Tudors Dibo The Ultimate Bully!!

Let's keep the bashing and trashing to a minummummmmmm. Stay on topic!

 

Agreed. Too many threads have been ruined lately by stuff that should have been PMed.

 

Yes... as far as ADBA standards it want fly, sorry

 

sorry about my comments, but the topic of the thread seemed to me to say that Dibo looked bully and he was an APBT, so the bully dogs around today can be too. I just flat out don't agree with that. Dibo looks stocky, but nothing like a bully. Plus, there are no 40 lb bullys out there.

If I misunderstood the topic, sorry, but restating the point that Dibo's bulliness was excused by his merits seemed like what I previously stated. Just debating here, sorry if it came out harsh. But the reason I used the blue dog in my posts is because that's the example that was being compared. The dog could have been red, brown, black or whatever color, and my response would have been the same. Not trying to blue bash or bully bash. Renegade, you can PM me if you want. I took out the parts that weren't relevent.

 

Because looks don't matter when breeding performance dogs, you can end up with all sorts of weird looking creatures, lol.

I don't necessarily agree with that, but I may be misunderstanding you. IMO, dogs should not be bred based solely on looks, but if you're talking conformation, then it is vital to the breed. I am not talking about conformation in the showing aspect alone, I am talking about true conformation. That a dog is built a certain way (thus looking a certain way) in order to perform as best as it can. This is why the APBT has such a wide variation to it's standard, because it is a performance bred dog. I think a lot of game dog breeders over look this part in breeding programs, which is why some of the dogs look so weird. I'm not saying that they are all bad, since there's got to be something good about them to be bred, but by filtering a breeding program a lot more and focusing on more than gameness, I believe that the dog would be better as a whole. I'm not sure if I'm being clear or not, I'm just saying that a lot of times, they seem good, but imagine how much better they could be if you improved on the dogs physically.

It can be especially tricky in our breed because of their high pain threshold to not show how bad they are because of structural faults. Not to mention a game dog wouldn't let something like hip dysplasia slow them down.

If conformation truely mattered, we wouldn't have dogs like this in so many of our pedigrees today...






But that's beside the point.....



Renegade, the difference between Dibo and Bullies is tremendous! Their purposes are complete opposites. You're completely wrong about somone today owning Dibo and getting hated on. His looks aren't what matters, it is his ability as a pit dog and stud. The same goes for all APBTs.

As for your dog, I don't consider him a bully at all. He looks like an AmStaff/Pit Bull, bred to conform to AKC/UKC standards. There's nothing wrong with that... but don't call him an APBT because he's not unless he's gamebred. I don't care what his papers say. Now, you can think I'm judging him because he's blue but that is not the whole truth. His entire body screams Staff. He's heavy boned, has no tuck, has a very typical head piece for UKC "pits," has a very thick neck ...and, yes, on top of all that, he is blue.

No one here is going to hate on you or your dog for him being what he is (and if they do, they're immature and close-minded) BUT comparing your dog to a true APBT, that will get you in trouble and fast.

 

Not besides the point at all, if standard is what's being discussed. One look at those dogs and you can see why hip dysplasia is so prevelent in our breed. I'm more about having a sound dog. Pit performance shouldn't negate bad genes from being passed, and if it does to the breeder, than the offspring that display the same poor structure should be culled. You can't honestly tell me that if you took those same dogs and (hypothetically) corrected the structural faults they have would not make them better dogs. And if you're in it for bettering the breed as a whole, then that's why it's important.

 

Is this thread about the standard though? I don't want to get too off-topic but this could be an interesting discussion.

I don't know what effects bow-leggedness (is that a word? lol) or extremely wide chests (among other things) would have on a dog so I can't say for sure that they would be better performers if they were conformationally correct.
I'd certainly like to hear from people who have experience with dogs that had/have many structural faults.

Personally, I feel the same as you do. I would cull a dog that looked like that ...unless it were an absolute ace, then I'd breed to a bitch of better structure, see how the pups turned out, and go from there.
However, my point was that throughout history, if a dog was a good producer and/or performer, its genes would be passed on, regardless of its looks. Hunter Red, Six Bits, and many other dogs are prime examples.

 

That's how I read the topic, that Dibo was a bully, and the reason he was liked was because he was a good performer and producer. And that fact made it unimportant that he looked "more bully than RE dogs," which I completely disagree with.

 

I have read through this entire thread and am not getting where and how anyone could compare Dibo to a Bully. I personally feel that pictures are never really what they appear to be live. Dibo was a short little dog 45lbs. How could anyone be confused with him being bullyish looking ? He was not even half the size of an average Bully. No one here would dump on Dibo even if he wasn't the great dog he turned out to be.

About breeding for the perfect specimen, that will never happen cause one mans trash is another mans treasure. There is a reason why all the dogs were bred differently in the past. Many Dogmen bred for different traits of what and how they thought the dogs should perform. Some like the taller rangey style for better turning, longer muzzles for more of a bite, short in height for underneath battles, etc etc etc.. All these dogmen were feeling there dog had some kind of an advantage over its opponent reasons why our breed looks so different today. The ultimte goal was to produce winners not eye candy that gets toted around a show ring regardless of how far from confirmation that dog may be.

 

good post CD...that about sums up my thoughts on this thread also. Although Earl tudor was beleived to do some shady dealing in terms of registering dogs I doubt "looks" was ever high on his list of traits to breed for. That alone far seperates Dibo from many, many, Bully's of today. Bred for performance vs. as a leash ornament. If a best to best breeding produces a "stalkier" dog so be it, but along the same times I doubt any advertisements for Tudor's dogs read "biggest head, broadest shoulders, shortest legs, 100 lbs and still growing, etc. That statement is not meant to bash bully's, but instead to highlight breeding practices that produced Dibo vs the dogs he was compared to earlier in the thread.

 

Hey Pipbull. The title may have thrown you off. But if you read the first post when I started this thread. I did not say Dibo was a Bully. But that he "looked" Bully.
I was questioning his size and appearance for a game dog and compare that to the thinner fit adba game dogs of today.
I was questioning his appearance when his ancestors (Feeley) looked much smaller.
I stated that Statton described the Dibo line of having "a double jointed hock"
which is common in Bully dogs of today.
I did not question his gameness which is well documented (as well as his offspring). Simply questioning his appearance.
IMO Dibo had a bully look to him.

 

How is a dog weighing under 50 lbs chain weight anywhere near "bully like" he was short and stocky, instead of long and lean... you think that means bully?

 

That seems to compare him to a bully...

I don't necessarily agree with that. If the ultimate goal was to produce winners only, then we would see more mixed breed dogs. A standard of some sort must exist to seperate something as a breed. Unless you consider the APBT a type of dog rather than a breed of dog, then there has to be a standard. Again, when I say conformation, I am not talking about the show ring. I am talking about how a dog should be structurally. And structure should determine ability. That's why I think it is important.

All in all, I don't think this applies to Dibo, he seems a pretty standard APBT. Not perfect, but within the wide standard of a working dog.

 

If that would not be the case then why so many different looking dogs within our breed ? Much like professional boxers there are different sizes and fighting styles, doesn't mean that its all wrong what only matters if it works, its only wrong if it doesn't work. There were only 2 traits that were sought after back then, gameness and winning. If the dog had just gameness but was a loser then they would find something that complimented the gameness in hopes of producing a winner. No one cared what the dog looked like as long as it had those 2 traits. So if tall lanky and long muzzle was a winning combonation then the dogmen would keep trying to reproduce what is working for them thus tall lanky with long muzzles would be showing in thier future bloodlines.

I agree that it would be true that they stayed withing a certain guidline but the overall appearance of the breed differed by the traits the breeder was looking for when searching for thier next champion. When you go back and look at all the great champions of the past you can see alot of different looking dogs. The one thing that you can say about all of them is that they were all built for ability and performance.

JMHO

 

Earlier I compared Dibo to a Bully. What about this comparison.
Tudors Dibo
Martys Lilbit.
Marty, sorry for putting your dog out there like this, but I think your dog is the epitome of what a perfect ADBA conformation game dog should look like. If you look at Lilbit's picture, thats what the ADBA is all about!!!
Compare Lilbit to Dibo. On Appearance only, Dibo has a Bullier look!
What is standard?

 

Not a good comparison, one is male other is female. One is also ripped and worked out. The other is on a chain just chilling. You cannot tell really how Dibo looked in just photo's. ( especially black & white ones )

He looks nothing like a Bully, you can spin as hard as you want but I do not see it at all.

 

OH my, i kinda want to change my name on this site now. Even tho i dont own any. I prefer the atheltic toned dog. Pictures are decieving at times tho. My female weighs 37lbs but in some of her pics she looks like a fatty and about 85lbs. Just kidding not that much. Always best to see in person.

 

this site as a certain look they like to say is right, and the only way it can be changed is if it is a dog that is from the past that was one of the "greats" even though 90 % of the people never seen the dog but since they have heard of it makes it a apbt, me myself think that in the old days it was the dog that was the best at fighting not the dog that had the best conformation. could of been any dog.

 

Once again you are comparing a taller, more drawn out dog to a short, stocky, more easty westy dog. That doesnt make the damn dog a bully. One of the best dogs I've ever seen was almost exactly like that. I can assure you he was no bully. If you've seen Vader, thats exactly what he looked like.