[ Post a Response | True English Mastiffs ]
Posted by rodsue on 3/3/2006, 6:49 pm, in reply to "male vs male - smaller can be better" I understand what you are saying about a smaller dog can fit the standards better then a larger dog, "but" we aren't talking about a sorry 34" dog verses a good 29" dog. We were talking about a 34" nice mastiff with better bone, bigger head with more mass, etc. Now lets talk about Sherman, which you apparently think wins on his own merits and nothing else. You might want to check what they pay Pam a year to win with him and the cost they spend to advertise him to judges so they put him up when they judge him before you go thinking he's so special. Let me ask you this, if he's all the dog you think he is, as well as the judges who put him up think, why is it do you think they probably spend close to $200,000.00 a year to get him put up? I mean surely if he's the kind of dog that naturally wins on his own, why would anyone spend that kind of money for nothing? I suggest to you that if there were a no name handler on him (one that judges didn't know personally), with no advertising for judges to see, only there to win own his own merits, he would loose many more then he wins (and BIS would be out of the question), just like all the other nice mastiffs that get looked over for the known handler complete with advertising to back that up with. If you don't believe what I'm saying then I suggest you haven't been there, or done that, so you only believe what you've read on other boards, or been told by those who play those games? Dogs shows (breed and group rings are a dirty business where only money talks and nothing else as a general rule) Has nothing to do with size, or the best mastiff at all. I have not seen shermam in person and don't have to from what I've been told by people who have, to know there are better mastiffs (standard wise) who have competed against him and lost for the wrong reasons. Hell, anyone who knows shows knows that. He may be ok for his size, but there are many who tower over him not only in size, but by the standards as well, but can they beat him with no advertising or unknown handler, not a chance in hell! Most know that and don't try, simple as that. I hear ya Rob, but I say again, in a fairly judged ring a 30" mastiff 170, 180lbs can not seriously compete with a 33, 34", 220, 230lb mastiff that both fit the standards fairly well. It clearly says the bigger the better. And on top of everything else, I've never cared for any of the mini breeds, especially mastiffs! If you think we should be breeding down to bullmastiff size, why not just buy a bull and leave the big boys to those who believe the biggest dog on the planet should be just that? No offence intended Rob, but your way off track on several issues you spoke about IMHO. Take Care Rob
Hi Rob, welcome to the board. 
Message Thread:
« Back to thread
