have the gameness, athleticism, and intelligence to use that bite effectively.
If not, I will watch that hardmouth dullard quit to one of my dogs damned near every time.
But I've seen many hard biters biting nothing but air, when facing a smarter "soft" mouthed dog. And their owners starts making excuses like "Must've been the keep. Brought in on the wrong weight. My dog would've won any other day" And so on. When in fact they are to stupid to see quality as it's presented right in front of them.
Exactly right, yet again Skipper.
This is why one of my other handles was "SmileWiper" ... it sure hurts a lot of feelings when folks watch their big, bad, hard-mouthed monster stand there, sucking air, because they got out-hustled, out-muscled, out-maneuvered, and beaten to the punch every time ... with that kind of pressure and pace just never letting up :lol:
Just ask all those heavy punchers who lost/quit to Ali 8)
Ali's Own Words: "I never worry about hitting power because I always fix it so they got nothing to hit."
Jack
skipper
03-12-2012, 12:55 PM
This is why one of my other handles was "SmileWiper" ... it sure hurts a lot of feelings when folks watch their big, bad, hard-mouthed monster stand there, sucking air, because they got out-hustled, out-muscled, out-maneuvered, and beaten to the punch every time ... with that kind of pressure and pace just never letting up
Been there, done that. Smart people learn and adapt, while idiots do the same mistakes over and over again, not having a clue what went wrong. Once had a monster that would kill you in one bite. He was truly a freak. To bad he was just as stupid as he bit hard. Went as a freight train, met a dog that was smarter and quit on all four. Mouth can fool you, and will cost you bad LOL.
evolutionkennels
03-12-2012, 01:14 PM
Fact of Life: Evolution favors the intelligent and those who never stop trying :idea:
Jack
Yes I do! :)
Good one Evo !
Also mouth is easier to breed into dogs than the other traits. (or so i have heard) :)
Officially Retired
03-12-2012, 01:49 PM
Yes I do! :)
:lol:
bad dog
03-12-2012, 03:04 PM
its just my guess, but standing on the feet is something different then handwalking, free running and playing around. doesnt give the dog full hard muscles.
was talking to some credible man from southern europe a few weeks ago and he said, dogs of my yard are always heavyer raised up there as "house dogs" then the littermates i keep on a chain here. funny thing is they would prefer "house raised" dogs if they could.
easy answer. dogs on a chain are buring calories while dogs in the house are not. dogs on a chain are in far better shape as is than a house dog. but as for which dog to bring to a show the house dog is going to be easier to work because he's obedient and trained.
yea they sure dont prefer them because of the weight :mrgreen: but more socialized/self-assured generally
he meant in shape as well. reason i brought this up is because im interested what other think about this and if you would let(leave) particular things while raising the dog and maintaining the dog regarding their muscle development. let's take as an example 2 extremes of identical dogs. a dog who has never been taken of the chain for 3 years and a dog who's been walked/played with allot up to 3 years.which one would be shown at a higher weight. tho i realize some chain dogs move around all the day while others are very relaxed.
The smallest dogs for their weight I ever saw were the White Dog line.They were 1/2 high, 2 long, and you had to add another pound for the big ears. They were ridiculously game, and sometimes could bite, but they had to.do it on all 4's or from the floor on their backs, because they were terrible wrestlers. I always felt they started with a disadvantage to some extent, but they sure were game.
easy answer. dogs on a chain are buring calories while dogs in the house are not. dogs on a chain are in far better shape as is than a house dog. but as for which dog to bring to a show the house dog is going to be easier to work because he's obedient and trained.
I've always been told a house dog is preferred for the connection between the dog and his best friend Versus a dog and his handler ???
the house dog is going to be easier to work because he's obedient and trained.
I've always been told a house dog is preferred for the connection between the dog and his best friend Versus a dog and his handler ???
Answer already given Abe. And i too understand it's best considering handling.
The question R2L and i pondered about is what is best for natural weight ? A dog that lives on the chain or a dog that lived in the house. Which looks bigger when brought in at the same weight, and which will have more to burn in the race.
skipper
03-13-2012, 04:19 AM
Imo a dog's natural weight has nothing to do with how they live. A 36 lbs dog is always a 36 lbs dog. If he's heavier the risk of runnig out of air is far greater. Get rid of that excessive muscle weight. It'll do more harm then help. JMHO.
It'll do more harm then help
im afraid of it too. the female i mentioned for example has very hard and full muscles, don't think it's just genetics. But i didnt compare enough to say whether it really matters regarding only the weight of a dog. . forget the whole chaindog/housedog thing. what i mean is would a similar dog be shown heavier because he was worked allot(to much) more during daily maintenance (outside the keep) sorry peeps, trying my best to type english.
ps: that's just regarding the weight, i would be interested in other negative effects of excessive muscle as well, like lactic acid. but i will make a new topic for that.
evolutionkennels
03-13-2012, 05:37 AM
I am going to agree with the skipper. A dogs working weight is his working weight no matter if he's in the house or on the chain. Every mammal has his peak conditioned weight. Theoretically, The only advantage of a house dog is that they have the POTENTIAL to be more intelligent because of the srtonger connections in thier brain given that they would have excercised it more due to more interaction with the owner and other family members. As a matter of fact, once you get to an animals ideal show weight, it's hard to change it even if you feed him more.
wrknapbt
03-13-2012, 08:23 AM
I've got a bitch at home now who is a 46 47 in shape female but when in shape she looks like a 60 lb dog. I was expecting her to be goofy and clumbsy as heck but she fooled me. With stupid athletic ability and annoying wind, she is also very very smart but even as a pup she was a escape artist who would watch me close the puppy pen then proceed to try and open it in different ways. until she finally figure out she had the ability to just jump over it. But her weight is also a problem because I could only get her in school once and no one else will take me up on schooling which sucks. Her conformation is damn near perfect and that has been proven via a few months of prancing around the show ring and picking up her ADBA CH. Her only flaw in that area according to them is that she is a tad long.
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/mommy2kane/CHSMUTTY.jpg
STORMY
03-13-2012, 08:32 AM
I've got a bitch at home now who is a 46 47 in shape female but when in shape she looks like a 60 lb dog. I was expecting her to be goofy and clumbsy as heck but she fooled me. With stupid athletic ability and annoying wind, she is also very very smart but even as a pup she was a escape artist who would watch me close the puppy pen then proceed to try and open it in different ways. until she finally figure out she had the ability to just jump over it. But her weight is also a problem because I could only get her in school once and no one else will take me up on schooling which sucks. Her conformation is damn near perfect and that has been proven via a few months of prancing around the show ring and picking up her ADBA CH. Her only flaw in that area according to them is that she is a tad long.
http://i110.photobucket.com/albums/n94/mommy2kane/CHSMUTTY.jpg
wknapbt
she looks great man.
skipper
03-13-2012, 08:49 AM
What a looker!
Officially Retired
03-13-2012, 09:20 AM
I am glad I don't have a huge 47-lb escape artist on my yard of little doggies :lol:
She looks great man!
wrknapbt
03-13-2012, 10:23 AM
I am glad I don't have a huge 47-lb escape artist on my yard of little doggies :lol:
She looks great man!
SHe made me a more responsible owner being that I have to stay a step ahead of her. She is a thinker for sure.