Quote:
Originally Posted by concretegurl  Mine was 90lbs...pure bred, just grew & grew...our best friend is called a Staff, 110lbs-purebeed as well. It happens. |
Lolol, yes, this is true. One of my dogs was Outlaw, 110 lbs pure muscle from Freeman's Preacher Boy weight pull lines. It was like Honey I blew up the pit bull. Perfect conformations (except for these weird itty bitty shar pei ears, but they're only a point or two, so no biggie).
I confess to a prejudice. There are certain lines of dogs, where the originator has as much as admitted cross breeding, that are registered and hitting over 100 lbs on the regular, and going 120-140 with some frequency. I'm sorry, those are not pit bulls. I don't care what the papers say... Yet people get the idea that these over hyped and over promoted lines are what pit bulls are supposed to be. When I have to argue to the ignorant that my grand champion 32 lb bitch is indeed a pure bred pit, because what they see is poorly bred, substandard, mostly cross bred **it bulls with blocky heads, wide chests, weighing over 100 lbs... Yeah, it makes me a bit testy.
And the over done style of the dogs conformation shows other breed influences, with super wide chests, drooping flews and a tendency to be a bit too wrinkled. Some of these people are actually marketing their dogs as a new breed, while at the same time using real registries to register their dogs while their own new breed registry grows.
The biggest dog I bred was 87 show weight, from a line that was on average 45 lbs. We have NO idea where he came from, even though DNA proved momma didn't get romanced by some unknown Lothario, so yes it does happen. But typically, these dogs are not correct. My guy was a tad too lippy, full drop ears, and a touch long in the stifle.
If you look at old records, you would find that a dog hitting 55 lbs was a rarity. Colby's Pincher, 100 years ago was a 72 lb dog a size that was shocking in a world of 30-40 lb dogs. Colby's Primo, whose size I can't recall, was said to be the basis of of Am Staff standard, and not only was the Colby family instrumental in getting the APBT recognized by the AKC (though under a different name, lol), a good number of the Am Staff parent stock was Colby dogs. This is one of the reasons I think that the Am Staff on average is larger than the APBT. This is of course, aside form over feeding the dogs for "substance".
Again, I have my prejudice against certain types of pit bull looks. Me and my best friend fuss constantly, because I don't like the length of his dogs backs. He likes them longer bodied, I like them more up on their legs. His dogs are slightly more rectangular than square.. They do OK in the ring, but if he would listen to me.. I found this awesome stud whose pedigree compliments one of his bitches, and would compensate for her longer body.. and he'd clean up in the ring, cause this male is so flashy with awesome head, topline, backend and movement, but he won't listen. *sigh*
Let me state for the record.. The ADBA gives no set size, except to say the tallest dog at a given weight, the UKC states males 35-60, females 30-50 and dog over that are not to be penalized unless they are too thick or rangy, and the AKC states height and weight in proportion, males 18-19 at the shoulder and females 17-18 to be preferred, though their idea of what is in proportion and mine are vastly different, lol.
I'm not going to pussy foot around. I insulted some people, and I insulted their dogs. I'm sorry for that. We all have a right to express our opinions, but we need to be mindful of others feelings when we do. Sometimes when writing on a topic we're passionate about, we forget about others in our zeal. Though I did not mean to, that is what I did. So again, those whose dogs I insulted, I'm sorry. I allowed passion to overtake prudence, and that was wrong.
And now back to your regularly scheduled yorkie talk, lol.
/hijack