# My dog and Petey. What do you think?



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

This was inspired by someone on another forum. Although it wasn't quite positive as they have been following me from thread to thread to try and bicker with whatever I post. I posted old photos in one which they informed me my dogs don't look anything like Petey. I never said they did and didn't think that but then I decided to do a comparison. While I never would have even thought about it now I do think their is a similarity. What do any of you guys think? I want an honest opinion of what your eye sees vs mine as I might be a little biased.

I tried to do her sitting similarly for the best results. 









I also did this to other olds dogs. There is a difference here but similar body structure, I think that the modern dogs are more refined and the older colby dogs look kind of barrel like.


----------



## lovemygreys (Jan 20, 2007)

Hmm...other than the obvious breed-trait simlarities (overal shape and size) I don't see much similarity between your dog and Petey. Mostly I see the differences in the proportion and detailing of the head.

The other comparison pics, I can see quite a difference in the older pics and the newer model of the same breed. JMHO, but I really prefer the older "style" of dog. They look very well balanced and everything is in proportion. To me, they just look like a nice, versatile, all around dog. The last dog you posted- the brindle with the bit of white on his face wearing a harness - is, in my mind, nearly perfect in his build/shape. And I love the soft, intelligent expression. The dogs of today seem to have heads that are way too big, esp when looking at the proportions of older versions of the breed. I don't necessarily see the heads of today's pits being more refined....more exaggerated, but not necessarily more refined.

That said, you are certainly much more of an expert on the breed than I am...I guess it mostly comes down to how the breed standard is being interpreted *today*


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

Thanks you for taking the time to respond. 

I find that the his head is a bit different too, I think in the muzzle and a bit of shape or something. 

It seems you really like the old Colby dogs. It should be said they are not what all Pits looked like at the time. I think it very much shows their “Staffordshire Bull Terrier” influence, or what would be later knows as the SBT. There were different pit strains at the time being as they were from mixing of bulldogs and terriers the percentages were not all the same. I believe that when comparing the modern APBT to the original dogs of the time they compare much more then the modern day SBT does to the old dogs. Which really seems a shame as the SBT was to preserve the original type, yet it was still ruined I mean refined. JMO though. 

I certainly don’t see her as being exaggerated or having a head way too big? She isn’t very large either just 36lbs. She is just a bit taller compared to them as these type of old dogs were just a touch longer then tall. She is more balanced. I’m not saying she is “better” balanced when I say more as that’s opinion, I’m just saying balanced as in measurement. 

The standard is fairly “new”, so I don’t think it’s a thing of interpreting the standard today. Those 2 dogs were born in 1900 and 1910. The UKC was started for APBTs in 1898 but they sponsored pit matches and not conformation shows. CH were fighting CH, not show CH. The ADBA was started in 1909 for fighting dogs. It wasn’t until around 1976 that they formed a show standard and began the shows so that was still fairly recent in the breeds history. How long has your breed been fairly consistent? As I know greyhounds are a working breed. 

Well that’s my thoughts on it I guess. Here are some more photos. Maybe I should have made this in general since its more of a discussion.

First are Petey's half brothers (they are littermates to each other) both sired by GR CH Tudor's GR CH Black. Supreme is the brindle/white conditioned at 54lbs. The other is GR CH Black Jack Jr a large catchweight dog. The last dog isn't related but another of Tudor's dogs GR CH Black Demon 75lbs chain weight. 









Then I have some more Colby dogs. The first Pincher is the sire of Jerry, the dog which you liked the look of. Conditioned weight at 56lbs. Next is Tige conditions at 35lbs, Jerry's dam was linebred off of Tige. 3rd Butte is a son of Tige and also conditions at 35lbs. 








Malachy conditioned weight 35lbs is a son of Pincher and his dam is a daughter of Tige. 2nd is CH Fighting Peter, a son of Colby's Galtie who is the other dog in my 1st post. 3rd is CH Colby's Twister conditions at 54lbs he is another son of Pincher and his dam is a daughter of Tige. 
The last 3 are more modern day Colby dogs. 

The first dog Hubbard's Bounce is the sire of Gr Ch Rascal, Ch Clancy, CH Arizona Pete and CH Dibo. Dibo is the sire of CH Jeff, CH Cracker, GR CH White Rock, Blind Billy and Polly. 









I was looking at some other dogs and comparing them.








The 1st dog is related to the 2nd only by bloodline, the 3rd dog is a direct descendant of the 2nd and appears to have a similar build and head shape. Also think the back end seems to be set the same. The 1st has a slightly similar head, but she doesn't have the heavy set body type. She also appears shallow chested a bit.


----------



## FriendsOfZoe (Aug 7, 2007)

Spicy, you'd be a great person to ask something I've long been wondering...I personally can't stand the boxy, bow-legged look I see on a lot of pits today (they very well may be poorly bred pits, as it doesn't appear that your dogs have this so much), and I'm just wondering what this is all about other than perhaps breeding to exaggerate this characteristic. It seems to me that this would cause health problems as their legs do not look healthy, and I can't imagine they'd be able to work much without hurting themselves...but perhaps you know of a better reason for this as you certainly know more about pits than I do.

I also like the older pictures of pits you put up, and I noticed that these dogs don't seem to have the exaggerated barrel chest and bow legs as many pits today do.

I'm putting a picture of a pit with the exaggerated legs I am referring to. Perhaps you can shed some light on this.


----------



## Spicy1_VV (Jun 1, 2007)

This might get a little long. The dog in that picture doesn't look like an American Pit Bull Terrier, it looks like an American Bully. I would speculate that it is probably Razors Edge, Gotti or greyline breeding? I feel so sorry for those fashion accessories. 

It is about $$ and what is the "in" thing. Granted some really do love and care for their dogs, others use them as breeding machines to practically make a living off of. You are right in believing that they are poorly bred. They are bred for color and size above all else which doesn't work out too well. They usually do have health problems, (I'm not saying always), especially the blues as they do many blue x blue breedings which is not a wise thing to do. The health problems can range from minor to major skin allergies, food allergies, demodex, gastrointestinal problems, some other defects which can really be a number of different things, shoulders slipping out sockets, double jointed knees, one female had her stomach in the wrong place and she looks very weird her body was also overly long. Another problem in some would also be crippled and severe arthritis in older age. Not all of them get this, it depends on how bowed out they are in such. Even standard bred APBTs can get very bad arthritis at 9 or 10yrs old and have to be PTS far to young when they have structure problems. This isn't to say all will have these problems but it is a higher chance because most breeders don't cull. I'm not saying a conformationally correct APBT can't have health problems either. 

I have noticed that on the Pit bad breeders list most of them are the people breeding this type which tells me to stay away from them. While I don't think it isn't right for a breeder to not guarantee health of a pup the buyer chooses to take a huge risk when buying this type of dog. Then they complain about the health problems. Just like the puppy mill pups people buy that have health. Big risk, why chance it?

They are not bred to work so it doesn't matter that they are not functional and can't work. You are right again in believe that. They tend to also have shallow chest and be short winded which isn't going to help out much in working. Many are also kept over weight. They are bred purely for a cool looking dog in the opinion of those who like them. They are quickly becoming the English Bulldog of the Pit world. The English Bulldog isn't exactly healthy, especially when it comes to structure and they are not a functional dog who can do the work they were designed to do or other substituted task. EB's breathing is also not that of a great athlete and their wrinkled skin can cause health problems. EB's have a structure that would be considered a defect in other breeds but it is part of their standard, they also usually can't breed or give birth without human assistance most of the time. EB's are still bred by many fanciers and the same goes for the American Bully. Just shows what man will sacrifice for something they want. I obviously don't have a problem with creating purebred dogs, I just see it kind of wrong to make breeds that have so many health issues, goals should be to minimize them. 

Some also speculate that some of the dogs are crossed which is probably true. This is true with other Pit type breeds too, not just them, people cross breed. Other breeds it happens too, even on dogs with AKC papers. One person admitted they hung papers on a dog that appears in several dogs pedigrees I've seen. A breeder of another line is said to have mentioned other breeds were used in making the dogs but then later people blew up that he was misquoted and that only AST/APBT were used to make the dogs. There are some of these dogs which are extra large and have the build, head and loose skin of a mastiff. American Bullies can range in their looks as those particular ones no doubt look like Neos. 

Here are a few examples of cross bred APBT x English Bulldog. Not all too amazingly they look very similar to some of the Pits you see today.





























Here is a link to Am Bully info. Although it isn't much to read on. The standard is very close to the APBT/AST standard with just a few differences. They list nothing for health problems. 
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/a/americanbully.htm

It also reads this as part of the description. 
_Physically, the American Bully has an impressive, athletic build, which is both muscular and defined, and displays strength and agility. _

They have far from a functional athletic build. If those breeds just like with the EB like that build, thats fine, but why call it athletic if they are not? I don't get it. I've hardly seen too many muscular AmBullies either. I did see an awesome in shape toned son of Gotti, he actually had a decent build too, only looking like a big boned AST. But the vast majority of them are not just out of shape without muscule they are grossly overweight I would think one wouldn't want to strain that structure with extra weight but thats just me. They are likely a strong breed I'd imagine, but agility? I don't see them as agile, they are too bulky to have swift movement and flexibility. Many APBTs are agile and other breeds, greyhounds, sherpherds, Am Bully isn't one that comes to mine. 

I'm going to be outside with my dogs before it gets colder/darker but I will put up some pics of my dogs from the front to compare later.


----------

