boyles blood

I believe it pretty much boils down to being able to use the gifts genetics gave you.

Sure, a thick boned dog is more durable, but guess what he pretty much NEEDS to be, as he just is not going to be as light on his feet as a thinner boned dog.

A thinner boned dog is more athletic and can either be a larger dog at the same weight, or carry more muscle at the same weight.

Both types can and do win multiple shows. It's something like do you like a George Foreman, plodding in and going for it, or do you like a Floyd Mayweather, avoiding damage while dishing it out.

I prefer the Floyd Mayweather. Whatever the style you prefer, the body type should fit it.

For example, if you like the "in thick of things" just going for it driving bulldog, you want that thicker bone so he CAN take the punishement.

If you're looking for that slick "dancer" avoiding trouble, the thinner boned larger dog has the advantage for this style. He can move faster and he can stay out of reach better than the thicker dog, as he is bigger at the weight.

Gameness is the part of the equation that gets the thinner boned dog to the finish line should his durability get tested...

 

I've only ever been to like 2 or 3 adba shows, anmd I've never read any of the history books. So please enlighten us as to why all of the dogs posted above were light boned, and achieved greatness?

You have to put your mouth on something to "mortally wound" it, and the taller thinner boned dog, can put his mouth on the hog first, and ride him out.

I've seen dogs as thin boned as can be ride out a one hit killer hog without getting a tusk in them. It's much easier to do so with a thinner bone structure, as your faster. You can also be the stronger dog, less bone can equal more muscle at the same weight. IMO durability is second to athletic ability, you only need the first if you lack some of the second.

It's a matter of opinions and preferences, but to sit here and tell me that they CAN NOT win multiple, is pure balderdash. It may not be your preference, but your statements are NOT fact, just opinion.

 

BOC, you will have greater success directing your comments to that brick wall...its a lost cause.

 

Ahhh, I'm bored at work today. Maybe banging my head against this brick wall will make the day go faster.

 

It all boils down to what you like. I like my animals thick like Andy Capp but they've got to be athletes. Also Chinaman doesn't really look all that small to me. He's just long which is cool with me and I do get a lot of animals built somewhat like him. Others want a really light built animal that is fast. I like my animals really fast too. Thing is when the light animal runs into rough terrain and gets himself in a bad spot gameness will only do so much.

 

Got another question...

Let me know how BONE STRUCTURE keeps you from getting MORTALY wounded?

Pretty sure a busted wheel aint a mortal wound, and with any type of MORTAL wound, I don't see where bone structure comes into play. Durable hide, sure that helps, but bone structure?

Thanks

BOC

 

Thanks for the response, but I do disagree with the part about bone structure going hand and hand with musculature, unless I'm misunderstanding what your saying. The most muscular dogs I've owned were thin boned, they can carry more muscle at the same weight.

I also agree that those dogs that can stay completely out of trouble are few and far between, but when ya got one, you got a world beater. I do know I've never seen a thick boned dog pull that off, the only ones I've seen pull it off WERE thin boned, quick and agile.

I don't believe you are the only one who lives in the "real world" as you put it. "Real world" references to thinner boned dogs who won multiple shows were given, you didn't address them.

You posted a black dog before on a thread similar to this, and I sure wouldn't have called that dog thick and durable. I liked how he was built, I can appreciate durability, but not to the point where those thick bones hinder athletic ability. The original point of the discussion was you saying a dog like the one pictured COULD NOT win multiple shows, and I very much disagree with that. Sure if he had to take a whooping in every show, you're probably noit seeing 5 out of that boy. Yet there were a whole bunch up above with similar bone structure, that sure did win 5...

Now how'd they do that??? It isn't possible according to you...

 

I like a good strong neck myself, and all I was saying was I REALLY liked that black dog, but he didn't look too thick boned as I recall, but I could be quite wrong.

I'm not arguing that the original dog has perfect conformation, I'm specifically arguing that a dog MUST be thicker boned than he is to win multiple shows...

 

Fair enough... Thanks for the convo.

 

good arguements on both sides, entertaining. but its funny how far off topic this thread has gone, I origionally asked how people felt on how the dog was bred. Not his conformation or bone structure. But I do appreciate everyones feedback.

 

bone density has little to do with size. bigger is not always better in this case. bigger bone's = more muscle= bigger dog. more muscle expend more energy you can see where this is going ? to many factors involved to say one is better then others. shit take em how ya get em because they don't come easy.

 

Not sure about Art or Chinaman but I seen the other ones in person and all with the exception of Virgil were far from thin bone.. Virgil wasn't thin just thin for his weight but he possessed other tools that were equalizers like his intensity and his mouth he was also strong and a hard driver.. You can't tell in the pics but those other hounds had great body structure and were more thick bone.. Also had rough hydes...

 

some of my fav threads have gone off topic! as long as its good convo(which this is) i'm all for it.

 

me too, its definately been really informative, I have enjoyed the bickering back and forth too lol