Hi CBT
Out of interest can you explain that term please?

it means when the dog is still showing gameness and willingness to fight, but the owner chooses to remove the dog from the ring and end the match (usually at their financial loss) in order to save the dog from further damage.

thanks :smt023

like I said, I dont know how they could do it in all honesty to spend all that time bonding with a pup, rearing it and conditioning it then to watch it possibly get badly beaten, or injured despite winning, is beyond me, I wouldnt be able to do that, must be a macho thing I reckon, doesnt appeal to me at all, Its not good to watch a dog suffering as a result of fight wounds as minty points out, and I have seen dogs puffed up and in shock and pain from fights which have broken out by accident, so to see a dog fresh from the ringside, and to know that you have caused those wounds by pitting your dog, well, I dont know how they do it, the guys I spoke to all said it was the thrill of the sport and the pride they had in their dogs when they won, but I just see the aftermath and its not pleasant, thats the bit they conveniently forget to tell you

maybe becasue they see the scars as trophies of their survival

Hi all make no mistake dog fighting plays the biggest part of the making of the stafford ,and anybody with a love of the breed should not shy away from this very important part of the staffords history not just because he was able to fight but because it made the true stafford the people friendly dog he is .The stafford had to be handled during a fight as per the rules of the fight (,ie turn of the head meant dogs could be lifted and took back to scratch ) if the handler was getting bitten by his dog during this he could not lift the dog so the rules were broken and the fight lost also the dog had to have his wounds treated ,some wounds stitched and cleaned other wounds that maybe developed into abcesses due to dirt or the dogs own hair getting forced deep into puncture wounds would have to have been lanced and the pus squeezed out all without anesthetic and if the dog was anyway people aggressive this treatment could not have been carried out and the dog would probably die , so the dog that was both a winner and people friendly passed his genes on.
Now make no mistake dogfighting still goes on today some proper rules and reg fights of the old kind and also some were they just get together and throw their dogs together and let them maul each other but it should not be happening

Good posts.

Dont think anybody wants to do that on here, everybody has differing opinions does not mean one is right or wrong its nice to hear alternative views .

I suppose it's a case of each to their own, I have a friend who owns KC Staffords but not the type that would likely win in the ring though (I know ur reading this btw lol). His dogs are something else and he would never chose anything else but on the other hand I know somebody who has kept "irish" bred dogs for over 15 years now and would not go to anything else. It just depends on what you prefer and grow to love imo, if you like the KC dogs of course you are gonna champion them but the same goes for the other type too. The main thing is (in my opinion) that at the end of the day most people are championing a healthier alternative to the over exaggerated dogs and for that they should all really stick together, I think whatever type you tend towards there will always be those who like to exaggerate certain features whether it be leg length, nose length, weight etc. I dont suppose that will ever change.

I agree some dogs are way over the top in height but this is not just limited to the so called "irish" dogs I have seen quite a few KC dogs way over the 20" mark. For me I do like a dog slightly taller than the KC standard but not a giant by any standards. 17-18" is for me a nice height range too, maybe even up to 19" but I do agree too that some dogs look too fine as well as they get taller & lankier.

Is this really true? I know SB claims in his wonderful book that he coined the term in 1990 when he set up the SIBTC but I have some old magazines circa 1988 and in one edition the dog (dublin red lines cannot remember exactly which dog will have a look later) is featured and is refered to as an Irish strain Stafford. That always made me think about Barkers claims to have thought up the term and placed it on these dogs....although further back than that they are refered to as Sporting Staffords.

I agree too but I cant understand also why people seem to think smaller and stockier is also better. I suppose it is all about balance, I am sure a 14" dog is just as capable as a taller dog providing he is well balanced I guess that is the problem with many of the show dogs around more the weight issues than anything else. I dont think anybody was having a go at the KC dogs, there are some smashing examples around really really nice dogs I want to make it clear when I talk about KC dogs in a less positive term I am refering to the likes of Ladarna Birthday Boy or Cassanova (fecking vlago or whatever the name is lol) and the other dogs that are out there winning at shows but yet you hear tales about them collapsing in the ring with exhaustion or that they cannot walk the length of themselves before getting out of breath. I have tried to say all along that there are good and bad examples of both types "old time" kc lines and the Irish bred dogs.

I am 100% behind people who choose certain lines of dogs (whether they are irish or KC) and go against the grain and breed dogs not for rosettes but for health and well balanced dogs in body and mind.

another good post there minty, agree with everything you have said :smt023

for those that knock the KC and KC reg dogs remember it was Dunn ,Mallon,Bernard and company that took the stafford into the show ring and it was these men that wrote the standard that the stafford was to be judged by it was also these men who in agreement with each other amended the stafford standard at a later date regarding the height clause .The KC does not decide or write the standard for any dog that is left to the members of that particular breed .
Also for those that do not wish to be associated with the KC or KC registered dogs why do they insist on using the name staffordshire for their dogs because it was Dunn ,Mallon ,Bernard and company that invented the name Staffordshire Bull Terrier for the dog for the showring ,there was no dog called staffordshire bull terrier before this date

Is anybody on here doing this - knocking the KC dogs that is? I cant see where, some people do speak down of the over exaggerated dogs but imo that is justified just as some people knock the other types out there that are also becoming exaggerated which is also justified. There has to be a bit of give and take on both sides, its up to each and their own to decide what they prefer if you like the KC dogs great if you dont fine, as long as people are breeding happy, healthy specimins more inline with a well balanced dog then live and let live I say. I think most people are aware who brough the Stafford into the show ring and how the term came about but I think most people will agree the dogs that these guys showed are a far cry from (for the most part) what is winning today. They were working dogs too from what I gather.

Elsewhere I read that some of the guys you mention opposed the standard change back in the day too? Not sure if this is true or not???