|
Location: South Oxfordshire, England
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,386
|
18-01-2010, 09:21 PM
Originally Posted by labradork 
You are mistaking weight for substance. They look different because the working one has no substance or bone. That is genetic. You could feed the working one up but it would never look like the show one. Likewise you could starve the show one and it would still never look like working one.
|
|
Location: grangemouth for the moment
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,890
|
18-01-2010, 09:27 PM
Originally Posted by chaz
Ok then, answer me this, put on scales which one will weigh the most? Yes the show one has more stubstance, but put on scales I bet that it would weigh more.
of course it would, lol bone is quite heavy.many people are gob smacked at the weight of kaos, he doesnt look overly big or carry an ounce of fat, but hes about 50kg ish give or take a bit,
he has substance and bone though,
hes not even very big for a rottie, hes at the low end of the height scale.
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,749
|
18-01-2010, 09:29 PM
Originally Posted by chaz
Ok then, answer me this, put on scales which one will weigh the most? Yes the show one has more stubstance, but put on scales I bet that it would weigh more.
|
|
|
|
Location: South Oxfordshire, England
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,386
|
18-01-2010, 09:43 PM
Originally Posted by Shona
of course it would, lol bone is quite heavy.many people are gob smacked at the weight of kaos, he doesnt look overly big or carry an ounce of fat, but hes about 50kg ish give or take a bit,
he has substance and bone though,
hes not even very big for a rottie, hes at the low end of the height scale.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo...eat=directlink
Not sure how much he weighed then, but it was when he was putting weight back on.
|
|
|
|
Location: grangemouth for the moment
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 14,890
|
18-01-2010, 09:47 PM
Originally Posted by chaz
I wonder how he'd compare to Kaney baby.
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/m4MKjC8pTVLgnL2v42tyXQ?feat=directlink
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/XwHIZcobvAyrkM6WEMKZIQ?feat=directlink
Not sure how much he weighed then, but it was when he was putting weight back on.
he looks quite a young lad? poss still a bit of filling out/harding off to do?but im guessing he wouldnt be far off the 45/46ish kg mark depending on his height, if he was quite a tall dog then he would be a bit more
|
|
|
Location: Scotland
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 19,298
|
18-01-2010, 09:49 PM
Originally Posted by labradork
Yep!! someone on an old forum I used to go on was a gamekeeper with a two dual purpose Labs.
Field Trials are a days (or two days) shooting anyway, so any dog that is up to FT standard IS fully fledged working dog.
Plenty of show/dual purpose bred dogs have been working (and have won trials and awards) for generations, so I wouldn't call it a "risk" purchasing such a dog for work. Purchasing a show type with NO working history behind it would be a risk, yes. One from carefully selected lines that have been worked and trialed for generations, not so much.
|
|
|
|
Location: South Oxfordshire, England
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,386
|
18-01-2010, 09:51 PM
Originally Posted by Shona
lovely rottie
he looks quite a young lad? poss still a bit of filling out/harding off to do?but im guessing he wouldnt be far off the 45/46ish kg mark depending on his height, if he was quite a tall dog then he would be a bit more
I'm just estimating there, cause Max and Penny (old dogs) were fully grown then, Max is now ten, and Max must of been around two then, but Kane doesn't look old in the face, mind you I also can't remember Kane not being around next door either
|
|
|
Location: Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,099
|
18-01-2010, 10:45 PM
Originally Posted by Borderdawn
Why is that? A lot of working dogs are very badly constructed. Can I point something out without you being offended?
http://www.dogsey.com/showthread.php?t=113869
In this thread of yours, its shows your dogs feet turning out and the front legs somewhat bowed in appearance, they are not straight. This is common in working type spaniels, they often also have very wide fronts. You wont get legs like that on a show bred one, so can I ask why you think working "types" look better?
I dont think working dogs are badly constructed and think they are a lot better than show dogs. I like the working type and look. Like i said its a personall preferance and to be honest it doesnt really matter what you say to try and sway me to the other side , its not going to work as thats what i like. Its like milk chocolate, i love it but it dont matter how much you say Dark choc is better, i still wont like it
|
|
|
|
Location: West Sussex
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,749
|
18-01-2010, 10:58 PM
Originally Posted by valandra
Yes her feet were like that as i pulled them outwards to put the treats on her. She doesnt move once i put her in a position. I have many pics on my phone where her feet arnt to the side but cant be bothered at this time of night to upload them to make a point.
I dont think working dogs are badly constructed and think they are a lot better than show dogs. I like the working type and look. Like i said its a personall preferance and to be honest it doesnt really matter what you say to try and sway me to the other side , its not going to work as thats what i like. Its like milk chocolate, i love it but it dont matter how much you say Dark choc is better, i still wont like it
|
|