Colby Pit Bulls (standards and the original look)
- Thread starter darkchild16
- Start date
R
A rotties muscles are hidden because their fur is way longer than a pits or a dobes fur.
The female I posted didnt have tons of muscles because she is still a puppy. If she was conditioned to the max, you would see her ribs and back bone. You think she looks "anorexic" because she has a defined tuck, well... pits are supposed to have just that. Like I said before... the more conditioned... the more of a tuck they will get.
Are you saying she needs more muscle or more fat or both? If she had more muscle, I think you would still feel that she looks malnourished.
The female I posted didnt have tons of muscles because she is still a puppy. If she was conditioned to the max, you would see her ribs and back bone. You think she looks "anorexic" because she has a defined tuck, well... pits are supposed to have just that. Like I said before... the more conditioned... the more of a tuck they will get.
Are you saying she needs more muscle or more fat or both? If she had more muscle, I think you would still feel that she looks malnourished.
R
Georgygirl said:
Did you look at the other dogs at Matrix GSDlover? They aren't that skinny, I think that pup was just young. They had some great pics of weight pulling too.
just my opinions.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 891
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
A rotties muscle is no where near as defined as a dobie or APBT. They are powerful but do not have a chiseled look. Fur or not, they are built differently. And IMO an fit Dobie and aan ABPT are more compatible to be compared than a rottie. The dobie and APBT are two TOTALLY different dogs but both do have the athletic, defined look.
Because she is a puppy, that was the point I was trying to make. You said she was a great example of an APBT when in reality wasnt. A full grown ABPT should not look like that, and I would hope that they would be more muscular that that dog. And on top of that her back was hunched like a whippet.
Muscle... I dont like any excess fat on my dogs. If you look at my Dobie you would see nothing more than pure defined muscle. If you look beneath all my GSD's fur you would not see nothing more than muscle. I dont want flab, I want to see a little more firm muscle. NOT FAT!!!
Because she is a puppy, that was the point I was trying to make. You said she was a great example of an APBT when in reality wasnt. A full grown ABPT should not look like that, and I would hope that they would be more muscular that that dog. And on top of that her back was hunched like a whippet.
Muscle... I dont like any excess fat on my dogs. If you look at my Dobie you would see nothing more than pure defined muscle. If you look beneath all my GSD's fur you would not see nothing more than muscle. I dont want flab, I want to see a little more firm muscle. NOT FAT!!!
R
Rotties are heavier, stockier dogs than pits and dobes. Rottweiler is a molosser breed. Too many rotties are fat and thats the problem. I think muscles grow the same in all breeds.
That female doesnt have a "hunched" back. The topline inclines very slightly downward from the withers. The loin is short, muscular and slightly arched to the top of the croup, but narrower than the rib cage and with a moderate tuck-up. The croup is slightly sloping downward. That is what a pit bulls back is supposed to look like. You should read the standard.
That female was muscular for her age. Shes perfect.
I would love to see pics of your dobe. Its one of my favorite breeds.
Ok, here are some adult champions from matrix kennels. The most well conditioned dogs that they have, in my opinion. The last dog is not a champ yet. The second dog is my fave and looks to be the most conditioned (pic 2 and 3 are the same dog).
That female doesnt have a "hunched" back. The topline inclines very slightly downward from the withers. The loin is short, muscular and slightly arched to the top of the croup, but narrower than the rib cage and with a moderate tuck-up. The croup is slightly sloping downward. That is what a pit bulls back is supposed to look like. You should read the standard.
That female was muscular for her age. Shes perfect.
I would love to see pics of your dobe. Its one of my favorite breeds.
Ok, here are some adult champions from matrix kennels. The most well conditioned dogs that they have, in my opinion. The last dog is not a champ yet. The second dog is my fave and looks to be the most conditioned (pic 2 and 3 are the same dog).
www.pitbullsoforegon.com
To those who say that what wins in the ring is muscular.. That was one of the first results I got when I searched for UKC pits. Look at the condition of those dogs vs. the working dogs. You can't tell me that those dogs are just muscular, they're fat. Not obese, but they have definitely been fattened up.
To those who say that what wins in the ring is muscular.. That was one of the first results I got when I searched for UKC pits. Look at the condition of those dogs vs. the working dogs. You can't tell me that those dogs are just muscular, they're fat. Not obese, but they have definitely been fattened up.
Hunched like a whippet????Lol, far from it.
Please read the standard, obviously, you are seeing something completly different then what is there. Not sure if it is just because you do not know what to look for, or because I sense a hint of dislike from you for the breed. I may be wrong(probably~so dont go screaming at me!) but the dog is gorgeous, no obvious faults what so ever!
Please read the standard, obviously, you are seeing something completly different then what is there. Not sure if it is just because you do not know what to look for, or because I sense a hint of dislike from you for the breed. I may be wrong(probably~so dont go screaming at me!) but the dog is gorgeous, no obvious faults what so ever!
Hi,to go back to this what APBT's were supose to look like.They were not bred for looks nor did anyone try to breed to the standard,They bred for gameness.No one cared what they looked like as long as they could hold their own in the pit.
So to say UKC ,AKC or ADBA are they way they are supose to look it totally
wrong.Go back and look at old pictures,some dogs are almost as big as American Bull dogs and some are as small as Bostons.
And I have yet to find anyone breeding APBT to a standard,they are all lacking in structure and no one seems to notice or care.Sure you don't need to be structurly sound to fight,but these dogs are weight pulling and lacking in a big area.They are doing what is asked,but just think if they met the standard what they could do.
So to say UKC ,AKC or ADBA are they way they are supose to look it totally
wrong.Go back and look at old pictures,some dogs are almost as big as American Bull dogs and some are as small as Bostons.
And I have yet to find anyone breeding APBT to a standard,they are all lacking in structure and no one seems to notice or care.Sure you don't need to be structurly sound to fight,but these dogs are weight pulling and lacking in a big area.They are doing what is asked,but just think if they met the standard what they could do.
Here are some dogs that we own or are training.none meet the standard,but all will be UKC CH ,and some are working on the Grands.
Bobber and Vici
Jane,just finished her CH
Red taking a Group I on the way to her CH at a little over 7 months
Moose Ch and BIMBS at 8 months with 3 legs towards his grand
all have the same structurl fault.
Bobber and Vici
Jane,just finished her CH
Red taking a Group I on the way to her CH at a little over 7 months
Moose Ch and BIMBS at 8 months with 3 legs towards his grand
all have the same structurl fault.
Your dogs are not fat, nor thick, they are nice, however I beleive if put up against a Jeep standard dog in the ring all those times while competing for the CH, would not have their CH.
They are pretty dogs, my Dixie resembles your dogs builds. She has what it takes to be a CH as well.
I like your dogs, and mine, better then the "game" line, however, your dog and mine is not a winner compared, by the correct judge, and in comparison as to what you are up against.
They are pretty dogs, my Dixie resembles your dogs builds. She has what it takes to be a CH as well.
I like your dogs, and mine, better then the "game" line, however, your dog and mine is not a winner compared, by the correct judge, and in comparison as to what you are up against.
Never said they are wrong,
said no one is breeding them to the standard.AKC is AST which are APBT's also.I have read and talked to breeders for years.So if you read the Colby book you can clearly see that he does not breed a dog to a standard.Back in the day it was what would win in the pit (now it's breed to wants winning in the ring,which is not always correct)
I would never compeet in ADBA because my dogs don't fit their standard,they are UKC APBT,AST.
I like my dogs lean not boney.As I do sleep with them.
said no one is breeding them to the standard.AKC is AST which are APBT's also.I have read and talked to breeders for years.So if you read the Colby book you can clearly see that he does not breed a dog to a standard.Back in the day it was what would win in the pit (now it's breed to wants winning in the ring,which is not always correct)
I would never compeet in ADBA because my dogs don't fit their standard,they are UKC APBT,AST.
I like my dogs lean not boney.As I do sleep with them.
THE IDEA OF THE LEAN, MUSCULAR PIT WAS bred for dighting purposes, what Colby book are you reading??Because my book shows a typical game dog as Colbys original line, the original line that the UKC was founded on.
We are talking APBT, not AST, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
The lean dog would out perform in the pit.
Why am I arguing??Whatever...
We are talking APBT, not AST, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.
The lean dog would out perform in the pit.
Why am I arguing??Whatever...
AKC and ADBA were founded on these same lines.
Here are some pictures from the book I have,while his dogs were lean(chain weight)they were not thin.
I'm not arguing,Just stating what I have seen.and there is in alot of cases no difference from UKC,APBT and AKC AST as they are the same dog just different registerys.
Here are some pictures from the book I have,while his dogs were lean(chain weight)they were not thin.
I'm not arguing,Just stating what I have seen.and there is in alot of cases no difference from UKC,APBT and AKC AST as they are the same dog just different registerys.
RD- Agreed, those dogs definitely have quite a bit of fat on them.
rutlyr Glad to see you've done some research
LOL
It's al personal preference. As you can see some say skinny is the breed standard and obiously chunkier pitts are winning in the confirmation ring...
There's nothing wrong with having a nicely toned and muscled dog but my point is for a 7 month old that is WAY too much.
As for pitts in general, it makes more sense in a dog fighting sense that you'd want a bit of fat, it would last longer in the pitt.
What's crazy about the above pics, is that last dog looks hard as a rock yet he is VERY thick. I doubt he has much fat on him, but he's not as lean as many of the "new age" pitts. (happens to every species QH started out big, muscly, bulky animals and now are more comparable to THB)
rutlyr Glad to see you've done some research
LOLIt's al personal preference. As you can see some say skinny is the breed standard and obiously chunkier pitts are winning in the confirmation ring...
There's nothing wrong with having a nicely toned and muscled dog but my point is for a 7 month old that is WAY too much.
As for pitts in general, it makes more sense in a dog fighting sense that you'd want a bit of fat, it would last longer in the pitt.
What's crazy about the above pics, is that last dog looks hard as a rock yet he is VERY thick. I doubt he has much fat on him, but he's not as lean as many of the "new age" pitts. (happens to every species QH started out big, muscly, bulky animals and now are more comparable to THB)
rutylr, those are some beautiful dogs. red especially. my preference is for the more game-bred looking dogs, but a beautiful dog is a beautiful dog.
*evil grin* is there? in my book, if you take apbt x apbt you get a bunch of baby apbts, no matter what the politics of the breed registry dictate you call 'em. and as the amstaffs of this world all began their days as ukc-registered pit bulls, i think they're still pit bulls.
i personally can't tell the difference between most ukc pit bulls and akc amstaffs. that and you can dual register 'em if they've got the right pedigrees, so where does that put us?
*evil grin* is there? in my book, if you take apbt x apbt you get a bunch of baby apbts, no matter what the politics of the breed registry dictate you call 'em. and as the amstaffs of this world all began their days as ukc-registered pit bulls, i think they're still pit bulls.
i personally can't tell the difference between most ukc pit bulls and akc amstaffs. that and you can dual register 'em if they've got the right pedigrees, so where does that put us?
I have always loved the breed,I've been showing Rottweilers since 1990 and started showing UKC in 1992,that is when I first started to really get to know them and have always wanted one(now we have 5 here).
Been studying the breed for years and still find more people breeding and owning who know nothing of structure or what their Standard say,and how far from the standard these dogs fall.
Been studying the breed for years and still find more people breeding and owning who know nothing of structure or what their Standard say,and how far from the standard these dogs fall.