woops last post in wrong place...

most experts say that if a boxer has pure black in its coat apart from its face it is not a pure bred boxer.

Shadowboxer is probably the best person around here to explain boxer colours.

On a boxer site I use you get an instant ban if you start a topic about black boxers

reverse brindles:

The black stripes of these dogs are placed too close together so that the base red color can be seen only in a few small areas of the body. Very attractive, these dogs shine in the sun, but are not desirable by the Standard.

That is a real shame Carole that people cannot really talk about them - do you know why the colour is undesirable, from an outside point of view (not knowing much about Boxers) is it too dominant? Personally I think it is probably the nicest colour I have seen in a Boxer.

Laura

I've got a boxer too - he's a 3 year old boy called Glazby.

If I had the room (and the money!!) then I'd have a housefull of them!!!

not sure the position of reverse brindles in the uk

I agree Laura that they are gorgeous, Stars litter sister is a reverse brindle.

thats 12 boxers so far

well my best friend who we spend all our time with has a red brindle (is that correct term i dont have a clue) boxer called baxter and max and baxter are together a lot as we are there or they are here. so does that count? also baxter has a brother called major who is owned by my friend mum and he has seruious heart problems which was one of the reasons which put me off getting a boxer a little bit but i really love the breed have never met one i dont like

thats nuts isnt it?
just because people dont like to talk about it doesnt mean they dont exist!
there are all sorts of weird and wonderful variations in dogs which people regard as "undesirable" but I often wonder what would happen if they embraced a bit of genetic divergence for a change?
perhaps these unusual colours and coat types are natures way of trying to tell us not to be quite so selective and discriminatory?

I dont agree with breeding white boxers or albino dobes as they can have health problems associated, but what about long coated and red rotties? blue GSDs? GDSs with white markings? long coated dalmatians? merle great danes?
If theyre healthy, why cant these dogs be acceptable ? whats wrong with widening breed standards a little to allow a bit more variation? whats so wrong with a liver or red coloured rednosed stafford?
in the APBT this is one of the main colours!!
I have never understood dog breed "standards" to me no good dog is a bad colour and I prefer breeds which are kept as working dogs or not registered with any KC as they tend to show greater genetic divergence.

Breed standards were devised to define a dog most suitable for doing the work it was intended for.I like my dogs to look like the breed they are.I own a hardy spitz hunting breed and I expect them to be physically and mentally capable of still going out and doing the job for which they were 'designed'...which is in my dogs case hunting elk.
Why should those breed standards be widened to allow for 'fashion'? It would end up with breeds having so many variations they would become unidentifyable.
I think there are far too many people breeding dogs that do not resemble the breeds they are supposed to be and to me that is sad.If you don't want a GSD that looks like a GSD then you don't want a GSD at all!!
There are far too many people breeding dogs full stop but there are even more who are breeding cross breeds with cute names and people breeding without a thought to health tests etc.
There are hundreds of breeds out there...is that not enough of a choice for people!!!!!!!
This is just my opinion.....I know a lot of you won't agree...but then thats what makes the world an interesting place

but surely if a breed is developed to work then it will be a case iof breeding the best to the best regardless of colour size etc and so more variation in type will be the result?
take for instance the border collie, in working sheepdogs you get all manner of coat lengths, colours, markings, ear carriage, tail carriage (and even strains of "stumpie" tailed collies) height weight and so on, but they are all still border collies (or WSDs) arent they? and they are recogniseable as a breed?

also, racing bred whippets, they are non KC reg, bred solely for the purpose of racing and they tend to run a bit bigger than the average whippet but they are still a "breed" in their own right and have traceable pedigrees, however they are bred to run so anything goes as far as height weight and colour go.

Lurchers, they come in all shapes sizes and colours, again bred for a purpose and not conforming to any set standard, but still recogniseable as a "type" of dog.

Im probably not putting this across as well as Id like to :smt003 but what Im trying to say is that breeds which are bred with no set standard can still be easily recognised for what they are and the allowance for greater divergence can only be a good thing as obsessing over how tall the dog should be, or how long its ears or the shape and pattern of its markings, detracts from the most important thing which is that the dog should be 100% healthy and capable of doing the job it was bred for. working dog people dont tend to breed from dogs which are unhealthy or cant do their days work so their method of selective breeding is as good if not better than breeding to a set standard, survival of the fittest and all that?

(tell me to shut up if you think im on my soapbox here - I can be bad for that!! )